Sitting of 4 July 2001

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

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL
  Motion made,
  That the promoters of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill which originated in this House in the last Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the bill in the present session of Parliament; 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 the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office no later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;
  That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the last Parliament;
  That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House;
  That in the present session of Parliament the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it had passed in the last Parliament, 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.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be further considered on Wednesday 11 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Small Arms
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: What measures her Department is taking to reduce the availability of small arms in developing countries. [679]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): In the post-cold war world, conflict and the suffering arising from conflict are concentrated in the developing world. The widespread availability of small arms is feeding conflict and blocking development. The United Kingdom supports stronger international controls on the supply of such weapons and supports local programmes to destroy weapons and resolve and prevent conflict.
    244
    Next week, I will attend the United Nations special session designed to agree an international programme of action.
    Mr. McCabe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that one of the major problems is the lack of licensing controls on arms dealers? Can we expect her to take advantage of the forthcoming Export Control Bill to give us much tougher regulation of this unsavoury business?
    Clare Short: Yes, I agree. There are two sets of problems. Many small arms are circulating, for example, in Africa, so we need to extract them. However, arms are also being exported—particularly from the former Soviet countries that have big arms industries—and they are not controlled. Some of those sales do not come through Britain—people are not allowed to sell arms without a licence from Britain—but they are brokered from Britain. We shall take control over that in the forthcoming Bill, and that is a very important change to clean up our act.
    Tony Baldry: In the previous Parliament, four Select Committees, including the Select Committee on International Development, recommended that there should be prior scrutiny by a Committee of the House of the United Kingdom's defence sales, including small arms sales. Does the Secretary of State support that approach?
    Clare Short: No, the Government's view is that that would not be helpful. The hon. Gentleman might know that, since our Government were formed, we have been allowed to object to a licence on the ground that an arms sales would prevent development and the proper spending of money even if the arms were not to be used for external aggression or internal repression. As yet, we cannot cumulate those sales, so the power is not as effective as it might be. That is my greatest concern, and if he could help me with that, I would be very grateful.

    EU Development Programmes
    Mr. Iain Luke: What action her Department has taken to improve the quality of EU development programmes. [680]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): The European Community's record on the efficient delivery of aid has been poor. That is why the United Kingdom has pressed hard since 1997 to improve the effectiveness of EC development programmes, focus their range of activity and make poverty reduction their central objective. The reforms now put in place go some way towards achieving these improvements, but we intend to keep up the pressure.
    Mr. Luke: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. What plans does he have to raise these serious issues with Members of the European Parliament and Commissioners, so that we, the Council, Commissioners

    245
    and the European Parliament together can strengthen the EU's significant contribution to poverty reduction and to development?
    Hilary Benn: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. In return, I welcome him to his first International Development questions.
    As my hon. Friend will be aware, the central problem is that, over the past 10 years, the proportion of EC aid going to low-income countries has fallen from 75 to 51 per cent. We have managed to achieve an agreement that poverty reduction should form the central focus of EC development aid. I will be in Brussels next week to meet Members of the European Parliament to say to them that the EC has now accepted an agenda for reform, but the whole House will want the changes to be implemented in practice.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to ministerial office. Is he aware that the 1998 Court of Auditors report into EC aid to South Africa showed that significant proportions of money for the AIDS programme went unspent for nearly four years? Does he not think that, if the EU were to add its support to the new global AIDS fund, yet another layer of bureaucracy would be created? Can he also ensure that EU spending on AIDS goes on improving existing projects on health care, education and the development of vaccines and not on delivering cheaper drugs?
    Hilary Benn: I also thank the hon. Lady for her kind words. As she is well aware, the basic problem with EU spending is precisely that the EU cannot spend the money that it has. She gave the example of South Africa, which is one of a number to which we could refer. We certainly wish the EU to make a contribution to the global health fund, but the most important thing is to make sure that the money that is allocated is spent effectively. That is what we are working to achieve.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to his portfolio. Does he recall that the European Union played a significant part in the removal of Fujimori from Peru and in the democratic elections that followed, which led to President Toledo being elected? Given the earthquakes of the past few weeks, and our bilateral contribution, as well as that of the EU, does my hon. Friend welcome the policies to improve the relationship between Peru, the EU and this country?
    Hilary Benn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome. The action taken in response to the earthquakes in Peru, both bilaterally and through the EU, was very important, and it gave me an early insight into the effectiveness of the Department's disaster response arrangements. He makes the important point that the EU has considerable potential to make a difference, which is why we are putting so much time and effort into trying to make sure, through the reform process that has begun, that the EU can fulfil more of that potential than it has in the past.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: On behalf of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, may I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman to his no doubt rightful
    246
    place on the Front Bench? I know that he is carrying on a proud family tradition, and I think that he is a sound addition to the International Development team.
    One point on which the Secretary of State and I see eye to eye is our desire to end the appalling inefficiencies of the EU aid programme, so I hope that the Under-Secretary will keep up pressure on the EU. Is he aware of the Auditors report of 12 June, which says that the EU decision-making procedures do not allow for a rapid reaction to emergencies? Is he satisfied that the reforms that have just been implemented will speed up the reaction? Does he believe that it is desirable to place a ceiling on emergency payments of 3 million euros per crisis, or does he agree that crises should be evaluated individually? Will he join me in calling for an evaluation? If not, we will be in the absurd position of having an arbitrary financial ceiling elevating bureaucratic rules above the saving of human lives.
    Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Lady for her warm welcome—at the risk of boring the House. I agree that it makes sense for ourselves and the EU to examine the way in which the European Community Humanitarian Office, in particular, operates. ECHO has probably been more successful than other parts of the EU in spending the available resources, but not as good as it could be. There is, in Ms Adinolfi, a new director general who is very committed to implementing the agenda for reform. We will need to reflect on that. The hon. Lady makes a good point about the EU's effectiveness and about the limits on spending to deal with humanitarian disasters.
    Mr. Fabian Hamilton: I, too, would like warmly to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and Leeds colleague—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We now come to Question 3.

    Primary Education
    Mr. Fabian Hamilton: How she intends to encourage (a) more spending on primary education and (b) less spending on arms in the world's poorest countries. [681]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): I am sorry about that, Mr. Speaker. I was basking in the glow of all those warm words.
    The elimination of poverty will take place only with improved levels of education. The UK has consistently campaigned for universal primary education to be a central focus of poverty reduction programmes as part of the debt relief process, and over the last four years we have committed more than £600 million to support primary education in developing countries.
    We are also working to reduce the demand for and supply of weapons, and will be introducing new controls on the export of arms from the UK.
    Mr. Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I know that the Secretary of State attended the Dakar United Nations world education forum in April last year, when the declaration was made about the establishment of universal primary education by 2015. He will know

    247
    that Oxfam has set up its global initiative for a monitoring programme and a budget of £8 billion per annum to ensure that the targets set by Dakar are met. Does my hon. Friend agree that £8 billion for universal primary education is considerably less than the world spends on arms in one month? Does he agree also that it is essential that the targets set for primary education ensure that girls have equal access?
    Hilary Benn: I agree, especially with my hon. Friend's point about the education of girls. As the House will be aware, of the 113 million primary age children who are not in school, two thirds are girls. If we can get developing countries to ensure that girls have equal access to education, considerable benefits will flow for development in those countries as a result.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman consider marking his welcome assumption of office by taking an initiative? Will he appoint a special articulate ambassador to go to some of those poorer countries, and will he consider for that role the reluctantly noble and former right hon. Member for Chesterfield?
    Hilary Benn: I am being led into dangerous waters. I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman's offer was a job application. However, he will not take it amiss if I decline it on the ground that we already have a most formidable advocate on those issues—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

    Debt Relief
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: If she will make a statement on recent progress made in debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries initiatives. [682]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Twenty three countries have now qualified for relief under the heavily indebted poor countries—or HIPC—initiative. More than $53 billion of debt relief has been agreed for those countries, which together owe $74 billion, so most of their debt is written off. The money released is directly linked to poverty reduction.
    The impact of that debt reduction means that social expenditure in those countries is projected to rise by an average of $1.7 billion per year. We hope that, in addition. Ghana, Sierra Leone and, possibly, Ethiopia will qualify for relief this year, but most of the remaining 10 eligible countries are affected by conflict or have no commitment to reform. We need greater progress in conflict resolution to bring debt relief to the remaining 10 heavily indebted poor countries.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer and congratulate her on leading the world in a vital initiative which may do more than many other things to relieve poverty. She has mentioned that the money will be spent on things such as health and education. How is that spending being monitored and what can we do to ensure that countries that arc benefiting from debt relief do not fall into new debt?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The most important achievement of the enhanced HIPC package is the commitment of countries to preparing poverty
    248
    reduction strategies, openly consulting their people about all their economic policies, including how they mean to grow the economy and how they will use aid, debt relief and their own revenues to drive forward social programmes for all. The new instrument will be used for monitoring and for countries' better accountability to their own people. That is a transformation of the way in which the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank work in such countries—it is more open, more poverty focused and more participatory.
    I very much agree with my hon. Friend that we must make sure that those countries do not get into debt again. We need improved practice in export credit procedures across the world so that loans are not guaranteed for bad projects that bankrupt countries. We shall try to work on that at the export credits committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to try to get higher standards across the world.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on continuing in her important role of spearheading our country's attack on global poverty, which is possibly the greatest moral challenge facing our generation. I pay tribute to the genuine work that has been done on debt relief.
    Has the Secretary of State seen the United Nations report commissioned by Kofi Annan, which said last week that debt relief has taken a long time and, in many cases, has not gone far enough? It calls, in part, for a new initiative on debt relief. I pay tribute to the progress that has been made, but does the Secretary of State agree that there is now a need for a new momentum? Does she have any specific plans to give that momentum to this important issue?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and agree that this is the most important moral issue for the world; it is also the most important issue in terms of the sustainability of the planet. If we do not make progress, we will have increasing catastrophes, so it is in our self-interest to pay much more attention to these matters.
    I do not agree with those who say that we need debt relief for more countries, including middle-income countries that have managed their debts badly and need the Paris Club to recycle those debts and get better economic management. I do not agree with the current drop the debt campaign for 100 per cent. relief for those who are already getting debt relief and owe money to the IMF and the World Bank. We should not privilege countries according to whom they owe money; we should go by need. The point of the HIPC initiative for the 41 countries that are so indebted that they can never pay is to relieve the burden of debt so that they can adopt good social and economic policies. They will continue to need aid and other support for years, but we should get debt out of the way and better economic management in place. Then we can support such countries in building up their economies and providing public services, rather than just providing more and more debt relief.
    Mr. Streeter: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Is not this weekend's summit in Genoa an opportunity, however, for our country to continue to take the lead in debt relief? Is she aware that if her Government continue to lead the international community on the forgiveness of unpayable debt and pursue the issue

    249
    ruthlessly until all the world's poorest nations receive a real dividend, she and her Government will have and will deserve the full support of Opposition Members?
    Clare Short: It is very important in Genoa to drive on and to keep the 23 countries on track. There were wobbles in Zambia and it would be a terrible setback if its programmes fell away. We must move Ghana forward; it has just had elections and needs some help, as do Sierra Leone and Ethiopia. We need to keep everyone to the agreement that, as countries are exiting the initiative, we consider sustainability, as oil price rises are throwing things out of kilter. The other thing that we want to achieve at Genoa is the establishment of a health fund for the supply of drugs and commodities, to bring down prices, increase availability and lever in research. That needs to be complemented by the establishment of health systems through poverty-reduction strategies. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for those efforts.

    Intellectual Property Rights
    Mr. David Chaytor: If she will make a statement on the progress of her Department's commission on intellectual property. [683]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The commission on intellectual property rights promised in our White Paper was established in April. It is tasked with considering how international intellectual property agreements can most benefit developing countries and poor people. Its membership includes an impressive range of experts originating from Argentina, India, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. It has embarked on a series of studies and consultations. Its recommendations will be submitted to me in spring 2002.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that it is particularly important that the views of developing countries are properly heard on all aspects of the intellectual property regime, particularly those concerning access to genetic resources and the development of drugs to treat terminal disease? How will she specifically ensure that the voices of developing countries will be heard in the commission's deliberations?
    Clare Short: Two members of the commission are prestigious intellectual property experts—one from Argentina and the other from India—so it is an international body. It will be taking evidence and visiting developing countries to do so.
    Many people assume that an intellectual property regime is not in the interests of the poorest countries, but I doubt that. There is no research into the diseases of poverty because pharmaceutical companies would not receive any return for it. We need a reasonable and fair global intellectual property regime and cheaper drugs in poorer countries, with companies able to charge higher prices in richer countries. The commission will consider issues such as a global system. Improving the relevance of intellectual property law to the poor of the world in developing countries is the commission's whole purpose.

    EU Aid
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If she will make a statement on delivery of EU aid. [685]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was saying, the UK has led the effort over the past four years to expose the ineffectiveness and lack of poverty focus in European Community development programmes and to implement a strong reform agenda. It has now been agreed that, in order to increase effectiveness, poverty reduction should be the central objective of EC development programmes, implementation procedures should be streamlined and the EC's range of activity limited. We will continue to keep up the pressure, and I hope that all parties represented in this House will encourage their representatives in the European Parliament, who tend to be silent on these matters, and their sister parties to support that reform effort.
    Mr. Paterson: This is all words. Back in January, the European Court of Auditors made a devastating criticism of the delivery of EU aid. With her usual admirable candour, the Secretary of State endorsed that criticism, yet the Government did not ensure that the issue was discussed at Nice, and they have meekly allowed the next review to be delayed until 2006. Why?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman might not have noticed, but Parliaments deal in words. The question is whether the words are implemented. The record of his party in power was to take no action whatever to challenge or reform EU effort, and to increase massively the proportion of British development assistance that went through the EU. We are now starting to put things right. I should be grateful for his support.
    Tony Worthington: May I take up one point that my right hon. Friend mentioned? She said that we need allies in the matter. What can we do to increase the support that Parliament gives her in the attempt to improve EU aid? What does the European Parliament intend to do? Does she have any proposals for enlisting the assistance of other Parliaments in Europe to tackle this important issue?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. Because the money is committed until 2006, either we get it better spent or it will go on being badly spent. We do not have a chance to review the amount until then, so we must improve performance. The European Parliament tends to think that anything that comes through Europe is additional. That is simply wrong. It is the same money, spent by member states or by the EU. The Parliament is therefore very uncritical, as my hon. Friend knows.
    My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is going to Brussels next week. We need to drum up a body of support in the European Parliament that understands the issues and will push for reform, and we need to build up that support in national Parliaments. I know that the Select Committee on International Development, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie

    251
    (Tony Worthington) was a member, tried to do that. We must drive the issue forward in this Parliament to get agreement on the reform agenda across Europe.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Why cannot all our aid be delivered to those who need it most, instead of going in part to the EU and being siphoned off in the process?
    Clare Short: The proportion of British aid going through the EU under the previous Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported leapt from 10 to 30 per cent. That is the situation that we inherited. We cannot change the proportion till 2006, but we must try to improve spending before that, and examine whether it is effective. If not, we must reduce the proportion thereafter.

    UN Aid Target
    Kevin Brennan: What progress she plans to make towards meeting the UN target of national GDP devoted to international aid over the next five years: and if she will make a statement. [686]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are committed to working towards the UN target for official development assistance of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product. At current prices, that would be about £7 billion. The UK ODA:GNP ratio will rise from the 0.26 per cent. of GNP that I inherited to 0.33 per cent. by 2003–04, which represents a 45 per cent. increase since 1997. Our manifesto committed the Government to further substantial increases during this Parliament. I should be grateful for the support of the entire House in ensuring that they are, indeed, substantial.
    Kevin Brennan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that assisting the world's 1.2 billion poorest people is perhaps the highest goal that the Government of any civilised country could have? Is she aware that between 1979 and 1997, the percentage of gross national product de voted to aid under the Conservatives fell from 0.51 to 0.26 per cent., but that under Labour in the 1970s, it went from 0.36 to 0.51 per cent.? Will she endeavour to match that record of a previous Labour Administration in this Parliament?
    Clare Short: I should be delighted to achieve that objective, but it is quite an increase. I shall need the help of all hon. Members if we are to achieve it. I agree with my hon. Friend's fundamental point: one in five of the world's population are living in abject poverty. That is a moral disgrace, given the world's wealth, technology and knowledge. It is also a danger to the future stability, sustainability and safety of the world. We must give greater priority to making progress, or we will hand on a catastrophic set of crises to the next generation.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Secretary of State will be aware that there is another, higher UN target of a 1 per cent. transfer of public and private resources from the developed world to the developing world. That was achieved by only two countries under the previous
    252
    Conservative Government—the United Kingdom and Holland. What progress has been made since 1997 in meeting that target?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the investment required for the improved infrastructure needed by developing countries will come largely from the private sector, and that will bring with it modern technology—telecommunications, information and communications technology, better transport and sanitation, and better water and electricity supplies. That is not something that can be delivered by the public sector in an OECD country increasing flows of investment to developing countries.
    We must help developing countries to act against corruption and to put in place the law enforcement, better governance and greater stability that helps to attract investment to their countries. Investment has gone up and down, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would want to claim that even his Government, whatever he might want to say about them, directed private sector investment from the UK to developing countries. The world does not work like that.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Michael Fabricant: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Michael Fabricant: Will the Prime Minister praise the work of the special constabulary? He will he aware that there are 7,500 fewer special constables than there were four years ago. In Lichfield, which is typical of many cities, we have only two or three regular police officers on duty on Friday and Saturday nights. What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to restore the balance and recruit more special constables? I am referring not to the regular police but to the special constabulary.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: we do need to recruit more special constables. As he knows, changes to the health and safety regulations impacted on the number of special constables, but we are taking measures to increase their number. The hon. Gentleman is also right to suggest that those increases run alongside the increase in numbers of the regular police. We need both to police the country properly.
    Ann Clwyd: As we are likely to be giving Railtrack between £20 billion and £25 billion of taxpayers' money during the next 10 years, can we not

    253
    use it as a lever to block the fat-cat pay-offs to some of the former directors of Railtrack who have so clearly failed the public?
    The Prime Minister: We do not have power to do that, but we do have power to make sure that the money that we are putting into the railways—a huge £60 billion investment during the next 10 years—is used to provide not just the track, which is in desperate need of renovation, but the trains and capacity that the transport infrastructure of the fourth largest economy in the world demands.
    Mr. William Hague: The House will regret the resignation as First Minister of Northern Ireland of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who has shown the utmost courage, integrity and statesmanship. Does the Prime Minister agree that we should be in no doubt about what has forced the right hon. Gentleman to take that action? It is the IRA's refusal to keep the promise that it made more than a year ago to put its arms beyond use, despite all the gains that they have pocketed, including the release of prisoners. On a day when another fatal shooting has tragically taken place in Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister assure the House that no more ground will be given, such as more policing reforms or the scaling down of security, in advance of the decommissioning of weapons, which remains a fundamental obligation under the agreement?
    The Prime Minister: First, I join in the condemnation of the killing of the Catholic man by paramilitaries. It is a tragic and terrible event which is a mark of precisely the past in Northern Ireland that we want to leave behind.
    Secondly, I agree totally with what the right hon. Gentleman said in respect of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). As leader of the Ulster Unionists, he has shown enormous courage in the past few years in trying to push the peace process on. There is no doubt that decommissioning is an obligation under the Good Friday agreement. It is an obstacle to progress now, and that is why it is so important that we have rapid progress on it.
    Mr. Hague: We wish the Government every success in dealing with this problem, but does the Prime Minister agree that it would be wholly wrong to reward republicans for their intransigence and to punish democrats such as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and others, who have done everything required of them? On Monday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that a range of sanctions was open to the Government. Can the Prime Minister tell us what any of those sanctions are? In his published letter to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, on 10 April 1998, he said that if the existing provisions on excluding people from office turned out to be ineffective, he would support changes to them. Will that now include enabling the Government to exclude Sinn Fein Ministers from the Executive if there is still no movement on arms?
    The Prime Minister: We have a range of powers available to us, one of which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. Obviously, we keep the use of all those powers under review. We are about to go into a process
    254
    of protracted—I hope not too protracted—negotiation about how we resolve the current impasse. I do not think that it is sensible for me to say what we will or will not do in circumstances that may arise if that negotiation fails, but I do say this: the outstanding issues are absolutely clear. Obviously, we need to ensure that we have a police service that attracts support from all parts of the community, that the institutions have stability, and that, as we can do so, and in accordance with the proper demands of security, we bring about a more normalised situation in Northern Ireland. There has already been huge change in that regard in the past few years, but it is also important that those who sit in government and want to be part of the democratic process are committed to exclusively democratic means. There has always been a point, right from the beginning of the process, when people had to choose between the democratic process and having alongside it a paramilitary organisation that is still capable of exerting force and pressure of an unacceptable kind.
    I think that that moment of choice is here and now. We have to ensure in the negotiations in the next couple of weeks that we find an arrangement that allows us to resolve those outstanding issues and to do what I still believe the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want: to see the agreement for the peace process implemented. Even people who may have hesitated in the last election or even voted for parties that were opposed to the agreement did so not because they disagreed with the principles underlying the Good Friday agreement, but because they wanted to see it implemented. Now it has got to be implemented in all its stages and forms.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Prime Minister recall that, in 1997, a Bill was brought to the House to cut benefits for lone parents? It was not the brightest thing my right hon. Friend did, and towards the end of that year he admitted that it was almost certainly a mistake. The press is filled today with stories of cuts in disability benefits. Can I have an assurance that we are not going to travel down the road we travelled down in 1997, because it is bound to be strewn with difficulties? If my right hon. Friend wants a Bill off the shelf to do some good for the Labour movement, he should get stuck into those fat cats like Gerald Corbett and the rest, but leave the sick and disabled alone.
    The Prime Minister: Well, the road may be strewn with difficulties, but I must say to my hon. Friend that the proposals made today on incapacity benefit by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions are entirely sensible and justified. It cannot be right that people coming on to incapacity benefit will be paid on average about £4,000 a year for, say, 10, 15 or 20 years, with no one ever checking whether they have recovered from their injuries and are able to work. It is therefore important that we apply a proper test and ensure that the vast amount involved—£7 billion a year—is spent properly, and that we will do.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister agree with the conclusion of London Transport Commissioner Bob Kiley that the Government's proposed public-private partnership for the

    255
    future of the London underground should now be terminated and that control of the London tube should instead pass to Transport for London?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree with that view. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there was a meeting yesterday between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Mr. Kiley. We will make our position clear on Mr. Kiley's representations to us in due course. Given the vast amount of extra investment that we are putting into the tube—we are prepared to guarantee it over a period which has never before been guaranteed for investment in the tube, in terms of amount as well as the fixed term for which we are putting the money in—it is essential that we get value for money and that we ensure in the building work that is done that there is risk transferred to the private sector. Otherwise, we will repeat the mistakes of the Jubilee line and end up with a huge cost overrun, and the building work will not take place on time. Again, it may be difficult, but it will he done.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Prime Minister says that, but in the past 48 hours the talks, according to the commissioner, have been getting nowhere, and commuters and travellers have suffered well-publicised distress on the London underground. After four years of a Labour Government, is that not a pathetic verdict on the right hon. Gentleman's ability to deliver an effective, safe and affordable quality transport system for the capital?
    The Prime Minister: Of course the tube is not of the standard that London deserves. For precisely that reason, we are committed to some £13 billion worth of investment in the next few years. It is essential that the money is spent wisely and that we get the best value for money. We need a modem tube that is publicly run but privately built. The Jubilee line is the classic example of the old way of doing things: a cost overrun of more than £1 billion and the work being done two or even three years late. It is therefore essential to get value for money.
    Record investment is being made, but, as ever, I must tell the Liberal Democrats that it is not simply a matter of money; we must ensure value for money. We offer record investment to people in London, but the money must be properly spent.
    Roger Casale: The Prime Minister is aware of the urgent need to equip our armed forces with a modern, reliable and secure communications system, which is fully integrated across our armed forces and inter-operative with NATO systems. I am sure that, in the next two weeks, he will give full and proper consideration to several competing bids from around the world to provide such a system, including one from Thales, which employs 200 people in my constituency. Does he agree that considerable benefits would accrue to the manufacturing base and the skills base in this country, and that our exports in the high technology sector would receive a great boost, if such a system could be built and delivered in the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: If it could be built and delivered in the UK, of course it would benefit our manufacturing
    256
    industry and protect jobs. However, we have to go through a specific negotiating and bidding process. I understand that the decision will be made in a few weeks.
    Norman Baker (Lewes): Why did the Prime Minister tell the House in the previous Parliament that incineration was an essential part of a waste strategy? Is he not aware that other countries recycle more than 50 per cent. of their waste, compared with the pathetic 8 per cent. that we manage in this country? Will the right hon. Gentleman rule out incineration and thereby remove the toxic cloud that hangs over Newhaven in my constituency? Will he also undertake not to fiddle the public inquiry system to drive through incineration?
    The Prime Minister: It is true that we need to increase the amount of recycling, and we are doing that. However, pulling out of all incineration, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, would cost a great deal of money. That can be done over time, but we face many demands. Indeed, almost every question that I am asked is a demand for money. We have to balance those competing claims. We shall make progress as we can, but if we peremptorily pulled out of incineration altogether, we would have a financial shortfall that we could not cover, and there would be nothing that we could do with the resulting waste.
    Mr. Chris Mullin: On President Bush's madcap scheme for missile defence, may I gently suggest to the Prime Minister that, rather than our trying to act as an honest broker between the United States and the European Union, British interests would be better served by telling the Americans the truth, which is that it will not work, that there are no takers and that the real threats to our security are climate change, the AIDS pandemic and impoverishment caused by the grossly unfair workings of the global market?
    The Prime Minister: I agree—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Perhaps I can begin by stating the points on which I agree with my hon. Friend. I agree with him about Kyoto, the AIDS pandemic and the impoverishment of a large part of the world's population. That is precisely why, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development explained earlier, we are doing so much to combat AIDS in the developing world. We are also pushing forward the Kyoto protocol and we have considerably increased the amount of aid that we give the developing nations.
    I am afraid that I do not agree that the Americans are wrong to identify weapons of mass destruction as a genuine threat. They are a genuine threat. [Interruption.] We need to be prepared to look at all systems that are necessary—[Interruption.] Obviously I am delighted to have the support of the Opposition. We must consider all offensive and defensive systems. I also do not agree that it is wrong for us to act as an honest broker between the United States and our European partners. It is an article of faith for me—I believe this deeply—that when the US and the EU cannot resolve their differences properly, the world is a less stable and less prosperous place. It is important that we keep an open mind. We have not yet received a proposal from the United States. When we do,

    257
    we shall declare our position on it. In the meantime, we shall do everything that we can to bring the US and the EU closer together.
    Mr. William Hague: May I warmly commend the Prime Minister on that reply? Any remaining puzzle as to why the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is no longer in the Government has been resolved.
    Whose fault is it that the Government's policy on involving the private sector in the national health service is so entirely unclear?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept that it is. The private finance initiative in the national health service, for example, and with our schools, is delivering huge benefits. That co-operation with the private sector is an important part of rebuilding our schools and hospitals.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister is one of the few people who thinks that that is clear. The head of the British Medical Association has said:
    "The Government's thinking is opaque and unclear."
    The general secretary of the Trades Union Congress has said:
    "There is confusion and lack of clarity from the Government."
    The chairman of the parliamentary Labour party has said:
    "There needs to be more done to clarify the boundaries."
    The general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union has referred to
    "a cocktail of policy confusion."
    The former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), said that
    "there hasn't been any clarity about what's envisaged."
    Is not the confusion coming from the top of the Government? Despite all the statements to the contrary, will primary care groups be able to commission clinical services directly from the private sector?
    The Prime Minister: As we have said throughout, there is no intention to privatise clinical services—neither have we ever said that primary care trusts will privatise clinical services. It is important to enable primary care trusts and others, where appropriate, to work with the private sector. For example, 3.000 general practitioner premises are being renovated throughout the country, bringing in more than £1 billion worth of investment with the private sector. The right hon. Gentleman may be opposed to that—indeed, there may be many who are opposed to it—but I think that it is a thoroughly good thing.
    Mr. Hague: Well, now we know why everybody apart from the Prime Minister finds his policy completely unclear. We have just had a typical example. The question to which he failed to give a simple yes asked him to support a statement straight out of his concordat with the private sector, which was signed by the Government last October. I shall ask the question again, and I shall read
    258
    from the document. It refers to primary care groups or primary care trusts commissioning directly from a private or voluntary health care provider. Is that still the position?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, and they do it every day. For example, when we have severe winter pressures, they should be entitled to use private sector or voluntary sector providers. There is a difference between privatising a public service, which is the policy of the Conservative party, and providing a better public service in co-operation with the private sector, which is the Government's policy.
    The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is that in circumstances where there is a shortage of capacity in the public sector and we can use the private sector to get an operation done within the NHS, free at the point of use, yes, the providers should be able to use it.
    Mr. Hague: Well, I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that saying no to one question and yes to the same question a moment later does not constitute a clear policy on behalf of the Government. Is it not time that he stopped facing both ways on this policy? He wants services to be managed by the private sector, but not run by private companies. He signs up to primary care groups buying from private providers, but the Secretary of State for Health says that private companies should not provide any clinical services. The right hon. Gentleman makes bold statements about radicalism, but feeds trade union leaders on a diet of reassurance and asparagus tips. Is it not time for him to admit that his plans to involve the private sector while not allowing it to do anything will turn out yet again to be words without substance and spin without delivery?
    The Prime Minister: No, because when we can work with the private sector to provide a better public service, we will. I have given one example: the private finance initiative. When we came into office, it had completely stalled under the previous Government. It is now delivering the biggest-ever hospital building programme and being extended to the new GP premises. If the new surgical units, for example, can be better managed by the private sector—even though the staff are employed by the national health service—to give better value and service to the patient, let it happen. When we can commission private sector care—for example, under winter pressures or in other circumstances—within the national health service, free at the point of use, we do so.
    When we can build better schools using the private sector, we will do so. When we need to obtain private sponsorship for schools, we will do so. In every case, however, it will be about ensuring that we deliver a better public service. Let me say to all hon. Members that we were elected on a mandate of investment and reform. We are putting record amounts of money in, but the change needs to happen, too. It is change for a purpose: to put the patient first, to put the pupil first, and to make sure that we deliver better public services, which the Conservative party failed to do.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Pensioners in my constituency are very pleased that they no longer have to pay £6 a year for their concessionary half-fare bus pass. However, the pass is primarily valid only in the area covered by the local authority—in my case. Suffolk.

    259
    Pensioners are, therefore, asking for a concessionary scheme for longer-distance travel. What plans does my right hon. Friend have further to extend concessionary travel for pensioners?
    The Prime Minister: We are going to extend it so that it will also be available for long coach journeys. This is all part of trying to provide pensioners with a better deal: the winter fuel allowance, the higher than normal basic state pension rise, the free TV licences for the over-75s, and now concessionary fares for pensioners. It is all part of making sure that they get the security and the dignity that they need in old age.
    Mr. Steve Webb: Is the Prime Minister aware that the crisis in social services funding is now so severe that Bristol city council has been forced to adopt a policy of not moving an elderly person from hospital into residential care until two elderly people in residential care have died first? Does he accept that it is not in the interests of elderly people to be kept in hospital when they are ready for discharge? Does he also accept that the bed blocking that results is not in the interests of the NHS? What is he going to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that bed blocking is probably the most urgent problem that we face in the national health service. We need to do two things. First, we need to provide substantial additional funding, which we are doing. There will be some £900 million additional funding for social services. Secondly, we need a far better system of co-operative working between social services and local hospitals. Although it is absolutely true that we have severe bed blocking problems in Bristol and in other places, there are parts of the country in which these problems have been resolved. So, once again, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that we need the money going in, but we also need the change. I agree that this is an urgent problem, and we are seeing what other measures we can take to deal with it.
    Kali Mountford: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the Huddersfield Daily Examiner? On the front page, he will learn what can happen when GPs embrace change. The primary care group in south Huddersfield has embraced real change and, as a result of co-operation, has been able to give a £1.5 million cash boost to the local hospital. By embracing the talents of its own GPs, it has been able to use those talents and to cut waiting lists. Is not that the kind of appropriate reform that we can achieve—unlike what has been said by the British Medical Association, and unlike the failed individual GP fundholding of the Conservative party?
    The Prime Minister: First, may I apologise for not having read the Huddersfield Daily Examiner? In retrospect, I wish I had. May I also commend the GPs in my hon. Friend's area for the changes that they have made, and say once again that the vast majority of our doctors do a wonderful job in the national health service? However, it is important that we make changes as well as ensuring that the money is going in.
    260
    The changes are opposed by certain GPs, and I understand the reasons for that—for example, they might oppose NHS Direct or the walk-in centres, or they might oppose the requirement that we give an appointment to a patient within 48 hours. All those changes can be properly embraced, and we will work with doctors to enable them to do so, but we have to ensure that the extra money that is going in brings about a better service. The doctors in my hon. Friend's area have shown exactly how that can be done.
    Tim Loughton: By way of contrast with the question asked by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), is the Prime Minister aware of the enormous pressures on GPs on the south coast, and in particular in Worthing, where surgeries have more than three times the national average of over-85s on their books and most have closed their lists? A recent survey of doctors in West Sussex showed that as many as 90 per cent. are planning to leave the profession well before the age of 60, and an alarming number are at their wits' end. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to make it easier for those experienced GPs to stay on in their profession, rather than constantly giving us those fantasy figures about new recruitment, as if doctors could be grown from packets of seeds?
    The Prime Minister: They are not fantasy figures on recruitment. There are about 1,000 extra GPs compared with four years ago. As opposed to the previous Government, who cut the number of training places for doctors, we have increased it. I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's specific problem in a moment, but, overall in the country, GP home visits have dropped by half and night visits by a third since 1990. The number of GPs seeking early retirement is down, not up. However, it is correct that in certain parts of the country—the hon. Gentleman's may well be one—the position is very difficult indeed.
    Precisely for that reason, we are trying to work with GPs to make sure that practices are changed so that they get the money and the resources going in and so that there is better use, for example, of practice nurses and other professionals who can help with the stress that doctors have. We are willing at every stage to consider what more we can do to encourage people to stay in the profession. Indeed, we have already said that we shall offer some £10,000 to those who want to stay on.
    Tim Loughton: Not enough.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says that that may not be enough, but, with the greatest respect, it is more than was ever done in 18 years of Conservative government. We still have a great deal more to do, but money is not all we need. We also need to change the way that GP services work in the hon. Gentleman's area and in others. To those who were critical at the BMA, I say that we are prepared to work with them in a partnership for change, but it is important that we have genuine change in the NHS.
    David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is bound to be concern if the severely disabled are forced to undergo reviews every few years? Following on from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will he bear in

    261
    mind the anxiety that exists among so many of the disabled over what is in the news today? Will he give a commitment now that he is willing to meet the organisations representing the disabled before any firm proposals are put before the House, because we do want to avoid a row, don't we?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to meet groups representing the disabled. However, I will not apologise for the reforms that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has proposed, because they are important. Let me repeat that we are spending some £7 billion a year on incapacity benefit. The numbers trebled between 1979 and 1997. I think every Member of the House knows that people were transferred on to incapacity benefit to disguise the true levels of unemployment in the 1980s. Therefore, it is important for new claimants that we do not leave people on benefit for 10, 15 or 20 years, but that we are prepared to make sure that those who take money from the state have that money justified. If people are severely disabled and cannot work, we will give them every protection—indeed, we will increase it. However, if people can work, it is our responsibility to help them do so.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: Does the Prime Minister recall that, at about this time last week, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) asked him a rather penetrating question about appointments to the peerage? Does he remember trying to put his hon. Friend down by accusing him forgetfulness? He said:
    "My hon. Friend forgets that the independent Appointments Commission has taken away prime ministerial patronage".—[Official Report, 27 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 638.]
    Will the Prime Minister apologise to his hon. Friend for accusing him of forgetfulness given that he himself seemed to forget that he had appointed his own secretary
    262
    a peeress without any reference whatever to the Appointments Commission and in breach of the rules laid down by him for the conduct of that commission? Is it not about time that we had more accurate answers from the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: The independent Appointments Commission has indeed taken away prime ministerial patronage. It is for the hon. Gentleman's party and my party to appoint the people whom they want to be working peers.
    Paul Clark: Will my right hon. Friend loin me in congratulating the teachers and pupils at two of my local schools, Twydall infants and Parkwood infants, for their hard work and commitment, which has been recognised by the award of beacon status? Although many of the measures that we have taken have helped to raise standards, will my right hon. Friend inform the House of the steps that are being taken to deal with the serious matter of teacher shortages, which concerns head teachers in my constituency and elsewhere?
    The Prime Minister: First, after years of Conservative cuts, we are increasing the number of people coming into training by between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. Secondly, we are offering bursaries to teachers. Thirdly, for certain shortage subjects we are writing off student loans for trainee teachers. Finally, we are putting substantial extra investment into schools, which will yield more teachers, more classroom assistants and better buildings. That is all part of the investment-plus-reform programme that is essential for the school service. I pay tribute to the work of teachers, pupils and parents in Gillingham, which I am sure mirrors the achievement of teachers and pupils in many parts of the country.

Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  [Relevant documents: Treaty of Nice, Cm 5090; Seventeenth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 1999–2000, The 2000 IGC, HC 23-xvii, and the Government's response thereto, HC 803; Sixth Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1999–2000, on Developments at the Intergovernmental Conference 2000, HC 384, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 4893; Fifth Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 2000–01, European Union Enlargement and Nice Follow-up, HC 318.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.32 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill implements the key decisions of the Nice European Council enshrined in the Nice treaty. The treaty was signed on 26 February this year, but will not enter into force until it has been ratified by all 15 member states of the European Union. When that happens, we shall have put in place the final institutional reforms that the European Union needs to be ready for enlargement. I wish to open this debate by placing the Bill in its proper historical context.
  Few have expressed that context more succinctly than President George W. Bush. Visiting Warsaw last month, he said:
  "Our goal is to erase the false lines that have divided Europe for too long".
  He echoed his father, who, when in office, talked of building a "Europe whole and free".
  Enlarging the European Union to take in the applicant countries of central and southern Europe has been a strategic aim of successive British Governments and our allies for more than a decade. We believe that co-operation in the European Union will bury the memory of cold war divisions just as surely as it has laid to rest the ghost of warfare in northern Europe and the spectre of dictatorship in southern Europe.
  That strategic vision carries with it immense practical benefits for Britain and for existing European Union members, as well as for countries that are soon to be new member states. It will make all of us more prosperous, safer and stronger. Enlargement will mean that British companies will be able to benefit from access to the largest single market for trade and investment in the world, with up to half a billion consumers—more than the United States and Japan put together. It will give us more allies to help to counter the cross-border threats that we face: organised crime, drug trafficking and illegal immigration. It will also give us a cleaner environment, because candidate countries are making major improvements in their air and water quality to meet EU standards.
  264
  I have described my approach to the European Union as that of a practical European. It is because the Government recognise the practical and strategic benefits that they have been a champion of enlargement since taking office.
  We used our presidency of the Council in 1998 to launch negotiations with the first set of six countries. At every European Council since then at which enlargement has been an issue, we have pushed for and secured rapid progress. As a result, 12 countries are now negotiating their accession, and a 13th, Turkey, has been confirmed as a candidate.
  Mr. Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the one thing that unites political parties across the spectrum in countries such as Romania is their wish to gain accession to the European Union? Those countries consider accession vital to the area to which he refers.
  Mr. Straw: I recognise that. Although there is not complete unanimity on enlargement in every country—nor would one expect that in democratic states—there is overwhelming support for it across central and eastern Europe. In the last two days, I have discussed enlargement with the Foreign Ministers of the Czech Republic and Croatia. While they are at different stages in their relationship with the EU, both recognise powerfully the benefits that association with it will bring, and has already brought, to their countries.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: During those discussions, did the Foreign Secretary emphasise not just the economic opportunity that the EU might provide, but the fact that membership would make it much easier for countries that have recently advanced towards democratic institutions to maintain them?
  Mr. Straw: Indeed. Although the EU began as a limited common market for coal and steel, it is important to recognise today the much wider social and cultural benefits of our coming together in a union of nation states. We should also recognise that our history is shared with the countries of eastern, southern and central Europe. They are European nations, as firmly and as surely as France, Germany and the United Kingdom. We have a common heritage and a common culture, as well as a shared interest in securing a single common market for trade in goods and services.
  I was talking about the work that we have put in to pursue enlargement. Most recently at the Gothenburg European Council, just three weeks ago, we argued for and secured an affirmation that the EU's commitment to enlargement was "irreversible". Our aim is to complete negotiations by the end of 2002 for candidate countries that are ready, so that they can participate as EU members in the European parliamentary elections in 2004. When I use the word "our" in that context, I am talking in a collective sense of the decisions made by the Heads of Government in the declaration that followed their meeting.
  This timetable is bold and ambitious. If we are to achieve it, we must ratify Nice.

  265
  Some hon. Members argue that the results of the Irish referendum—which, by coincidence, occurred on the same day as the United Kingdom referendum—
  Mr. John Bercow: And produced a much better result.
  Mr. Straw: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the result in Ireland was much better—from his point of view, that is—than the result in the United Kingdom. I am grateful to him for confirming that the Conservative party made Europe the key issue at the last general election. It was the Conservatives, not us, who said that it was a referendum on Europe—those were their exact words—and I am sorry to say, from their point of view, that their proposition was wholly rejected by the British electorate.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the two contrasting referendums on Europe. One of the key features shared by the Irish referendum and the United Kingdom general election was low turnout. In Ireland, the turnout to decide the country's future within the Nice agreement was as low as 35 per cent. Does that not underline some of the difficulties that we face because Nice has not done enough to make the constitution of Europe clear to the average European citizen? We need further debate on how we can have a written constitution for Europe, and a clearer division of responsibilities and subsidiarity between nation states and emerging nation states in the EU.
  Mr. Straw: I will come to that, but I agree that we must do much more to spread comprehension among the citizens of Europe about what the EU stands for. It is not the responsibility of our citizens to make sure that they understand. It is the responsibility of the EU's member states and central institutions—especially the Commission—to ensure that the project is properly and better understood by our citizens. The EU acts in their name and for their benefit. Ultimately, the future of the EU and of each state is in their hands.
  Donald Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition should be cautious about enthusiastically espousing the result of the Irish referendum? Only 18 per cent. of those who voted there voted against the proposition, and the opposition was led by Sinn Fein—not the most plausible anti-militaristic campaigners. Is not the real lesson for all of us that we must connect with our electorates on European matters?
  Mr. Straw: I agree. The alliance of forces that formed in the Republic of Ireland was interesting. The environmentalist Green party—whose views I respect, although I do not agree with them in totality—joined with Sinn Fein, one of whose objections to the Nice treaty was that it could lead to the "militarisation" of Europe. Of course, Sinn Fein members know far more about militarisation than many of the rest of us.
  I shall deal in more detail with the Irish referendum. I have not concealed from the House my disappointment at the result, but we have to respect it. The question of
  266
  turnout has been raised. In free democracies where voting is not compulsory, people are as free not to vote as they are free to vote. People must make their own choices about that, but everyone—those who do vote and those who do not—must respect the decision that is arrived at.
  It would be hopeless if politicians were to say that a vote was not entirely legitimate because the turnout only reached a certain level. As far as I am aware, with the exception of Australia, where voting is compulsory, all western democracies recognise and respect the rule that people are entitled not to vote but that they must respect the decision reached by those who do vote.
  It is fundamental to the democratic legitimacy of the EU that changes to the founding treaties do not take place unless and until the constitutional procedures of all 15 member states have been satisfied. However, for all of us the clear lesson of the Irish result is that we cannot afford to take public support for the EU for granted.
  The Irish Government have made it clear that they will need to address particular issues with their electorate, just as the Danish Government did when their electorate rejected Maastricht in 1992. The other 14 member states formally resolved at the General Affairs Council three weeks ago that they were ready to help Ireland to find solutions. In the meantime, all 15 member states, including Ireland, have agreed that we should proceed with the enlargement negotiations and our own ratification procedures. Only by doing so will we be ready by the end of next year to admit new members. If, however, Ireland does not ratify, the treaty will not enter into force. The position is as simple as that.
  No member state, and least of all the Irish Government, has followed the example of some Conservatives and called for a wholesale renegotiation of the Nice treaty.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the Nice treaty transfers a further 39 areas of decision making to the majority vote process, and that 90 per cent. of EU decisions are now made by majority vote? Might not the fact that direct democracy is becoming increasingly irrelevant explain why poll turnouts are declining? Should we not warn the people of eastern Europe that the EU path does not lead to democracy, but away from it?
  Mr. Straw: I accept, of course, that the treaty proposes an extension of qualified majority voting, but I do not accept, with respect, the hon. Gentleman's political arithmetic. There is a big difference between putting a unit of one on maintaining the veto on tax, which we still do, and putting an equal unit of one on accepting qualified majority voting, in place of a veto, on the registrar of the Court of First Instance. The two are not cognate.
  If the hon. Gentleman reads the treaty, he will see that a range of bureaucratic issues on which it was ridiculous for the veto to be applied have been transferred to QMV. The other areas that have been moved to QMV concern trade, on which it is in our interests that other people should not exercise a veto. My experience in the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which does everything by unanimity, has been interesting. On some issues, we could, and have, maintained a veto, but a veto blocks change.

  267
  We are in the vanguard of change to reform the European Union. The Opposition's reasoned amendment states that they want reform, but they set out no method or process by which they can deliver it. On a range of issues, we need to ensure that we can override the slowest: those with the deepest vested interest in the existing structures, which everyone agrees do not work entirely satisfactorily.
  The achievement of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, my predecessor as Foreign Secretary, was to ensure that if subjects went to the heart of our status as a nation state—tax, defence, social security and other matters, including the signature of treaties such as the one before us—they should continue to be subject to unanimity. However, in other areas, where we have an interest in progress and reform, the QMV system was sensible.
  Mr. Francis Maude: The Foreign Secretary said that it was agreed by the General Affairs Council that each country should proceed with its ratification proceedings, notwithstanding the Irish referendum vote. Does he recall that in 1992 the shadow Cabinet, of which he was a member, urged strongly, in the similar circumstances of the rejection of the Maastricht treaty by the Danes, that the ratification Bill for that treaty should be postponed? The then Opposition leader urged the then Prime Minister that the Bill should be postponed until the matter was fully resolved. John Major accepted that urging and the Bill was indeed postponed. Why was postponement right then, but not now?
  Mr. Straw: The answer is that life is a learning process, at least for this side of the House. I kept saying in the previous Parliament that Opposition Members should learn from our experience in opposition. I even offered them free seminars throughout the four years that I was Home Secretary, and I would have provided them, because I found it tragic that there were some Opposition Members of considerable talent who could have helped to improve Government by improving themselves as an Opposition, but did nothing about it.
  The situation in 1992 was new, but the right hon. Gentleman quotes at me the position of the shadow Cabinet. I could quote back at him the position of the then Cabinet, which took the opposite point of view. The Opposition are now calling for all sorts of responses to the Irish referendum. He was a Minister in 1992. He actually signed the Maastricht treaty and then lost his seat.
  Mr. Bercow: There was no causal link.
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman still lost. The General Affairs Council, which included his successor as Minister after the 1992 general election, agreed unanimously that the other 14 member states should proceed with the ratification of Maastricht. After discussion with Denmark, including some accommodation by the EU, and a further referendum, the Danes agreed to continue with the treaty.
  Mr. Maude: The Foreign Secretary inadvertently misrepresents what the then Government did. They listened to the very proper concerns expressed by the shadow Cabinet and others that the Bill should be postponed, and it was. The House did not return to it until
  268
  the matter was resolved by the Danish public. There was a consensus in the House that it was wrong to proceed with the treaty's ratification while its final form was unresolved because of the Danish referendum decision.
  Mr. Straw: My recollection of the mood around Maastricht in 1992 is that it was anything but consensual. One difference is that there was a Council decision before the Bill was introduced. The sequence of events was that the Council met on 11 June, the Monday after the election. We made a decision, in the light of that meeting, to introduce the Bill subsequently, and the timetable was different.
  The other difference, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to argue the case, is that Maastricht, on any analysis, involved more significant and fundamental changes to the treaties and the basic constitution of the European Union than does this Bill.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
  Mr. Straw: I have given way a great deal and I should like to make some progress. If there is time, I shall take some more interventions.
  I spoke earlier of meeting the Foreign Ministers for Croatia and for the Czech Republic over the past two days. The Foreign Minister for the Czech Republic is Jan Kavan, a man whose own life symbolises the huge change that has occurred in Europe in my adult lifetime. I first met Jan Kavan 33 years ago, in the Endsleigh street headquarters of the British National Union of Students. I was then the deputy president of the NUS, an organisation whose own politics had, to some extent, been dominated by the cold war.
  Jan was a student leader too, from what was then Czechoslovakia, but he had none of our freedoms. Instead, he was a victim, along with thousands and thousands of others, of the cold war—of the undemocratic authoritarian regimes imposed on one central European country after another. He effectively went into exile in London to muster support after Dubcek's reforms in the Prague spring had been brutally crushed by the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.
  Today the Czech Republic is one of the most successful of central Europe's new democracies. Jan told me today of the huge efforts that his country and the other applicants have put into preparing to join the European Union. They see accession as putting the seal on their admission to the family of European democracies. Jan told me how important it was for the Czech Republic and for every other applicant that Nice be ratified on schedule.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in enlargement which apparently he is, according to the Opposition's reasoned amendment, he owes it to the applicant countries as much as we do to proceed with ratification. There is no basis for us holding up ratification because of the Irish referendum.
  Over the coming years, we expect to complete negotiations with up to 12 applicant countries. I invite the House to imagine for a moment what a European Union of 27 member states would look like if we did not make

  269
  the changes agreed at Nice. The Opposition's so-called reasoned amendment—and if ever there were an oxymoron, that is it—
  Mr. Bercow: You spent 18 years doing them.
  Mr. Straw: Ours were very much better—they included reasons. They were not contrary to reason.
  The Conservatives' reasoned amendment says that the Bill fails to modernise institutions of the European Union. Yet that is exactly what the Nice treaty does. The Opposition have no policies that I have been able to discern that could conceivably command the support even of two or three other member states, still less of 14, on securing the modernisation inherent in the Nice treaty.
  Without the Nice treaty and the changes that it makes, as each small new country joined the European Union, so relatively would the weight and influence of the larger countries diminish. Eventually, countries that together could not muster a majority of the European Union's population could, however, form a majority for the purposes of passing EU legislation. That would plainly be unacceptable.
  As the Community grew, so, too, would the European Commission, until it resembled a mass meeting rather than the coherent, delivery-focused body that we want it to be. With 27 vested interests capable of imposing 27 vetoes on much new legislation, many areas of collective decision making that are vital to our interests would slowly grind to a halt. Therefore, at last year's intergovernmental conference, we set out with the explicit purpose of solving those problems. At Nice, we achieved a deal that did just that. Nice is necessary for enlargement.
  The deal secured by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), was not only good for Europe but excellent for Britain. I normally refrain from quoting from leaked documents, but the European Commission's internal assessment of Nice is now a matter of public record. It said:
  "It was a European Council of strong emotion, with winners (this time the UK and Spain) and losers (Belgium, Portugal, Germany and the Commission)".
  There is no question but that the nation state of the United Kingdom achieved what it set out to achieve at Nice.
  Mr. William Cash (Stone)rose—
  Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Straw: I give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
  Mr. Bercow: The Foreign Secretary is certainly making the best fist of a poor case, although his heart does not seem to be in it. As long ago as 18 June 1997, the Prime Minister trumpeted in this House the alleged merits of the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the treaty of Amsterdam. However, since then no fewer than 4,995 European Union directives, regulations and decisions
  270
  have impacted on this country. Can the right hon. Gentleman identify one practical example of a benefit to this country arising from the passage of that protocol?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, I can. There are plenty of issues on which the Commission and the Council hold back, leaving matters to member states. We are Europeans and a huge amount of our trade depends on our membership of the European Union. [Interruption.] I am being asked to prove negatives, but there are a huge number of examples, when, by definition, if the Commission has not produced a directive, the matter has been left to individual member states. That has happened in a huge number of areas. Of course, such issues do not appear on the agendas of the Council or the Commission because they have not been brought forward as European legislation. Instead, they have been left to individual member states.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham asked whether the directives have benefited this country. One set of regulations and directives that has benefited this country is that on the single market. We have tried to extend the single market into sectors—particularly all kinds of services—that are still the subject of unjustified competition. That cannot be achieved by individual legislation by the individual nation states. It requires that there should be legislation for 15 nations to ensure that practices that we regard as unjustifiable and restrictive are eliminated across Europe. Who benefits from that? Our constituents, this country and our economy. They would not benefit if we returned to the environment which the hon. Gentleman imagines we could achieve in a different world that I do not recognise.
  A further important point about Nice was that, for the first time since we joined the then Common Market in 1973, we won an increase in the UK's voting weight. Our nominal voting power in the Council will rise from 10 votes to 29 votes, and although the total votes will increase as well, we shall have significantly more influence relative to smaller countries. For example, we used to have three times as many votes as Denmark, but under Nice we shall have four times as many. That also means that France, Germany and the United Kingdom together will still be able to block any proposal that they dislike. Moreover, the UK will retain voting parity with Germany, despite Germany's greater population.
  At Nice, we also succeeded in providing for a smaller and better Commission. From 2005, there will be one Commissioner per member state. Once the EU has 27 members, the number of Commissioners will be capped below that figure and there will be a system of equal rotation. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), we secured more qualified majority voting in areas where that is in Britain's interests. I have already explained why we need to extend qualified majority voting in some areas while insisting on the veto in others.
  In Nice, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and my predecessor secured for Britain all the goals that we had set out in our White Paper in February last year. That was an outstanding result, which was deservedly praised m the national press and media and in most parts of the House.
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Straw: I give way for the last time.
  Mr. Cash: Will the Foreign Secretary note that, contrary to what he said, Britain's share of the vote has declined substantially, from 11.5 to 8.4 per cent.? Will he, if he is interested, be good enough to reply to the points in a pamphlet that I have produced today, entitled "Constructive Opposition to the Nice Treaty—the Dangers of European Integration"?
  Mr. Straw: Of course, I will do my best to read the document, if the hon. Gentleman sends it to me. I am not sure what time scale he was using for his arithmetic. If he was going back to 1973, when the total number of member states was nine, all I can say is that of course we would have had a larger proportion of any qualified majority voting that happened then or shortly afterwards. There are now 15 member states; in future there will be 25, and eventually, if Turkey joins, there will be 28.
  My point, which is incontrovertible, is that Nice gives us a relative increase in our voting strength. [Interruption.] That is a fact. During the Committee proceedings we can, and no doubt will, talk at great length about that aspect of the arithmetic. I have already given the House the comparison that we now have three times as many votes as Denmark, and under the Nice treaty, we shall have four times as many. It is important that the countries with the largest proportion of the population should be able to exercise, roughly speaking, a proportionate vote.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I need to make progress because many hon. Members, including no doubt the hon. Gentleman, want to speak.
  Having set out what the Nice treaty does for the UK and for Europe, I should now like to set out what it does not do. Despite the warnings of some anti-European commentators, the treaty does not mean the end of the British justice system, a ban on political parties or an end to freedom of thought or religion. Nice is not a recipe for federalism, if by that is meant the creation of a centralised entity. It reinforces the role of national Governments and nation states because it ensures that we can go on making decisions in the Council of Ministers and at European Councils even in a greatly enlarged EU.
  Nice does not represent a fundamental alteration in our relationship with the EU or a radical restructuring of the EU. Rather, it preserves and enhances the UK's ability to influence decisions and take initiatives for the benefit of our citizens. For that reason, it would be absurd to break with our tradition that Parliament should decide whether and how to amend treaties, and whether to hold a referendum on Nice—the more so since the Conservative Government did not hold a referendum on Maastricht, which involved much more wide-ranging changes.
  Mr. David Heath: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, if the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I will not.
  272
  To revert to the point that I was making about the Irish referendum, we have to find more effective ways of connecting the institutions of the EU to its people. Many activities and services are best carried out at the European rather than the national level, but unless and until the EU institutions become as responsive and accountable to our citizens as their national Governments are, it will always be hard to convince public opinion of that fact.
  We need to deal with that democratic deficit. We therefore agreed at Nice that there will be another intergovernmental conference in 2004. It will be different from its predecessors because it will be preceded by a wider and deeper public debate about the purpose and scope of European Union activity.
  We need to ask certain questions. Implicit in a question posed by the hon. Member for Buckingham is the important issue of subsidiarity, which has been difficult for the United Kingdom, with a political culture rather different from that of some European countries, to appreciate and accommodate. We have to ask what exactly is the European Union for. What precise purpose does it serve? To get the answer, we need to look at what the EU actually does, and analyse rigorously and frankly the tasks it does well, those it does less well and those that it does badly. Once we have a clear sense of our citizens and constituents' priorities, only then can we sensibly ensure that the EU's institutions are properly organised and equipped to deliver them. The European Union is for Europe's citizenry, not its political elites.
  That means focusing discussion not on the process, but on the results of EU co-operation. Only ideologues and specialists are impassioned by esoteric technical issues like the extent of qualified majority voting or the limits of co-decision. People care most about the practical benefits and the added value that they may be able to derive from the EU: more jobs, cleaner streets and less crime. That is where the debate should begin.
  The next IGC is an opportunity for us to decide what the EU does best and which decisions are better taken at a national level. It is a chance to simplify the treaties so that they are easier to understand, and to give national Parliaments a more defined role in the EU. We are determined to improve the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the EU.
  The first and best way to bring the EU closer to the people is to make sure that they are informed about developments. More than any previous IGC, the Nice negotiations were carried out in full view of the British public and this House. A year before Nice, our White Paper set out the issues at length and outlined our negotiating objectives in detail before the negotiations even got under way. The key documents, including successive redrafts of the draft treaty, were available on the internet at every stage. Members of the Government gave many speeches and took part in debates up and down the country to get the message across and listen to people's views, both before and after Nice. The issues were raised in several debates in Parliament over the past year and a half. Of course, Parliament, as always, will decide whether the UK will ratify the treaty by enacting the Bill and making it law.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I will not, because I am coming to the end of my observations.

  273
  Conservative Members, too, have played their part. Their wish to deny Europe the benefits of Nice—and hence enlargement—was the main plank of their election manifesto. It was they, not the Government, who said that they wanted the general election to be a referendum on Europe—[Interruption.] I said a moment ago, to approbation from the Opposition, that we should not quibble with the results of democratic votes. The only thing that I heard from the Conservative party throughout the campaign was that the election was a referendum on Europe. As I drew to the attention of the House during debate on the Loyal Address, that has now become non-history, as the whole Conservative manifesto has been wiped off the internet—[HON. MEMBERS: "It has not"] It is true; I tried it myself. If one calls up Conservatives.com and types "manifesto" into the site's own search engine, one gets a blank.
  The Opposition must understand what happened at the election; they decided to campaign on Europe—and, by implication, matters like Nice—and they failed. It is not just me saying that; in The Times today, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), the shadow Foreign Secretary's predecessor, made a proclamation. The headline states:
  "I will not make the same mistake—Ken Clarke will get my vote this time."
  In the article, he said:
  "Our position on the Nice treaty became unsustainable."
  There we have it; the former shadow Foreign Secretary simply could not stand the contradictions and twists and turns inherent in the Opposition's position.
  Passing this Bill is of very great importance. It will give a clear signal to Jan Kavan, Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic, all applicant nations of eastern and central Europe and to Cyprus and Malta that Britain is committed to righting the wrongs of history and to reuniting Europe. It will strengthen Britain's influence at the heart of this Europe of nation states. I therefore have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the mover of the amendment, I wish to inform the House that Back-Bench speeches will be limited to 10 minutes.
  4.11 pm
  Mr. Francis Maude: 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 European Communities (Amendment) Bill because it fails to modernise the institutions and policies of the European Union to meet the requirements of a diverse, enlarged Union; takes no account of acknowledgements from Her Majesty's Government and the President of the Commission that ratification of the Treaty of Nice is not a legal or technical prerequisite of enlargement; works against speedy and successful enlargement by providing for further integration; fails to address reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, the single most important obstacle to such enlargement; ignores the wishes of those European Union citizens whose views have been sought in a referendum and fails to offer a similar opportunity to citizens of the United Kingdom; and diverts attention away from the pressing need for Her Majesty's Government to work with other member states and accession countries for the creation of a modern, flexible, reformed European Union.'
  274
  The treaty of Nice was a great opportunity for the European Union. It was an opportunity to put and make the case for the modern, reformed, outward-looking EU that its citizens plainly want and which enlargement will require. It could have been the moment to bid farewell to the old dogma of "one size fits all" political integration. It could have been the time to embrace the need for a decentralised and flexible EU. It could have set deadlines for enlargement, which we, as the Foreign Secretary has been good enough to accept, wholeheartedly support. Sadly, none of that transpired. The Nice treaty, I am afraid, was the triumph of old-think; it was locked in the past.
  Eleven and a half years after the fall of the Berlin wall, it is shameful that, with the solitary exception of the German Democratic Republic—East Germany—no central or eastern European country has been admitted to the Union. I remember attending meetings with Foreign Ministers from the region in 1990, at which they were told that enlargement was five years away. Here we are in 2001 and most of them are still five years away. Why has enlargement not been achieved?
  Dr. Nick Palmer: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile those remarks with his opposition to a treaty that would allow access? Does he believe that that opposition would gain the support of a single one of the Governments of the applicant countries?
  Mr. Maude: I reject the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question—that the treaty is essential to enlargement. He need not rely on my word; the Foreign Secretary himself said at the Dispatch Box during debate on the Loyal Address that he accepted that the Nice treaty is not technically necessary for enlargement.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. Maude: The point that I suspect the Foreign Secretary wishes to make is that a number of Governments have said that they will not permit enlargement unless the process of deeper integration goes ahead in the meantime. They have of course said that, but it is simply a statement of political preference. The treaty is, in no sense that anyone would recognise, a necessity for enlargement. There is no such legal necessity.
  Mr. Straw: This is extremely tedious for most of our citizens and constituents. We can call for the record if the right hon. Gentleman wants, but the simple fact is that, in debate on the Loyal Address, I was asked whether the treaty was technically required for accession. The answer is that technically and in legal theory we do not need this treaty, but we do need a treaty, which would still have to come before the House.
  The second point is that, politically, it would be impossible to conceive of accession without the modernisation and reforms of the Nice treaty. The question that the right hon. Gentleman must answer is: how on earth does he think the EU would work with 15, 20, 25 or 28 member states without such changes?
  Mr. Maude: I shall have something to say about how the European Union would work without these changes. Other changes may be needed, but the idea that the proposed changes are the only possible changes that are needed to make it work is fantasy.

  275
  It is correct to say that even if the treaty goes through, another treaty—an accession treaty—will be needed. No one can deny that. It is not only the Foreign Secretary who has said this. The President of the European Commission said that, legally, ratification of the Nice treaty is not necessary for enlargement. That is clearly the case. I hope that we can have an end to the nonsense that the Nice treaty is necessary.
  The previous Foreign Secretary made the same point, although he did not know it, in the aftermath of the Amsterdam treaty, when he announced proudly to the House that now that the Amsterdam treaty had been agreed, all the obstacles to enlargement were out of the way. Suddenly we find that there is another obstacle: the Nice treaty. [Interruption.] That is almost exactly what he said. We can call for the record if there is a dispute about it. He said:
  "In the aftermath of the Amsterdam treaty, the way is now clear for enlargement to happen."
  Funnily enough, it was not clear, according to the present Foreign Secretary and all his hon. Friends. Suddenly there is another obstacle.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Did he notice that only a few minutes ago the Foreign Secretary conceded that if, in the end, the Irish do not ratify the Nice treaty, that treaty will be dead? Would my right hon. Friend be as interested as I would be to hear what the Foreign Secretary would propose with regard to enlargement if the Nice treaty were not ratified? Presumably, he would propose precisely the alternative treaty to which my right hon. Friend is rightly referring.
  Mr. Maude: The case that my hon. Friend puts in such a measured way is exactly the case that the shadow Cabinet and the then Leader of the Opposition put in 1992, after the Danish referendum result. They argued for postponement of discussion of the Bill, in order that the difficulty with the Maastricht treaty could be properly resolved, so that the House could know what treaty it was being asked to ratify.
  For the Foreign Secretary to take refuge in a decision of the General Affairs Council, and to say, "Oh well, the Council decided that matters had to go ahead, so we had no option" is a little feeble, to say the least. As the right hon. Gentleman made clear, without ratification and without a further referendum in Ireland which gives the consent of the Irish public to this treaty or to a treaty, this treaty is dead. It cannot proceed.
  Mr. Mark Hendrick rose—
  Mr. Maude: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, then I must make progress.
  Mr. Hendrick: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. In the light of his earlier remarks about timetables for enlargement, does he agree that timetables for enlargement would have been folly, given that the Irish have not yet given their consent in a referendum? Furthermore, is it not true that, as in the case of Denmark, there can be as many referendums as the Irish Government want?
  Mr. Maude: That is a lovely idea, is it not? If one does not like the result, one just keeps on having referendums.
  276
  On the same basis, I could say that I did not like the result of the general election, so let us have another one. Let us carry on having votes until we get the result that we want. The arrogance of that approach is breathtaking.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey rose—
  Mr. Maude: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I must make progress.
  There was an active debate in Ireland about the merits of the Nice treaty and the Irish people said no. Which part of that answer did the Government not understand? It is a pretty simple, straightforward answer.
  On the point made by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), by agreeing a rigidly integrationist treaty, which the Nice treaty is, we—I mean we collectively, we the European Union—have set enlargement back, for two reasons. One is that more integration sets up more hurdles for the applicant countries to jump. The second is that, as the Irish referendum result itself confirms, proceeding further with the process of integration generates a degree of political controversy which slows the enlargement process.
  There is plenty of evidence that enthusiasm in some of the eastern and central European countries for accession to the EU is dwindling. The central European correspondent of The Times recently observed:
  "Some 68 per cent. of Poles now believe that the country should delay enlargement rather than surrender important positions."
  Given the delicacy of the political situation in a number of the countries of eastern Europe—the case that all of us make for enlargement is that it is a way of stabilising those countries and bringing them into the family of democratic free market nations—we should be concerned about that.
  The correspondent went on to say:
  "Czechs are beginning to think aloud about what would happen if enlargement failed."
  Those concerns about enlargement are genuine. They are nothing to do with the Conservative party objecting to the Nice treaty or the result of the Irish referendum. They are due to the fact that the negotiations about enlargement have been extraordinarily protracted and the big issues have simply not begun to be resolved.
  We cannot accept the Bill or the treaty in its current form and we will oppose it. We will ask the House to vote for our reasoned amendment. As I said earlier, it would be wrong to proceed with the Bill at present. The Foreign Secretary has clarified for the House that the treaty will fall unless all member states have ratified it.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: No, I want to make some progress.
  There seems to be some reluctance through much of the rest of the EU to give voice to concerns about the treaty. Ex-President Giscard d'Estaing said in the French Parliament's debate on the treaty that, if the French people were offered a referendum,
  "you can bet that the answer would be an Irish song."

  277
  That is a lyrical way of putting it, but one sees the point that he makes. The French people came within an ace of defeating the Maastricht treaty in 1992. How can we be at all certain that there is popular support in Britain, France, or any other country for the treaty?
  There will be a real problem if we in the EU give the impression that we treat the views of the public on these issues with disdain. A modern Europe cannot treat the views of its citizens as an awkward impediment that has to be overcome. We should be listening to the concerns of our people, particularly those raised in the Irish referendum.
  The EU and its leaders have failed to dispel the impression that they propose to bash on regardless of public opinion, and nothing that the Foreign Secretary said today in any way draws back from that. It is sad to see that that is the case.
  Angus Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: No, I shall make progress.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that nothing could be more dangerous for public support for the EU, which I agree it is important to promote and sustain, than to treat the referendum result with the kind of contempt that we are hearing from him and from others.
  Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Maude: I shall in a moment.
  To those who dissent from that, I have to say that the Government's determination to press ahead at full speed with the Bill at this time gives the impression that the views of the Irish public are set at nought. It shows no respect at all for the concerns that have been raised there. It is in that sense that EU leaders are treating the views of the public with contempt.
  It is accepted that Giscard d'Estaing said that the French public may well not support this, and I should not be at all surprised. I suspect that the British public would not support the treaty if they were offered the opportunity in a referendum.
  Mr. Nigel Beard: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: No, I shall make some progress.
  There is a real danger here of the political leaders being genuinely alienated from the public whom we are meant to represent.
  Mr. Cash: Having taken some part in the French and Danish referendums, as well as the recent Irish referendum, may I ask my right hon. Friend why we on this side of the House are not prepared at this juncture to have a referendum on the whole European issue, given that the single currency is certainly not the only issue at stake? There was no referendum when our referendum campaign managed to get 500,000 votes in favour of a
  278
  vote on Maastricht. With the involvement of defence and foreign policy, we should be considering a broader referendum to obtain the full consent of the British people.
  Mr. Maude: In the broad-ranging policy review upon which I feel the party is about to embark, I am confident that my hon. Friend will want to make that point. I am sure that he will be very active in that respect.
  Mr. Straw: What is the right hon. Gentleman's view?
  Mr. Maude: I take the view that the British public should have the opportunity to express their opinion on the treaty in a referendum, in the same way as the public in the Republic of Ireland.
  Angus Robertson: Why does the right hon. Gentleman think it right for the people of the UK to be given a choice in a referendum on the Nice treaty, but not on the Maastricht treaty?
  Mr. Maude: Since the Maastricht treaty was decided upon, we have gone considerably further down the path towards full-scale political integration. There is now a growing gap between what the public and the politicians think about these matters. Unless we make a connection by allowing the public to have a direct say on this specific issue, we will be in danger of allowing a big gulf to develop, which will undermine the very democracy upon which we depend.
  In such a referendum, we would be very clear about what we favour. We will support parts of the Nice treaty that may be genuinely useful in enabling enlargement to occur. Protocol A of the treaty, to which the Foreign Secretary referred, deals with the reallocation of seats in the European Parliament and the reweighting of votes in the Council. I do not take as much pleasure as him in the fact that we can now override the wishes of smaller EU countries—a point upon which he dwelt rather gloatingly. His attitude did not seem quite in accord with the spirit of harmonious friendship in which we should be approaching the enterprise. The amendment to the size of the European Commission is also a welcome step and we support it.
  We would like the reforms to go further. We would like the Commission to revert to an institution whose nature resembles much more that of an impartial civil service. That was very much the conception of its founding fathers. We would like the balance of power to shift from the European Commission to the Council of Ministers. We would also like moves to be made to strengthen democratic accountability. Each country could place a national Minister at the head of its Brussels delegation, to be directly accountable to national Parliaments. That seems to us the right approach to filling the democratic deficit. I hope that the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues will respond positively to such approaches, which are the right direction for reform of the European Union as an institution and will become more necessary as time passes.
  Institutional reform is only a fraction of the final agreement at Nice, whose focus clearly lies elsewhere. Tighter integration is the defining characteristic of the treaty, and qualified majority voting is extended in 31 articles. We believe that this one-way process, in

  279
  which powers are transferred only in one direction, is not in British interests and is not the right way of creating European harmony. There is a great difference between European integration and European unity, although people have for some time tended to use the two phrases almost interchangeably.
  We understand absolutely the desire of our partners in Europe to build structures that make unthinkable the sort of deadly and protracted conflicts that have devastated Europe all too often, but today, surely we could and should be seeking more modem and sophisticated ways of bringing Europe together. If one cares about European harmony, as we do, the very last thing to do is to extend the areas in which the majority can ride roughshod over the wishes of a minority. That is a recipe for discord, not harmony. It is a recipe for division, not unity.
  The view from outside the European Union beltway is revealing. The Foreign Secretary referred to the Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic; I shall quote the Speaker of the Czech Parliament, Mr. Václav Klaus. [Interruption.] It is worth listening to the quote because hon. Members may learn something from it. Mr. Klaus said:
  "The agreement from Nice was in no way about EU enlargement … It was about internal changes within the European Union, which might possibly facilitate"
  the entry of new members.
  However, there was nothing essential about EU enlargement in the agreement. In my opinion, the main thing was that in several hundreds of areas—I mean the regulation of this or that type of business, or the regulation of other matters—a huge shift occurred from a unanimous vote required for these matters until now to a majority vote."
  The important part follows:
  "This means that the role of an individual country is substantially decreasing while the role of the whole is substantially growing … It was yet another distinct step toward unification and toward transferring powers from individual states somewhere to the top."
  That is a penetrating analysis with which we agree.
  A brief look back at the words of the Government and the previous Foreign Secretary before departing for Nice confirms the accuracy of Mr. Klaus's view of the treaty's emphasis. The previous Foreign Secretary made several statements about what he would do at Nice. He leaves a difficult legacy for his successor. He said that he would not regard a change to qualified majority voting on most of the items on the list of 50 aspects proposed by the French presidency as acceptable. He believed that only a minority would be acceptable. However, he had a change of heart at the negotiating table and agreed to QMV for more than half of them.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that extending QMV to anti-discrimination measures would be unacceptable. He had a change of heart at Nice. He said that he was not wildly enthusiastic about the move on European political parties. Again, he had a sudden change of heart in the sunshine of Nice. Perhaps it was not unconnected with the proposal that he would take on the presidency of the European party of socialists. From his first days in office, the current Foreign Secretary knows that agreeing to extend QMV means that we lose influence and power.
  The Government agreed to the social chapter in the early days of the previous Parliament. They claimed that it would have no bad effects, and that there was nothing to worry about. However, they had to spend the election
  280
  campaign trying to cover up the effect of the works council directive. The Government rightly object to it; we support them on that. However, it has gone through despite the Government's opposition because they gave up the veto.
  There is clear evidence of the loss of the influence of the House and the British Government through giving up the veto. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary can explain the benefits that accrue from extending QMV to article 13, which applies to anti-discrimination measures. How will it benefit the British public? What are the implications of extending QMV to articles 100(1) and 100(2)? In terms of the article, what does a shortage in the supply of specific products mean? To which products does it apply? What measures can we deploy since the previous Foreign Secretary signed us up to QMV? What great benefits flow to Britain from that?
  What would the Government's response be if the Foreign Secretary were outvoted on the choice of a common foreign policy representative? That could arise through a change that his predecessor agreed at Nice. Are the Government happy that, in principle, it is possible for European foreign policy to be run in the name of the British Government, represented by a person whose candidature they did not support?
  I have outlined only a handful of the commitments that the Government have signed. It is right to scrutinise them, and we shall do that in Committee. However, surely it is sensible to call a halt to the Bill and broaden the debate on the treaty's implications through a referendum. The public could then participate and express their views on it.
  Let us revert to enlargement and the idea that the necessary and desirable—in our view—reopening of the Nice treaty would delay enlargement. I have the direct quote to which I referred from the Foreign Secretary's predecessor, which comes from the debates after the Amsterdam treaty. He said:
  "One of the great gains of reaching agreement at Amsterdam is that it has cleared the way forward for enlargement."—[Official Report, 12 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 918.]
  A year later, the then Foreign Secretary opined that there was no
  immense enthusiasm on the part either of Europe or of Britain to commence an intergovernmental conference so soon after Amsterdam."
  When that enthusiasm suddenly materialised, the right hon. Gentleman needed an excuse to justify the further intergovernmental conference and the further treaty, and he turned again to enlargement. He said:
  "Enlargement will not be possible unless we ratify the treaty of Nice in the meantime."—[Official Report, 23 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 797.]
  That is what he said earlier this year.
  We had earlier warned that further integration and further treaty changes that take us further down the path to political, old-fashioned, one-size-fits-all political integration will not expedite enlargement but delay it, as it is doing, by adding to the burden that applicants have to absorb. By generating political controversy, as evidenced in the Irish referendum, enlargement will be delayed.
  I said at the time of the Nice treaty:
  "This summit had nothing to do with what is needed to allow enlargement to take place. All the extensions of QMV—some major, some minor—go in one direction only, towards further integration." —[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 394.]

  281
  We would have been a bit more relaxed if there had been any evidence that at Nice the Government were pressing for there to be a two-way street, with some powers being returned to member states for decision. That is how a modernising European Union should be developing. It should be aiming to decentralise.
  When the Minister for Europe was a Back-Bench Member and a strong europe sceptic, he used to make the case for a decentralised EU. As time has passed and the process of globalisation has accelerated, the case for decentralising the EU becomes stronger and stronger. Let us be clear that the Bill is not about enlargement. If anything, it is an impediment to enlargement. That which is necessary for enlargement has not been addressed.
  Joyce Quin: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Bill has nothing to do with enlargement. Surely he remembers that at the time of the Amsterdam treaty there were various matters that were called left-overs. Those matters were dealt with at the Nice treaty, and there was a clear link between them and enlargement.
  Mr. Maude: I do not know whether the right hon. Lady, as Minister for Europe, drafted the then Foreign Secretary's words when he said that agreement at Amsterdam had cleared the way for enlargement. That seems to be fairly unequivocal and fairly unambiguous. He did not say, "By the way, there are all these other things that we must decide in the meantime."
  The matters that we are discussing are not needed for enlargement. We know that there is a political desire—this is what really is going on—among some leaders in Europe to take further the process of deeper political integration before enlargement happens. They suspect—for all I know they may be right—that the new candidate countries will be less amenable to proceeding with deepening integration than current members.
  It seems an un-European approach to decide to have a tightly closed club where we make our own rules before we open our arms to embrace the entire family of European nations, which is what I regard as the historic destiny of the EU, and which must be done. It seems profoundly wrong to introduce tighter rules and then to say to all candidate countries, "Here is it is, take it or leave it—these are the rules, which we decided while you were waiting outside, and you must accept them as they are." It is wrong that the EU has gone down that path. It is wrong also that the Government have acquiesced in, and in some ways promoted, that approach.
  The things that are necessary for enlargement to take place have not been addressed by the Government, and especially radical reform of the common agricultural policy. When I raised the issue during the previous Parliament, the then Foreign Secretary used to sneer and say, "That is completely unnecessary. It has all been dealt with at Berlin. There is nothing to worry about." However, the Prime Minister said—
  Dr. Starkey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: I must make some progress.
  282
  The Prime Minister himself said, as long ago as 1995, in his early days as leader of the Labour party:
  "Britain could set the agenda in Europe … reforming the CAP both because it is right and"—
  this is important—
  "as a necessary precondition to the enlargement to include the countries of central and eastern Europe."
  Then, he was absolutely right: it was a necessary precondition. We know that it still is, because in all the negotiations that are going on there has been no agreement, so far as I am aware, on the chapter concerning agriculture with any of the candidate countries. There are big problems with structural funds as well, but the biggest problem is agriculture.
  When one asks someone from one of the Governments in question, "How is it going with the negotiations?", they say, "Oh, it's going splendidly. We've just got agriculture and the structural funds to deal with." Those are the big problems, the really difficult ones. That is why, if Nice had been genuinely a summit to deal with enlargement, it would have addressed those issues. However, it did not, and so far as I am aware, neither the then Foreign Secretary nor the Prime Minister made the slightest effort even to get the reform of the common agricultural policy on the agenda at Nice, let alone tried to get it dealt with. Yet by their own admission—now conveniently forgotten—they have accepted that that reform is essentially necessary to enable enlargement to take place.
  Dr. Starkey: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he had read the excellent report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, he would know that six of the applicant countries had closed the chapter on agriculture?
  Mr. Maude: This has been the longest-standing problem and it has delayed matters immensely. It took so long because it was necessary to negotiate immensely lengthy transitional proceedings, as there had been no serious reform of the CAP.
  Everyone agrees that the European Union has to change. It needs to turn the challenges facing us, which concern many people, into opportunities. The European Union needs to be more relevant and more immediate to its current and future members. The answer is not simply to steam on regardless in the same dogmatic direction. We must require the European Union to re-examine itself. It has already succeeded in building the biggest single market in the world, and I think that the previous Conservative Administration can take some credit for that. I spent two happy years in the late 1980s negotiating a number of the directives that opened up—not in a perfect way, of course—that single market.
  The European Union must now adapt to the era of decentralisation and to the network age. At present, too many of its structures are rigid, and too many of its aspirant members are being forced to sign up to the approaches of the past. In the network age, this rigid and centralised model of European power is not only inappropriate and outdated but a recipe for division and fracture. In today's world of global economic integration, the creation of big centralised blocs simply does not make sense any more.
  We in the European Union can no longer afford to be impervious to the trend of change across the world and still expect to succeed. Through low turnouts in European

  283
  elections and falling support in opinion polls, the people of Europe have sent a clear message to their Governments. It is that real unity across Europe cannot be imposed by integrationist treaties or by diktat.
  Last September, the Danish people made their views clear in their referendum on the euro. In March, the Swiss rejected early membership of the EU by as many as four to one. Whatever the merits of the case for Swiss membership of the EU, that result ought at least to give us cause to stop and think, "Why did this happen?" Plenty of people might say, "The Swiss have just got to make the necessary changes to allow them to join." But should not we in the European Union, when we consider a stable democracy as prosperous as Switzerland, ask ourselves, "What is it about the European Union that makes a country as successful as Switzerland decide so overwhelmingly that it does not even want to contemplate negotiating to join it?" Of course, if Switzerland were to join the European Union, it would have to make a lot of changes. However, it is worth our while to reflect for a moment on whether the European Union could effect any changes to make itself an attractive place for a country as successful as Switzerland to join.
  We need a fresh and more modern approach to Europe. In this electronic age, the Et I needs agility, adaptability, flexibility and a light touch from the state if we are to realise the goal of a stable, prosperous, outward looking, free market, democratic Europe. We have a positive vision of an EU of constant change, constant bargaining and constant negotiation. We believe that that vision is true to both the spirit of the goals of Europe's founding fathers and the demands of our age; and that it would free Europe to prosper, rather than bind it with rigid rule and diktat.
  A constitution for the EU, which has been proposed by some, would prevent that continual process of renewal, bargaining and change from happening. Far from lumbering from treaty to treaty, as the EU is increasingly prone to do, our vision would achieve a multi-system Europe in which group of countries—different combinations for different purposes and to differing extents—would proceed to integrate and co-operate in different ways according to their different choices. That vision represents a more modern, more sophisticated, decentralised EU.
  We want an open, flexible, free enterprise Europe that is ready to serve the whole of Europe—a Europe that celebrates diversity in culture, ethnic background, language, history, outlook and perspective and which does not try to stifle and submerge that diversity. I am afraid that the Bill and the Nice treaty take Europe in the wrong direction—back to the old world of tightly integrated, centralised regional blocks. That is wrong, and we shall vote against the Bill.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Before I call the next speaker, I should tell the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches. It applies from now on.
  4.47 pm
  Joyce Quin: Unlike the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who spoke for the Opposition, I welcome the Nice treaty
  284
  and the fact that we are beginning the ratification process in the House today. I warmly congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench on their appointment and wish them well in building on the work done by the Foreign Secretary's predecessor in the important sphere of European policy.
  The Nice treaty is fairly modest, but it makes real improvements, particularly in terms of vote reweighting in the Council of Ministers, sensible changes in the European Parliament and sensible reforms in the European Court of Justice. Overall, the Government promoted and safeguarded British interests in the negotiation and built on both the success of the Berlin settlement, which we debated in the House yesterday, and the gains that they achieved in the Amsterdam treaty.
  In all three negotiations, the Government showed that they could successfully negotiate for Britain without being isolated, and there was certainly no repetition of the disastrous policy of non-co-operation which the previous Government tried for a time. Furthermore, I find the Opposition's arguments curious. The treaty is modest, so wanting to hold a referendum on it when no referendum was held on either the Single European Act or the Maastricht treaty, for which they were responsible, defies belief.
  Conservative Members often refer to attitudes and arguments in Denmark, where there is a strong degree of Euro-scepticism on occasion. I say to them that the Danish Folketing thought the treaty so modest that it did not represent changes in terms of integration. Therefore, the Folketing recommended that a referendum should not be held, and that recommendation was accepted. Indeed, there was a healthy majority in favour of the Nice treaty when it was voted on in the Danish Parliament.
  However, the fact that a referendum on the treaty is not being held in this country should not make us shy of having a public debate on Europe. Indeed, I am pleased that Europe, among many other important matters that were debated, was an issue in the general election campaign. I am glad that the result of the general election seemed to confirm that people believe that the Government have been doing a good negotiating job in Europe, and I strongly agree with that.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Was it a referendum on the euro?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have interventions from a sedentary position.
  Joyce Quin: We should not be frightened of a big debate on issues such as the euro and enlargement. Enlargement is a tremendously important opportunity for the future of the European Union. Existing member states should prepare for enlargement, just as they prepared for the entry into force of the euro.
  I was fortunate recently to have the European Commissioner for Enlargement, Gunter Verheugen, visit my constituency and address a conference of representatives of the private and public sectors from urban and rural parts of the region. He encouraged people in the region to prepare for enlargement, and to build the necessary economic, political and social links with new member countries, so that we make a success of enlargement.

  285
  I suggest to the Government—they are likely to do this in any case—that they go out to the people of Britain in the different regions and explain why enlargement is important and why it will bring enormous benefits not just to new member countries but to existing members. They should try to convey a sense of excitement about this historic project.
  I am glad that the Government have already highlighted the benefits of enlargement, and have drawn attention to the fact that previous enlargements have brought economic benefits, such as jobs and the expansion of the gross domestic product in both the applicant and existing member countries. Those trends will continue with future enlargements.
  I strongly support the provisions in the treaty on the European Parliament and co-decision. I believe that the European Parliament has used its powers responsibly. I also welcome the fact that the European Parliament can influence the decision-making process in the European Union.
  However, as a former Minister, I am allowed to be a mild heretic. I think that we should examine the old-fashioned distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure, which I hope will become increasingly irrelevant with the reform of the common agricultural policy.
  Although there is no hope of this, I would also like the European Parliament to be able to decide for itself where it meets, rather than be subject to the unanimous decision of the Council. I know full well the realpolitik behind that: no one will challenge the one or two countries for which this is a vital national interest. None the less, it is a modest power for any organisation to be able to decide where it holds its meetings. Most of the organisations with which Members of Parliament come into contact have that modest power.
  Mr. Michael Howard: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the writing into the treaty of the provisions on where the Parliament sits—thus making it impossible now to change that without a treaty change—was agreed to by the Government under the treaty of Amsterdam?
  Joyce Quin: Indeed, and I am aware of the politics behind that decision. Many years ago, some German social democratic MEPs argued with their then leader, Helmut Schmidt, that he should push for a change of attitude on this matter in the Council. He told them firmly that it was not a vital national interest, and that there were many more important issues for him to promote and pursue. I understand why, in negotiations, Governments promote their most vital national interests, and why some of the other issues which, on a reasonable judgment, may be worth pursuing, are left to one side.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary mentioned some of the changes that have taken place in agriculture. I believe that the time is right to push for agricultural reform. Although it was not part of the Nice treaty, it was certainly part of the Berlin agreement. I believe that—not just because of the pressures of enlargement but because of changes within certain European Governments, particularly the German Government—we now have a
  286
  chance to build up an alliance for agricultural change and reform, which will itself give us a unique opportunity. I urge my right hon. Friends to push ahead with agricultural reform at this juncture: if we can achieve it, it will make enlargement that much easier to achieve as well.
  I think that the Nice treaty is helpful, and represents a positive although modest way forward. I believe that it will help us to build on what we have already achieved. I commend the Government on their attitude in European negotiations on economic reform, and on the social chapter—the job-destroying social chapter that has actually resulted in the creation of extra jobs in our country. I commend them on their positive approach to environmental policy in Europe, and to enlargement.
  If these are our priorities post-Nice, we will not only make a success of European Union membership for the British people; we will help to create a European Union that will be to the benefit of all new and existing member countries.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: In European matters, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) speaks with rare authority and experience. Her speech encapsulated in a most persuasive way the issues with which we ought to be concerned today.
  I was not here at the time of the Single European Act, but I was certainly here during the Maastricht treaty proceedings. In comparison with the Maastricht treaty and the proceedings that surrounded it, the Nice treaty is little more than housekeeping. It justifies neither euphoria nor hysteria. It is certainly not a grand plan for the European Union; it is a framework treaty for enlargement. It is also true to say that the housekeeping has done little to bring Europe closer to the citizen. That may create a bond between those who speak in this debate, from whatever part of the House.
  The fact is that the decision-making process in Europe remains impenetrable to the ordinary observer, and almost daily makes a powerful case for reform. The patchwork of powers and responsibilities that have grown out of a number of treaties—not all of which are easy to reconcile with each other—still requires a healthy dose of transparency and openness.
  I do not believe that the Nice treaty is a great constitutional watershed, as Maastricht was and, indeed, as would be a decision to join the single European currency. Few would dare to suggest that the overall outcome of Nice has contributed much to the quality or efficiency of European governance. Nice represents at best a holding position until such time as the leaders of Europe find the will to adapt the institutions of the European Union to the realities of the kind of Europe of which the shadow Foreign Secretary spoke towards the end of his speech—with a great deal of which I found myself in agreement.
  Nice is about providing a framework for enlargement. It is about effecting the institutional reforms that are necessary to allow a union of up to 27 members to function. Of course, 27 members may not be the high water mark of enlargement. There are 13 applicant countries at different stages of the accession process, including Turkey. Reference was made during the debate on the Gracious Speech to the difficulties of accession for

  287
  Turkey. As the Foreign Secretary noted, we have held out to Balkan countries such as Croatia the possibility of future EU membership because we want to help them move away from a period of political indecision—and, in some cases, chaos—towards a more rational structure. The possibility of EU membership has also helped ensure that the fledgling democratic institutions in those countries are better nurtured and sustained.
  The shadow Foreign Secretary prayed in aid a somewhat improbable ally in Mr. Prodi, but he was right to say that, in technical terms, the treaty of Nice is not required for enlargement. In theory, enlargement can happen without the Nice treaty, but what sort of EU would it be if we did not use the framework that that treaty contains?
  Moreover, as the Foreign Secretary noted, if we were to put the Nice treaty to one side and say, "We will now consider the question of enlargement," the target date of 2004 simply could not be achieved. Political considerations would mean that enlargement would be delayed for a very long time. That would be poor reward for the countries of eastern Europe, many of which have worked hard to achieve democratic standards and to move towards market economies in anticipation of early EU membership.
  We must ask ourselves whether the EU is outward-looking and willing to share the benefits and advantages of membership for the purposes of peace and prosperity across the continent. If the answer to that question is in the affirmative—as it ought to be—we should then ask ourselves how we can allow those benefits to be shared by others quickly and effectively.
  I share the Foreign Secretary's view that there can be no enlargement without ratification of the treaty by Ireland. Ireland provides an interesting illustration of the need to make the case for EU membership. Liberal Democrat Members have criticised the Government's timidity when it comes to making the case for Europe, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech in the City on the eve of the Gracious Speech foreign affairs debate presented a positive case for Europe—despite the fact that he took what I believe to be an unduly reticent approach to the question of membership of the single currency.
  The Irish result is a warning that politicians must make the case for Europe, and it shows that the requirement for unanimity in some matters means that a small country has the power to block, or even derail, the EU' s progress. That rather gives the lie to the argument that we are on an unstoppable escalator, on the way to something that. some describe as a superstate but rarely define.
  For example, the treaty extends qualified majority voting to 31 of the 70 or so articles that require unanimity. However, 17 of those articles refer to technical portions of the treaties dealing with appointments to the European Parliament, European committees and courts, and with those bodies' rules, procedures and management. Four of the other articles to which QMV has been extended cover matters on which Britain has an opt-out. The remaining 10 extensions deal with matters such as antidiscrimination practice, support to industry, priorities for structural funds, and environmental measures. In some areas, we are talking not about enforced harmonisation but about the exchange of information to encourage best
  288
  practice. I see no case for a referendum on the treaty of Nice, as no issue of fundamental constitutional importance is at stake.
  I confess that I have a little difficulty with the Conservative position on the matter. Before the general election, the Conservatives said that a Conservative Government would not ratify the treaty of Nice but, in opposition, they now call for a referendum. It seems to me that that position can be interpreted as, "The people must speak—but not if we're in government, when we'll make sure that we speak for them."
  That is a rather confusing and confused position, and I shall make my opinion clear. Referendums should be employed sparingly for principled reasons of constitutional significance. If fundamental constitutional change is involved, as it was in the Maastricht treaty and would be were we to join the single European currency, the approval of the British people should be sought in a referendum. Indeed, it was the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Paddy Ashdown, who was the first to call for a referendum on entry to the single currency.
  Where do we find such fundamental constitutional change in the Nice treaty? Where are the marching legions besieging the alleyways of Westminster with their calls for a referendum on Nice? Where are the crowds demanding delay in ratification? People are breaking into Menwith Hill because they feel so strongly about missile defence, but I have not been accosted on my way to the House of Commons by anyone even passingly resembling an ancient mariner wanting to ensure that I did not help to pass legislation to ratify the treaty of Nice. I cannot even remember receiving a single letter on the topic in the past four weeks, except for those from members of parties that are overwhelmingly opposed to any further integration into the European Union.
  The Irish vote makes it even more important for the EU to undertake a serious round of reform. We have to reconnect the EU with the citizens of the nation states that make up the Union and move away from that rather remote elitism that can often be detected in the air surrounding Brussels institutions. I happen to think that an overwhelming commitment to, and a determination to press ahead with, enlargement will help to provoke that very discussion. We want a European Union that is more democratic and more liberal, and one that concentrates its energies on doing what it does best, not on interfering in every area of national legislative competence. The EU should stay clear of areas where its writ is unnecessary.
  One of the achievements of the former Prime Minister, John Major, is that the principle of subsidiarity is ruthlessly applied by the EU. I have no difficulty with decentralisation—after all, my party argued for decentralisation in the United Kingdom for some time while those who now think that decentralisation in Europe is so important put up bulwarks against the notion that the Welsh should have an Assembly or the Scots a Parliament.
  Mr. Bercow: The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that nothing of constitutional significance is imperilled by the extension of qualified majority voting, but why will not he accept that the merits of the case against discrimination in general, and the merits or demerits of particular anti-discrimination measures, should pre-eminently be matters for determination by

  289
  democratically elected Members of the British legislature? Those matters should not fall within the rubric of the European Union.
  Mr. Campbell: If I interpret that intervention correctly, the hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not believe that the European Union should take a position on, for example, the discrimination faced by women. That is precisely the sort of issue on which the EU should take a position. There should also be an EU position on discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity. The hon. Gentleman and I may exist on two different planets on the issue, but the progress of events since we joined the European Coal and Steel Community—it its technically correct name—has favoured those who share my view, not those who share his.
  One of the more positive aspects of Nice was the pledge of member state Governments to launch a debate about the future of the European Union. That will result in the convening of an intergovernmental conference in 2004, specifically designed to establish a more precise delimitation of competencies between the European Union and the nation states upon which it relies for its legitimacy.
  I do not shrink from the notion that there should be a constitution for Europe. The shadow Foreign Secretary set himself against that, but I believe that it is only by being clear and open about structures and aspirations that the European Union can hope to retain the support of the people of Europe. People have to be comfortable with the institutions designed to represent them and they are most comfortable in such circumstances if they understand the limits of the powers of these institutions.
  In short, we need to know in clear and simple language what the European Union can and cannot do. The treaty of Nice does not achieve these objectives. It was, as the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West pointed out in an intervention, designed to deal with what were rather ungraciously described as the Amsterdam leftovers. However, the treaty of Nice provides a framework for enlargement and in my view it should be supported for that reason.
  There is one point to which I hope we shall return in Committee. The enabling provisions in clauses 1(2) and 1(3) are, as I understand it, unprecedented. They raise the possibility of changes of law based on affirmative procedure. We will seek to inquire of the Government what is the justification for that apparent innovation in dealing in this House with matters connected with the European Union.
  We should be swift to offer the benefits of European Union membership to those who wish to avail themselves of the opportunity to become members. We should ratify the treaty as soon as possible, which is why Liberal Democrat Members will support the Government in the Lobby this evening.
  5.12 pm
  Denzil Davies: The Bill seeks to amend the European Communities Act 1972 to incorporate into the laws of the United Kingdom various parts—most parts, it seems—of the treaty of Nice. The 1972 Act has been amended many times over the past 30 years, and some of
  290
  the amendments to it, especially those made in the 1980s and 1990s, could be said to provide a map of the long march from the Common Market of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s to the centralised European state that is emerging.
  It is fair to say that on the scale of integration, the treaty of Nice is not as high as, for example, the Single European Act, the Maastricht treaty or, indeed, the treaty of Amsterdam. Nevertheless, it is a further step in the integration process. That process can be effected and completed only by taking away powers from the Parliaments and peoples of member states and transferring them to the institutions of what I see as the emerging European state.
  In the aftermath of the Irish referendum on the Nice treaty, Mr. Michael McDowell, the Attorney-General of Ireland, describes clearly—as one would expect from an Irish Attorney-General—that process of integration. He said in The Daily Telegraph that there is a widespread perception that developments in Europe were taking a turn, or moving in a direction, that caused deep unease. The article continued:
  "He said 'a narrow class of activist office-holders, elected and unelected', were charging ahead of public opinion with proposals for a European constitution, a justiciable Bill of Rights, EU direct taxation, a defence arm, a judicial machinery to prosecute and punish citizens, an elected EU president, and an EU government."
  He said that few if any of those proposals carry popular significant support and continued:
  "While many have been put forward separately, they constitute, in the round, the indiciae of a European state in substance.'"
  That is the view of the Irish Attorney-General, whom I should have thought understood these matters very well.
  The most integrationist aspect of the Nice treaty is that in about 31 of its articles, the unanimity rule in the Council of Ministers has been replaced by qualified majority voting. We have heard the Government line: "Who cares who becomes the registrar of the European Court? Why should those Poles be allowed to veto the appointment of a registrar?" Perhaps the appointment does not matter, but several articles from which the unanimity requirement has been taken away are quite important. For instance, there are the measures that allow the EC to give financial assistance—the payment of money—to states in "severe difficulties".
  Negotiation, completion and conclusion of agreements relating to trade in services, which is very relevant to the GATT negotiations and the World Trade Organisation, are also now subject to qualified majority voting. Health and safety at work, working conditions, social exclusion, industrial policy, economic and social cohesion, certain environmental measures, and economic and financial co-operation with third countries are surely important matters, but we are losing the unanimity rule in respect of those as well.
  Unanimity has also been removed from proposals to establish enhanced co-operation, as it is called. In the strange language of this Byzantine organisation, that is known as a "deepening" of the Community. Again, the veto has been taken away. Those matters are not trivial; they are of considerable importance, but a democratically elected British Government can now be outvoted on them.
  The case for the veto lies not just with the importance or otherwise of the subject matter of the veto. In any international or supranational institution, the veto protects, and is the badge of, the democracy of the member state.

  291
  That is why, in most supranational organisations, unanimity is usually the rule. The veto is under pressure riot just because of enlargement but because the EU is moving away from what has been described as a supranational body, and is gradually moving towards an emerging state. As we have seen with other treaties, this is the beginning of the end of the supranational phase, and the beginning of the EU as a state in its own right. The veto is simply not compatible with such an arrangement.
  Once the veto goes, a democratically elected British Government can be outvoted by a group of states whose Governments are not accountable to the British electorate; those Governments might not be of the political hue or persuasion for which the British electorate would vote. Let us consider France. It grieves me to say so but, from reading the newspapers every day, it is clear that financial corruption has been endemic at the highest levels of French Government for a very long time, regardless of which party is in power. That is a matter for the French electorate—they might like it or they might not care about it. However, I hope that the British electorate would not tolerate such financial corruption from a British Government. Yet a French Government, together with others, will be able to outvote a British Government, even though the other Governments are not responsible for, or in any way accountable to, the British electorate that put their Government into negotiations.
  I am sure that the Italians are happy with the Berlusconi Government. However, I venture to suggest that a British electorate would not vote for the policies that Berlusconi stands for and that he has submitted to the Italian electorate. However, the Italian Government, together with other Governments, could outvote a British Government and impose polices on a British electorate that would never countenance supporting a Government such as Berlusconi's. What if—perish the thought—a neo-fascist Government were democratically elected in a European country? Recently, the Austrians had a wobble and perhaps such a Government could be formed again.
  Apparently, we are not going to give up any more vetoes—we are going to fight to the death over the next lot. The next time, Ministers will be like the Spartans at the pass of Thermopylae. The corridors of power will be piled high with the corpses of British Ministers, as they fight for the remaining 31-odd vetoes.
  Are we really saying that we are prepared to accept the votes of a democratically elected neo-fascist Government in Europe who will then, along with other countries, be able to impose their will on a British electorate, who would, I hope, never countenance the election of such a Government? The issue is not the exercise of the veto in votes on registrars, or even the importance of the veto in itself; the veto is the badge of, and the bulwark and protection for, the democracy of the nation state within a supranational or centralised European state.
  To add insult to injury, I note that clause 3 will allow some vetoes to be given to the European Parliament. The Parliament does not call them "vetoes"; a veto is nasty, but a co-decision is wonderful. The Parliament is to be given the power of co-decision. A decision will be made by the Council of Ministers using majority voting and sent to the Parliament for a co-decision. If the Parliament says no, that is not a veto; it is the Parliament failing to exercise its power of co-decision. The Bill takes away our vetoes and gives some of them to the European Parliament. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister for
  292
  Europe will accept a few amendments in Committee to restore those vetoes to this Parliament or, if we do not want to call them "vetoes", to give us the power of co-decision.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: My right hon. Friend asks whether we will be giving power to democratically elected Governments with whom we do not agree. My quick calculation shows that to get an agreement on qualified majority voting, we would need about 120 votes, and as even the largest country would have only 29 votes, self-evidently we are not giving power to any one nation.
  Denzil Davies: Not at the moment, but Governments change. I was making a point of principle: we are giving away power because at the moment we can stop things, but in future we will be unable to do so. The British electorate will be unable to have any influence on that process. I was making a democratic point, and if my hon. Friend cannot understand it, we really are in some difficulty over the European Union.
  The Bill will lead to further diminution of the powers of this House and of the democracy of the British people. I do not believe that the majority of my constituents, or of the British people, want further integration. The Danes did not want that, and nor did the Irish—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  5.22 pm
  Mr. Michael Howard: It is always a particular pleasure for me to follow the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), who represents my home town, in which I spent the first 18 years of my life and where I went to school. That pleasure is greatly enhanced by the fact that I entirely agree with so much of his speech, and I congratulate him on it.
  The treaty that the Bill will enable the Government to ratify is extremely wide ranging and far reaching. In addressing its provisions, it is difficult to know where to start and where to end. It is a treaty without a theme. Ostensibly, it is all about the enlargement of the European Union, and we are all in favour of that, but the most cursory glance at its provisions makes it clear that most of them have little, if anything, to do with enlargement.
  Moreover, the important changes that enlargement would involve, such as reform of the common agricultural policy, are completely ignored in the treaty, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary. The treaty of Nice is, as treaties go, a great pretender. It purports to lay the ground for enlargement, but fails to do so; it contains many provisions that have nothing to do with enlargement and that we should not embrace.
  The declarations that accompany the treaty cover many vital issues, some of which I have addressed before in the House. I shall not touch on them this evening because they are not part of the body of the treaty. There is more than enough in the body of the treaty to occupy the attention of the House, and it is on some of those provisions that I wish to concentrate. Some of them are welcome. They may be unnecessary for enlargement, and

  293
  do not therefore have to be included in the treaty, but I have no particular difficulty with the provisions relating to the number of Commissioners or the weighting of voting.
  I am also an enthusiast for what has come to be called variable geometry and what, in the Euro-jargon to which the right hon. Member for Llanelli referred, is known as enhanced co-operation. It is through variable geometry and enhanced co-operation that the EU can develop a new, essential dimension of flexibility. If those countries that wish to integrate more closely are permitted to do so without it being a requirement that every other member state should join in, we have the beginnings of an imaginative and innovative structure that may well prove to be the model for other parts of the world to follow. It would enable the United Kingdom to say to our partners, "We have no desire to stop you doing what you want to do, so long as you do not make us do what we don't want to do." It would mean that the UK could stop saying "no".
  Nevertheless, some aspects of the provisions relating to enhanced co-operation in the treaty of Nice cause concern. The original provisions in the treaty of Amsterdam include what became known as the emergency brake—a kind of veto, as the right hon. Gentleman said—which enables member states to refer contentious proposals for enhanced co-operation to the European Council, where they have to be approved unanimously. That provision is deleted by the treaty of Nice, which is a mistake. Particularly in its early stages, it is important that enhanced co-operation has the blessing of all member states. The treaty of Amsterdam appeared to secure that; the treaty of Nice does not.
  The provisions on which I wish to spend most of the short time available this afternoon relate to the extension of qualified majority voting. Two reasons are usually given in support of the proposals. Unfortunately, as is often the case, they are contradictory and mutually inconsistent. First, we are told that an extension of QMV is essential if the EU is to be enlarged. How can important decisions continue to be taken on the basis of unanimity, we are asked, if the union is to include so many new member states? Unanimity, it is said, would lead to paralysis, so an extension of QMV is essential.
  The second justification is that, if one examines the areas to which QMV will apply, one finds that they are all technical, narrow and inconsequential. No essential national interest is involved, the areas concerned are of little importance and it is sensible for them to be treated in that way. However, many decisions that need to be taken by an enlarged EU will be important and will involve member states essential interests. If QMV is an essential means of preventing paralysis and enabling the decision-making machinery of the union to work when it is enlarged, why restrict it to technical areas? The flexibility which, indeed, will be essential when the union is enlarged, can be provided much more effectively by enhanced co-operation than by QMV. That is the best way forward; I hope that the EU will follow that path.
  Let us examine in a little more detail the proposals for QMV and, in particular, the extent to which they are technical and unimportant. In doing so, let us give at least a passing glance to what has happened in the past. There have been many occasions when QMV has been extended, often under a Conservative Government, to areas where, we thought, it would not give rise to any problems. I shall
  294
  give one specific example. I was a member of the Government, though not of the Cabinet, who extended QMV to decision making on issues relating to health and safety. I am not for one moment suggesting that I would have opposed that extension had I been in the Cabinet at the time; it seemed a sensible thing to do. Were we not, after all, enthusiastically in favour of proper health and safety provision? And were our provisions not among the best in Europe? Might it not have been the case that some of our partners with less stringent requirements were stealing a competitive march on us by avoiding their proper obligations? From every point of view, was not that measure clearly in our national interest?
  I would have answered those questions in the affirmative. As we know, they were answered in the affirmative by the Cabinet and, in particular, by the Minister with responsibility for those matters, who was none other than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I emphasise that I do not criticise him for agreeing to that step, which I supported at the time; I am sure that I would have done the same thing myself. But what happened? Far from restricting the scope of the relevant provision to legitimate questions of health and safety, we discovered, not long afterwards, that the provisions were being used to force through the working time directive, which has only the most tenuous connections with health and safety. Those of us who were concerned with these issues in the previous Conservative Government were outraged; outraged and impotent.
  Indeed, I recall a discussion in which my right hon. and learned Friend, just as resolute in his opposition to the working time directive as the rest of us, said that had he known that the health and safety provisions were to he used to impose, by a qualified majority, the working time directive, he would not have supported the extension of QMV. So, in examining what may appear to be technical or innocuous measures in respect of which QMV is to be applied, it is as well to bear in mind the mischief that they may contain.
  Mr. Hendrick: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howard: I shall not give way; I am afraid that I have no time to do so.
  I shall mention just one such example of the extension of QMV by the treaty of Nice. Article 100, on which the right hon. Member for Llanelli touched, provides that appropriate measures, including financial assistance, may be agreed to aid member states in severe difficulty. What might that mean? Let us explore hypothetically what it might mean.
  We all know that pensions will be a considerable problem for many countries in future. We all know that, in the United Kingdom, we have made better provision for our pension liabilities and obligations than others. What if in future article 100 were used to provide for financial assistance to countries that get themselves into severe difficulties because they cannot meet their pension obligations? There is nothing in article 100 to rule that out.
  If I am wrong in my analysis, I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will point that out. If there is a flaw, I would like it to be identified. If I am right,

  295
  however, can there be any doubt that it would be seriously and fundamentally contrary to the interests of this country that article 100 of the treaty of Nice should be permitted to go through?
  My opposition to article 100 and other similar articles owes nothing to dogma, doctrine or any anti-Europeanism. It is based on the only principle that we should apply to every measure that comes before this House: is it in the interests of this country and the people whom we are here to represent? Any objective application of that principle to this treaty and this Bill would lead to but one conclusion. That is why I hope that the Second Reading of the Bill will be rejected.
  5.32 pm
  Ms Gisela Stuart: The Nice treaty is the latest of a number of treaties on the role and competence of the European Union. The EU has changed its name over the decades. It has evolved, but insufficiently to meet the changing world and even the objectives that it set itself 50 years ago.
  For many people like me, the Common Market of the 1970s was a liberator. We could work in member states without work permits—the free movement of labour. The EU of today is too often perceived as an institution that stops people from doing things or tells them what to do.
  The recent rejection of the treaty of Nice by the people of Ireland in a referendum should not be brushed aside lightly. The motives of those voting against it were no doubt mixed, but we do not have a right to interpret what voters really meant. "Comrades, there must be no compromise with the electorate", is not an appropriate response.
  Three basic questions should be asked of any democratic institution. Does it solve problems? Are those affected by decisions represented? Do those affected by the decisions know who made them? The EU must improve as a democratic institution. If I were to choose just one example of how it could do so, it would be the system of weighted votes, which was one of the most contentious issues at Nice. The qualified majority threshold, the blocking minority combined with the population safeguard, cannot be explained in such a way as to argue that they bring Europe closer to the people by making European decision making clearer.
  The current mood towards the EU is in marked contrast to the hopes and enthusiasm that surrounded its birth at the end of the second world war. However, it is fair to say that 50 years ago people would have been astonished by the degree of political and economic integration that has since taken place on our continent. There have been significant changes—most notably the unification of Germany, the end of the cold war and prospects for enlargement to the east. However, there are a number of issues that must be addressed now if the EU is to retain, let alone increase, the confidence of electorates.
  In the debates surrounding the EU and the potentially enlarged Union, politics and economics are mixed. That has always been so, ever since the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community. In general, the path of economic integration has been clearer than the political destination of the EU. It is often not clear whether politics or economics is in the driving seat. Indeed, the priority has varied from time to time but one thing was always
  296
  clear: monetary union was to follow political union. The order has now been reversed, which has added to people's confusion about where Europe is heading.
  I shall deal first with economics. With some justification, Monnet can be seen as the father of the EU. He was certainly a visionary, but he was always a practical man. He believed in the benefits of what might be termed liberal capitalism, and he admired America. We should note both those facts.
  While there is much to learn from America, European countries are different and they do not have to become mirrors of the United States. Whatever the framework chosen to reflect different cultural and political traditions, there are certain economic imperatives to be met. In recent years it has been noticeable that the people who were most sure that Europe and its new currency would soon and easily challenge the dollar were often those most hostile to the basis that underpins the dynamism of the US economy and the dollar, particularly the emphasis on the market.
  The European Coal and Steel Community was essentially a liberal market solution that could be followed as an example in a broader economic context in the treaty of Rome, the single market programme and subsequent reform agendas. Before embarking on any new economic or social initiatives, Governments in Europe would be better employed in ensuring that labour, product and capital markets function in the way envisaged in the Spaak report.
  The report, tabled in April 1956, remains a key document and was the basis of the treaty of Rome. It is the main philosophical antecedent of the approach to economic integration which has been prevalent in the EU ever since, yet if we look at the progress made in the past 45 years, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor might ask their opposite numbers to stand and deliver what has already been promised. That has not been delivered. For example, there is no genuine single market in financial services, and recent German opposition to the take-over directive shows how far we still are from accepting the logic of the Spaak report.
  I turn now to politics. Broadly speaking, for most of modern history there have been two alternative ways of organising society—a nation state or an empire. Neither is an attractive model for the EU. The EU is said to be a unique construction. It was a deliberate pooling of national power or sovereignty in a clearly defined area, and the placing of that power under the control of an entity that was common to the member states, but none the less legally independent.
  The route followed by the EU—via the original ECSC, the EEC, then the EC—is, we are told, towards ever closer political union, which has never been tried before and which has an unstoppable momentum. It is not always clear where this momentum is taking us, but it is like riding a bike—we cannot stop, and we must keep going forward or we will fall off. That is not my experience of riding a bike. It is possible to stop. We can put the brakes on. We can put our foot down. We do not fall off. We can look around and decide where we want to go.
  On the whole, the lack of precision about the political endgame and its institutional framework has not seemed to matter much up till now. At the end of the war, everyone in Europe shared a widespread feeling that things could not go on as before. A new order was needed.

  297
  If anyone had asked what the EU, in one of its previous incarnations, was for, the answer would have been obvious: to stop Germany and France ever again going to war against each other.
  That objective has been achieved and no longer provides a credible basis for taking Europe forward. To the question, "What is Europe for?", we must provide an up-to-date answer that people can support, in language that they understand. To the cognoscenti, posing such a question lacks sophistication and subtlety, but they are wrong. The question must be addressed.
  The structure of the ECSE and the function of the high authority followed clearly from the answer in 1951, and I suspect that the same is true today. Providing an answer for present member states will not be easy, but I am certain that one of the purposes of the existing EU is to help to underpin democracy and economic prosperity in central Europe.
  Whatever the justification for the Nice treaty and whatever its failings, it has been determined as the channel for moving forward with enlargement. The presidency conclusions of the Gothenburg Council in June 2001 state:
  "Enlargement and globalisation present the EU with great opportunities and challenges."
  It does. Enlargement will test the hinge of national interest and genuine European solidarity. Often, in Eurospeak, the latter is a cloak for the former.
  Enlargement is a challenge for some recent entrants, for example, Spain, Ireland and Portugal, who have been major recipients of European assistance. It is a challenge for France and Germany—perhaps particularly for France, for whom the EU is often seen as an extension of the French state. It is a challenge for us here too. In meeting all those challenges and others it will be essential to be able to state clearly Europe's basic function and purpose.
  I might he seen as an example of the forces that shaped modern Europe. I am German by birth, my mother is a refugee from eastern Europe, and I am now a British Member of Parliament representing Neville Chamberlain's old constituency. I hope that no one is in any doubt of my fundamental commitment to Europe.
  However, before we move to the intergovernmental conference in 2004 we, as politicians, will have to be able to answer some fundamental questions, such as what the EU does for its citizens, how those are citizens represented, and who can they hold accountable for decisions.
  In other words, if we are to engage people in debate and take them with us, we need to be able to state in simple terms the direction, role and competence of the EU. In plain language, the fundamental question that we need to able to answer is: what is the European Union for?
  5.42 pm
  Mr. William Cash (Stone): It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) for one very good reason, which is that she asked the right question. The problem is that she came up with the wrong answer. The difficulty is that Europe's purpose is ever greater integration, and whether democracy and accountability can exist in such an
  298
  environment is the question that we face in the House and throughout Europe. The Irish and Danish referendums clearly demonstrated that, as did I in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) earlier today with respect to the Conservative party's refusal to engage in proper referendums on the question of further integration from Maastricht onwards until the Nice treaty.
  I want to deal with a broader question. I speak as one whose father, who received the military cross, was killed in the last war in Normandy. That adds a certain poignancy to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston. Those of us who want a peaceful and stable Europe must ask whether that is what the arrangements will provide. Nothing would be worse than for the EU, for which I voted in 1975 in the context of that time, to implode because of the tensions that are created by going down the wrong route towards an undemocratic and unaccountable Europe. We have only to consider the low growth and job difficulties in the eurozone to understand that point.
  We have only to look at what went on in Gothenburg to understand the alienation that exists between the electorates of Europe and the elite, and how the EU is embattled and imprisoned by the force of political concern about what is going on. No one who is responsible could possibly ignore that, any more than Romano Prodi could possibly argue with any legitimacy that the Irish people must have another referendum because the original referendum was undemocratic.
  The first Danish referendum, in which the Danes voted no, was disgracefully overturned with my Government's connivance. In "German Comments", produced by Konrad Adenaeur Siftung, an editorial at the time said that elections had become a form of protest and must be stopped. It is incredible for such language to persist from those days until Romano Prodi's recent disgraceful remarks in Ireland. We must take the matter seriously. By renegotiating, it is possible to get the whole ramshackle, undemocratic, unaccountable and idiosyncratic kaleidoscope back in focus.
  I am arguing not for withdrawal, but for a proper intergovernmental conference at which member states can, instead of making proposals such as the Nice treaty, sit down and ask themselves the question that was rightly put by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston: what is Europe for? How will we have a stable Europe when it is perfectly clear that the direction in which it is going is being rejected by its electorates left, right and centre? I do not believe for one minute that that view is confined to the countries that I have mentioned. It is not confined to the United Kingdom, where the decision would be clear if a referendum were held now.
  The same view prevails in central and eastern Europe. I have served on the Select Committee on European Scrutiny for 17 years, so I have visited the countries and met people there. Although the elites have been blackmailed into accepting the acquis communautaire— that is basically what happened—and their parliamentary processes have been absorbed for an entire year in adopting something that the people do not want, they are now signing up to join a European Union that will frustrate and undermine the democratic spirit that gave rise to the enormous burst of freedom that we saw in the

  299
  springtime of nations. That is why I want enlargement, but not on the basis of crushing out the democratic spirit. Believe me, that is what will happen.
  We must also consider a further question: the broader picture that lies behind those circumstances. It is about the balance of power in Europe. Nobody should have any misunderstanding about that. As Bismarck said, it is those who speak about "Europe" who should be most distrusted. The bottom line is that we are now engaged in a tectonic movement in the balance of power in Europe, which is being carried out through the mechanism of institutional change. The reality is the driving force of national interests, based on an apparent political union that will become a legal framework. Through the legal processes of the European Court of Justice and the European Communities Act 1972, that framework will impose upon this country and others a requirement to obey laws that are, for example, passed by majority voting.
  I must differ from my right lion. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) in respect of the variable geometry and flexibility that he advocated. When one engages in the concept of enhanced co-operation, as the treaty does, one should consider what happened under monetary union, which was described by the European Commission as the best form of flexibility yet produced and which led me to table 200-odd amendments to the Bill on the Maastricht treaty. We said that we would accept the framework, but not prevent the other member states from going ahead. That is the implicit basis on which the enhanced co-operation will operate in relation to all areas, including, despite the Government's denials, defence, foreign policy and all the other matters to which the Nice treaty refers, following and based on Maastricht and Amsterdam. It is an accumulative, aggregate process of an undemocratic and unaccountable Europe. Anybody who misunderstands that is missing the target altogether.
  I believe that what is happening is the creation of a Europe that is based fundamentally on the predominance of Germany. The German people know and understand that. I have many friends in Germany and they tell me the same thing. The problem is not simple; it is about the aggregate of power, not only in relation to the majority voting increase that Germany has clearly acquired in the treaty, but to the countries that depend on Germany. We must be careful about the direction in which we are moving. Many people may disagree with me, but that is my judgment.
  We are moving towards a more deeply taxed Europe. The functions that are being created, including those under flexibility and enhanced co-operation, are increasing exponentially. They must be paid for. That is why Hans Eichel recently said that a much more invasive tax policy is needed in Europe. That is why Romano Prodi has asked for £60 billion. All that will remove the House's ability to resist. Public services in this country are constrained by European Union monetary rules. If we subscribe to the increased functions, the whole process will continue to invade the rights and privileges of the House. We are moving dangerously further down the road of an undemocratic, European Government—that is what we are considering, not a confederation of nation states.
  I wish that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was here today. I shall be interested to know how he will vote. He said that
  300
  he supported the Nice treaty. I dedicated my pamphlet to him today, and I hope that he will enjoy a little light reading matter.
  We are in danger of taking a one-way ticket on a route to an undemocratic and unsustainable Europe. I shall fight against that with all the heart that I can summon.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: I strongly agree with all the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he opened the debate, especially those on the negotiations about the Nice accession treaty. Britain has secured most of, if not all, its objectives, and it would be profoundly against the United Kingdom's national interests if enlargement proceeded without ratification of the treaty. Again, the lesson is that it is better to be in there, fighting convincingly and competently for our British national interests, and using alliances and influences, than to stand isolated on the sidelines, as the previous Government did for many years.
  The choice for Britain is not between a Europe that we find unacceptable and the Conservative delusion of being in Europe but not run by Europe, whatever that means. It is between being out of Europe—Conservative policies would inevitably lead to that—and playing a proper role in shaping the reformed and changed Europe that we need and want. That is the central point of my remarks.
  Nice is essential to bring about reform so as to pave the way for enlargement, but it only gets us to first base in the wider task of EU reform. Pro-Europeans should be the first to recognise and argue that today's Europe, with its institutions, working practices and policy priorities, is not perfectly designed for the challenges ahead. Enlargement will profoundly change the European Union.
  The EU's overall direction needs to be clearer, and I sympathise with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). Our objectives for Europe need to be much clearer. There should be a much sharper focus on the core tasks that form the EU's priorities. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, Europe can add value through those tasks. We should also focus on the way in which we secure a proper balance between the responsibilities of the EU and those of member states and national Governments, and between the EU's institutions and those that rightly remain the responsibility of member states.
  The EU is facing up to those issues and to the sheer practicalities of the way in which a new EU with 25 and possibly more members will work in practice. It behoves all member states to be brutally realistic about the paralysis that threatens the EU if we do not get enlargement right. When unanimity is required, it will be much more difficult to reach a meaningful agreement with such a large number of members. Even when the EU makes decisions through QMV, it will be much harder for 25 than for 15 member states to reach a good decision. How do we avoid paralysis creeping into the operation?
  It is the job of the 2004 intergovernmental conference to grasp the nettle of fundamental reform in the EU. It will be difficult for Britain to grapple with much of it. There will be no easy debates or issues to resolve when we tackle fundamental reform in the EU. However, it will not be so uncomfortable for our country or our Government that we should stand aside and leave others to lead the debate. What are some of the key pointers that we might identify in distilling a British approach?

  301
  First, we should not get hung up on semantics and words such as federal or federalism. They mean different things to different people. Federalism means decentralisation to the Germans but centralisation to the British. The EU is a confederation of nation states; it is a hybrid, which is part intergovernmental and part supranational. Sovereignty is pooled but not lost. That will remain the permanent basis for the EU, and we should not therefore go up hill and down dale in pursuit of semantic argument.
  Secondly, an EU constitution is already set out in its treaties. It needs greater clarity and it needs to be fastened down. We need to work hard to derive some basic rules from it. However, we should do that instead of starting to rewrite an EU constitution from scratch.
  Thirdly, the Commission fulfils an essential role. It is the motor of the EU, for example, in policing the single market and competition policy. However, the Commission should not have carte blanche to exercise its competence as it chooses simply because it has such competence in specific matters. It should conform to EU priorities that have been set out by the European Council. It should respect subsidiarity in our arrangements.
  Fourthly, the European Parliament plays an important legislative and scrutiny role, and I want it to be effective. However, it lacks the legitimacy to set the strategy for Europe. It has been suggested that the European Parliament should be given the power to elect the President of the Commission. I believe that that would confuse the Commission's primary accountability, which is to the Council, not the Parliament.
  Fifthly, the Council needs radical reform to be effective. It needs a fewer number of councils. It should have four or five instead of the current 17. It needs a co-ordinating group of senior Ministers to meet regularly to prepare and follow up Council meetings. The rotating six-month presidency should be replaced, and the way should be opened for the European Council to decide when it is willing to accept more QMV for specific decisions.
  Sixthly, like others who have spoken, I support enhanced co-operation in an enlarged Europe. However, there should be no permanent inner group or presiding core, for which the French Government are canvassing. It would exclude Britain while we are not members of the eurozone.
  Seventhly, in a larger Europe, there is already growing concern about the reach and accountability of the EU in terms of people's everyday lives and its relationship with the general public. We need to reassure Europe's citizens that their rights are respected and that democratic values are being entrenched. Perhaps we need, therefore, to reconsider the status of the charter of rights, as revised so as not to conflict with the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.
  There is no doubt about the challenging and extensive agenda that the points that I have raised—and many others—represent in the coming months and year: an agenda which we must all address. There is much to confront. There is an enormous amount on which to find agreement among some disparate member states.
  The future-of-Europe debate is vital. I sympathise with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin).
  302
  Irrespective of any issue to do with the single currency, the debate on the future of Europe should pre-empt or go alongside any separate consideration of Britain's membership of the single currency.
  I suggest that the public will be much more likely to engage in any future debate about the single currency if they see that we are facing and fully debating the wider questions that are of great concern to them with the maximum transparency and frankness in the coming months and years. I hope and trust that that is what the Government will be doing.
  6.1 pm
  Sue Doughty: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech today. I am conscious of the great honour that my constituents conferred on me in voting for me to be their Member. Some Members may have been slightly surprised at the result at Guildford, but it is important to remember that the people of Guildford are a thoughtful bunch with a wide range of backgrounds and experiences.
  When I decided to apply for selection by a constituency, Guildford was definitely my first preference. We who come from Yorkshire are hard to please. Nowhere else seems as beautiful as Yorkshire. However, in the Guildford constituency, there are lovely Surrey hills, beautiful villages such as Shalford, which is my home, Bramley, and Cranleigh, where there is a lovely food market. There are many nice shops, and little pubs and coffee shops to visit after the shopping has been done. It is a wonderful area in which to live.
  We are about to have our own brand of locally produced food, bearing the name Surrey Hills. Look out for it when it comes. Like other farming communities, we have had to delay things this year. We will welcome support when we finally go to market.
  There are other good things about Surrey and Guildford. As a Yorkshire woman, I think that I finally have a dispensation from the home camp to support Surrey cricket, and very welcome it is too. It is a fabulous cricket team to support. The Benson and Hedges cup is coming up, and Surrey won the county championship last year. The club is the mainstay of the British team, especially on its winning days. Surrey is a wonderful place.
  Surrey cricket club does not represent our only champions. We have an ice hockey team too. I can tell right hon. and hon. Members who have not been to an ice hockey match that it is a lovely family sport which many Guildford families attend. The Guildford team won the British national league championship and the play-offs last year.
  Guildford is more than a pretty town and a shopping centre. It is a thriving cultural, academic and social hub. It is dominated by its cathedral. The arts play a strong role in the community, and all right hon. and hon. Members will have heard of the Yvonne Arnaud theatre, which is much in need of support. It is a centre for commercial theatre in the south-east. For those who are still learning their skills in the performing arts, we have the school of acting and the academy of contemporary music.
  Guildford has been home to famous mathematicians. We all know of Charles Dodgson, or Lewis Carroll. It was also home to Alan Turing, one of the most important mathematicians of the 20th century. He was born and brought up in Guildford.

  303
  The university leads the way in technological advances. There is strong expertise in space technology, human biology and medical sciences. We lead the field in many areas. We have one of the most successful business parks in Europe. Situated between two airports, Guildford is ideally placed for those going backwards and forwards to Europe. Many people are based in Guildford to do just that.
  We have a law college that has trained many people to become lawyers. Guildford college has received awards for the quality of its further education and for its vision for teenagers and old people with all skills and all backgrounds.
  More important than the lovely surroundings are the people. We are a diverse community. Guildford is not just full of stockbrokers, which is its image. Many residents are on high incomes, but many others can scarcely afford to live in the area, and they are as an important part of the community as anyone else.
  Guildford was last represented by a Liberal Member in 1906. It has taken us a long time to recover the seat, and we shall not give it up easily. I know that my predecessor, Nick St. Aubyn, is sad to have lost the seat after only one term, and understandably so. Times change, and so do loyalties. However, Nick worked assiduously in the representation of Guildford, and I share many of the concerns that he had, for which he fought on behalf of the constituency. In some respects we differed as to approach, but we were equally committed on issues such as education and the environment.
  Nick cared deeply about human rights and was passionate about his desire for peace in the middle east and the problems faced by refugees. I wish him well for the future, whatever it holds.
  In particular, Mr. St. Aubyn strongly supported his constituents in their opposition to the proposals for a large incinerator that would be the same size as Guildford cathedral, which stands on a hill and dominates the town. The incinerator, too, would dominate the town. It is a source of great worry and concern to the entire constituency. Nick put in much work on behalf of his constituents and I shall certainly be taking up the fight. My constituents expect no less.
  We need more sustainable approaches to environmental matters, and especially waste management. In Cologne, it is illegal to put empty bottles in dustbins. They have to be sorted and taken to the bottle bank. Perhaps we can learn much more from best practice elsewhere in Europe, which our membership of the EU allows us to do. Austria already recycles more than 60 per cent. of its household waste. Germany manages 48 per cent. and France only 12 per cent., but in Britain we manage to recycle only 9 per cent. of our household waste. We have a long way to go, and much to learn from Europe, before we can compete.
  On the doorsteps, I took various questions about Europe. Interestingly, no one disagreed about environmental issues and the fact that we should be looking to Europe to co-ordinate environmental approaches. We will be anticipating and welcoming the electrical and electronic waste directive, which would reduce the number of large items that go into our rubbish. The biodegradable waste directive would promote home and community composting. The packaging directive would require manufacturers to collect and recycle a
  304
  significant proportion of their packaging. If we could work together in Europe to anticipate these directives rather than wait for enforcement, we would not need a large incinerator in Guildford. We must work with Europe much more closely on these matters, and we need much more Government encouragement for councils, so we can start to become much more sustainable in our approach to waste management.
  Guildford is one of the most important commercial centres in the south of England, and has one of the most successful shopping centres. It also has one of the most vibrant economies. However, my constituents are worried about the threats to their health that an incinerator would bring, particularly to local schools and employees. They have strong concerns about that. We must bear in mind the fact that, wherever one looks in Guildford, one sees the surrounding hills, and wherever one would look in future, such a building would have an unacceptable impact.
  We need to move forward in Guildford. It contributes enormously to business in Europe, and Europe contributes enormously to business in Guildford. I look forward, as its MP, to working in a much stronger area and, I hope, to bringing forward some of the European directives that will really help us. I started my political campaign in Newbury, opposing the mountains of rubbish there. The people of Newbury eventually saw the light and elected a Liberal Democrat council and a Liberal Democrat MP. I hope that Guildford will adopt a similar position and continue to return its Liberal Democrat MP.
  Donald Anderson: It is always a pleasure to follow—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I am sorry; I called Mr. Doug Henderson.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Doug Henderson: That is not the first time that there has been such a misunderstanding. My right hon. Friend and I have often received mail intended for the other because of the similarity of our names.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) on her excellent maiden speech. She said that the people of Guildford were a thoughtful bunch. They obviously have a thoughtful representative to look after their interests for the next four or five years. She also said that Guildford had last been a Liberal seat in 1906, and had returned to the fold at this election. My own seat was a Liberal seat in 1906 but, thankfully, it did not return to that colour this time. She told us all about her wonderful constituency and expressed an interest in cricket. May I say to her that if Yorkshire does not let her go back, she will be very welcome to join me at the Riverside as a guest of County Durham if she ever needs to return to the northern reaches of English cricket?
  This has been a refreshing debate about the bigger pictures involved in the European issue and the way in which the Nice treaty impacts on them. It is highly desirable that we should not miss the big picture by getting embroiled in all the details of the bits and pieces of the Bill. That is not to say that those bits and pieces are unimportant, and I am sure that we shall devote the necessary time to them in Committee. However, I fear

  305
  that, too often, we get embroiled in the details and the public then fail to recognise what the European Union is about, why it has to change and what its priorities are.
  This is a forum for discussion of policy among the British people, and I do not for a minute complain that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) take a different view from my own. It is important that we have a healthy debate. However, I fear that too many of my colleagues who share my view on Europe have been too quiescent in their support of that view. It is high time that those of us who believe in the European ideal—and who believe that the EU is a crucial part of the future economic, political and social stability of the existing EU and of a much wider area in Europe and in spheres of influence beyond that in parts of the former Soviet Union and north Africa, which must develop to reflect the priorities of the day—acted on our responsibility to make that case more loudly.
  I do not know what the position of Conservative Front-Bench Members is on this issue. I know that it is difficult for them to draw up a resolution on foreign policy at this time, particularly in relation to the European issue. Perhaps it will be easier next week, or by the end of July, or perhaps we shall have to wait until September.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby): Give it a year.
  Mr. Henderson: Perhaps we should give them a year; perhaps even longer.
  The Opposition amendment is extremely negative and damaging to Britain's standing and interests in the European Union and to Britain's contribution to building and rebuilding the stability of Europe in the EU. It is not enough to argue about whether we shall have a few more votes here or a bit more influence there, although those matters are important and, as I said, we should examine them in detail in Committee.
  We must consider how we can guarantee the future of the European Union. Some hon. Members may have been fortunate enough to travel to applicant countries such as Slovakia and Latvia; I think that I have probably travelled to them all. If Conservative Members realised what the response of people in those countries would be to their amendment, I do not believe that they would pursue their stated position. If the Conservative party believes in the enlargement of the European Union, it cannot have the luxury of being negative every time a European issue is placed before the House.
  I am not saying that Opposition parties should not be critical, or that they should not be able to dispute with the Government when there are genuine differences. However, we heard from the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) that he was in favour of enlargement but against the Nice treaty. That is a completely untenable position. If the British nation does not endorse the Nice treaty, the treaty will run into serious difficulties.
  Important parts of the Amsterdam treaty had to be carried over; not everything could be agreed there. Numerous issues were agreed, many of which were much more far reaching than the provisions in the Nice treaty.
  306
  However, it was not possible to achieve everything at Amsterdam. The proposals on the reform of the Commission, among others, were referred on from the Amsterdam negotiations to the Nice negotiations.
  It is also not enough for the Conservatives to say, "Oh, but if the Irish do not accept the treaty, the whole thing will fall, If the treaty falls, we shall be back the next day, and every provision from the Nice treaty will have to be included in any subsequent treaty if we are to make progress on enlargement. Everyone in Europe knows that. The Conservative position is ridiculous. All the nations in the European Union are backing the treaty. Okay, the Irish have rejected it in a referendum, but the Conservatives' position is tantamount to saying that they know better than all the other parties in government throughout the European Union, including other Conservative parties.
  The Conservatives do not recognise that, in countries such as Slovakia and Latvia, change will not take place towards a market economy or a reinforcement of democracy to build on the achievements of 1989 and 1990 unless there is a belief that they can accede to the European Union. Those countries know that there is no future for democracy and a market economy unless they are part of the general regulatory system in Europe. If they do not have the opportunity to join because the Nice treaty or subsequent treaties fall, those countries will not know which way to turn. They will not be allowed to turn towards the European Union, which will have rejected them. The only option will be to look somewhere else. We can be absolutely sure that in Slovakia, for example, members of the previous leadership—which, under Meciar, was strongly totalitarian—will be saying, "Our way was the only way. You can forget the gypsies. We are going back to the system that we had before. That is the only way forward." That would be extremely damaging for the security and stability of Europe.
  Before the Conservatives vote this evening, they should think more clearly about those issues. They should forget the bickering in their party. Surely the stability of Europe and of this country is a much bigger issue than their bickering over the nuances of the extent to which they are for or against Europe. That is my plea to Conservative Members. In most other European countries with which I have had dealings, there is a pretty good consensus about the nation's interests in all these issues, and about the contribution that the nation should make to Europe. However, in this country we are perceived as bickering and nit-picking all the time. It is no surprise that the electorate feels remote and excluded from European issues.
  I believe that we have a responsibility to rebuild that connection so that people understand that their security is achieved not only through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, important as it is, but through membership and development of the European Union. Enlargement is important to that development and to the economic prospects of our nation, as it will give British exporters a better opportunity to penetrate larger markets, although I am not saying that that is the main argument for enlargement.
  The main argument for enlargement is providing stability and security in the European context and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said, building on what has been achieved over

  307
  the past 50 years. We must ensure that we look ahead to the prospect of security and prosperity, and that is the main purpose of the Nice treaty.
  As colleagues have said, there is an awful lot of work to do and many issues to resolve. When the EU has 25 or more members, it will be much more difficult to reach decisions, to operate the Commission, to decide who will provide and who will receive structural funds and to reform agricultural policy, but without the Nice treaty we will not even get near those issues. I hope that the House overwhelmingly supports the Bill.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Mark Francois: I begin by congratulating the new hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) on her maiden speech and thanking her for her kind remarks about her predecessor. It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who was my predecessor's pair in this place for many years.
  It was Benjamin Disraeli who once said that the greatest opportunity that can be offered to an Englishman is a seat in the House of Commons. Having been a Member for only a few weeks, I am beginning to understand what he meant. I have been immensely impressed by the courtesy and helpfulness of all the staff in this place, and, as an ex-Territorial Army officer, it is particularly welcoming to see the Doorkeepers each and every day. I learned in the Army that those who want to know what is going on ask the senior non-commissioned officers. That seems to be as true here as anywhere else.
  I do not, however, intend to follow the example of a young cadet at Sandhurst several years ago, who was taken aside by a Guards sergeant major to be told that his performance on the drill square had been "distinctly sub-optimal". The sergeant major thrust his pace stick roughly into the ribs of the poor unfortunate and bellowed at him, "There is a complete idiot at the end of this pace stick." The cadet replied, "Not at this end, sergeant major."
  I am delighted and honoured to have been elected to the House as the new Member for Rayleigh. Unlike some hon. Members, I do not claim that my constituency is the most beautiful in the country, but I would humbly nominate it for a place in the top 10. The Rayleigh constituency is named after its largest town, which numbers some 35,000 people and stands roughly in the centre of the seat, just north of Southend.
  The historic town of Rayleigh was first recorded in the Domesday Book as belonging to Sweyne of Essex and it boasts the oldest castle in the county—indeed, one of the oldest in the country. West of Rayleigh lies Hanningfield reservoir, which supplies much of the county of Essex, and a series of picturesque villages that surround it, including East, West and South Hanningfield, Downham, Ramsden Heath and Rettendon as well as the slightly larger community of Runwell.
  North-west of Rayleigh, close to the beautiful River Crouch, lies South Woodham Ferrers, a town of some 20,000 souls, which is fighting a battle with Chelmsford borough council against unwelcome overdevelopment. I pledge to assist the residents of the town in that fight. East of Rayleigh lie a number of popular communities, such as Hockley, which has its ancient royal hunting forest, Hawkwell, Hullbridge and the smaller rural villages of
  308
  Ashingdon, the Pagelshams, Stambridge and Canewdon, whose 15th century church tower was erected by Henry V in thanksgiving for his rather impressive "away win" at Agincourt.
  Until 1997, the constituency included the town of Rochford, from which it previously took its name, but it was removed in the previous parliamentary boundary review. That has led to some confusion about the revised boundaries. At the general election, a commuter from my constituency got off the train at Rochford station to be met by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who knows what I am about to say. The commuter spied the blue rosette, smiled, walked forward, stretched out his hand confidently and said, "Don't you worry, Mr. Francois, I have already decided to cast my vote for you."
  It is an honour to follow in the footsteps of my predecessors, Dr. Michael Clark and, before him, Sir Bernard Braine, who was Father of the House. Dr. Michael Clark is a man of principle who served the constituencies of Rochford and Rayleigh with distinction for more than 18 years. In addition to his duties as a constituency MP, which he carried out diligently, he made a career in this place as Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee and a member of the Speaker's Chairmen's Panel.
  While canvassing during the general election, I was genuinely struck by how many people know Dr. Clark personally and by how well they speak of him. I am conscious that I am being asked to step into a very large pair of shoes indeed, although I discovered one person in the constituency who is even better known than Michael Clark—his wife, Valerie. She served in local government in her own right and was a tireless worker for local charities and good causes. For that, she is well loved. Michael and Valerie Clark are an immensely popular couple and everyone in Rayleigh wishes them every success for their new life together down in the west country.
  I am in favour of enlargement of the European Union in principle, but not at any price. I have an affection for the Republic of Ireland; I proposed to my wife Karen while overlooking Galway bay. The next time I visit, I would like to congratulate the people of that country on their sagacious decision to vote against the Nice treaty, and by such a clear margin.
  Whatever the views of any of Member of the House on the European issue, when a country as traditionally pro-European as the Irish Republic votes against a European treaty, that should, at the very least, give us all pause for thought. I confess that I was not quite old enough to vote in the British referendum in 1975, but I believe there was no real practical discussion of a federal Europe or of abandoning our currency.
  The British people were essentially told that they were assenting to a free trade area—a common market—and that is what they endorsed in 1975. The further we move from that position, the greater the risk that we shall exhaust their patience on all things European. We are an historically tolerant people, and we are willing to negotiate and co-operate, but we will not be subsumed by a foreign superstate that ignores our traditions and undermines our laws.

  309
  My father, Reginald Francois, who died when I was a boy, fought in the second world war on the Murmansk convoys so that we could continue to live in a free and democratic county. That point is not lost on his son.
  It was Dr. Johnson who said, "Though we cannot outvote them tonight, we will outargue them." That seems to me to be a reasonable motto for an Opposition, and, from what I have seen so far, we are not doing such a bad job. Over the months ahead, I, too, hope to play some small part in helping to win the argument. I am deeply grateful to the electors of Rayleigh for returning me and giving me that chance.
  6.29 pm
  Donald Anderson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) on his maiden speech. He may not be in the same moderate mould as his predecessor, but I am sure that he speaks for a substantial number of his constituents. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty). She said that she was somewhat surprised by her election. I understand that Conservative central office was just as surprised, and sent a note of congratulation to Nick St. Aubyn, whom we miss, as he was a highly popular Member. The hon. Members for Rayleigh and for Guildford have at least learned that their electorates will be far more interested in Rayleigh market and Guildford market than in the Common Market. If they continue to speak for their constituents in that way, they will do well.
  The Nice conference was only seven months ago, but it now seems an age away. We have had a general election since then. We should ask ourselves what lessons we have learned from the election, which some people have claimed was a referendum on Europe. Some hon. Members have asked for a clear perception of where Europe is going and what Europe is for. I do not think that that is possible. In the 1950s, we could talk about the historic ending of the enmity between France and Germany, but now Europe is a far more muddled and complex. We are taking part in a great debate, and the conception of this and many northern European countries is somewhat different from that of other states.
  I urge those who argue that the Nice treaty is a giant step forward to a federalist state to consider who exulted and who was miserable at the outcome of the summit. I can tell the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that, shortly after the Nice treaty was agreed, I was attending the European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee when Mr. Moscovici, the French European Minister, was mauled mercilessly by the federalists in the European Parliament. The hon. Gentleman would have noticed the tears of Mr. Prodi. Neither those in the European Parliament nor Mr. Prodi would share the picture of Nice that the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues painted. Few were satisfied. That is the nature of a package deal. None of the great treaties agreed in the past 15 years have been acclaimed—all have been rejected as failures in the days following agreement. The issues addressed—taxation, structural funds, justice and home affairs—are highly politically sensitive and wrangling is inevitable and hardly surprising.
  We should consider carefully how decisions were reached in those all-night sessions. I think that we all agree with the Prime Minister's stricture that something
  310
  must be done to avoid a repetition of those nights in Nice. Tired politicians make tired decisions. Some leaders did not know the details of what had been decided in the far reaches of the night.
  The outcome is complex and I am a little wary of the calls for referendums. In a poll conducted in March and April this year, 41 per cent. of European Union citizens said that they did not see, read or hear anything about the Nice summit last December. We must respect the Irish referendum result, but the 18 per cent. who rejected the treaty were an interesting rag bag. We must respect that decision, although the matter will no doubt be revisited. The decision was made in the context of the beef destruction scheme, and leaders of the European Community made some arrogant speeches. Sinn Fein grossly misrepresented the position by arguing that Nice equals NATO. The lesson that we must all learn is that Europe needs to reconnect with its citizenry.
  The key part of the Nice treaty is the historic step towards enlargement. We may have wanted enlargement to come about in a different way, but Nice is the only treaty in town and it is the essential platform for enlargement. It was built on very successfully at Gothenburg in June during the Swedish presidency. We now have a set timetable for the first wave of enlargement in 2004. I was sceptical about artificial time scales because they reduce the pressure on countries such as Poland to reform their agricultural sector. The giant step on enlargement taken at Gothenburg was possible only as a result of what happened at Nice.
  Was Nice essential? According to the Amsterdam treaty, only five new members could join the EU under the old structures. Who would choose those five members? It would have been impossible to decide whether to choose the Czech Republic as against Hungary, or Hungary as against Estonia.
  The Foreign Affairs Committee met the former Foreign Secretary and his colleagues. We read the White Paper at the beginning of last year, and we saw the aims that the British Government had set themselves. No objective observer could deny that those aims were substantially achieved. We came out of the summit having achieved what we set out to achieve. Mr. Prodi has been quoted, and we have heard the Commission's view of who were the winners and who were the leaders. The Financial Times commented that Britain
  "made the biggest strategic gains at the smallest cost. The outcome furthers its long-term aim of becoming an influential member of a wider union, rather than a latecomer to what once seemed a Franco-German club."
  That was achieved as a result of the constructive engagement that the Government have pursued with our European allies.
  As we prepare for enlargement, we must ask ourselves whether we accept that this is an historic opportunity, or whether we should replay the debates that we had before the Nice treaty and the frenzied discussions we had before the election. In a recent speech in Hamburg, Lord Hurd referred to the exaggerations of that time, such as the idea that our European allies are enemies and that we have to win the game against them. I heard an echo of that in the speech by the hon. Member for Rayleigh. We have heard Conservative Members talk about strides being taken towards a wicked, federal superstate or an evil framework. That would isolate us and be bad for Britain. There would be serious repercussions if we were not to press forward.

  311
  Looking ahead, there is a major debate on the future of Europe, with the new intergovernmental conference in 2004. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) made rather a good speech in Berlin, in which he set out his vision. It is not one that I share and, alas, it is not shared by any other serious party in the European Union. That should lend a certain humility to the Conservative Opposition as they approach this debate. They should realise that they are on their own in Europe.
  We shall listen carefully to the debate on the implementation of the Nice treaty to discover whether the Opposition will play their proper role in providing a critical analysis of the treaty, or whether they will exaggerate and produce scare stories, as Lord Hurd suggested. If they pander to an anti-European theme, like latter-day Bourbons they will have forgotten nothing and learned nothing.
  We all need a certain humility in our approach to the European question. I sometimes shudder when I hear our continental colleagues talking airily about European construction, but I reject the view that the referendum was merely about a minor European getting together. Written into the treaty was "ever closer".
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has used up his time.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I welcome the Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain), to his new position. I sincerely hope that he will last longer in this post than he did in his last—although I know that that was not his fault. I also pay tribute to the two maiden speeches that we have heard. Let me say in passing that both reminded me of the diversity that we have in this United Kingdom, as well as the diversity that we have in Europe. We were taken on a gallop around the two constituencies, and the place names that we heard were as foreign to my ears as Pontrhydfendigaid and Penybontrhydybeddau would doubtless be to theirs.
  I am very pleased to be able to speak in support of the Bill, and also to speak for the first time on behalf of the Plaid Cymru-Scottish National party group in describing our joint approach to the Nice treaty. We naturally have a different perspective from that which has mainly been outlined today. Our initial premise is a fundamental belief that the people of Wales and Scotland must decide the future of those countries. Our view may lead some Members to suspect that we are Eurosceptics, but, although we want the future of Wales and Scotland to be decided by the people of those countries, we want to go into Europe with full national status within it.
  We also think it important to issue a plea for the sovereignty of the people of Wales and Scotland when it comes to deciding their future, and a plea for subsidiarity, which has already been mentioned.
  Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Thomas: I am afraid not. The hon. Gentleman has not been present for the whole debate.
  In the context of the alienation that people sense between European institutions and themselves, it is important for us to try to make subsidiarity work, and try
  312
  to make a relevant relationship work. We in Wales and Scotland feel that strengthening the powers of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, and strengthening the institutions in those countries—which have an indirect relationship with Europe—is a viable and realistic way of improving relations between people in the United Kingdom and European institutions. I agree with many earlier speakers that those relations have been weakened.
  We do not believe that the Nice treaty is perfect, but we welcome its broad aims. We accept that it is necessary if enlargement is to go ahead, and we are very much in favour of that. The treaty also presents an opportunity for us to restate and reinvigorate our arguments about the reasons for Europe. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) made a perceptive speech, although I do not think that we have heard any answers yet: we seem to be stumbling around in the dark looking for them.
  This is a time to re-emphasise that we are building peace and co-operation in Europe. If we want just one example of why we need to do that at European level, we should look to Kyoto. We should consider climate change, and the need for European countries to work together. It was put to the Deputy Prime Minister that we had not yet ratified Kyoto, even though we were complaining that President Bush would not do so. The reason is, of course, that we want to ratify it as a European Union, with all the power, resources and expertise that we have behind us and all our extra ability to speak as a large and important bloc—albeit a large polluting bloc—in the climate change negotiations.
  What we also see in the Nice treaty is a retreat from any vision—I must admit that our party Plaid Cymru, the Party of Wales, once had such a vision—of the development of a different kind of Europe: a Europe of smaller regions, nation states, autonomous regions and so forth. The treaty has, in fact, re-emphasised the central role of the nation state. I do not agree with the criticisms of Conservative Members in that regard. We have heard a great deal about the fact that Britain's interests are observed in the treaty, and I have some sympathy with Ministers who say that they set out to secure a certain amount of the UK interest in it—and achieved that, according to their own lights.
  What Nice has not done is review or change the structure. It has rearranged the present structure in order to accommodate more members, rather than creating a new structure that could have been viable for the future.
  Mr. Chris Bryant: I am not entirely sure whether the hon. Gentleman, who is speaking on behalf of the Welsh and Scottish nationalist parties, would therefore argue in favour of independence for Wales. The parallel view would obviously be held by Scottish nationalists.
  Mr. Thomas: It is important to put on the record that what the Scottish National party wants is independence in Europe. We have a core, central approach, as the hon. Gentleman would know if—as I hope—he listened to my opening remarks. Our approach is that the people of Wales and Scotland will decide their future. As the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said in regard to federalism, the word is not important, and means different things to different people; what is important is what the people are working for.

  313
  As for relationships, the Nice treaty is rearranging the deckchairs on the supertanker, if not yet the superstate. We are not changing the direction of the supertanker: we are still steaming ahead in Europe, but perhaps not taking enough cognisance of public disquiet and alienation among some European institutions and people within European countries.
  There is, I think, some good news relating to institutional reforms for smaller and emerging nation states in Europe, such as Wales and Scotland. Let us consider parliamentary reform. Latvia and Slovenia will have eight and seven members respectively in the new, reformed Parliament, whereas Wales and Scotland expect to lose members. Anyone who believes strongly in the unionist tradition, whichever side of the House they may represent, should ask how new structures that are emerging in the new Europe could strengthen the UK's voice. If Wales and Scotland had their own voice in Europe, the United Kingdom level would indeed have a stronger voice in European processes.
  A look at what is happening in the Council of Ministers and the changes relating to qualified majority voting is even more revealing. The United Kingdom is currently expected to have around 29 of the 345 votes that will exist on full accession—that is, the accession of 27 countries. I do not count Turkey, because I do not think it will be ready for some time: I certainly hope it will not. On a similar scale, Latvia and Slovenia will have four and seven votes respectively. England on its own could not fall below 27, which is what Spain has now. There is a UK block—consisting of Wales, Scotland and England—amounting to some 38 votes.
  There is a question here for anyone who does not believe that Wales and Scotland should not be fully represented in Europe. What do they want for the United Kingdom? We are, in fact, weakening the United Kingdom by not allowing the full expression of the views of Wales and Scotland in Europe. Moreover—this may be a more important question in the context of today's debate—we are weakening the ability of communities and local people to relate more directly to European institutions.
  No wonder The Economist considered that, when the agreement was eventually reached, it was as hard to understand as it had been to achieve. I do not think that we have changed the position significantly in regard to qualified majority voting. I considered the speech of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) to be misplaced, although it was scintillating intellectually. It failed to recognise current developments in Europe, and it failed to recognise that a new relationship between nation states must be built. We cannot have a veto in the case of issues that are of interest to all of us, such as the environment. We cannot hold out for ever, or we will never proceed to a stronger Europe.
  I am glad that the Committee of the Regions is more recognised in the treaty, and welcome the emphatic requirement that its members must hold elected office in local and regional government. That constitutes acceptance of the political legitimacy of the committee, and its relevance to the citizens of Europe.
  We welcome the common foreign and defence policy, particularly as it relates to the rapid reaction force. We should recognise Europe's failure to deal with what
  314
  happened in the Balkans, and our need to appeal to, America to sort out Europe's problems. I thought that the reason for our establishing a European Community in the first place was our wish to move away from all that. We really need a rapid reaction force to deal with such matters.
  Some of what we are discussing today relates to what must happen after Nice: we must look at the post-Nice scenario. It is essential for us to reform the common agricultural policy, although the treaty does not refer to such reform. The World Trade Organisation must also be involved. There is no clear role for the charter of fundamental rights, which needs to be part of a treaty. We cannot allow the 2004 intergovernmental conference to take place as the Nice process did; we must involve other nations and regions in Europe, and we must involve the people. Nation states on their own will not be enough.
  6.50 pm
  David Cairns: Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech in this important and fascinating debate. I should like to add my congratulations to the hon. Members for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), whose accomplished maiden speeches forced me rapidly to rewrite my rather poorer effort.
  Although my constituency has been served extremely well by many accomplished individuals, I have the honour to be the first Member for Greenock and Inverclyde to come from Greenock and Inverclyde. I am also the first for almost 50 years not to possess a doctorate, although whether that is an advantage only time will tell.
  My two immediate predecessors in a seat that has changed boundaries often have been Dr. Dickson Mabon and Dr. Norman Godman. Dr. Mabon is remembered for defecting from the Labour party to the Social Democratic party—an event that took place a week after he gave me a prize at school, although the two events may not be linked. I am pleased to report that he has since returned to the Labour party. The seat went back to Labour at the election following his defection, when Dr. Norman Godman was returned to Westminster.
  Dr. Godman served in the House for 18 years. His great hard work and enduring commitment to the peace process in Northern Ireland earned him a great deal of respect and admiration among hon. Members of all parties and—perhaps uniquely—from all sides in Northern Ireland.
  It is appropriate for me to thank the House itself for allowing me to take up my seat. As a former cleric, I was until recently barred for life from membership of the House. I say from the heart that I am extremely grateful that the House saw fit to amend the ancient statute and to allow people in my position to be chosen by the electorate to serve in the House.
  I should also like to say a word of thanks to those who helped to bring about that change. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) for expertly steering through the House a Bill dealing with the most obscure statutes, from the time of the reformation and before. I owe thanks also to Professor Robert Blackburn of King's college, London, who is a leading expert on our constitutional law. He was a great source of knowledge and precedent as well as personal support.

  315
  The Bill was passed with support from hon. Members of all parties, and I am grateful for the commitment of my party, locally and nationally. In particular, I am indebted to the unwavering support of the Labour party's outstanding general secretary, who will be sorely missed when she moves on to pastures new.
  Above all, however, I want to offer my deepest thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). Acting as my constituency Member of Parliament, she did more than anyone to highlight the absurdity of the previous law. With her characteristic persistence, she made sure that the case for reform was unanswerable. If I can serve my constituents half as well as she serves hers, I shall be doing all right.
  At that point, I wanted to leave the subject of the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Act 2001, but the presence of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) compels me to mention two outstanding speeches that he made at the Dispatch Box in favour of reform. They were rendered all the more outstanding by the presence beside him of his boss, the shadow Home Secretary. She opposed reform, and sat well within handbagging distance of the hon. Gentleman, who is to be commended for his display of intellectual clarity and courage.
  Greenock and Inverclyde is often described as an urban seat in a rural setting. That about sums it up. The constituency is composed of the towns of Greenock and Gourock, as well as the villages of Inverkip and Wemyss Bay. We are surrounded by some of Scotland's most glorious natural beauty. From atop the Lyle hill in Greenock, one can look down to Gourock's Cardwell bay and watch the ferries head off to Argyll. Across the Clyde, one can see the Gare loch, the Holy loch and Loch Long. Beyond the Roseneath peninsula lies Ben Lomond and the majestic Lomond range. To the west, there is the unmistakeable figure of the Sleeping Warrior of Argyll, and to the south lies the Burns country of Ayrshire.
  Throughout our history the river Clyde has been the life blood of my constituency. We are a maritime people, either seafarers or shipbuilders, and our two most famous sons are connected in that way. One of them, the great inventor and scientist James Watt, captured the power of steam; the other, the pirate Captain Kidd, captured rather a lot of Spanish gold.
  We built the finest ships ever to set sail, but—sadly—those days are long gone, thanks in part to the shortsighted and ignorant policies that failed to see that shipbuilding is a modern industry which, around the world, is growing, not shrinking. Be that as it may, it took us a long while to recover from the devastation of the closure of our shipyards. Our population went into a sort of freefall that is only now showing signs of levelling off.
  However, recover we have, and these days Inverclyde proudly boasts the title of "export capital of Scotland", thanks in the main to our thriving electronics sector. We were recently honoured with a visit by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, to mark the 50th anniversary of the arrival of IBM at Greenock. Over the years, that company has been joined by National Semiconductor, FCI and many others.
  The Greenock and Inverclyde constituency relies on exports, so Europe matters to us. We have done well out of our membership of the European Community. I therefore
  316
  welcome this Bill, which paves the way for important new markets to open up for us, and the greater prosperity that they will bring.
  Despite the best efforts of some, the issue of Europe did not figure prominently during the recent general election, which in some ways was a shame. In my constituency, it arose as an issue only once during our campaign. I was leafleting outside the Oak Mall shopping centre in Greenock when I was joined by my Conservative opponent. He was carrying a large pile of "Save the Pound" leaflets. He proceeded to brandish them above his head, calling out "Save the pound, save the pound." To my considerable consternation, he was quickly mobbed by people keen to get their hands on his leaflets. However, it transpired—to my relief—that the canny shoppers of Greenock and Inverclyde thought that they were being offered a "pound off' coupon, and were duly horrified once they realised the true nature of what they were being handed.
  A maiden speech is no place for the minutiae of the treaty of Nice, but I hope that it is not too glib a point to make that, in all the entirely necessary and detailed examination of qualified majority voting and the precise composition of the European Parliament, we can hold on to the great vision of a Europe that is both prosperous and at peace. That vision crosses party lines—or it used to—and the goal has been striven for by great parliamentarians, such as Healey and Heath, Grimmond and Ewing.
  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) that, even with all its compromises, frustrations and Euro-fudge, the Nice treaty not only keeps alive the great European vision but extends it to all those nations who wish to share in our union. As such, it represents a wonderful opportunity to extend prosperity and enhance democracy and freedom. It is a great prize, and one that I wholeheartedly endorse.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: There is for me a certain piquancy in following the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns). It was a model of its kind—witty, incisive and thought provoking—and I congratulate him warmly on it. He told us, with justifiable pride and no little eloquence, about his constituency and its beauties, about his predecessors and their strengths, and about the principles and values that will inform what I hope will be the many more distinguished contributions that he will make, long into the future.
  When I looked at the Bill that became the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Act 2001, it seemed eminently sensible. There was no good reason to deny the hon. Gentleman his legitimate entitlement to sit in this House, if he were able—as he was—to secure the support of the people of his constituency. I wish him well here, and I hope that from time to time we might break bread together.
  We have also heard two other outstanding maiden contributions in the course of the debate. I have not met the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and I doubt that we will agree about much, but she made a measured, sincere and thoughtful contribution. She is obviously a dedicated and committed person who understands the interests of her constituents. On a personal note, I especially

  317
  appreciated the generosity and appropriateness of her tribute to my former hon. Friend, Nick St. Aubyn, who was indeed an assiduous and effective representative of his constituents. I trust that she will be, and I wish her success.
  I hope that neither of the hon. Members to whom I have just referred will think the less of me or take offence if I say that above all it is a pleasure for me this evening to be able to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). He and I have known each other for 16 years. I knew that he would eventually get into this place and it is to his enduring credit that he has now done so. He delivered a brilliant maiden speech—eloquent, authoritative, passionate and sincere. Rarely is it that one hears a maiden speech delivered with the self-assurance that he brought to bear.
  I trust that my hon. Friend will forgive me one other banal but, I hope, valid observation. I have always been supremely untroubled by my 5 ft 6¼ in. It has never bothered me in the remotest instance. Nevertheless, it is no bad thing to have a little company and he is probably the only Member of this House, certainly on the Conservative Benches, who is even more vertically challenged than I am. Size is not everything—I know that he will immediately concur with that observation—and he has enormous principle, reserves of energy and outstanding dedication. He will be a brilliant representative of the people of Rayleigh and a formidable addition to these Benches.
  In my judgment, the Foreign Secretary was unwise to invoke the result of the general election on 7 June as a vindication of Europhilia in general or the contents of the Nice treaty in particular. If we are honest with each other about the significance of issues during the general election campaign, all the evidence shows—and the Prime Minister himself, in his understandable caution about the euro, has demonstrated that he recognizes—that the body of opinion in the country is broadly sceptical about European integration and hostile to British entry to the euro. It is fair for me to say, as a Conservative representative, that the British people did not disagree with the Conservative party's position on the euro or on Europe: they simply did not think that it was top of their concerns. It was not that salient.
  The Government were successful in relegating Europe down the list of political issues, not least by the offer of a referendum. Whatever we thought about the likely terms of the question in the referendum or the disproportionate advantage that the forces of europhilia would enjoy by virtue of the legislation on the funding of referendum campaigns, the public did not want to determine the election on that basis. They talked about health, education, crime and transport. However, we would be unwise to ignore the significance of Europe as an issue.
  I shall focus on one aspect of Europe that is notably absent from the treaty of Nice, and that is subsidiarity, to which several hon. Members have already animadverted today. The famous, or perhaps I should say infamous, article 3b of the Maastricht treaty defined subsidiarity. What did it say? It said:
  "In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community."
  318
  That was, of course, a model of the linguistic clarity that we have come to expect from our rulers in the European Union. It was widely and popularly supposed to signify an intention to ensure that decisions were taken at the lowest possible level. In fact, it meant nothing of the kind. It pre-supposed, as it continues to pre-suppose, the existence of a central authority that will decide in its wisdom what crumbs from the table it is prepared to flick in the direction of the autonomy of nation states. The reality is, notwithstanding the support of that principle and the inclusion of article 3b in the treaty of Maastricht, not a single directive or regulation has subsequently been repealed as a direct consequence of the inclusion of that article.
  The debate moved on to the treaty of Amsterdam. The Government boldly asserted that they could do much better. As a result of the efforts of the former Foreign Secretary and his Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), from whom we heard earlier, a protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality was included in the treaty of Amsterdam, which stated:
  "the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance; it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national and Community law, and it should take into account Article F4 of the Treaty on European Union, according to which the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies."
  If one strips away the verbiage of the protocol, what emerges with crystal clarity is that that protocol was not intended to divert attention from the continued pursuit of an ever greater arrogation of powers to the European Union. That arrogation of powers, in the case of nation states, will be from institutions that we elect and can remove to institutions that we do not elect and cannot remove.
  Since 1992, we have seen a constant, remorseless and inexorable ratchet of European integration. Between 1992 and 1997, after the passage of Maastricht, there have been 20,564 directives, regulations and decisions from the European Union that impact on this country, and since 1998, and the passage of the treaty of Amsterdam—for which many, but unjustified claims were made—a further 4,995 such directives, regulations and decisions have impacted on this country. That process cannot continue indefinitely without the most massive protest and resentment on the part of the people of the United Kingdom.
  The power of self-government, the right to hire and fire our rulers, and the capacity freely to chart our own destiny as an independent nation are the inalienable birthrights of every citizen. They should not be traded in, now or at any time, for a mess of pottage, otherwise known as a back-row seat at a show called the heart of Europe. That ratchet must be arrested and reversed, because too much power has been taken from too many people over too long a period. That is wrong in itself, it is undemocratic and it diverts attention from the proper priorities of the European Union: to reform agriculture and fisheries, to cut fraud and to re-establish the primacy in independent nation states of national self-government.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I wish to add my own warm tribute to the three hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches tonight and to take up some of the points that they made. It was wonderful to hear the warmth and affection that they all have for their constituencies and the generosity with which they described their predecessors. However, their most important contributions were their visions for the future of Europe.
  The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) referred to diversity, and the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) spoke of respect for the Irish. I am relieved that when he conducted his own referendum proposal over the bay of Galway, he did not meet with the same "No" from his wife that the Irish population gave to their Government. Finally, I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) is here and is comfortable about representing both Church and state in the House. However, I am sure that there will be times when he will ask himself who exactly was responsible for saving his soul for Parliament.
  The issue about the European democratic agenda—the vision to which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde referred—is the fundamental test of what we are seeking to sign up to. The tragedy is that although I share that vision and want to sign up to that expanded vision of a pluralist, inclusive Europe that is at peace with itself, nothing in the treaty of Nice will deliver that.
  I will not be supporting the Conservative amendment, because I have never signed up to the Conservative vision of Europe, which I believe to be underpinned by presumptions about an economic free-for-all against a backcloth of social insecurity in a Europe never at ease with itself. That is not the Europe that I want to construct, but the one that I want to construct will be fatally flawed if it is pursued according to the Nice treaty.
  I want to address three key failings about which we must be honest tonight and as we take the arguments around the country. First, the process of economic decision making is fatally compromised in the proposals enshrined in the Nice treaty. Secondly, we must consider the economic implications of political expansion. Thirdly, we must accept the real cost that we will have to pay for the democratic contraction that will follow from the treaty.
  I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was robust in his dismissal of the comments of Romano Prodi following the Irish referendum. A country has the right to hold a referendum, and the outcome must be respected. It is arrogant and outrageous to say, "We don't like the outcome. The public had their say; we had better get rid of the public and find a better one." If the Irish do not endorse the Nice treaty, it will not and cannot proceed. We will be forced to think in wider terms about the basis on which we wish to build a broader and inclusive Europe. I want us to address that; I do not want to retreat from it.
  One of the issues confronting the House is why we will not offer a referendum on the same treaty. We have already embraced the notion of referendums—we held them on the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and we are considering holding one on regional assemblies. There is even a referendum in my constituency about whether people want a parish council. Citizens'
  320
  organisations that gather outside every meeting of the European elite do so to challenge it fundamentally because it presumes to have the right to make decisions from which citizens are excluded. We cut ourselves off at our peril from our lines of democratic accountability to the public who put us here. I would not support the Bill in its final stages unless a condition were included that its final form is subject to the test of a referendum requiring the approval of the British public.
  On 25 June, Agence France Presse produced a wonderful report on the concluding negotiations inside the unified Germany about the fiscal transfers between east and west. It was well reported in the Financial Times and The Daily Telegraph but not reported much elsewhere. It is important for this debate because the issues that almost tore apart the German debate about the cost of unification are a microcosm of those that we will have to address if we are serious about an extended and inclusive Europe.
  Following German unification, the West Germans acknowledged that the wealth gap between east and west was unbridgeable. It was no partnership of equals—it was a unification of the soul. That unification had a price that the Germans, to their enduring credit, were willing to pay. We ought to be honest about that price. It was a self-imposed tax surcharge of 7.5 per cent.—7.5p in the pound went on personal and corporate income tax. In 1997, it was revised to 5.5 per cent.
  The report at the end of June was significant because the richest states in Germany—Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg and Hesse—challenged that tax because they had grown tired of the costs of carrying the poor. They felt that it was unfair for the burden of that solidarity tax to fall on the rich, and wanted it renegotiated. The German constitutional court made a decision that shifted the burden away from those states in favour of a greater contribution by the German Government as a whole.
  Let us be clear about the figures; they are very simple. Over the next 19 years, Germany has agreed to transfer a further £100 billion from west to east to pay for the solidarity and inclusion that is so precious to it. The total bill will come to £250 billion—the price of unification between rich and poor.
  That is important because the gross domestic product per capita of the former East Germany is almost exactly the same as that of people in the Czech Republic, which is in the first wave of would-be entrants into the expanded Europe. The Czech Republic is twice—in some cases three times—as wealthy as many of the other applicant countries that we wish to join the EU. Yet they are all seeking entry without the rest of us signing up to a single penny of fiscal transfer that remotely equates to the scale of support and transfers made from West to East Germany as the price of sustainable unification.
  We kid ourselves if we believe that a sustainable, stable, broader European economy and society can be underpinned without one of two things happening. There must be huge fiscal transfers from the rich to the poor to make life viable in the poorer parts. If not, we will go back 200 years to a Europe driven by a view of monetarism based on the gold standard in which people moved in pursuit of cash. Are we prepared for the 105 million people in the entrant states who want to have the right to the same sort of economic prosperity that we wish to share? No, we are not even talking about that.

  321
  My final point is about democratic loss. There was a huge debate in the European Union following the Uruguay round of negotiations with the World Trade Organisation. European Commissioners were hacked off because they thought that they had the right to negotiate on our behalf and that individual nation states had no right to a say. The European Court of Justice ruled that those nations had the right to negotiate over trade in goods but that trade in commercial services, including health and education, is subject to universal agreement among the member states.
  The transfer from unanimity obligations to majority voting will remove that right first from member states and then from the Council of Ministers and give it to the European Commissioners. They are the architects of a new European autocracy. They are the agents of corporate control, which will take Europe into a corporate feudalism, in which we will all act—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Mark Hoban: I congratulate the hon. Members who have made their maiden speech in this debate. I refer in particular to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns)—as a veteran of many sermons, I commend him to go back to his former colleagues and tell them about the merits of the 10-minute rule from which we have benefited tonight.
  Before I address the Bill before us, let me pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Peter Lloyd. He served Fareham as its Member of Parliament for more than 22 years. He is widely respected in the constituency for his decency and his unceasing diligence on behalf of his constituents. At a time when politicians are only too eager to criticise this Department or that agency in the media to raise their own profiles, Sir Peter preferred his work for his constituents to speak for itself rather than use it to promote himself.
  In the House, in spite of serving as a Whip, Peter demonstrated independence of spirit. In the previous Parliament, following his interest in home affairs—which developed when he was a Minister of State at the Home Office—he was very involved in the rehabilitation of young offenders and, just before Dissolution, completed a report on the work of prison visitors—subjects of great importance in the justice system that perhaps rub against the grain of current concerns.
  Peter told me that, when he was a new Member in 1979, he was admonished for being far too much of a Eurosceptic—a caution that those of us newly elected to sit on the Conservative Benches are unlikely to receive as we progress in our careers.
  Peter and his wife, Hilary, have given my wife and me tremendous support. They have offered wise counsel based on great experience, and their advice has been readily accepted by us both. I echo the words of so many people in the House and in the constituency when I say that he is a hard act to follow.
  I remind the House of another Member of Parliament for Fareham, Arthur Lee—Lord Lee of Fareham—who gave Chequers to the nation. Sadly, he did not leave his
  322
  successors in Fareham a country house to retire to at the weekends. Indeed, the only house in the constituency that bears his name is a public house.
  I cannot let this opportunity pass without saying a little about my constituency. Fareham sits between Portsmouth and Southampton on the south Hampshire coast. Part of its eastern boundary is Portsmouth harbour and to the west are the Solent and the Hamble. In his guide to the buildings of England, Pevsner highlights the impact that its location has had on Fareham. He said:
  "Senior naval officers found it favourable for retirement in Georgian times."
  That tradition remains strong today.
  Pevsner also said:
  "Fareham possesses a High Street which is largely unspoiled and one of the best country town streets in the South of England."
  High street is not the constituency's only architectural gem. There is a fine castle in Portchester that dates back to Roman times, when it was built to protect the coast from invasion by the Saxons. Palmerston, another MP who represented a seat in south Hampshire, built fortifications on Portsdown hill above Fareham to protect us from the French. From Portsdown hill today, one can see the great naval base of Portsmouth that continues to protect our nation.
  The constituency is formed of strong, local communities each with its own very clear identity. I have mentioned one already, Portchester, but there are others too, including Titchfield, Warsash and Fareham itself.
  The constituency has grown rapidly in recent years. The west of the constituency, where I have the pleasure of living, once consisted of strawberry fields and nurseries but it is now home to about a third of my constituents. Rapid development here and on the other side of the motorway in Whiteley, part of which is also in my constituency, has caused great strains on the local infrastructure. Roads are congested and children cannot attend the nearest school. The Government's policy of imposing housing quotas on this area is making the situation worse, as is their demand that the density of new housing developments should be increased. More housing means more car journeys, more children for already overcrowded schools and fewer green fields. This madness cannot be allowed to continue.
  Fareham has a diverse business base. Although many of the strawberry fields and nurseries have been built on, there is still a thriving horticulture industry. It is a great pleasure when in the constituency to buy strawberries picked in the fields around Titchfield. However, Fareham also acts as host to high-tech businesses, particularly in the information technology and defence sectors.
  Although it is outside my constituency, many of my constituents work for Vosper Thornycroft, which has an excellent reputation for building warships. It is currently bidding to build a type 45 destroyer alongside BAE Systems Marine so that the work is shared between the two companies. However, BAE Systems Marine has also submitted a unsolicited bid to build the entire programme and, if successful, that would create a monopoly. I therefore ask the Government to think very carefully about accepting that bid, because I cannot believe that it is right for there to be a monopoly supplier of destroyers to the Royal Navy. No competition would mean poor value for money for taxpayers.

  323
  Local businesses also benefit from good internet connection links because Fareham hosts the Merlin teleport, which through a satellite links it and the rest of Britain with the world in fractions of a second.
  With such an array of businesses, it is not surprising that Fareham enjoys a low rate of unemployment, making recruitment an issue for both business and the vital public services that we need to serve such a growing constituency.
  I am very honoured to have been elected to represent Fareham and I hope that it continues its long tradition of returning Conservative Members of Parliament for a long time to come.
  During the election campaign, many of my constituents expressed concern about the development of the European Union. They see it taking more and more powers away from national Governments, moving away from being simply a common market for goods and services. They sense that is becoming distant and remote and beyond their control. However, their concern does not mean that they are insular or little Englanders. For many, their service in the Navy means that their horizons are not limited to Europe, let alone to the United Kingdom's shores. They have a global and international perspective on life.
  My constituents do not see Britain's role as simply being part of an increasingly introspective and insular European Union, but they see Britain as part of a network of nations, using our historical links and current trading patterns as a guide to how we should develop our relations with other nation states in the future. I share their perspective and their concerns.
  There is little in the treaty of Nice to allay my constituents' fears. The treaty is said to be about enlargement and, indeed, it claims to make certain provisions about that, but it fails to tackle key issues such as reform of the common agricultural policy. However, the treaty is principally about deepening the European Union. It extends qualified majority voting to many more articles of the treaty and it facilitates easier co-operation between member states in certain areas of policy. The deepening of the European Union rather than enlargement causes my constituents most concern. They support the enlargement of the EU, which is long overdue, but they object to the deepening of the EU.
  The concern about deepening is not restricted to the people of this country. The referendum in Ireland demonstrated that; the treaty was rejected because the development of the EU has gone too far. Let us not forget either the Danish referendum. In spite of a concerted campaign by the business and political establishment, the Danish people stood up and said no to a single currency.
  If the European Union is to enjoy the support of the people of its members states, it must develop in line with their aspirations. The Commission and member states cannot simply dismiss the result of the Irish referendum and ask the Irish people to vote time and time again until they get the right answer. That approach will cause dissent and alienation and undermine the EU. The demonstrations that we saw at Gothenburg could become the norm if the EU continues to develop at a faster pace than is acceptable to its people. Let us develop the EU in line with the aspirations of its people, who elect us, rather than in line with the aspirations of the political elite who seem to rule in Brussels.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby): I congratulate the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on his maiden speech, and Fareham on its new representative, because he made a powerful invocation of the constituency's needs and problems. A debate that I expected to be a Cook's tour of Europe has turned out, in five maiden speeches, to be a very charming Cook's tour of several interesting constituencies in this country. I congratulate all who made those excellent speeches. It has been a pleasure to sit here and listen to them.
  As I sat here, I mused about whether it would be possible for me to share the naive but utterly enduring enthusiasm for Europe that characterises my party. I wondered whether my inability to do so might be the barrier between me and the long overdue promotion that I have been waiting for. As I sat by the telephone in the days after the election, waiting for the call from Downing street, I thought that when the Prime Minister offered me the post that I most coveted—Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the ministry of fisheries—I would in gratitude issue a statement saying, "Tony, perhaps the Nice treaty isn't so bad after all." I felt that it would be a bold move to put myself in line with the mood of the party. I have to tell the House that the call did not come, and this is a lousy treaty. It is time to tell the truth and to abandon the hopes of promotion which have kept me going until now. I am even wearing a Euro-tie because I thought that I had better wear something cheap and trashy to celebrate my conversion.
  It is infuriating that a messy treaty is being rushed through the House at such speed. We do not even have a copy of the treaty on European Union as it will read when fully amended, although I asked for one at the end of the previous Session and the then Foreign Secretary refused. We cannot tell what shape that treaty will take once the amendments arising from the Nice treaty have been made. I have been trying to find out. I have here my copy of the treaty of Amsterdam, which consolidates the amended treaties to date.
  Article 1 of the Nice treaty replaces article 7 of the treaty on European Union. I looked it up in the Amsterdam treaty and found that article 6 on simplification says:
  "Article 7 shall be repealed."
  I then turned to the tables of equivalences referred to in article 12 of the Amsterdam treaty, which is the treaty that we are really debating. We are discussing a one-clause Bill and a 16-clause treaty, but that involves many other matters.
  The table of equivalences told me that article 7 is article F.1, not F.0. I turned to article F.1 and found that it is a provision for penalising EU states that have been naughty, such as Austria. The new paragraph suspends the states' voting rights on the Council, but it does not tell us which Council. Is it the European Council or the Council of Ministers? I ended up as puzzled as I began.
  We are going to have to debate the Bill quickly, finalising its passage next week, without having a full copy of the amended treaty or being able to understand it. Each article of the Nice treaty is a huge container packed with clauses that make amendments. Article 1 amends 23 articles in earlier treaties. It cannot be possible even to understand it. This is a messy way of implementing a messy treaty arrived at by messy procedures.

  325
  European Council meetings are rather like the "Big Brother" house in reverse. Everyone is crammed together in the big Europe house and kept up, well fed, all night. There is a bidding frenzy because they have all come along with demands and offers, and they are pressured by the Commission into botching something together. As the Prime Minister said, it is a stupid way to make decisions. It is infuriating for him because he has a managerial mind and this is chaos.
  The small states rebel against the pressure—I note that they were led in this case by Belgium and Portugal—and say, "We are not having this. We demand more." They are told to think again. People are voted out of the "Big Brother" house. By contrast, they are forced to stay in the big Europe house and accept whatever emerges from the shambles. At the end, whatever has been agreed is written up, and then rewritten over several weeks, to tell the countries what they should have agreed if they had been compos mentis at the time, instead of exhausted and half-asleep. It is folly. We cannot, in that fashion, build a workable democratic structure or a pristine constitution that people will accept. We could not even build a garden shed in that fashion, let alone a European superstructure.
  Those methods are also inherently undemocratic. People do not understand them. The small states are steamrollered and bullied by the bigger states. It is a pointless and messy procedure. Each time pressure is applied, less is gained. Amsterdam is pathetic compared with previous treaties, and the Nice treaty is pathetic compared with Amsterdam. The next agreement will be made in 2004.
  The whole process, including the Nice treaty, is based on a lie. Europe is a culture of half-truths that have corrupted our politics. Damage has to be portrayed as gain; failure has to be portrayed as success, and at every Council meeting everyone is a winner. They all go back to their countries saying, "Game, set and match to us." It cannot all be true.
  The biggest half-truth is this treaty. We have been told several times tonight, as we are continually being told by the Commission and everyone else concerned, that this process is about enlargement, but it is not. It is about strengthening the central institutions and weakening the nation states and the power and control of Parliament. We have rushed through the process in the hope of facilitating enlargement, and we have surrendered vetoes that we should never have given up. They are negotiating counters that we should not abandon. They would enable us to stop this rush towards enhanced co-operation, in which the richer states will get together to dominate and shape Europe according to their wishes. That is unsatisfactory to every participant; it is incomprehensible to the public; and it has nothing to do with enlargement.
  Enlargement comprises two key issues. The first is the common agricultural policy, which is unreformed. We cannot apply it to Poland, for example, because Poland has more farmers than the rest of Europe combined. How can Poland be included in the CAP without the scheme going bankrupt? Yet how can it be deprived of the CAP's benefits and still be a full member?
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said, nothing has been decided about financing. His point about Germany was very telling.
  326
  To unite Germany, so that kith and kin could come together, will cost £250 billion by 2004. That is the cost of including in the EU the 15 million people in east Germany. The new entrants have seven times that number of people—105 million. Who will pay for the help and support that those countries will need to sustain their fledging democracies?
  Germany is already restive about paying for Europe. We too pay over the odds. Our net contribution is £4 billion, which is the second highest after Germany's. No one else will increase their contribution. Nothing has been decided. Instead, we are fiddling with structures and with the powers of the Commission and the Council of Ministers. That, we are told, is all that will be done to prepare for enlargement.
  We are now being asked to bully Ireland, but Denmark was not bullied. We held up proceedings on the Bill on Maastricht for some time while a deal was worked out with the Danes. The Irish, however, have to lump it and vote again. The process is a shambles and the outcome is a treaty that I cannot support. This mess has nothing to do with enlargement, which I support. We are living in a Europe that no one particularly wants, according to processes that no one understands and by methods that have been rejected as totally unacceptable by the people in the only country which has consulted its people.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. Alan Reid: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), the hon. Members for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), and my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), on their excellent speeches. I will do my best to live up to the high standards that they have set.
  I should also like to thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde for pointing out the magnificent scenery in my constituency of Argyll and Bute. I shall return the compliment by pointing out that a magnificent view in my constituency is the one from Innellan across the firth of Clyde to the beautiful hills in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, behind Inverkip.
  I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, Ray Michie, who represented Argyll and Bute in Parliament for 14 years and was held in tremendous regard by her constituents. That was evident when I went from doorstep to doorstep during the election; the high regard in which she was held came across loud and clear. Time and again, I was told that if I was successful in being elected to Parliament, I would have a hard act to follow. I met person after person whose case Ray had taken up successfully. To her credit, she has a long list of successful campaigns—for a new hospital, road improvements and new bridges. She was also a robust defender of the Gaelic culture in Argyll—a campaign that I, too, shall champion.
  Argyll and Bute is a huge constituency, full of magnificent scenery. I have no doubt that it is the most beautiful in the United Kingdom. It stretches from the Mull of Kintyre in the south to the shores of Loch Linnhe in the north, a distance of almost 100 miles. It extends from the firth of Clyde in the east to the Atlantic coast in the west, and includes the island of Bute in the firth of Clyde, as well as many islands of the inner Hebrides; and there is a total of 26 inhabited islands.

  327
  Many hon. Members have told me that they have spent enjoyable holidays in Argyll and Bute, and I would recommend it to anyone who has not been; the scenery is unrivalled. Whether Members want an activity holiday—climbing, sailing or walking—or to relax on one of the many unspoilt golden beaches, it is an unbeatable holiday destination. A variety of holidays can be enjoyed there—for example, at the traditional seaside resorts of Dunoon and Rothesay on the Clyde coast. From those resorts, people can take a cruise through the magnificent waterway of the Kyles of Bute. Part of the Cowal peninsula in Argyll will soon become part of Scotland's first national park, to which Dunoon will be the gateway. Inveraray, with its beautiful picture postcard white buildings, is an early example of town planning. Many tourists have their photo taken outside the historic jail, although that was one photo opportunity that I was advised to avoid at the start of the campaign.
  The long drive to Campbeltown and the Mull of Kintyre is well worth it for the magnificent scenery on the way. In the north of the constituency is the magnificent seaport of Oban, with its splendid harbour; it is a base for touring the islands, which are well worth a visit. There is no time to list them all tonight, but they include Islay and Jura, which are world famous for their many whisky distilleries. However, the local economy is in difficulties; the Chancellor could help, and make himself popular, by reducing the duty on whisky and ending the unfair tax regime that discriminates against spirits in favour of imported wines.
  The islands of Tiree and Coll are famous for their miles of golden sandy beaches. Indeed, Tiree gets more sunshine than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and is the perfect place for relaxing on a sunny, golden, unspoilt and empty beach. Iona has an historic abbey and is the burial place of many kings of Scotland.
  Despite all its beauty, Argyll and Bute, like all rural communities, has suffered economic hardship in recent years. Because of the vast size of my constituency and the sparsity of its population, many rural economic problems that affect other areas are magnified. Thankfully, there have been no cases of foot and mouth in my constituency; nevertheless, the knock-on effects have been damaging for both the tourism and farming industries. We need Government policies that will help the traditional rural industries of farming, fishing and forestry, promote tourism and encourage new investment.
  The highlands were largely depopulated by the clearances in earlier centuries. If the free market is allowed to operate without Government intervention, there will be further depopulation; I do not believe that there is a single hon. Member who thinks it is beneficial to have such depopulation and more population movement to the south-east of England. Unemployment in the remote Kintyre peninsula and on many of the islands is a cause for concern. Europe has been a tremendous help, both for the markets that it has provided and the great financial assistance brought about by objective 1 status. Europe appreciates the difficulties of running a business and delivering services in remote islands. Indeed, it has done so to a much greater extent than many British Governments. Not joining the euro at the outset has been a financial disaster for many businesses in Argyll and Bute.
  Our farmers, fishermen and tourism industry must sell to other Europeans and they are finding it difficult to compete at the present exchange rate. Prawn fishermen
  328
  sell much of their product abroad, to countries like Spain and Italy, but are finding it hard to compete against fishermen in those countries because of the high rate of the pound against the euro. European tourists continually complain about our high prices. Joining the euro at a favourable exchange rate is essential if businesses in the highlands and islands of Scotland are to avoid financial disaster. I therefore urge the Government to hold a referendum at the earliest possible opportunity.
  As I have said, Europe has invested much in the highlands and islands. We have recently succeeded in attracting a Danish wind turbine factory to Kintyre. That is an exciting new technology and an industry of the future, but sadly, I must relate that all the other agencies involved in the project are unanimous in their view that the Ministry of Defence, on whose former Machrihanish base the factory will be built, has been most unhelpful. I urge the Ministry to realise that it has social responsibilities when it closes bases in remote rural areas; extracting every last drop of public money from other Government agencies that are trying to bring jobs to a remote peninsula is not an achievement of which to be proud.
  St. Columba sailed from Ireland to Iona 1,400 years ago and brought Christianity to Argyll. In those days, people and goods regularly travelled back and forth between Argyll and Ulster. Today, sadly, there is no direct link. To travel the eight miles from the Mull of Kintyre to County Antrim involves no fewer than three ferry journeys and miles of driving. A ferry link is essential; it would mean that Kintyre would become part of a European highway, and would not be a cul-de-sac. Efforts to reinstate the ferry link from Campbeltown to Ballycastle must therefore succeed. There is a dire situation in Argyll and Bute; Government assistance is needed and joining the euro is essential.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on an excellent maiden speech. Indeed, it is one of a quintet of excellent maiden speeches that we have heard this evening. I was especially pleased that history and geography were strongly to the fore in all areas of those speeches. When the five speakers finally leave the House, they will all have excellent third-age careers as authors of guidebooks and gazetteers.
  I make no apology for focusing on EU enlargement and the implications of the Nice treaty. Despite what has been said tonight, enlargement is enshrined in the protocol of the treaty. With Milosevic in court at The Hague today, we should be starkly reminded of the need to embed the present fragile stability in eastern and central Europe in the EU. Enlargement is a key part of that process, but it will work properly only with the structural reforms proposed at Nice.
  In his article today in The Daily Telegraph, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to a 30-year link with Jan Kavan, whom he met in 1969 when they were both students. I do not have the same length of pedigree, but my interest and involvement in eastern Europe likewise goes back to human rights battles of student days. In the late 1970s, when I was a postgraduate at London university, I got involved in the east European solidarity campaign and met Jan Kavan. Subsequently, I saw the impact of the testimony of many of the

  329
  dissidents at the hearings into Carter's human rights policies in Washington. As co-chairman of the future of Europe trust in this place, over the past three and a half years I have been able to meet many politicians from central and eastern Europe, and to hear about their concerns and their vital need for the enlargement process.
  Historically, the United Kingdom has had a strong commitment to enlargement and to the countries of central and eastern Europe. That commitment has been shared by both major parties in the House. I am happy to pay tribute to the support that Mr. Major and his Foreign Office team gave in the early days to that process. It is sad, therefore, that the Conservatives now seem to want to jeopardise the process by unpicking Nice, as the Opposition amendment proposes.
  The treaty of Nice is not perfect. Some have said that it is a minimalist settlement, some have said that it goes too far, and the European Parliament has expressed doubt. That probably means that the treaty is just about right. The process is one of give and take, and it is important that we understand that. However, it is also crucial to establish new institutional and decision-making arrangements to prepare the European Union for 27 members. That has to be done.
  The Opposition have tried to twist the issue by claiming that, technically, accession does not require a treaty. That is at best disingenuous and naive, and at worst, if persisted with, would endanger the process and momentum. With 26 or 27 EU members, we simply cannot make up structures as we go along. I agreed wholeheartedly with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, when he said recently that the process is fundamental. Importantly also, the applicant countries believe that to be true.
  The interests of applicant countries in joining an enlarged EU cannot be wholly divorced from their interests in an enlarged NATO. The amended article 25 of the treaty of Nice provides for an enhanced role for the EU Political and Security Committee. That is right and just. The status of the European security and defence force in relation to NATO is also dealt with in annexe 6 to the presidency conclusions from the Council. The Political and Security Committee will liaise with NATO and is not a threat to it. What was agreed at Nice will preserve the character of NATO and the front-line position of both applicant countries and existing members.
  That balance is important because there is a need to respect Russian sensitivities, especially in the Baltic concerning Kaliningrad. At the same time, Romania and other states that wish to join the EU must not be blocked, particularly if they are not likely to be in the first wave of accession.
  There are key questions to be answered about expansion, and they are hard ones. They must not just be ignored in a process of good will and positive rhetoric. Last week, in the Financial Times, Charles Grant, the director of the Centre for European Reform, rightly drew attention to such key questions when he said that the EU should insist that applicants meet the highest standards of human rights and civil society, and that enlargement will leave those outside the Union at a disadvantage. New members, he said, will have to impose visa requirements
  330
  on their eastern neighbours and the EU cannot ignore developments in regions which become unstable or suffer economic crises that will directly affect the Union through migration, for example. Human rights and the building up of civil societies are key elements of the chapters to be completed, but so are those other knotty issues.
  I want to give two examples of the issues that we need to address. There was considerable tension between Hungary and Romania during the 20th century over the issue of Transylvania. That is beginning to be resolved through much better relations between those countries, and must not be jeopardised by a disregard for transitional arrangements for migration and visas. The issue of migration is also likely to arise between Poland and Ukraine, as Poland is to enter the EU early and Ukraine's entry is a very long way off.
  The Nice treaty is not set in stone; nor should we see it as such. However, it is crucial to embed the applicant states in the process. That is why the Opposition's amendment risks missing the boat. In his speech in Warsaw in October, the Prime Minister rightly recognised the other side of the coin. If we do not embed applicant countries in the EU, we shall face all the issues and concerns over migration and asylum that have so preoccupied debate in this country over the past 12 months.
  Our commitment, NATO's achievements in Kosovo and our difficult engagement in Macedonia are possible only because they have been underpinned by logistical, diplomatic and other support and consensus among applicant countries such as Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and the Czech Republic, many of which took considerable domestic risks in moving away from long-standing doubts, ethnic hostilities and shibboleths. We should recognise that, not jeopardise their position in allowing right-wing nationalists to hold up the enlargement process.
  That is why I welcome the recent initiative by the Swedish presidency to bring second-tier candidates into the first wave, with a sense of give and take over the free movement of labour. There is give and take; this is a modern, flexible and reformed EU. That makes a nonsense of the Opposition's scaremongering over insensitive integration. Their dog-in-the-manger approach shames their party, which has acquitted itself so honourably in previous times.
  Enlargement is of course not just about altruism. An enlarged EU will bring significant financial benefits to this country—and the statistics are there for people to see. We need to engage our people and explain those benefits to them. That is why there is a warning in the Irish referendum result. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that we cannot just ignore it and plough on like arrogant bureaucrats. We need a process of persuasion and dialogue to bring people round. That is why it is necessary to pay some attention to the social and cultural contribution to our common European inheritance that the applicant countries have made.
  Enlargement will banish for ever the views of Bismarck, who said that the Balkans were not worth the bones of a Pomeranian grenadier, and the infamous remarks of Chamberlain in Munich about the far-away country of whose people we know nothing. Today, in a globalised, interdependent world, that is not true. There are city breaks to Tallinn, Krakow and Budapest. We

  331
  recognise the immense cultural contributions of such countries. One thinks of the contributions during the last century of composers such as Dvorak, Janacek, Bartok and Gorecki. One thinks of writers such as Kafka and Horvath. One thinks of Mitteleuropa and the Hapsburg multiethnic and multinational union, which was viable. One thinks even of Mr. Rubik, with his cube—an apt image for the delivery and finesse with which we shall have to operate in enlarged EU institutions.
  The momentum of enlargement will be maintained only by telling our peoples about common heritage, interest and hope. Nice and its ratification is a vital refuelling point in that momentum. That is why this House should give it and the enlargement process that it guarantees its fullest support.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Mark Simmonds: I congratulate my fellow maiden speakers the hon. Members for Guildford (Sue Doughty), for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) and for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), and my hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), who in their own way all gave very informative, lucid and erudite speeches.
  It is a great honour and a privilege to deliver my maiden speech as the new Member for Boston and Skegness. I am in fact only the third Member of Parliament to represent the Boston end of the constituency in 64 years. My immediate predecessor was Sir Richard Body. He made Whips nervous, but represented the people and the surrounding areas of Boston for 35 years and, prior to that, the people of Billericay. Amazingly, he made his maiden speech on 6 May 1956.
  Sir Richard was a great parliamentarian—a man of great vision, tenacity and expertise, particularly on the issues of Europe and agriculture. The great thing about him was that he was never afraid to voice his views, however unfashionable, awkward or unpopular they were at the time. He has invariably been proved right. Let us hope that in this Parliament we have more hon. Members willing to speak their minds than in the last. Sir Richard is held in great affection in the constituency. He always stood up for working men and women. It will be an enormous challenge to follow a man of such integrity and conviction.
  Since the boundary changes of 1995, Boston is now linked in a new constituency with Skegness, which my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) looked after so ably for so many years. The change creates two very distinct and diverse parts of the constituency, which is approximately 15 miles wide by 30 miles long. One boundary hugs the Wash and contains some of the best agricultural land in the United Kingdom, although let there be no doubt that even with top quality arable land, those involved and employed in agriculture are suffering severe hardship as incomes evaporate and prices are squeezed. It should be understood that this appalling agricultural depression extends to those involved in tangential and associated businesses which are nevertheless fundamental to the local economy.
  There are pockets of severe rural poverty and deprivation, the likes of which I have never seen before. I will, with all the necessary and appropriate local and
  332
  national bodies, endeavour to assist those who have been left behind by economic growth. I shall be an assiduous advocate on behalf of farmers, packhouse owners and their employees, to create a level playing field allowing them to compete on equal terms with both their European and global competitors. There is great nervousness about the enlargement of the European Union and potential cheap imports of agricultural produce, with associated concerns about quality control and standards.
  However, the constituency is not only agricultural. There is a thriving and hard-working fishing fleet, a successful port and many manufacturing businesses. There is also a plethora of small, dynamic entrepreneurial businesses exemplified by the razzmatazz of Skegness. Many of those small businesses are in tourism and the holiday trade and employ no more than one or two people. We must ensure that the resilience of the business men and entrepreneurs is not undermined by excessive regulation from home and abroad. There are also some very large, high profile and successful tourist businesses in Skegness, such as Fantasy Island and Butlins, which are well-known and cater all year round for a vibrant and lively tourist trade.
  Underlying this energetic and vigorous business atmosphere is a real sense of community. Nothing assists people more as they go through life's vicissitudes than a sense of community. The best example of this is the Skegness lifeboat, whose brave crew, when called to do so, risk their lives to save others.
  During my campaign in Skegness, I encountered a little old lady in a little old bungalow who, when asked how she would vote, informed me that she had always voted Labour, but oh no, not this time. She was going to vote for that good-looking young man and vote Conservative. I straightened my tie, puffed out my chest slightly and with great pleasure informed her that I was that good-looking young man. She replied without hesitation, "No, no, not you, I mean William Hague". So, if my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) is ever looking for female company, I know a little old lady in a little old bungalow.
  There are 70 to 75 villages and hamlets in my constituency. Some of the larger ones, such as Burgh Le Marsh, Friskney and Wrangle, may be familiar to those who know Lincolnshire, but one of them has a particular history—Wainfleet. William of Wainfleet was not only Bishop of Winchester, but Lord Chancellor to Henry IV. He also founded Magdalen college, Oxford. In the spirit of European co-operation, Wainfleet provided in 1359 two warships for the invasion of Brittany. Today Wainfleet contains one of the few highly successful family-run breweries that are remain. It is called Batemans and real ale aficionados will be familiar with the name. It is a local business that I am delighted to support.
  In the constituency we have many dedicated and long-suffering education professionals who support an extremely successful grammar school system and also work energetically to drive up standards in primary and secondary modern schools. I will provide any support and encouragement to improve educational provision in Boston and Skegness, and there is much room for improvement.
  My constituency has historically benefited greatly from European assistance. Indeed, much of it would still be under the sea if it was not for the land reclamation

  333
  expertise exported from Holland. However, some of the contents of the treaty are not in the interests of my constituents or the country. I shall, of course, endeavour to follow the traditions of the maiden speech and not traverse the avenue of controversy. There are, however, several key issues that I must highlight.
  There is an ever-increasing democratic deficit. All of us in the House are democrats, of whatever political persuasion. However, the deficiency is exacerbated by the treaty and is increasingly prevalent in the European Union. Not only has Ireland recently voted no in its referendum, but it seems that the democratic desire of the Irish people will at best be circumvented and at worst ignored. Such an attitude seems to contradict entirely the charter of fundamental human rights, which was also discussed at Nice. It appears that the EU wishes to give powers with one hand, and with the other to ride roughshod over people when they exercise those powers in an allegedly disagreeable manner.
  I do not see what the charter can do for the United Kingdom, as we have a constitution that has evolved through history and served us well for the last thousand years. The charter must not be annexed to future treaties or made legally enforceable. The treaty is supposed to be fundamentally about enlargement, but instead it is integrationist, making it more complicated and difficult for countries to accede. I do not see anywhere in the treaty the necessary reforms to enable that to happen efficiently and effectively.
  There seems to be a general acceptance in the House that the CAP requires fundamental and far-reaching reform, but I find no mention of it. Are we going to subsidise east European agriculture in the same way we have our own over the past 30 or 40 years? Instead, the treaty contains 31 new areas that will be subject to qualified majority voting. What do pension rights for judges have to do with enlargement? The extension of QMV allows no opportunity to stop any policy in those areas, irrespective of whether it is in the national interest.
  There is a direct causal link between the ratification of treaties such as Nice and the poor voter turnout. It is not until we address this fundamental issue that the electorate will believe that they have an impact through the democratic process. I am not advocating withdrawal, but arguing forcefully that if Europe is to survive and succeed in the forthcoming years, it must become more democratically accountable—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time allocation.
  8.8 pm
  Andy Burnham (Leigh): I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) on a self-assured maiden speech full of passion and conviction, and all the maiden speakers so far on the high standard that they have set.
  Today's debate is about the new Europe, but I hope that a view from one of its oldest industrial heartlands will bring a useful perspective to our proceedings. I grew up in the Leigh area and it is with great pride that I take
  334
  my seat as its fifth Labour Member of Parliament. I aim to give the House an authentic voice from my home area in the years to come.
  For someone making his maiden speech, I am in the unusual position of already having made history in the House. On 26 October 1996, The Times reported:
  "The mobile phone has finally breached the last bastion of low-tech tranquillity: the House of Commons."
  I have always kept quiet about that, but today I own up as the naive researcher who made that historic call. I am relieved to say that it has not harmed the career of the right hon. Member on the receiving end, and I can only hope that my future contributions to the House will be less irritating than that one.
  Many people of my generation in the north-west feel proud of their regional roots, but also feel part of Europe. They want Britain to play a positive part in creating a strong and united Europe and to enjoy the benefits that that would bring. The Bill will help that process. But I make a strong and heartfelt plea today that, in the drive to assist the emerging economies of Europe, we do not overlook the real need in the communities that were the cradle of the industrial revolution in Europe.
  The spinning jenny was invented in Leigh by a poor weaver called Thomas Highs, but we were denied our place in the history books by an entrepreneur from Blackburn who quickly patented it. I shall fight for what Leigh deserves—although on reflection it would perhaps not be a good idea to annoy the Foreign Secretary in my maiden speech.
  Our area is renowned for its strong tradition in engineering and coal mining. The towns that make up my constituency—Leigh, Atherton, Hindley, Hindley Green, Lowton, Golborne and Bickershaw—grew up around the coal and textile industries, the decline of which has caused real need in those communities.
  For 22 years, those communities have been loyally represented by my predecessor, Lawrence Cunliffe. Lawrence worked in the local mining industry and knew the area and its people well. He entered the House in 1979 and, while national developments made the following years bleak for Leigh, Lawrence always fought our case, and I know that I speak for many people in thanking him for his work on our behalf.
  Only days into the job, I have been made painfully aware of the challenges that we face to stay competitive in the new Europe. Ingersoll-Rand has announced that it is considering relocating its manufacturing operation for portable compressors from Hindley Green to the Czech Republic, resulting in the loss of 250 jobs.
  I am worried that an air of inevitability is growing around the loss of manufacturing jobs from Britain, with the use of vague terms such as market forces and globalisation. That is dangerous. As a country we need to work hard to keep jobs that are desperately needed.
  Today, with other Labour Members, I met union representatives from Hindley Green. The work force is doing all it can to give the company positive reasons to stay, and I urge the Government to bring all relevant parties together to see if more can be done to keep those jobs in my constituency.
  People in the Leigh area can be forgiven for having little confidence in this place. Until recently, it has delivered only bad news. Dr. Beeching put Leigh on the

  335
  map—sadly, for making it the largest town in England without a railway station. Next came the closure of the mills and mines in the 1980s and 1990s, tearing the heart out of the communities based around them, and Leigh infirmary's accident and emergency unit was closed in the 1990s. The challenge I face is to restore people's faith in politics and show that Parliament does listen and deliver good news as well as bad.
  The Leigh area now has its best opportunity for many years to make real progress. On 7 June, the country re-elected a Government committed to investing in the country's infrastructure and revitalising its former coalfields. After years of closures, new facilities are opening in the Leigh area—an NHS walk-in centre and a sure start scheme at Hindley. Millions have been invested in the fabric of our local schools, including £2 million at Lowton high school.
  The Leigh constituency has perhaps benefited more than most from the working families tax credit and the national minimum wage. Parts of my constituency have objective 2 status and I want to ensure that funds begin to flow to help our local economy to compete in a new age. We are not stuck in the past, but understand the need to look to the emerging sectors of the service economy to bring jobs and prosperity.
  One of the proposals driven forward by Wigan borough council is the Xanadu project, a major leisure and retail development close to the site of a former colliery. At no cost to the public purse, it will create thousands of new jobs and bring a new railway station to the Leigh area. The proposal has been the subject of a planning inquiry and the inspector's report is with the Government. It is argued that such large developments should follow the country's population centres, its major towns and cities, but that logic precludes an area such as ours, made up of small townships and communities, from ever benefiting from a major regeneration project. But that is exactly what we need—a catalyst for change. Xanadu would give this deprived former coalfield hope of a better future, and I urge the Government to bear that in mind when reaching their decision.
  Some things in Leigh will never change. Leigh Centurions rugby league club has a proud history and will continue to be a strong source of civic pride and identity. After troubled times, the club is thriving again and on Sunday completed the Northern Ford premiership season as league champions. I hope that the House will join me in congratulating it and allow me to thank one of Leigh's greatest ever players, the former Great Britain star Mick Martyn, who did so much to help me to serve Leigh in Parliament. Like our town, Leigh Centurions have come back the hard way and earned the right to be promoted to the Super League, but that decision is out of their hands. I make a direct plea to the Super League to accept Leigh. Such is the importance of the club to our area that it would give it a real boost and instil renewed optimism for the future.
  I joined the Labour party at the age of 15 to fight for a better deal for the working people of Leigh among whom I grew up. It will be with a great sense of personal fulfilment that I will work with the Government during the next few years to continue the improvements that they have started and to right some of the wrongs that we have suffered.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for such an excellent maiden speech, and congratulate all those others who have made excellent speeches today. It was a particular privilege for me as a relatively new Member, not having heard a maiden speech before.
  The Nice treaty brings together the wider nations of Europe on the basis of free trade, international agreement and co-operation, founded on democratic institutions, and it paves the way for European security. It is a recipe for a strong Britain in a greater Europe. Enlargement will mean a bigger Europe capable of looking after our interests in a global context. It means a bigger trading area to create even more prosperity and jobs. That is why the Government have negotiated the treaty on behalf of the British people.
  In the last century, Europe was for the most part divided. There were two world wars, millions of people killed and nations living in fear of one another. What has been achieved in the past 50 years is astonishing and, in its significance, outweighs the achievements of the past 2,000 years. National barriers to the movement of goods, people and services have been swept away by the development of international road, air, rail, energy and information networks, and those networks are the arteries of the European economy, the health of which is dependent on the ability of goods, capital and services to flow freely around Europe.
  Where problems exist within the European economy, European institutions support and restructure development so that ailing parts of the economy are remedied. In my region, more than 400,000 jobs are linked to membership of the EU and in the next five years the area will receive more than £1.5 billion in EU structural funds. It is essential that all the nations of Europe benefit in that way. The alternative of division and isolation will only lead to the conflicts that plagued the last century and continue to fester in this century.
  Nationalism in Europe has been swept away by those economic forces because the nation states of Europe recognise that future economic prosperity and security require membership of the EU and commitment to its further development. However, with anything up to 28 nations as members, there is clearly a need for the reform of European institutions such as the Commission, Parliament and Council of Ministers. That is what happened at Nice. Anyone who says that reform is still needed obviously has not read the treaty.
  The Government have achieved that while acquiring more power for Britain through the reweighting of votes in the Council of Ministers. They have agreed a limit to the size of the European Commission and more majority voting where that will promote Britain's interests in areas such as trade liberalisation and improved financial controls. On vote reweighting, Labour has secured a substantial increase in the strength of Britain's vote in the Council of Ministers—the first increase since Britain joined the European Union.
  Many hon. Members will know that, as smaller states have joined the EU in each successive round of enlargement, the voting strength of the larger member states has declined disproportionately. In an EU of 28 countries, it would have been possible for member states representing a minority of the population to achieve

  337
  a qualified majority. The treaty of Nice prevents that from happening by reweighting the votes of all member states to reflect more accurately the population size. The Government have also agreed with other member states that, from 2005, all member states should have only one Commissioner, which will limit increases in the size of the Commission after enlargement.
  The historic treaty of Nice introduces improved procedures for enhanced co-operation. It is essential for an enlarged European Union to be flexible enough to enable groups of member states to co-operate more closely on specific projects. This is not a lumbering superstate, as the Opposition would suggest, but a flexible union which can act, for example, in the fight against crime and drugs, where closer co-operation is essential, but which would not prejudice the fight against these problems in non-participating countries. The interests of member states will be preserved and the use of enhanced co-operation can be referred to the European Council. Enhanced co-operation cannot be used to undermine the single market or other common European Union policies. It will be open to all member states, which will provide a guarantee against the creation of an inner core of member states that operate as a block vote.
  The next intergovernmental conference, in 2004, will discuss a delimitation of competencies between the European Union and the member states to prevent unnecessary centralisation. There will be a debate about how to involve national Parliaments in European decision making, and the conference will also consider the means of putting the treaties into plain language so that they are easier to understand for the people of Europe.
  Europe needs strong member states, and the development process will explode the Conservative myth that the European Union is becoming a superstate. The extension of qualified majority voting will contribute to the reform that Britain wants: further trade liberalisation, improved financial controls and European Commission appointments being made on the basis of merit. QMV is an opportunity, not a threat. It is the oil of the European Union, and the huge benefits that it has brought, such as the European single market, are a testament to that fact. Labour has ensured that the national veto is retained in key areas such as treaty change, taxation, border controls, social security, defence and the revenue-raising mechanisms.
  Although one would not have thought it when listening to some Opposition Members, the Conservative party agreed to 42 extensions of QMV when it was in government. Twelve extensions were made in the Single European Act 1985 and 30 were made in the Maastricht treaty. Yet Opposition Members have the cheek to argue against the treaty in its current form. QMV has always worked in Britain's interests.
  Let us consider what is good about the treaty in terms of QMV. Obviously, there are improvements in trade and services. Changes have been made in respect of structural and cohesion funds, to prevent net recipients from blocking efficiency and cost savings. There is also help on environmental issues, financial regulation, appointments and industrial policy. The treaty will enhance stability and security in Europe, as well as many other aspects.
  338
  We live in a world that is shrinking because of new means of travel and communications. The world of the 21st century should be about peace, freedom and security for all. If we can bring together the whole of Europe in this manner, who knows what we can achieve on a global scale? It is my firm belief that, later this century, we can bring together a global union with all the values and types of institution that we have created here in Europe. That needs reform of the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation, and a willingness in the world—and the G8 nations in particular—to recognise that peace and prosperity can be achieved only by co-operation and by sharing the world's resources. The enlargement of Europe is an important step towards that goal, and I only hope that I will live long enough to see it achieved.
  8.24 pm
  Mike Gapes: I want to confine my remarks to the European security and defence policy aspects of the treaty. Before I begin, I should like to add my congratulations to new hon. Members on their maiden speeches. I remember that there was an empty Chamber when I made my maiden speech on a Friday morning in 1992, while the Queen's Speech was being debated. It must be far more difficult to make such a speech to a House that is relatively full, at least on the Labour Benches. The Conservative Benches are rather empty at this moment.
  I wish to concentrate on the defence aspects of the treaty because it is important for us to recognise that there has been a shift in recent weeks in the attitudes of the United States in respect of European security and defence policy. I was in Washington last week, meeting members of Congress and of the Administration, with a British-American parliamentary group delegation. Significantly, the previous rhetoric of the Republican party, which was whipped up by the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, has died down. We were told by officials in the new Administration that the US had been astonished by the developments at St. Malo and had been concerned about what had happened since, but was now far more relaxed. We were also told that the European developments that were foreshadowed in the Helsinki statement of 1999 and that are set out in the Nice proposals and the comprehensive presidency report appendix were seen as complementary to NATO. One person to whom I spoke said that it would be worse for European security and defence policy to fail because of lack of resources than for it to be autonomous. The key is how to work out the day-to-day relationships of NATO and the European Union.
  That attitude is welcome, and follows a further shift in the position of the American Administration, who have been in office for only a few months and have not formed all their posts, in relation to policy on the Balkans. Secretary of State Colin Powell has now said that we went in together, so we should go out together. That position is, diametrically different from the Republican party's election platform of cutting forces from the Balkans and withdrawing unilaterally. That is welcome as Europeans, try to cope with the legacy of the conflict in the Balkans and in view of the dangerous situation in Macedonia.
  I visited Kosovo a few months ago with the Select Committee on Defence. We stood on the so-called chicken leg, looking down on the Presevo valley in Serbia. On the other side, in Macedonia, we saw the area

  339
  of conflict, which has been shown so graphically on our television screens in recent weeks. British forces were there, working with a NATO ally, Norway, and two other European Union states, Sweden and Finland. We were also working in the zone that is allocated to the Americans. That is a sign of European partners in the EU working with their European and north American NATO partners for the common good.
  Nonsensical rhetoric was used in the general election campaign about, for example, Euro armies.
  Mr. Francois: Speak for yourself.
  Mike Gapes: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene and contribute to the debate. I shall give way.
  Mr. Francois: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. However, I am now on my feet, so I shall say that he can speak for himself, but not all hon. Members agree that there is no such thing as a European army, especially in view of developments in the past six months. He can hold his opinion and we can hold ours, but he should not pretend that ours is nonsense. There are two views.
  Mike Gapes: Those views were presented during the election campaign. My Conservative opponent fought the campaign with a megaphone in Ilford town centre. All he seemed able to say was, "Save the pound. Keep the pound." People in my constituency had a clear choice and the Conservative vote decreased from a little more than 30 per cent. to approximately 25 per cent.—a resounding vote of confidence in the Opposition's policies. It was a rejection of sectarianism, to which I referred in Westminster Hall this morning.
  There is clearly a need to work out the detail of the arrangements for armed forces. The headline goal of 60,000 troops to be deployed for a year with rotation is, unfortunately, ambitious for some European countries. It must be achieved, and we should begin to argue more forcefully, especially with Germany, about the need for stronger, more effective contributions from their forces. It is no good the British, French and Dutch taking the lead because of the shape of our Armed forces and the way in which we have worked in the past.
  Other European partners must change the structure of their forces and the way in which they co-operate and are deployed. That will be difficult and painful for those who have concepts of territorial defence and have no expeditionary strategy or tradition of deployment in other countries. That also applies to those who, for long-understood historical reasons, have political aversion to that or face adverse public opinion. However, such change is essential if we are to achieve the headline goals that were set out in Helsinki and reaffirmed in Nice.
  Enlargement of the EU is desirable and essential, and it will happen. However, there is a parallel debate about the enlargement of NATO. We need to start making some distinctions. From information that I picked up in the United States, I am worried by the strength of the well organised lobby, which is linked through the Administration to Democrats and Republicans in Congress and key staffers, in favour of early, rapid enlargement to include all three Baltic states. We need to think that through.
  340
  The argument for including the Baltic states in the European Union if they meet the economic criteria is unassailable. However, we should express our anxieties about the political consequences for the relationship with Russia and the stability of Europe of precipitate early NATO enlargement to include all applicant countries. In Warsaw, President Bush referred to those matters obliquely. He talked about the Baltic states joining European institutions. Some of us in Europe should express more strongly to the United States our anxiety to ensure that there is no automatic conveyor belt for all states to join the hard security organisation of NATO, which will remain pre-eminent in defence and security matters.
  8.34 pm
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: It is a pleasure to participate in a debate that has included so many eloquent and confident maiden speeches. They came from my hon. Friends the Members for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) and the hon. Members for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds), for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). I apologise if I have missed anyone off the list. They all painted such delightful visions of their constituencies that if it were not for the fact that I am lucky enough to have the one constituency that is even more delightful, I would be planning immediately after the debate to move my house and family to one of their constituencies. I congratulate them all.
  I have been impressed by the maiden speeches, but with the greatest respect, I was less than impressed by the speech of the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). He, like most Opposition Members, did not paint a coherent vision of Europe. He claimed that the Opposition supported Europe, could see the benefits of Europe and wanted Europe enlarged. However, he painted no vision of how that could be achieved. Similarly, he painted no vision of what he wanted Europe to do if it were not doing what he wanted it to do.
  I commend to the right hon. Gentleman a document entitled "One Europe". I do not know whether he has read it, but if he has, I suggest that he re-reads it. It was written by a former an aide to Margaret Thatcher, who subsequently became one of her most trusted Cabinet Ministers. It painted a clear vision of Europe that grew out of the vision that the Conservatives had of Europe throughout the 1960s and 1970s. It was a vision that clearly informed their actions over the 18 years that they were in government from 1979.
  I commend the document to the right hon. Member for Horsham because, first, it said that we should not be scared about economic union and that we should face the desirable need for political union and not be afraid of monetary union and even military union. Secondly, he should read the document because one of its publishers was his father. He could well be enlightened by its contents. At least it painted a coherent vision of Europe.
  After we give the Bill a Second Reading, as I hope that we will, let us start speaking up for Europe. Let those of us who believe in Europe start to proselytise for Europe. Let us start trying to explain to the people of the United Kingdom what it is that we believe that Europe offers.

  341
  A theme of the debate is the need to reconnect people with Europe. If we are to achieve that, we must explain to people what Europe has achieved for them. In my constituency, that is relatively easy. We receive European objective 2 funding. I can take people to the road to which Europe contributed, which is a vital part of the economic infrastructure. I can take them to the new university campus that has been built on a business park that was serviced as a result of funding from Europe. I can take them also to the promenade, which similarly was funded by Europe. Two weeks ago, we all enjoyed the United Kingdom power boat grand prix in Ramsgate, which was paid for by Europe. I can show people what Europe is doing for them.
  It is not so easy to do so in some constituencies because the benefits of Europe are slightly less tangible. Nevertheless, they are there. Factories have been built in the UK because people want to invest in Europe. There are jobs that exist only because we are in Europe. In the south-east of England, 495,000 jobs are linked directly to trade with Europe. Many tens of thousands of those jobs are in east Kent, the area that includes my constituency.
  I can explain to people the security that has come from the peaceful co-existence of nations since the second world war as a result of Europe. Protection comes from human rights legislation, and there is freedom of movement. Those are all benefits that we get from Europe. We should start explaining to people that they are receiving them from Europe. When they understand that, they will understand the benefits of enlargement that are made possible by the treaty. They will understand why we say that enlargement could create 300,000 more jobs across Europe. They will also understand when we say that enlargement will increase the security of Europe.
  We can also show people the benefits of common working in the treaty of Union. One of the few issues in the political process that really inspires people is that of the environment. The treaty of Union sets out the need to work together on environmental issues—which are of fundamental importance to us—on drugs, on combating organised crime and on organising asylum better than we do at the moment. All those things come with being members of the European Union and they can all be improved by enlargement. The EU works. We might want it to work better and to be more transparent, and we might want its decision-making process to be more efficient and rational sometimes, but it works.
  The treaty makes enlargement possible. As other hon. Members have said, it does not, in itself, bring about enlargement. However, without modernisation we cannot have enlargement. Conservative Members who pointed out that we need modernisation of the Union and its institutions would deny it the means to carry out that modernisation if they denied it this treaty.
  Qualified majority voting is an important concept. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) claimed that there would be a democratic deficit because we are to lose our veto on certain matters, that totalitarianism was about to rule, and that we were in danger of handing over power to minority parties and extremist Governments in other countries. In reality, there are, by my calculations, 237 qualified majority votes under the new structure. That means that a majority would
  342
  be achieved by 119 votes. The minimum number of nations that would need to vote together to achieve that majority would be five, although only if they were the five biggest nations, which command the support of some 300 million people. That is not a recipe for allowing small nations to dominate the union, or for giving away our democracy. If we were not among those five nations, it would require six nations to outvote us in any such decision.
  We must not overlook what happened in Ireland. Clearly, we must respect the view of the Irish people. We have to convince them that changes have been made to facilitate their views and concerns; we cannot ride roughshod over them. However, hon. Members who say that the Union lacks democratic legitimacy should remember that the opinions of only half a million people in that referendum will hold up a treaty that affects the lives of half a billion people. Surely that demonstrates that the Union is taking account of minority views and is focused on their needs and opinions.
  The European Union costs only about 1 per cent. of the annual gross domestic product of the member states. For that, we get more jobs, more trade, more security, more protection for our rights, and better controls on the environment, on monopolies, on drug traffickers and on asylum. That is a good bargain. The treaty, if we ratify it, will give us the power to make further improvements to the Union and to carry out the enlargements that we all know are necessary, and will be of benefit to every one of our constituents in the long run.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. Chris Bryant: Many thanks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I am particularly grateful as I lost my maidenhood only some 10 days ago. I apologise in case I miss anyone out, but it has been wonderful to hear excellent maiden speeches from Members representing Boston and Skegness, Guildford, Rayleigh, Greenock and Inverclyde, Argyll and Bute and Fareham. That sounds like the shipping forecast.
  I am particularly delighted to have heard the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), who has been a personal friend for many years. I hope that further legislation will make it possible for all anti-Catholic parts of the constitution that still remain to be removed. I also welcome the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), as I have been told by my Whip that he and I will be in adjacent offices from next Monday.
  I should tell my hon. Friend that I stole a Tory fan earlier today. There are not many Tory fans these days. but I know that it is a Tory fan because it was in the room that says "Tories" on the door. There were no Tories inside, however, and the fan will be in the office on Monday. I note that we are to share the rooms that were occupied until recently by the former Member for Billericay, Mrs. Teresa Gorman. I doubt whether we cart fill the space that she occupied.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Have you had the tuck?
  Mr. Bryant: I have not had the tuck and I am not fibbing about my age either.
  I am delighted to speak in the debate on the treaty of Nice for the simple reason that it relates to substantial issues that are significant to my constituents in the

  343
  Rhondda. The first is enlargement, which matters, and we sometimes have to remind ourselves why: every time the European Union has gained new members, Britain has gained trade. Look at what happened after Spain and Portugal joined—Britain significantly increased its trade with those countries. When Greece joined, again we significantly increased our trade.
  I know that such an increase will be good for businesses in the Rhondda, whether they be newer industries or more traditional firms such as Burberrys, and I am pleased that we are extending the market in which the businesses of the Rhondda can trade. I am also pleased because enlargement will provide us with the opportunity to achieve greater political stability not just in the countries that we hope will join the EU, but across the world. We have a chance to establish long-term peace.
  Enlargement will also give many of our constituents the opportunity to share and extend benefits that we have known in our own country when they go abroad for trade or leisure purposes. For example, following Spain's accession to the EU, water quality off beaches around Spain improved significantly. That is of great importance to many of my constituents. For my own part, I suffered from meningitis in Spain several years ago and, unfortunately, had to go to hospital. However, thanks to Spain having acceded to the treaty, I received prompt help from the Spanish health services.
  It is good that we are discussing enlargement, but it is also good that we are talking about reform, and the Government are absolutely right to say that the treaty of Nice must involve the two corning together. Again, there are proposals that are of great value to our constituents, above all those on the battle against crime. The treaty gives us a chance to make a better fist of it by providing more opportunities to work together with other member states.
  I am pleased that there will be a new system for appointing the President of the Commission, which is far better than either the previous version or the version before that. However, I am slightly nervous about the role that will be played by the European Parliament. It is important that the directly elected Members of the European Parliament have the chance to quiz everybody who is appointed to the Commission.
  I am glad that the reforms in the treaty of Nice make it clear that it will be easier for the United Kingdom to get its way. We shall gain not only an increased share of the vote in the Council for the first time ever, but the ability to combine with others to create blocking minorities. We may get together with France and Germany or other members to achieve that and it represents a significant move forward, even for those who say that they are patriots who argue only for the benefit of the United Kingdom.
  I am anxious about a few issues that will have to be considered in the future. My first concern is about the workings of the Commission after more members have joined but before we get to EU 27. EU 27 is fine and clear: it is all arranged. We know how many members of the Commission there will be. There may be a lengthy period, however, when there are 25 or 26 members of the EU, and a Commission of 26, 25 or even 24 members will be completely unworkable, and will lead to more problems than we have already.
  344
  My second concern is about the retention of the veto in areas of trade. It has been removed from intellectual property, which is right, but it still applies to audio-visual services and cultural services. This issue was pushed by the French, and we need to be careful about how they use the veto in the future, because we should not harm our audio-visual trade opportunities around the world.
  I am also concerned about the culture of the Commission. Too many people working in the Commission believe that their role is to meddle in the affairs of others. I am prepared to accept that the European Union will be better if countries work together more, but the Commission should think very hard before it intervenes. In the past, the Commission's Competition Directorate has tried to define the parameters of public service broadcasting, which is the subject about which I know the most. I firmly believe that it is for the member states to decide what is public service broadcasting, and no one else. It may be acceptable in Spain to have bullfighting on Spanish television on a Sunday afternoon paid for out of state funds, but that would not be acceptable in this country, and that is right and proper.
  My final concern is about the rotating presidency. It is crazy that offices in both Strasbourg and Brussels are used at an inordinate cost to the European Union. It would be good to look into that in the future, and we should also consider that mechanism to find an efficient way of doing business.
  There is a vacuum at the centre of the two Conservative amendments. The Conservatives' argument has always been that we must not surrender sovereignty to anyone else. The two amendments make the point that the Irish have already said that they do not want to go forward, so we cannot go forward. I am sorry, but to my mind that means that we should surrender our sovereignty to Dublin, never mind Brussels or Strasbourg—the Irish have decided, so that is the end of the story. I do not agree. I do not believe that the Irish should decide for us.
  The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said that if the treaty is not ratified by the United Kingdom, it will not slow up enlargement. By golly, it would. If the United Kingdom did not ratify the treaty, the European Union would be in terrible difficulty and the enlargement process would be delayed by many years. That would be terrible for the United Kingdom, and especially for my constituents in the Rhondda.
  8.54 pm
  Roger Casale: I am delighted to contribute briefly to the debate, although I am sorry that I am unable to be in my constituency of Wimbledon with the hundreds of thousands of British tennis fans who are celebrating the outstanding victory of Mr. Tim Henman. We all send our congratulations to him, and wish him well in the semi-final. However, my absence from Wimbledon is more than made up for by my being here as the Labour Member of Parliament for Wimbledon working with the Government and winning so convincingly the argument on Europe—so convincingly in fact that many Conservative Members are no longer present.
  In the last Parliament I was a member of the Select Committee on European Scrutiny, whose 17th report, published during the 1999–2000 Session, is one of the relevant documents listed on the Order Paper. During that Session, the Committee conducted, on behalf of the

  345
  House, an extensive investigation of the intergovernmental conference that led to the Nice treaty, and of the way in which the British Government had conducted themselves during the negotiations. Our conclusions appear in the report.
  I want to challenge—I think the report will back up my challenge—the view expressed by many Opposition Members, notably the shadow Foreign Secretary, that the institutional reforms decided at Nice were not a necessary precursor of EU enlargement. Those who study the report—I urge Members to do so, although it seems that the shadow Foreign Secretary has not—will note our recommendation that the scope of the IGC that led to the treaty should be restricted to the practical reforms that we considered necessary to pave the way for enlargement. We did so exactly because we saw those changes as a precondition of enlargement, and we wanted enlargement to take place. We argued, successfully, that the Government should resist pressure from the European Commission and the European Parliament to widen the IGC' s scope, in order not to jeopardise the chance of achieving the real, practical reforms that would allow enlargement.
  The shadow Foreign Secretary suggested that the EU was pursuing some starry-eyed federalist agenda through the IGC, but if he reads our report he will see that the Government's focus was firmly on the ground beneath our feet, and on the practical steps that were necessary for the widening of EU membership.
  Let us remember what constituted those limited but significant changes to the mechanics of the EU decision-making processes. There were changes to the size of the Commission: it was right for us to drop one of our two Commissioners if other countries that would join the EU in future were not to have a Commissioner at all. There were also changes to the weighting of votes. Now that those changes have been accepted, the three largest states, if opposed, can constitute a blocking majority. A further safeguard—an important democratic safeguard—was established, in the form of a supplementary condition that the member states constituting a majority should represent 62 per cent. of the population of the EU.
  Those changes may be technical, and they may not be easily understood by those who are not aficionados of the EU and its evolving institutional architecture; but, notwithstanding what we have heard from those on the Opposition Front Bench, they were essential if we were to prepare for a potential membership of 27 rather than the present 15 EU states.
  Behind the rather bald statement of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), which flies in the face of the facts—behind the stubborn refusal to acknowledge the reality of what was achieved and decided at Nice—lies a vision of Europe, and Britain's relationship with Europe, that would take the country back half a century or more. I must tell Opposition Members who will oppose ratification tonight that European integration has always been about much more than the creation of a free-trade area or a common market for goods and services, and it is about much more than that today.
  The Union of which we are a member has never been devoid of political content; nor does the European marketplace lack a social foundation. Not a single existing
  346
  member of the European Union would want that to be the case, and certainly no applicant would wish to join the kind of Union that the right hon. Member for Horsham and his hon. Friends wish to create. Nor do I believe that any European member state or applicant state would believe that the EU described by Opposition Members could deliver the sort of practical improvements on which continued public confidence in the EU depends. However, the Conservative party has moved so far to the right on Europe that it has put itself well outside the mainstream of European Christian democracy. It would be difficult to name another party, let alone another Government, in the EU that would agree with the vision of Europe, and of its future, that the Conservative party is trying to put forward.
  We know that the vision put forward by the Tories was flatly rejected by the British people on 7 June. We also know that it has not gone down well with public opinion in other member states. When I researched this speech in the Library this afternoon, it was interesting to read the press comments that appeared in Germany, France and Italy at the time of the election about the Conservative party and the virulent form of Euro-scepticism that it was putting forward. One piece, by Stepfan Berger of Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, caught my eye. Published on 6 June, it stated:
  "At present, the Tories are a truly sad old bunch: a kind of cabinet of horrors, made up of religious fundamentalists. Euro-sceptics. nationalists and people hostile to foreigners — Germanophobes are particularly widespread".
  The Conservative party must understand that its ideas about Europe and about Britain's relationship with Europe have been rejected not just by the British people. Labour Members and others must take on those ideas and propose a more confident and positive vision of Europe; otherwise, we risk appearing ridiculous in the eyes of European public opinion and of those European partner nations that we want to influence and with which we want to co-operate.
  However, the Tory election manifesto boasted:
  "The next Conservative Government will secure our independence and use Britain's great strength to help create a flexible European Union"—
  as if a Conservative Government were going to twist the arms of 14 other European nations and take them in a direction that none of them wanted to go.
  How were the Tories going to do that? They would do it be refusing to ratify the treaty of Nice. The manifesto stated:
  "We will not ratify the treaty of Nice, but will renegotiate it so that Britain does not lose its veto"—
  a veto that Britain had already lost as a result of the Maastricht treaty and other treaties to which the previous Conservative Government had signed up.
  The right hon. Member for Horsham is not in his seat. However, although it is all very well for him to say that globalisation requires co-operation but not integration, it is not acceptable then to argue that Britain should fail to co-operate when the means for such co-operation exist. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted an EU that is stable, prosperous, outward-looking and democratic. He should therefore support the ratification of the treaty of Nice.
  The right hon. Member for Horsham said that the French referendum on Maastricht nearly plunged Europe into chaos, but he wants to plunge the EU into chaos by

  347
  refusing to ratify the treaty of Nice tonight. He should remember that the near-failure of the French to ratify the treaty of Maastricht also catapulted Britain out of the European monetary system.
  The Tory party must learn the lessons of the election on Europe. It is fantasy to believe that we can reverse 50 years of European development. It is not credible to claim that we can influence the future of Europe by carping from the sidelines. Before they vote to oppose ratification of the treaty of Nice tonight, Tory Members must take a moment to reflect on the fact that the Nice treaty is a limited treaty that makes the practical reforms necessary for enlargement. To oppose the treaty of Nice would give the impression that the Opposition want little more than to see the EU paralysed by lack of reform, or to block this historic opportunity to unite the two halves of Europe—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order
  9.4 pm
  Ms Meg Munn: I, too, am delighted to have this opportunity to speak in the debate. In 1979, I was a student in Strasbourg for a year. My newly directly-elected MEP came to the city for the first time while I was there. It was summer, and my grant being somewhat non-existent. I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet him. That MEP is now my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) and the Minister for Sport, and he made sure that I had two good meals that day. That evening, we went to a restaurant and met some Danish MEPs. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not mind my telling this story now—I have never told it before—but some anti-European British MEPs were meeting their Danish counterparts to discuss how they might pull out of Europe.
  The views of many Labours Members have changed—not all of them, as we have heard today—and one reason for that is that Europe has gene further in what it does. At that time, Labour party members thought that the Common Market was purely for trading purposes. It was viewed as another way for capitalism to grow bigger and bigger, without doing much good for the workers. More than 20 years on, I am pleased to say that the situation is completely different. We now see a recognition by Labour party members of the significance of globalisation and the importance of European and worldwide markets. We also have a Europe with a social conscience, which is concerned about the environment and which can be of benefit to ordinary people.
  The approach taken by the Conservatives is disappointing but predictable. Last weekend, as one of my first duties as a new Member of Parliament, I was invited to a conference on town twinning in Sheffield. It was organised to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the first visit of some young people from Sheffield's twin town, Bochum in the Ruhr valley. The origin of that link is similar to the origin of the development of what is now the European Union and has its roots in the fundamental desire for peace that followed the second world war. Town twinning was seen as a way for ordinary people to get to know each other, so that we would never again experience the horrors of that war.
  Three politicians attended Me conference—I, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) for the Liberal Democrats, and a local Conservative who had been a lord
  348
  mayor. The Conservative spoke of how important the link between the towns had been and how it had brought alive for members of his group the things we have in common as Europeans. He talked of taking a busload of members from Sheffield council over to Bochum. Unfortunately for the Conservatives, the trip would now need only a moped, because there is only one Conservative councillor left on Sheffield city council.
  Sheffield has also developed other links, especially with Donetsk in the Ukraine, which has also developed a link with Bochum. It is interesting to note that Bochum and Donetsk have developed trading links. It perhaps says something about Britain that we have not used those strong links to develop ways to trade better together. Time and again, our reluctance fully to participate and engage in Europe holds us back. When I talk to friends from Germany and France, they are often puzzled by our seeming half-heartedness. If we want to be a strong voice in Europe, we must stop that nonsense. We will only be seen as a nation that can influence what goes on if we are properly committed to the process.
  The benefits of the European Union appear to me to be threefold—stability, security and economic prosperity. Importantly, the economic prosperity is achieved in a socially responsible way. The Nice treaty offers us a process for enlargement, and I welcome that.
  Economic prosperity is important. I am staying with my sister while I am in London, and this morning we were discussing what I would be doing today, and I said that I was hoping to speak in this debate. We were looking at the list of applicant countries, and she made an important point. She works for a small specialist software company which exports its product throughout the world. She said that, because the product is so specialised—not unusual in computer technology these days—we need those markets. If companies are to survive and be at the cutting edge in Britain, they need to know that they can export to those markets. She looked down the list of applicants and it was surprising how many countries she had already visited on business. Other companies in the same position will also see this as a positive step.
  For me, developing the European Union further promotes the security and stability that the people of my parents' generation saw as so important to the future of the whole of Europe. Enlargement is in our interests; the principles that brought together a smaller number of countries must hold true now.
  The prospect of enlargement has already made a difference to political stability and international security in central and eastern Europe. We do not have to look very far to see some of the horrors that have taken place. People of my generation believed that we would never see such horrors again, but unfortunately we have. The European Union is fundamental to ensuring stability and is an important way forward for us and for those countries. If countries that border the EU suffer from poverty or division, we cannot all enjoy the security and stability that we want for ourselves and our families. We know that, without that prospect, neighbouring countries have suffered from instability and war, at great human and financial cost.
  I want the treaty to be ratified. Yes, there are many small things to discuss, but overall, this must be the way forward. My hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) and for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) made it

  349
  clear how difficult things would be in the European Union if we did not ratify the treaty. I see it as very important; I want us to sign up to it wholeheartedly. It is time we stopped dithering, because that is how it appears to our European neighbours. Let us get on with it and be the strong voice in Europe that we are in a position to offer.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: In his absentia, may I warmly congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his appointment and welcome the new Ministers to the Front Bench, most particularly the Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain)? Double congratulations are due.
  This has been a tremendous parliamentary debate. We have heard some outstanding speeches on both sides of the House from all the various viewpoints. What has come through above all is an underlying concern and anxiety, genuinely expressed, about the future of the European Union and the disconnection that is taking place between the peoples of Europe and the structures and institutions of the European Union. Those points were powerfully made by my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
  Among the excellent speeches were some memorable maiden speeches. I congratulate in particular the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), who spoke warmly of her constituency and its many activities, including ice hockey, new businesses and cultural activities. I also wish to express my appreciation of the very kind comments she made about my friend Nick St. Aubyn. I hope that she will make many more such competent contributions to debates in the House in her parliamentary career.
  I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) who, in a parliamentary sense, is truly to the manner born. As a parliamentary speaker, he already shows remarkable force and ability. He said that his constituency is not particularly beautiful, but he said so with great good humour and affection. We will all agree that his tributes to Dr. Michael Clark, who was a senior and respected parliamentarian, were extremely appropriate. I know that my hon. Friend will make excellent speeches in the House in the future.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) paid warm tribute to his predecessors. He talked about the history of his constituency and its fine maritime traditions, and said that it is moving towards modern industries such as updated electronics industries. He was very witty, and he has staked his claim to a position in history. He is a former cleric who has taken his place in the House, but he has yet to see as much as some of us of the vicar of St. Albion—a well known figure who is far less likely than the hon. Gentleman to appear frequently in the House. I congratulate him on his excellent speech and look forward to hearing frequent contributions from him in future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) made generous remarks about a highly intelligent and independent former parliamentary colleague, Sir Peter Lloyd. He talked with warmth and affection about his constituency, mentioned its naval history and said that new business is being attracted to the area. I took
  350
  particular note of his reference to the pressure on housing in the south of England, which is a tremendous problem that we must deal with as the population tilts ever southward. I know from listening to him today that he will make an outstanding contribution to Parliament through his speeches in this Chamber.
  The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) spoke with warmth about Ray Michie, who was an impressive constituency representative. He made his constituency sound extremely attractive, and all who have visited it will know that that is the case. It is certainly one of the most beautiful parts of the British Isles, and he made it seem so tempting that he might just get a rash of visits from parliamentarians in the next few years. Apart from the stunningly beautiful aspects of his constituency, he also talked about worries that many of us share about rural Britain. I feel sure that he will be an eloquent spokesman for his constituency in his time in Parliament.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) paid tribute to Sir Richard Body, who was a great parliamentary individualist and a very assiduous constituency MP. My hon. Friend was right to bring powerfully to our attention the terrible problems currently experienced by British agriculture. Of course, Lincolnshire is a great farming county—one of the greatest in England. He talked about the welcome diversification in his constituency by small businesses and the tourist industry. Boston and Skegness has a fine representative in the House, and certainly a powerful orator.
  Finally, I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). Unfortunately, I was not present to hear him, but my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) tells me that it was a fine speech. He talked about his predecessor, Lawrence Cunliffe, a long-standing parliamentarian. He discussed his worries about the manufacturing industry, which I think we all share. Of course, many parts of manufacturing are in recession. He spoke of the need to revitalise his constituency, of the Beeching cuts and of the coal mine closures of the past. His was a fine maiden speech and I wish him well in his career.
  The salutary effect of the Irish referendum was to make all of us stop and think about the future of the European Union, its democratic underpinnings and enlargement. Nice simply failed to address some of the most vital questions that the European Union faces, thereby making enlargement more difficult and adding to the increasing disconnection between the European Union's institutions and the citizens of its member states. Many hon. Members have made that point today, and we have repeatedly warned that that is precisely what would happen.
  The previous Foreign Secretary frequently told the House that Nice was essential for enlargement to proceed. He tried to tell us that, in not supporting Nice, we could not support enlargement. That was simply incorrect. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) accurately warned that, in practice, Nice would actually slow down enlargement.
  I shall deal with the matter straight away. Conservative Members believe that enlargement is right both economically and politically, but it is a moral issue too. In government, we Conservatives played our part in fighting the totalitarianism that blighted the lives of millions of our fellow Europeans. We must now embrace

  351
  them to help to secure their democratic status and prosperity—it is as simple as that. We will take no lessons on that score from any Labour politician.
  Both the Foreign Secretary and the Commission President have indicated that enlargement could go ahead without the Nice treaty, so let us consider all the extraneous baggage surrounding Nice which we believe to be so unnecessary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and other hon. Members spoke about the implications of the move to increase qualified majority voting. That point was ably and directly taken up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
  None of that baggage is essential for enlargement, and we see, throughout Europe, people's growing alienation from EU institutions and structures; but has there been even one example of powers being returned to national Governments to deal with that problem? Did our Government argue for the return of such powers? By contrast, we would have drawn a clear line to begin the process of reversing the remorseless centralisation and harmonisation, which is crucial if the EU is to connect with its people again. That is why we want to give the British people a voice in this matter.
  Outside the treaty, but endorsed at Nice, is the charter of fundamental rights, described idiotically by the former Minister for Europe as being on a par with the Beano. That is not the view of learned counsel. The charter is being held up as the basis for a future written EU constitution, and even if that does not come about, the Commission has stated:
  "It can reasonably be expected that the Charter will become mandatory through the Court's interpretation of it as belonging to the general principles of Community law".
  Our long traditions of evolving case law and of the clear divide between the judiciary and the legislature will be undermined by the charter and the inevitable growth of judge-led law in this country.
  Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that the charter gives rise to a substantial problem? It is effectively a blank cheque for enormously increased taxation on the people of Europe, because the provisions of the social agenda, which are entrenched by the charter, will be enforced by the judicial activism of the court.
  Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the various dangers of the charter. If it is to serve as the basis of a written European constitution, the implications are very serious for a country such as ours, which has no written constitution.
  The foundation of the European rapid reaction force had little to do with the ability of Europeans to carry out important defence-related roles, and everything to do with the process of political integration in the EU. We want, and have always argued for, enhanced pan-European defence co-operation; the Americans want greater burden sharing. The EU plays this game with the future of NATO at our peril. It will test the one organisation that has secured peace and stability in Europe for over 50 years. At Nice, we saw measures to allow European-level political parties to be funded, and for the EU to involve itself in individual countries' affairs merely on the basis of speculation about what may happen in future.
  Setting aside enlargement, however important, what are the great issues facing the EU, and are the Government dealing with them? Did they highlight them at Nice?
  352
  There can be little controversy about the projected demographic trends of the EU over the next 40 years, with declining birth rates. Can our welfare structures survive in the face of that? How do we generate the wealth to sustain an ever-growing ageing population?
  The Prime Minister sought to address that at Lisbon; it was heady stuff. We heard much about benchmarking, the knowledge-based economy and the information society. Harold Wilson would have loved it; white heat had nothing on that Lisbon speech. Afterwards, the Prime Minister said:
  "The Council marks a sea change in European economic thinking. It points Europe in a new direction—away from heavy-handed intervention and regulation, towards a new approach based on enterprise, innovation and competition."—[Official Report, 27 March 2000; Vol. 347, c. 21.]
  A week later, Lionel Jospin rejected that change outright, reaffirming the European social model. We were told that change was a prerequisite for Europe's economic success, but the Prime Minister's speech was viewed by many as vacuous techno-babble, and was cast into the out-tray at Stockholm a year later. So much for the Prime Minister's influence in Europe.
  At Nice, the outline for the 2004 IGC was set, mainly in response to European peoples' increasing disillusion with the EU. What have the Government done to address that democratic deficit? Last October, the Prime Minister made a speech in Warsaw about trying to achieve democratic accountability; at the heart of it was a proposal for a second chamber. It almost defies belief that that is the UK's main and substantial contribution to the comprehensive and lively debate about the future of the EU. Perhaps the Prime Minister was inspired by the fabled and huge success of his reform of the House of Lords. That is almost incredible, as he himself told us last week in the Chamber that he wanted no rival second Chamber to the Commons. He wants, however, to foist such a body on Europe; that is monumental irrelevance, and must be set against the genuine need for enhanced powers for national parliaments themselves.
  Again at Nice, it was agreed that there should be work towards involving Europe's citizens in the European project. What have the Government done about that in Britain? We have had the taxpayer-funded "Your Britain, Your Europe" campaign, the most visible manifestation of which was the former Minister for Europe travelling around the country in a bus, visiting our towns and cities. One simply could not have written the script; the enterprise was farcical and embarrassing. On those bus trips, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) distributed items of literature paid for by the taxpayer. They included "Your Britain, Your Europe: Want to Know More?" which, under the heading, "The Treaty of Nice Explained", poses the question:
  "But I thought it was about creating a superstate?"
  It answers:
  "Not at all. That was just another EU myth."
  Then we get two wonderful new Labour Aunt Sallies. The document states:
  "There is nothing in the Treaty about a European police force or an elected European President. And there was never going to be. Nice was about preparing for enlargement, pure and simple."
  What a load of inaccurate and patronising drivel! Will the Foreign Secretary reconsider the campaign and its challenge to the intelligence of the British people? I urge him to end it forthwith.

  353
  Nice was a failed opportunity. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham indicated, there can be no enlargement without reform of the common agricultural policy. This afternoon, there was an astonishing intervention by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), who signed the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Nice but was not familiar with its contents. No applicant country has closed the agriculture chapter.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, in the Opposition amendment, there is criticism of the Government for failing to address reform of the CAP? Last night, however, in our debate on the Berlin summit, which dealt with matters relating to the CAP, they did not even bother to table an amendment.
  Mr. Spring: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Berlin summit did anything radical about the funding of the common agricultural policy, he is completely ignorant of the actual situation.
  The Prime Minister ducks and weaves whenever the matter of agriculture is raised. I truly hope that the Foreign Secretary will grasp the nettle and try to find a way forward with our European partners, which will both save the EU from bankruptcy and protect the larger-scale farms in this country.
  Leading to the IGC from Nice, there is a lively and serious debate about the future of an enlarged EU. Every major European leader has presented a vision of what it should be. Only one sits on the sidelines, parroting "constructive engagement", but failing to come up with clear parameters and policies for the future. Sadly, that is the United Kingdom under Labour.
  There is a terrible danger that the EU will become ossified in a time warp of thinking that was appropriate to the 1950s and 1960s. The idea that a "one size fits all" policy, based on a social agenda that is totally out of place in the globalised network that we inhabit, can possibly succeed defies all common sense.
  We on the Conservative Benches want an enlarged EU that will meet the problem of alienation and disconnection and the demographic challenges of enlargement and of a globally competitive marketplace. Just as we were right about Nice, by contrast with a Government whose thinking is now frozen in time, we are now looking to the future. Our view is of a modern, outward-looking and democratically supported EU which Britain can help to shape.
  By contrast, at Nice, yet another opportunity—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not like to hear this because they know that they have lost the argument. They know that their attitudes towards the EU are totally inappropriate in a modern world and an enlarged Community. At Nice, that was manifest.
  The Government failed at Nice to raise all the crucial and important issues relevant to the survival and prosperity of the EU. We want a European Community that will be prosperous and outward-going. All that was passed up at Nice by this Government, whose thinking is outmoded and irrelevant to the real needs of the people of Europe, and of the people of Britain in particular.
  9.32 pm
  The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): I begin by thanking the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) for graciously welcoming me to my post. He gave a very, accomplished response to the debate. I am glad that he is improving his education by reading excellent Foreign Office leaflets. I hope that he continues to do so.
  This has been an extremely thoughtful debate on Europe. Indeed, it has probably been the highest quality debate that I have heard since becoming a Member 10 years ago. It has been unrecognisable compared with the general tone of such debates in this House over that period. What has distinguished it for me has been the fact that there have been five times as many Labour speakers as Conservative contributors—and the debate has been five times the better for it.
  It is invidious to select a number of the best speeches, but perhaps I could refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who both spoke very interestingly. Their speeches will repay reading in the context of the future reform programme of the EU leading up to the intergovernmental conference in 2004. My hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) made extremely interesting speeches, too.
  We heard excellent maiden speeches to which I want to pay fulsome tribute. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) made her constituency sound almost as attractive as Neath. I very much welcomed her victory when I saw it come up on the television screen on the night, although Nick St. Aubyn was a very valued Member of the House. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Wait for it—he might come back to the House to replace some of the less valued hon. Members whom I see staring at me.
  We heard a very good speech from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), another Liberal replacement in the House Listening to the tour of his constituency, I was reminded of all the malt whiskies from that part of Scotland which are so excellent to taste. He replaced a Liberal stalwart, Ray Michie, who was held in great affection in the House.
  The hon. Members for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) and for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) paid fine tributes to their predecessors. Along with the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), they showed remarkable confidence in their maiden speeches and will no doubt prove formidable adversaries for the Government in years to come.
  Another who showed remarkable confidence was my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), who brought an excellent touch of pulpit oratory to the House, and in doing so paid a well-received tribute to his predecessor, Norman Godman, who was an excellent and diligent member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. My hon. Friend spoke about the importance of companies in a constituency such as his being able to export to Europe. He argued convincingly that there were enormous benefits from enlargement for constituencies such as his and the companies in them, deriving from the extra trade and opportunity that would come from up to 200 million more people coming into the European Union. That is one of the aspects of the Nice treaty that we commend to the House.

  355
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) made an eloquent maiden speech, especially about the industrial tradition which is at the root of his constituency and from which his predecessor, Lawrence Cunliffe. sprang. He was a valued Member and is much missed on the Labour Benches.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh has a dispute with my boss, the Foreign Secretary, about where the spinning ferry was invented—[HON. MEMBERS: "Spinning jenny."] I am sorry; I was thinking of Argyll and Bute for a moment. I am sure that the dispute will be resolved peacefully outside the Chamber.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) has made a valuable contribution during his time in the House, especially on renewable energy matters, for which we had a common enthusiasm when I was in my previous Government post. However, he is hopelessly confused in his desire for nationalism—independence for Wales and Scotland—in a united Europe. He does not want a united Europe where nations of Britain such as Scotland and Wales can become prominent regions with a serious voice in Europe, for which the existing arrangements provide. He wants to fragment Europe into little nationalistic enclaves, which would defeat the purpose of enlargement and be parochial and dangerous.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) spoke with his usual authority, derived from years of experience and expertise in foreign affairs. We enjoyed his speech.
  I always enjoy the speeches of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) even though I never agree with him. It is interesting that he omitted to repeat the words that he used in 1998. which go to the heart of Conservative opposition to the treaty and their flawed position on Europe. The hon. Gentleman stated in 1998:
  "We should seek a renegotiation of our relationship with the EU. That renegotiation should start from the premise that we will stay in the EU if we can strike a deal that is in our interests and pull out if we cannot."
  That is the hidden agenda of the Conservative position—at least, the Conservative position that the hon. Gentleman advocates and which was put forward in the last general election and roundly defeated
  Mr. Bercow: The Minister should know that the run-up to every treaty represents a renegotiation. But let the Minister now answer the quest ion that was ducked by the Foreign Secretary. Following the passage of the protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality in the Amsterdam treaty, can the Minister identify one directive or regulation that was repealed in consequence?
  Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend answered that question very directly. The difference between this Government negotiating a new treaty or an amendment to an existing one is that we go in to try to obtain the best deal for Britain, not with an excuse to try to pull out, which is what the Conservative position amounts to.
  When I considered the absence from the debate and from the Chamber for most of the past few days of those rather embittered serried ranks of Conservative Eurosceptics, I wondered what they had been up to. What they had been up to was canvassing for the different candidates for the coming leadership of the Tory party.
  356
  I have a revealing quote from the distinguished political commentator, Peter Oborne. He referred to his conversations with Conservative Members when they come back from consulting their constituents on the leadership election. He said:
  "I have been party to these conversations and they have something of the flavour of the exchanges that must have gone on at the Royal Society between Victorian explorers just back from the African interior. They tell each other of horrible customs, quaint beliefs and a strange, primitive mindset entirely alien to modern, sophisticated, metropolitan man."
  We have also had a revealing set of confusions in the different statements on Europe and on the Nice treaty from the leadership candidates. I have been indulging in an exercise in political masochism in reading their statements.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), a well-known advocate of entry to the single currency and a supporter of the Nice treaty, said:
  "Our official policy at the general election was … difficult to reconcile with Britain's continued membership of the European Union. When I am leader, these will not be the official policies of the party."
  The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) said that he would be "friendly" to pro-Euro Tories on the Conservative Benches. That is a welcome change.
  The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said that he was "not obsessed with them"—the pro-Euro Tories—and that he welcomed "intelligent opposition".
  The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) did not say much about Europe in his statement, but he did say that he had
  "much to learn from Tory MEPs",
  which is comforting.
  The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), another Conservative leadership candidate, interestingly said that, during the debate on the euro, and indeed during any possible referendum campaign, he would "temporarily stand down" all those pro-Euro Tories in leading positions.
  There we have it. lain would put Ken in the sin bin, David would not be obsessed with him being there, Spanish Michael would be friendly, and noble Michael had much to learn from him—and Ken actually wants to lead that lot. Instead of 14 pints a day, he would need 20 pints a day to keep sane.
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Peter Hain: In a minute.
  The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green made an extraordinary statement yesterday, and it was backed by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who spoke with his usual force tonight. I recognise his principled commitment on the European question. We have often debated it together and sometimes we have been on the same side of the argument in the past, but on different sides of the Chamber.
  The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green want a referendum now, but even the most fervently pro-euro person knows that it is not in Britain's interests to rush into the euro now.

  357
  The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, a potential leader of the Conservative party, wants a referendum when nobody wants to go in. What if he lost such a referendum? He would be catapulted into the single currency, whether or not he liked it and whether or not it was in Britain's interests—and it would not be. It may be in the Conservative party's interests to call for a referendum now, but it is not in the country's interests. The Tories want to use the electorate to solve a problem for them, which is a cynical and fraudulent use of the referendum issue.
  Mr. Cash: I have discussed European matters with the Minister many times, including in Papua New Guinea, where we agreed on a considerable number of issues. There is one thing on which I think all the Conservative leadership candidates, with perhaps one exception, would agree. As Disraeli said, the Tory party is a national party or it is nothing. That is not to say that it is nationalistic, but it is patriotic, unlike the Government.
  Peter Hain: I spent a happy couple of days head hunting in Papua New Guinea with the hon. Gentleman, who looked very striking in his swimming suit.
  The Conservative position on the Nice treaty, as annunciated by both Front-Bench speakers, is essentially politically dishonest. They say they want enlargement, but they deny us the vehicle for achieving it and making it possible. If they got their way on Nice, Britain would lose the increased share of votes in European decision making that we secured—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick). We would also block the much-needed European modernisation that is necessary to speed up decisions and to increase efficiency, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) pointed out. Furthermore, we would lose the enormous opportunities for increased prosperity and jobs that will be provided when 200 million extra people join the single trading market, free of border tariffs and controls.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) said in an excellent contribution, the British share of trade has increased and British companies have done more business as every new country has joined the European Union. That will continue to happen through enlargement. If the Tories got their way on blocking the Nice treaty, we would insult our friends and allies, including the Cypriots, Maltese, Czechs, Lithuanians, Poles and others, many of whom my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have been meeting in recent weeks and days. They desperately hope to join and want us to sign up to Neath—[Nora. MEMBERS: "Neath?"] I would like us to sign up to Neath as well.
  If the Tories got their way, they would deny Britain the increased stability and security that will be created when more countries are absorbed under the banner of European democracy and peace—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn). They made the last election a referendum on Europe, to use their leader's words, and they lost it. A s my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) said, they are stuck in the past. Labour is part of the future, driving forward economic and political reform in Europe to make
  358
  Britain more prosperous and secure and to make Europe more economically competitive, just, democratically accountable and peaceful.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the Minister knows, the Opposition amendment seeks a referendum on the Nice treaty. Has he been able to identify an essential constitutional component in the treaty that would justify a referendum, but which was absent from the Maastricht treaty? The previous Conservative Government did not think that that treaty required a referendum of the people of the United Kingdom.
  Peter Hain: I was coming to that point, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made very well in his speech. For all the treaty's importance in respect of enlargement, it is far less important and momentous—to use his words—than the Maastricht treaty. The Conservatives denied people the opportunity for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, yet they want one on a treaty that is far less complicated and momentous. They employ double standards, but we have got used to that. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), whom I greatly respect, joined the Conservatives in requesting a referendum on Nice.
  It is important to take heed of the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda that if we delay ratification, we delay the whole programme of enlargement. In that case, the goals of 2004 could not be achieved and many countries would be denied the opportunities and security which they crave and which we are trying to provide.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), who always makes eloquent and expert speeches on Europe, made several points about qualified majority voting. It is important to answer them in detail. We shall agree to QMV when it is in Britain's interests: when it is not, we shall not agree to it. It is as simple as that. The Opposition agreed to move from unanimity to QMV, and they gave away the veto, as they call it, in the Single European Act 1985, to which Margaret Thatcher signed up, and in the Maastricht treaty, which John Major signed, on some fundamental articles. They include all general single market legislation and almost all the environment provisions. Good. I supported that. It has clearly been in Britain's interest to facilitate cleaning up the environment and implementing the single market.
  We do not therefore oppose QMV in principle. Now that we have established that, Conservative Members should explain why they oppose QMV on such measures in the Nice treaty as appointments of common foreign and security policy special representatives. Unanimity could clearly delay important work, such as that done by envoys, or allow one member state to hold out against the best candidate for the job. Why do the Conservatives oppose QMV for the salary and pension of the registrar of the Court of First Instance? What is so earth-shattering for our national interest that a British veto is required for that?
  Why do Conservative Members oppose QMV for the rules of procedure of the European Court of Justice? In that case, QMV would facilitate introducing changes to improve efficiency so that justice will no longer be delayed or denied to British companies that seek redress. Those questions are important and Conservative Members need to answer them.

  359
  At Nice, we agreed to extend QMV when it would have genuine benefits for Britain's interests and increase the efficiency of European Union institutions. We said that we would not agree to QMV on tax, social security and the European Union's budget. As before, we would insist on Britain's agreement before any EU action was taken on those issues. Qualified majority voting has delivered for Britain. When more QMV would deliver for Britain, we backed it at Nice; when it would not deliver, we opposed it.
  Angus Robertson: I support the Minister's position on QMV. However, I want to ask about giving constitutional regions and nations the right to direct access to the European Court of Justice. The UK delegation blocked that in December, yet, only a month ago, the Scottish Executive, led by the Labour party, signed a declaration describing such access as vital. The Belgian Government have tabled the measure again. Will the Government support the Scottish Executive?
  Peter Hain: We shall consider any representations from the Scottish Executive However, we are currently considering the union of nation states. For those purposes, Scotland and Wales are part of the United Kingdom and are represented in that context.
  Let me answer the question of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) about the common agricultural policy. He said that the treaty ignored it, but he and the Conservative party did not pursue an energetic programme of CAP reform in their 18 years in office. They got nowhere. We are reforming the CAP; the Prime Minister secured an important package of reforms at the Berlin Council in 1999, when it was decided to cut CAP spending in real terms by next. year. That will deliver a net economic benefit to European Union consumers and taxpayers of 7.5 billion euro by 2006. However, we need go further towards comprehensive reform of the CAP. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), one of my predecessors and a good Minister for Europe, made a good speech in which he said that Nice was not about CAP reform but about treaty change: it was about making the necessary institutional changes for the EU to welcome new members. We do not need treaty change to reform the CAP. We are already doing that.
  Mr. Howard: Will the Minister answer the point that I raised on the extension of QMV to article 100? Will he explain how that serves Britain's national interests, unless he envisages that the UK is about to encounter severe financial difficulties and may find itself in need of assistance?
  Peter Hain: The use of QMV in article 100 does not undermine the no-bail-out rule set out in article 103. Article 103 makes it clear that there will be no bailing out of member states, whether of Britain or of any other state. That applies as much to pension liabilities as it does to Government liabilities. That is the answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. If he wants me to write to him in more detail, I shall be happy to do so.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) is one of my
  360
  distinguished predecessors. I take much to heart the importance that she attaches to taking the message to the regions of Britain. With 3.5 million jobs being retained and advanced through EU membership, the benefits of EU membership are felt in the regions and nations of Britain.
  An historic move is contained in the Nice treaty—to enlarge Europe, to reunite Europe and to bring together all the nations that were divided from western Europe by either the second world war or the cold war.
  Enlargement represents an historic opportunity to end the cold war division of Europe and to reunite our continent. Bringing in the countries of central and eastern Europe will consolidate democracy and consolidate good governance, the rule of law and respect for human rights and minority rights. It will contribute to peace in Europe. because EU member states settle their differences through discussion, not confrontation. A larger European Union will be a stronger and safer Europe. Crime, terrorism, drugs and pollution can be addressed only through joint action across the continent.
  Without enlargement, western Europe would always face the threat of instability, conflicts and mass migration on its borders. Enlargement will make new and existing member states richer, bringing long-term prosperity and employment. Accession of the central Europeans will create the largest single market in the world, with nearly 500 million people, opening new opportunities for British companies. Independent research suggests that the accession of the seven largest central European candidates could increase British gross domestic product by £1.75 billion.
  Nice is necessary for enlargement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon said. The enlarged EU that we want cannot work effectively without the changes that the Nice treaty makes to the EU's institutions and procedures. That is why all the member states, including Ireland, have agreed that the ratification of the Nice treaty should proceed to the agreed timetable, so that the EU can be ready by the end of 2002 to begin to welcome new members.
  It would theoretically be possible to admit new member states on the basis of the existing EU treaties, a point made in argument against the Government during the debate. However, that is not practical or politically possible. The present treaties do not include the institutional changes that are required for an enlarged EU to work. Member states are clear that the changes that Nice makes are necessary for the accession of new member states.
  As we said all along, Nice is necessary for enlargement. Nice in that context is indeed nice. Nice is not only necessary for enlargement, but it is desirable. With Nice, we won a good deal for Britain. The treaty increases the relative weight of Britain's vote in the Council of Ministers for the first time. That is why I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put. That the amendment be made:—
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
  The House having divided: Ayes 151, Noes 388.

  Division No. 8]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Amess, David

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Key, Robert

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Knight Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Bacon, Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Baldry, Tony

  Leigh, Edward

  Barker, Greg

  Letwin, Oliver

  Baron, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Beggs, Roy

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Bellingham, Henry

  Lidington, David

  Bercow, John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Loughton, Tim

  Blunt, Crispin

  Luff, Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Brady, Graham

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Brazier, Julian

  Malins, Humfrey

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Maples, John

  Burns, Simon

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Burnside, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Butterfill, John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cameron, David

  Mercer, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Bamet)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Norman, Archie

  Clappison, James

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Collins, Tim

  Osbome, George (Tatton)

  Conway, Derek

  Ottaway, Richard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Page, Richard

  Cran, James

  Paice, James

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Paterson, Owen

  Dodds, Nigel

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Prisk, Mark

  Duncan, Alan

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Robathan, Andrew

  Duncan, Peter

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Evans, Nigel

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

  Fallon, Michael

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Flight, Howard

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Ruffley, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Selous, Andrew

  Francois, Mark

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gale, Roger

  Shepherd, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Simmonds, Mark

  Gibb, Nick

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Goodman, Paul

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gray, James

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Grayling, Chris

  Spring, Richard

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Greenway, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Grieve, Dominic

  Streeter, Gary

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hammond, Philip

  Swire, Hugo

  Hawkins, Nick

  Syms, Robert

  Hayes, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Hendry, Charles

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hoban, Mark

  Tredinnick, David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Trend, Michael

  Horam, John

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Walter, Robert

  Hunter, Andrew

  Watkinson, Angela

  362

  Whittingdale, John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Yeo, Tim

  Wiggin, Bill

  young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wilkinson, John

  Willetts, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wilshire, David

  Mr. John Randall and

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cawsey, Ian

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Challen, Colin

  Ainger, Nick

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Chidgey, David

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Allan, Richard

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Coaker, Vernon

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cohen, Harry

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Coleman, Iain

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Colman, Tony

  Austin, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Baird, Vera

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Baker, Norman

  Corston, Jean

  Banks, Tony

  Cotter, Brian

  Barnes, Harry

  Cousins, Jim

  Barrett, John

  Cox, Tom

  Barron, Kevin

  Cranston, Ross

  Battle, John

  Crausby, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cruddas, Jon

  Beard, Nigel

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cummings, John

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Benn, Hilary

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bennett, Andrew

  Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

  Benton, Joe

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Berry, Roger

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Best, Harold

  David, Wayne

  Betts, Clive

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

  Blackman, Liz

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Borrow, David

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Doran, Frank

  Brake, Tom

  Doughty, Sue

  Breed, Colin

  Dowd, Jim

  Brennan, Kevin

  Drew, David

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Brooke, Annette

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Efford, Clive

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bryant, Chris

  Etherington, Bill

  Burden, Richard

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Burgon, Colin

  Farrelly, Paul

  Burnham, Andy

  Fisher, Mark

  Burstow, Paul

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Flint, Caroline

  Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

  Flynn, Paul

  Cairns, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Calton, Patsy

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Galloway, George

  Cann, Jamie

  Gapes, Mike

  Caplin, Ivor

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Casale, Roger

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caton, Martin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  363

  Gidley, Sandra

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Gilroy, Linda

  Laws, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Laxton, Bob

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lepper, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Levitt, Tom

  Hain, Peter

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Linton, Martin

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Love, Andrew

  Hancock, Mike

  Lucas, Ian

  Hanson, David

  Luke, Iain

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Lyons, John

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Harvey, Nick

  McCafferty, Chris

  Havard, Dai

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Healey, John

  MacDonald, Calum

  Heath, David

  MacDougall, John

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hendrick, Mark

  McKechin, Ann

  Heppell, John

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Heyes, David

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hill, Keith

  McNulty, Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  MacShane, Denis

  Holmes, Paul

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hood, Jimmy

  McWalter, Tony

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  McWilliam, John

  Hope, Phil

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mallaber, Judy

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Mann, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Marris, Rob

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hutton, John

  Meale, Alan

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Merron, Gillian

  Illsley, Eric

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Miliband, David

  Jamieson, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Jenkins, Brian

  Moffatt, Laura

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Moore, Michael

  Moran, Margaret

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Morgan, Julie

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Joyce, Eric

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Oaten, Mark

  Kemp, Fraser

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

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

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Khabra, Piara S

  Öpik, Lembit

  Kidney, David

  Organ, Diana

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Osbome, Sandra (Ayr)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Owen, Albert

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Pearson, Ian

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Perham, Linda

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Picking, Anne

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pickthall, Colin

  Lamb, Norman

  Pike, Peter

  Lammy, David

  Plaskitt, James

  364

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pope, Greg

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pound, Stephen

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Tami, Mark

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pumell, James

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Rapson, Syd

  Thurso, John

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Timms, Stephen

  Rendel, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Todd, Mark

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Touhig, Don

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Trickett, Jon

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Truswell, Paul

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ross, Emie

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Roy, Frank

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Ruane, Chris

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tyler, Paul

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Tynan, Bill

  Ryan, Joan

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Salmond, Alex

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Salter, Martin

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Watson, Tom

  Sawford, Phil

  Watts, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Webb, Steve

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Weir, Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  White, Brian

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Simon, Siôn

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Singh, Marsha

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Willis, Phil

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wills, Michael

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

  Winnick, David

  Soley, Clive

  Wishart, Pete

  Southworth, Helen

  Woodward, Shaun

  Spellar, John

  Woolas, Phil

  Squire, Rachel

  Worthington, Tony

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wray, James

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Jim Fitzpatrick and

  Stringer, Graham

  Dan Norris.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:-
  The House divided: Ayes 385, Noes 148.

  Division No. 9]

  [10.17 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Ainger, Nick

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Alexander, Douglas

  Austin, John

  Allan, Richard

  Bailey, Adrian

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Baird, Vera

  Baker, Norman

  365

  Banks, Tony

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Barnes, Harry

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Barrett, John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Barron, Kevin

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Battle, John

  David, Wayne

  Bayley, Hugh

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

  Beard, Nigel

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dawson, Hilton

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Benn, Hilary

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bennett, Andrew

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Benton, Joe

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Berry, Roger

  Doran, Frank

  Best, Harold

  Doughty, Sue

  Betts, Clive

  Dowd, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Efford, Clive

  Borrow, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Etherington, Bill

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Brake, Tom

  Farrelly, Paul

  Breed, Colin

  Fisher, Mark

  Brennan, Kevin

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Flint, Caroline

  Brooke, Annette

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bryant, Chris

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Burden, Richard

  Galloway, George

  Burgon, Colin

  Gapes, Mike

  Burnham, Andy

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Burstow, Paul

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Gerard, Neil

  Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Cairns, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Calton, Patsy

  Gilroy, Linda

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cann, Jamie

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hain, Peter

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Casale, Roger

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Caton, Martin

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Challen, Colin

  Hancock, Mike

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hanson, David

  Chidgey, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Harvey, Nick

  Coaker, Vemon

  Havard, Dai

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Healey, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Heath, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Colman, Tony

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heppell, John

  Corston, Jean

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Cotter, Brian

  Heyes, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hill, Keith

  Cox, Tom

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cranston, Ross

  Holmes, Paul

  Crausby, David

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hope, Phil

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  366

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hutton, John

  Meale, Alan

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Merron, Gillian

  Illsley, Eric

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Miliband, David

  Jamieson, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Jenkins, Brian

  Moffatt, Laura

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Moore, Michael

  Moran, Margaret

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Morgan, Julie

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Joyce, Eric

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Oaten, Mark

  Kemp, Fraser

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

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

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Khabra, Piara S

  Olner, Bill

  Kidney, David

  Öpik, Lembit

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Organ, Diana

  King, Andy (Rugby & KenHworth)

  Osbome, Sandra (Ayr)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Owen, Albert

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pearson, Ian

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Perham, Linda

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Picking, Anne

  Lamb, Norman

  Pickthall, Colin

  Lammy, David

  Pike, Peter

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Plaskitt, James

  Laws, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Laxton, Bob

  Pope, Greg

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Pound, Stephen

  Lepper, David

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Leslie, Christopher

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Levitt, Tom

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Purchase, Ken

  Linton, Martin

  Pumell, James

  Lloyd, Tony

  Quinn, Rt Hon Joyce

  Love, Andrew

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lucas, Ian

  Rapson, Syd

  Luke, Iain

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Lyons, John

  Rendel, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McCafferty, Chris

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  MacDonald, Calum

  Rooney, Terry

  MacDougall, John

  Ross, Emie

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Roy, Frank

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ruane, Chris

  McKechin, Ann

  Ruddock, Joan

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ryan, Joan

  McNulty, Tony

  Salmond, Alex

  MacShane, Denis

  Salter, Martin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sanders, Adrian

  McWalter, Tony

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McWilliam, John

  Sawford, Phil

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mann, John

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marris, Rob

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Simon, Siôn

  367

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Tyler, Paul

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

  Tynan, Bill

  Soley, Clive

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Southworth, Helen

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Spellar, John

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Squire, Rachel

  Wareing, Robert N

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Watson, Tom

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Watts, David

  Stevenson, George

  Webb, Steve

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Weir, Michael

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  White, Brian

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Stringer, Graham

  (Swansea W)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Tami, Mark

  Willis, Phil

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wills, Michael

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Wray, James

  Thurso, John

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Todd, Mark

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Touhig, Don

  Trickett, Jon

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Truswell, Paul

  Jim Fitzpatrick and

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Dan Norris.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Amess, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Duncan, Peter

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Evans, Nigel

  Bacon, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Fallon, Michael

  Barker, Greg

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Baron, John

  Flook, Adrian

  Beggs, Roy

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Bercow, John

  Francois, Mark

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Blunt, Crispin

  Garnier, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Gibb, Nick

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Goodman, Paul

  Brady, Graham

  Gray, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Grayling, Chris

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, John

  Burnside, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Butterfill, John

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Cameron, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Cash, William

  Hawkins, Nick

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hayes, John

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Heald, Oliver

  Chope, Christopher

  Hendry, Charles

  Clappison, James

  Hoban, Mark

  Collins, Tim

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Conway, Derek

  Horam, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dodds, Nigel

  Jenkin, Bernard

  368

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Key, Robert

  Ruffley, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Selous, Andrew

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard

  Letwin, Oliver

  Simmonds, Mark

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Loughton, Tim

  Spring, Richard

  Luff, Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Streeter, Gary

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Swayne, Desmond

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Swire, Hugo

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Syms, Robert

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maples, John

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tredinnick, David

  Mercer, Patrick

  Trend, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Norman, Archie

  Watkinson, Angela

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Whittingdale, John

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wiggin, Bill

  Page, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Paice, James

  Willetts, David

  Paterson, Owen

  Wilshire, David

  Prisk, Mark

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Mr. John Randall.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill (Programme)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill:

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill (Programme)
    Committal of the Bill
    1.The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
    Programming of proceedings
    2.Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and all remaining proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further message from the Lords) shall be programmed.

    Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading
    3.—(1)Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in four allotted days.
    (2) An allotted day is one on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day.—[Mr. Heppell].
    The House divided: Ayes 372, Noes 148

    Division No. 10]

    [10.31 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Clwyd, Ann

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Coaker, Vemon

    Ainger, Nick

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Cohen, Harry

    Alexander, Douglas

    Coleman, Iain

    Allan, Richard

    Colman, Tony

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Connarty, Michael

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Corston, Jean

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Cotter, Brian

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cousins, Jim

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cox, Tom

    Austin, John

    Cranston, Ross

    Bailey, Adrian

    Crausby, David

    Baird, Vera

    Cruddas, Jon

    Baker, Norman

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Banks, Tony

    Cummings, John

    Barnes, Harry

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Barrett, John

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Barron, Kevin

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Battle, John

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Bayley, Hugh

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Beard, Nigel

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    David, Wayne

    Begg, Miss Anne

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

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Benn, Hilary

    Dawson, Hilton

    Bennett, Andrew

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Benton, Joe

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Berry, Roger

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Best, Harold

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Betts, Clive

    Doran, Frank

    Blackman, Liz

    Doughty, Sue

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Dowd, Jim

    Blizzard, Bob

    Drew, David

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Borrow, David

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Efford, Clive

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Breed, Colin

    Ennis, Jeff

    Brennan, Kevin

    Etherington, Bill

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Brooke, Annette

    Farrelly, Paul

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Fisher, Mark

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Flint, Caroline

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Bryant, Chris

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Burden, Richard

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Burgon, Colin

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Bumham, Andy

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Galloway, George

    Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

    Gapes, Mike

    Caims, David

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Calton, Patsy

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Gilroy, Linda

    Cann, Jamie

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Casale, Roger

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Caton, Martin

    Hain, Peter

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Challen, Colin

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Chidgey, David

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hancock, Mike

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hanson, David

    370

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    McCafferty, Chris

    Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    MacDonald, Calum

    Harvey, Nick

    MacDougall, John

    Havard, Dai

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Healey, John

    McIsaac, Shona

    Heath, David

    McKechin, Ann

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hendrick, Mark

    McNamara, Kevin

    Heppell, John

    McNulty, Tony

    Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

    MacShane, Denis

    Heyes, David

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Hill, Keith

    McWalter, Tony

    Hinchliffe, David

    McWilliam, John

    Holmes, Paul

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Hood, Jimmy

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Mann, John

    Hope, Phil

    Marris, Rob

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Martlew, Eric

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Meale, Alan

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Merron, Gillian

    Hutton, John

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Illsley, Eric

    Miliband, David

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Miller, Andrew

    Jamieson, David

    Moffatt, Laura

    Jenkins, Brian

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Moore, Michael

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Moran, Margaret

    Morgan, Julie

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Mountford, Kali

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Mudie, George

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Mullin, Chris

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Joyce, Eric

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Kemp, Fraser

    O'Hara, Edward

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

    Olner, Bill

    Öpik, Lembit

    Khabra, Piara S

    Organ, Diana

    Kidney, David

    Osbome, Sandra (Ayr)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Owen, Albert

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Pearson, Ian

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Perham, Linda

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Picking, Anne

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Pickthall, Colin

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Pike, Peter

    Lamb, Norman

    Plaskitt, James

    Lammy, David

    Pollard, Kerry

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Pope, Greg

    Laws, David

    Pound, Stephen

    Laxton, Bob

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Lepper, David

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Pugh, Dr John

    Levitt, Tom

    Purchase, Ken

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Purnell, James

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Linton, Martin

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Lloyd, Tony

    Rapson, Syd

    Love, Andrew

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Lucas, Ian

    Rendel, David

    Luke, Iain

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Lyons, John

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    McCabe, Stephen

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    371

    Rooney, Terry

    Timms, Stephen

    Ross, Ernie

    Todd, Mark

    Roy, Frank

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Ruane, Chris

    Touhig, Don

    Ruddock, Joan

    Trickett, Jon

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Truswell, Paul

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Ryan, Joan

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Salmond, Alex

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Salter, Martin

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Tyler, Paul

    Sawford, Phil

    Tynan, Bill

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Simon, Siôn

    Wareing, Robert N

    Singh, Marsha

    Watson, Tom

    Skinner, Dennis

    Watts, David

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Webb, Steve

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Weir, Michael

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    White, Brian

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Soley, Clive

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Southworth, Helen

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Spellar, John

    Squire, Rachel

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Willis, Phil

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Wills, Michael

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Winnick, David

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Wishart, Pete

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Woodward, Shaun

    Stringer, Graham

    Woolas, Phil

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Worthington, Tony

    Stunell, Andrew

    Wray, James

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Tami, Mark

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Dan Norris and

    Thurso, John

    Jim Fitzpatrick.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Colins, Tim

    Amess, David

    Conway, Derek

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Cran, James

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Bacon, Richard

    Dodds, Nigel

    Baldry, Tony

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Barker, Greg

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Baron, John

    Duncan, Peter

    Beggs, Roy

    Evans, Nigel

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bercow, John

    Fallon, Michael

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Flight, Howard

    Boswell, Tim

    Flook, Adrian

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Brady, Graham

    Francois, Mark

    Brazier, Julian

    Gale, Roger

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Garnier, Edward

    Bums, Simon

    Gibb, Nick

    Bumside, David

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Butterfill, John

    Goodman, Paul

    Cameron, David

    Gray, James

    Cash, William

    Grayling, Chris

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Bamet)

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Chope, Christopher

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Clappison, James

    Hammond, Philip

    372

    Hawkins, Nick

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Hayes, John

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Heald, Oliver

    Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

    Hendry, Charles

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Hermon, Lady

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Hoban, Mark

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Ruffley, David

    Horam, John

    Selous, Andrew

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Shepherd, Richard

    Hunter, Andrew

    Simmonds, Mark

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Key, Robert

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Knight Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Spring, Richard

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Leigh, Edward

    Steen, Anthony

    Letwin, Oliver

    Streeter, Gary

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Swayne, Desmond

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Swire, Hugo

    Lidington, David

    Syrns, Robert

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Loughton, Tim

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Luff, Peter

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Tredinnick, David

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Trend, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Maples, John

    Walter, Robert

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Watkinson, Angela

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Whittingdale, John

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Mercer, Patrick

    Wiggin, Bill

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Wilkinson, John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Willetts, David

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Norman, Archie

    Wilshire, David

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Osbome, George (Tatton)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Yeo, Tim

    Page, Richard

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Paice, James

    Paterson, Owen

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Prisk, Mark

    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Robathan, Andrew

    Mr. John Randall.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[28 June].
    Question again proposed,
    That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 26th October, 2nd, 23rd and 30th November 2001, 11th, 18th and 25th January, 15th March, 12th and 19th April, 10th May, 21st June and 19th July 2002.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.—[Mr. Heppell.]

    DEREGULATION AND REGULATORY REFORM COMMITTEE
    Motion made,
    That Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. David Chaytor, Brian Cotter, John Cryer, Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson. Mr. Paul Goodman, Andy King, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Mr. Andrew Love, John McDonnell, Mr. Denis Murphy, Dr. Doug Naysmith, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. Andrew Rosindell,

    373
    Mr. Anthony Steen, Ian Stewart and Brian White be members of the Select Committee on Deregulation and Regulatory Reform.—[Mr. Heppell.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    PETITION

      Hartlebury 449 Safety Action Group
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Peter Luff: It is a great but sad privilege to present the petition of 572 signatories, organised by the Hartlebury 449 safety action group. It is sad because the group came into existence in response to the recent death of a teenage girl on the very dangerous A449 between Kidderminster and Worcester at Hartlebury. The petitioners have seen the middle section of the road become immeasurably safer since the introduction of a radical traffic-calming scheme by the Highways Agency, and now feel that it is time to apply similar measures to the rest of the road, especially in the Hartlebury area. They hope that the petition will encourage the Highways Agency to move speedily. It states:
      "the A449 trunk road between Kidderminster and Crossway Green is so dangerous to the lives and property of residents, pedestrians and drivers that traffic calming measures are vital for the community.
      The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to take the necessary steps to introduce traffic calming measures, notwithstanding any requirement for de-trunking this road.
      To lie upon the Table.

  Environmentally Friendly Fuels
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  10.46 pm
  Mrs. Helen Brinton: This is a large topic and I obviously cannot cover all aspects of it tonight. I have therefore chosen to concentrate on the areas in which I have been personally involved.
  I realise that some of the issues that I am going to raise may not be entirely the responsibility of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). Many of us are finding that the new departmental boundaries take a bit of getting used to; let us hope that the change will be positive. As the issues that I shall raise concern more than one Department, there is a mechanism for passing them for reply to the Minister with relevant responsibilities.
  We should abjure parochialism in relation to national and European Community boundaries. I should like to give personal thanks and pay tribute to the delegation of French MPs whom I met today and with whom I discussed many of these topics.
  During my lifetime and that of the majority of hon. Members, growth in road traffic has been so fast that it has been impossible to cope with its consequences for congestion, pollution, health and climate change. It is unsustainable, however many new roads we build. Undoubtedly, in the longer term, we shall adopt new patterns of road use and may travel shorter distances to work, own fewer private cars and rent more. I find that solution very convenient, as I am a non-driver.
  Public transport certainly needs to be improved, and new forms will be developed, including road transport. At present, however, few people are willing to give up their cars or the freedom and flexibility that that mode of transport provides. Or, if they are willing in theory, they cannot see how their life style can be maintained without cars. People cannot, overnight or alone, decide to relocate their homes, work, children, shopping, school and leisure facilities, however concerned they are about pollution and its effect on health, climate and the future of the planet.
  People in more remote areas have even less choice and have to travel, both to obtain the majority of their goods and services and to work. That is where the Government must intervene. We elect Governments partly to provide the solutions to problems that we cannot solve by acting alone; they should provide solutions in the short term and address and influence longer-term trends. Part of the short-term solution to the problems caused by increasing road traffic is the development and supply of alternative fuels. Hon. Members may know that, during my period of service in the previous Parliament on the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, I consistently championed the use of road fuel gases in vehicles. Such gases are consistently more environmentally friendly in terms of air quality strategy pollutants than petrol or diesel are. If we consider just one pollutant, particulates, the health gains from reducing particle levels are greater than for those of any other pollutant. About 20,000 people a year suffer medical problems owing to particulates. Most—75 per cent. of them—particulate emissions from road transport are from diesel engines.

  375
  In recent tests, liquefied petroleum gas engines have produced no measurable particulate matter at any speed. Recent tests also show that, at 30 miles per hour, although diesel engines fitted with traps are better than non-fitted engines, even they produce significant quantities of particulate matter. Clean diesel is an advance, but it is not the answer.
  A major advantage of LPG is that the technology is available now and offers significant benefits to human health and the environment. Clearly, what is—and was—needed to encourage its development is the right fiscal policy, as other countries such as Holland and Italy already have large road fuel gas vehicle populations. During the previous Parliament, I welcomed successive Budgets that gave incentives to road fuel gases, but even now, only some 39,000 vehicles in the UK use LPG, compared with 1 million in Italy, a country of similar size, and 400,000 in the much smaller country of Holland.
  In our country, road fuel gases are on the brink of full market viability, and significant numbers of drivers and fleet owners are realising the benefits to themselves and the environment of switching to cleaner fuel. One LPG pump is installed every day on a forecourt somewhere. There is now the prospect of a nationwide network of pumps so that drivers need not fear running out of fuel. There are still problems in rural areas. As I said in the debate on the Queen's Speech. there is a need for targeted help—again, as in other countries—to enable rural garages in places such as Scotland to install LPG infrastructure. That should be seen as part of a wider package to sustain the countryside.
  On road fuel gases, we are nearly there; let us not throw it all away. Fleet owners need long-term confidence to invest, and many of them remember when a previous Government summarily removed incentives for LPG use and killed off a nascent market.
  Powershift, the Government programme that encourages people to shift to cleaner fuels, did its own research this year and reported on its website:
  "The research also considered the importance of a number of market factors in influencing the decision to switch to clean fuels … The strongest concern was a lack of confidence in the Government maintaining the fuel duty differential".
  This Government have promised to retain the fiscal incentive until at least 2004, but I ask: what next?
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Lady's work on this matter is well known to the House. Will she join me in congratulating Powershift on its work so far and urge the Minister and the Government not only to retain but expand the scheme as much as possible, not only to include older vehicles, which would contribute greatly to tackling climate change, but to consider other fuel alternatives, such as fuel cells and biodiesel, as they come on the market?
  Mrs. Brinton: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I agree with everything that he has said, and hope that he will join me in approaching the Minister at a later and more convenient date. I suggest that the measures be extended.
  Just when the market is about to deliver, let us not offer the prospect of the advantage disappearing in three years' time. People are rational consumers; they will not invest in something that may become inviable in the foreseeable
  376
  future. As the hon. Gentleman helpfully reminded us, recent consultation on Powershift has suggested that its help for conversion may be phased out at the end of next year. There are certainly other technologies that may require support in the longer term, but as I said, LPG is here, now. In government, we should deal in the here and now and in achievable solutions. LPG is already delivering. We cannot afford to throw away its environmental benefits in favour of a future of uncertain alternatives.
  There is an article on the Powershift website by Professor Garel Rhys, the director of the Centre of Automotive Industry Research at Cardiff university business school, with which the hon. Gentleman may be familiar. He writes:
  "It is important that the incentives are not withdrawn prematurely … whatever the state of public finances."
  I agree. Powershift can and should be reviewed, but let us not throw the baby out with the bath water.
  I turn to the challenge posed by the rubbish mountain. We have a problem of too much waste going to landfill. Only about 9 per cent. of household waste was recycled last year—a shocking figure. About 85 per cent. of domestic waste goes to landfill. The European landfill directive will force us to reduce biodegradable domestic waste sent to landfill by 2016 to no more than 35 per cent. of the 1995 level. That will not be easy.
  We also have a problem of slow progress towards developing sufficient sources of renewable energy. The Government are committed to a target of 10 per cent. of electricity generation by 2010, but the present level achieved is only 2.8 per cent. There is a long way to go. Some people have suggested that large-scale incineration of waste with an energy by-product is the answer to both problems. I am not so sure that incineration deserves the support that it would gain from being included in the renewables order.
  Incineration is unpopular with the public. It has a poor history of producing unacceptable emissions. Low environmental standards were applied to municipal incinerators as recently as the early 1990s. Incinerator technology does not need subsidy. However, we must be careful not to get caught by the shackles of vocabulary.
  There is a danger that generating energy from waste by pyrolysis may be excluded from the renewables order. Pyrolysis is not the same as incineration. It has the advantage of recycling energy from waste effectively, without the emission problem. Modem pyrolysis technology is much more able than incineration to meet or improve upon the requirements of the new directive on emissions. It is an exciting technology, but is not yet at the stage of market viability.
  A new generation of pyrolysis plants would need to produce much more electricity from the same amount of waste as handled by current pyrolysis plants. To do that, new cutting-edge designs must be introduced. It is unlikely that anyone would be prepared to take the risks of trying to establish pyrolysis plants on a commercial scale without the support of the renewables obligation. Can my hon. Friend assure me that pyrolysis, as distinct from incineration, will be given favourable consideration for inclusion in the renewables order?
  I am concerned also about the deteriorating situation in relation to CHP—combined heat and power. The Government strategy for stimulating CHP is, I believe,

  377
  out for consultation. CHP was set to double by 2010, saving more than 25 per cent. of the current shortfall in the UK target of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. However, I understand from a major company in the Peterborough area, British Sugar, which has used CHP since the 1920s—yes, I had to look that up—that Government targets are under serious threat, owing to a combination of factors, including the electricity trading arrangements and the need to exempt CHP fully from the climate change levy.
  There is an urgent need to stimulate CHP as part of the Government's sustainable energy policy. I urge the Minister responsible—in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, perhaps—to ensure that a comprehensive strategy is published soon.
  My final topic this evening is biofuels, which offer great reductions in emissions. The production of biofuels could be of great benefit in rural regeneration as another source of employment, particularly in my region, the eastern region. The matter was raised in another place last Thursday by my noble Friend Lord Palmer, and I was pleased to see the Minister's reply. He agreed that it was important to investigate the use of biofuels, and that fiscal and other measures might encourage their development. He specifically mentioned rapeseed-based biodiesel.
  I am particularly interested in how far the use of such fuels in aviation has progressed. I asked a question about that in the House in January and I was informed that the Department of Trade and Industry was then reviewing what it termed a "modest proposal" to use a fuel derived from biomass instead of aviation kerosene.
  The growth in aviation is even more dramatic than that in road transport. The number of planes using UK airports has doubled since 1985. Air travel worldwide is expected to reach double 1995 levels by 2015. In 1992, air transport accounted for 3.5 per cent. of greenhouse gas emissions, but by 2050 it could be as high as 15 per cent. Those are worrying figures. A White Paper is expected which will attempt to address the many issues involved. I ask the Minister to ensure that, at the very least, as for road transport, the use of cleaner, more environmentally friendly fuels is a priority.
  I did not notice anything on the subject in the Green Paper published last December, but there is considerable interest in it, including in the aviation industry. I happened to be at an event hosted by British Airways this week, and I shall certainly be following up some contacts that I made there.
  In all the areas upon which I have touched there is a balance to be struck between incentivising technology with real promise and technology which has enthusiastic backers but little prospect of viability. Making the wrong choice results not only in wasteful expenditure, but deprives us of attainable environmental gain. As I said in the debate last week, transport being now part of another Department, I am concerned that transport policy making could be less informed by environmental considerations, and I am far from alone in that. There is a danger that economic drivers will be given precedence without check by environmental and social considerations, the two of which are far from independent, or, indeed, always in conflict.
  378
  During the past few years, we have learned a lot about the processes and benefits of sustainable development. about how we can achieve economic benefits without social or environmental costs, and, indeed, in the best so-called win-win-win scenarios, about achieving gains on all fronts. We must not discard all that experience now. We must be very careful where we build new roads. We must properly assess and understand the projected impacts, both short and long term, and investigate creative alternatives.
  We must be equally and similarly vigilant concerning measures to address the increase in aviation and the environmental and other problems that it will cause. We must continue to encourage investment in other forms of transport, both public and private, and not forget the aims of the integrated transport strategy developed by the Deputy Prime Minister in the previous Parliament. We must encourage existing and new forms of cleaner transport and other fuels.
  11.3 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) on securing the debate. She has taken much interest in environmental matters and has always brought her considerable experience to debates such as this, as she has done tonight
  In answer to one of my hon. Friend's latter questions, I can assure her that, while I am in this job and my hon. Friends are in their jobs, transport policy will be informed by environmental concerns.
  My hon. Friend raised a number of matters that fall within the responsibility of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I shall draw those to the attention of my colleagues.
  My hon. Friend made important comments on transport and traffic, underlining the issues addressed in the 10-year plan. I am pleased to be responsible for cleaner fuels and vehicles in the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and, like my hon. Friend, I have a personal conviction about the potential to raise transport quality as well as improve the environment. We can do that by reducing air pollution and the resulting health problems, making vehicles quieter, enhancing local livability, helping to bring about an urban renaissance, cutting greenhouse gases and opening the way for haulage to operate more flexibly.
  My hon. Friend raised the issue of liquid petroleum gas. which is better known as LPG, but that is only part of the Government's agenda. I welcome the opportunity briefly to outline that agenda and its underpinning strategy. The components are to secure the maximum take-up of today's environmentally friendly fuels, bring forward the next generation of green fuels and lay the foundations for the United Kingdom to benefit from the longer-term prospects for fuel-cell propulsion and the low-carbon economy.
  That means using the right mix of measures, including, as my hon. Friend mentioned, appropriate taxation of the different fuels and types of vehicle, in line with the Government's statement of intent on environmental taxation. The strategy includes grants to provide incentives and support for motorists and businesses in buying green vehicles, action to promote information and

  379
  awareness of new fuels, and partnership with other players such as the vehicle and fuel industries, local government and others to break the logjams and make things happen.
  I have briefly described the structure and sinews of the strategy, but I want now to fill out the picture. As my hon. Friend said, LPG is here now and is already delivering. That success follows the action taken by the Government, who have put in place the low duty for LPG and compressed natural gas, or CNG. The rate is 6p per litre, compared with 45p for petrol and diesel, which means a pump price of about 40p. We have established the Powershift grant and promotion programme, and increased the scheme's funding substantially in the 2000 comprehensive spending review, giving it a firm three-year forward budget of £30 million.
  The oil companies have responded with impressive forecourt investment. As my hon. Friend said, there are now more than 750 LPG outlets and the number is growing daily. We have to strong and high-quality conversion industry. The car companies are now starting to offer LPG models as standard, off-the-assembly line options, so that buyers do not have to arrange separate conversion. That further establishes LPG as a mainstream vehicle option. However, technology does not stand still. Conventional fuels and vehicles have become much cleaner in the past few years, which challenges the gas technologies to raise their environmental performance in the same way.
  My hon. Friend noted that the Government are currently consulting on the future direction of the Powershift programme. We are maintaining the funding for LPG grants—there is no question about that—but we have suggested that grants should now focus on the conversion of light-duty goods vehicles, as the biggest air quality benefit now comes from displacement of diesel. Hence the proposals to switch resources progressively towards such vehicles. Some responses argue that refocusing of the grants should be taken more slowly. That view and all comments will be carefully considered.
  The Government also want to push hard on CNG, which is the other main gas fuel that is now available. It has huge potential to make heavy goods vehicles significantly cleaner and, importantly, quieter. We have put the economic parameters in place—guaranteed low duty for CNG, plus the grants available through the Powershift and Clean Up programmes—to assist HGV operators in investing in new CNG-fuelled vehicles and in converting existing vehicles. There is still a chicken-and-egg problem with the fuel network: there are not many CNG vehicles, so there are not many outlets, and vice versa. We have begun two pilot initiatives—one with the London Mayor and Transport for London and another with Manchester city council—to demonstrate how a local agency can break into the circle by bringing together prospective CNG users and suppliers.
  The second strand of the strategy is introducing the next generation of fuels. As my hon. Friend said, we are considering hydrogen and biofuels, which can start to decouple mobility from climate change. That is crucial. My hon. Friend mentioned biofuels, which are practical and can replace and be blended with fossil petrol or diesel in existing engines. When compared with fossil fuel, the carbon saving is highest when the biofuel is made with waste or recycled material. It is less when the feed stock is specially grown using fertilisers and energy.
  380
  We intend this country to be a leader in biofuel technologies. The Chancellor launched the greener fuels challenge in last year's pre-Budget report to identify the most promising fuels for tax treatment. That led to the 20p per litre reduction in duty for biodiesel in the Budget. That will encourage biodiesel, which is produced in the UK with used vegetable oil.
  In the Finance Act 2001, we took powers to set low duties for pilot projects aimed at bringing forward other new fuels. Companies will shortly be invited to introduce their proposals, and we aim to announce the successful pilots later this year.
  Bio-ethanol made from agricultural waste material or from municipal refuse is especially interesting. It delivers double benefits: a new source of farm income, and a better option for waste disposal. It is a productive alternative to incineration or landfill. The potential is obvious.
  I am aware of the arguments that there should be an even larger duty cut for biodiesel to open the way for biodiesel made from virgin rapeseed, and that biodiesel duty should be on a par with LPG or CNG.
  As my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State said in the other place, the Government will continue to keep all biofuels under review, including biodiesel production from rapeseed. Doubtless, continuing developments will occur in technology and rapeseed cultivation. The case for even lower duty on biodiesel, on a par with LPG and CNG, was addressed in the debate on the Finance Bill. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary explained that the prime purpose of the low duty on LPG and CNG was to help combat air quality problems. Experts generally agree that biodiesel is no better than fossil diesel on the most important emissions. Rapeseed biodiesel offers some carbon savings compared with fossil diesel, but the benefits are fairly limited because of the amount of fertilisers and energy used in growing rapeseed.
  If we look even further ahead, there is the firm prospect of electric drive vehicles running on fuel-cell technology. That opens the way for a clutch of benefits. They include higher vehicle efficiency, better in-car amenities, zero tailpipe emissions and lower carbon emissions. Carbon emissions will be almost zero when the hydrogen is renewably generated.
  We want this country to be out in front. In the autumn, my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry will produce a discussion document, entitled "Powering Future Vehicles." It will set out our strategy for promoting the development, introduction and take-up of fuel cell and other new technologies, and for ensuring that the United Kingdom automotive industry is fully engaged in that process. That will open an extremely important discussion, with great significance for the whole automotive industry and the environmental footprint of transport.
  In the time available, I have ranged widely on the subject, and I hope that that has been useful. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for initiating this evening's debate and for her presentation of the case. If she believes that any issues have not been covered in adequate detail, I will ensure that my officials provide a response shortly. I am glad that the matter has been aired and I look forward to discussing it in future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Dementia
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Caplin.]
9.30 am
Mr. Paul Burstow: I am pleased to have the opportunity to initiate a debate on the important subject of care services for people with dementia.
I have some personal experience of the subject, because I have shadowed three carers for the past three years, two of whom were caring for people with dementia. I want hon. Members to imagine what it is like to work an 18 and a half hour day every day with no holiday for five years. One of my constituents, Joyce Evans, has led such a life for the past five years. I met her during last year's national carers week.
I spent a morning with Joyce and her husband, shadowing her and seeing what the role of a carer is all about. To be honest, one cannot do that role justice in a morning, just sitting, talking and listening. Albert has Alzheimer's disease. It has robbed him of his memory and has robbed Joyce of a lifelong companion. They have been married for 41 years. It was a humbling experience to talk to Joyce and learn about her life. She has a wicked sense of humour that seems to keep her going. However, a darker side comes through in her letters, which reveal the struggle of caring for a loved one with Alzheimer's disease. Joyce has to plumb the deepest reserves to keep going. She said that she had been given a lot of support since the diagnosis of her husband's disease. They had received help with applying for benefits, such as attendance allowance. Social services had helped arrange for Albert to attend the Downsday day centre four days a week, and Joyce's doctor had been very supportive, once visiting at 2 am.
The Downsday day centre is crucial for Joyce, giving her space. Since Albert has stopped shaving himself, helpers at the centre do that for him and also give him a bath. Joyce has a strong and supportive family who live locally and a network of friends with whom she can have lunch. Albert is 78. He worked as a gas fitter. When the Shanklin estate in my constituency was built some time ago, Albert was one of the team that did the fitting work. On the day that I visited Albert, he was in a good mood. Joyce told me that, when he is in a bad mood, he tells people to bugger off. Sometimes he may go further than that.
When I arrived at the house, it was locked up like Fort Knox. Joyce explained that Albert was wont to go roaming. The only way to stop him was to ensure that the whole house was securely locked. Her son-in-law came to the rescue and fitted the locks. Extra locks might stop Albert getting out, but they can stop Joyce getting in. On one occasion, Albert locked her in the
70WH
back garden for half an hour, and there was no way out of the garden. It sounds funny now looking back, but it was not funny at the time.
Joyce is eight and a half years younger than Albert, and she needs to be to cope. Five years of solid care have taken their toll. Joyce is physically and emotionally drained. Unless one is a carer, one cannot put oneself in a carer's place and understand the mixture of emotions that are stirred up by caring day in and day out. It struck me that a combination of formal and informal help had made it just possible for Joyce to carry on caring for five years.
Should society expect Joyce to carry on caring? That is fine if that is what she wants to do. However, it is wrong if it is out of a sense of obligation, and because the alternative is degrading and unacceptable. Surveys show that most of us want to carry on living in our own homes for as long as possible, which I support. We must make sure, however, that the unsung heroes such as Joyce do not shoulder an unbearable burden. That is the reason why I chose this topic for debate.
Happenstance and good fortune, and the drawing of ballots for the Adjournment debates, have meant that we are debating this subject during Alzheimer's awareness week. This year, Alzheimer's awareness week is based around the theme of everyday matters. I know that that is true from my time shadowing Joyce. Alzheimer's disease is a label that commands fear before sympathy. People with the disease, and those around them, experience social exclusion and isolation.
Research recently published by the Alzheimer's Disease Society shows that 75 per cent. of carers for people with dementia see their friends less often than they used to, and 40 per cent. have less than an hour to themselves each day. Certainly, that is the experience of Joyce and of Lillian, a carer whom I met last year. Lillian powerfully communicated her deep isolation to me one day when, as I was about to leave, she said, "It is nice to have someone to talk to." She did not normally have that.
There are more than 700,000 people with dementia in the United Kingdom. Dementia affects one person in 20 over the age of 65, and one person in five aged over 80. Alzheimer's disease is the most common form of dementia, but there are others. As the population ages, the total number of sufferers will grow, even if drug treatments reduce the prevalence of the illness. The combination of mental frailty and physical disability makes those who are affected by some form of the disease vulnerable. As dementia progresses, sufferers require increased care and specialist support.
I do not intend to caricature the Government's record on dementia, because there have been some achievements. The national carers' strategy and the national service framework for older people are two examples of that. There is much common ground between the political parties on what we must achieve for people with dementia and their carers. However, I question the pace of progress and whether the Government's thinking is informed by adequate ambition and urgency.
In January 2000, the Audit Commission published a report entitled "Forget Me Not—Mental Health Services for Older People". The Audit Commission reported a massive disparity in the funding provided for

71WH
services for older people with mental health problems; a difference of 8:1 from one area to another. It also found that
"specialist help for users and carers is patchy and often uncoordinated."
The Audit Commission said that all the elements of a comprehensive service needed to be drawn together strategically. It identified the following: a need for clear goals on the intended balance between home-based, day, out-patient and hospital services; good quality information to inform planning, including monitoring of service quality; and an approach that promotes innovation and works towards jointly commissioned services by health and local authorities, as emphasised by national policy.
The "National Service Framework for Older People" was published 14 months later, in March 2001. Much of its content should be applauded, although it misses the opportunity to secure significant improvements quickly for those who require dementia care. Although the standards set out in the NSF are welcome, they lack the ambition and the practical standards necessary to effect change.
On the time scale, the first milestone for mental health in the national service framework is not due until April 2004. In three years' time, the plans should be drawn up, and the methods of communication and assessment will have been worked out, but what about the services? The Audit Commission has mapped out the key elements that must be in place to improve services. Why cannot April 2002 be a milestone for the completion of the review of local mental health services, referred to as an action point in the national service framework? Surely the cross-cutting audits that were set in motion by the Audit Commission's report "Forget Me Not" should assist that process. There seems to be no reference to that important exercise.
Health and social care services should devise, agree and implement local protocols by December 2002. Why has everything been left to 2004? Action plans, which set out how to develop, and—if necessary—reconfigure home-based, day, out-patient and hospital services, should be drawn up and finalised by April 2003. These milestones must be set in stone before 2004. We must not allow the wholesale reorganisation of the national health service to get in the way of establishing such services as soon as possible. We should take meaningful steps to address the huge funding inequalities identified by the Audit Commission. The need is urgent. There are hundreds of thousands of Joyces and Alberts out there.
Earlier this year, I sent a questionnaire to 150 social services authorities around England. Sixty responded; a 40 per cent. response rate, which is not bad for research of that sort. Some 72 per cent. of social services departments that responded are unable to meet current demand for nursing beds for the elderly and mental ill; 68 per cent. are unable to meet current demand for residential EMI beds; 62 per cent. report shortfalls in provision for older people with challenging behaviour; and 58 per cent. report shortfalls in provision of specialised dementia care. One could say that those findings demonstrate that nothing has changed since the Audit Commission report of January 2000, based on
72WH
auditing work that was done during the previous year. The shortage of specialist care means that vulnerable elderly people and their families are left in limbo; too often the spotlight seems to fall on bed blocking or delayed discharges in the national health service.
The untold story is that of a family struggling to cope with the complex needs and challenging behaviour of loved ones in their own homes. The Government have not adequately addressed that, particularly in the care homes sector. A collapse in confidence has led to large-scale closures of homes, a piecemeal loss of beds and a loss of capacity, which means that areas that need provision no longer have it and others have too much.
There is a need for investment in those specialist services—I am sure that we will hear more about that from the Minister—but the national service framework does not make it clear where those resources are going to come from or what is required locally to ensure that they are targeted to develop necessary new services. The Government cannot rely too much on the development of intermediate care as a substitute for targeted investment in specialist long-term care to deal with dementia. Having given their all, families should not be expected to struggle with intimate caring duties when specialist care is required, nor should vulnerable elderly people be placed in a home that is not properly funded or staffed to meet their needs.
People with Alzheimer's are among the most vulnerable in our society. Their needs are easily ignored. Of the 850 carers of people with dementia surveyed by the Audit Commission, fewer than half were asked whether they needed any help once the diagnosis had been made. Only one third were told how to care for their relatives or how to cope with dementia. The rest were left uninformed and had to work it out for themselves. From my discussions with Lillian, someone who cares for another person with dementia, I learned that her process of navigation through the system was an appalling experience. Ultimately, it took the involvement of voluntary organizations—for example, a carers centre in my constituency—to help her get the benefits she was entitled to, and gain access to the services and support that she and her partner should have had from the outset.
The findings of the Audit Commission were echoed recently by new research carried out by the Carers National Association in its report "You can take him home now". That was published a couple of weeks ago, during national carers week. The Carers National Association found that, over the past three years, consultation and involvement arrangements have deteriorated in discharge planning from hospital. They have not got better.
The association surveyed the issue in 1998, and found in the present survey that it was asking the same questions again, often of the same carers. The perception is that the implementation of guidance that governs discharge planning has got worse, not better. We need to look at the guidance again and ascertain whether it is being complied with across the board in the NHS. The evidence from the Carers National Association's work is that the guidance is, at best, patchy and not being complied with properly in many cases.

73WH
In the course of its research, the Association discovered several cases of carers, looking after someone with dementia, who had been poorly treated. NHS staff did not seem to know either about the diagnosis of dementia or how to communicate with individuals and their carers. Consequently, carers were often ignored and their views were not taken into account. They were not assessed or consulted about the discharge. One carer said that NHS staff had talked only to her mother, who had told them that everything was fine at home. They did not talk to the carer at all. As a result, none of the information about the care package or the day of discharge was passed on to the carer. That caused the carer immense difficulties in trying to deal with the situation.
People with Alzheimer's disease or other forms of dementia can benefit from social and health care support. Early diagnosis and assessment is crucial, as it enables people and their carers to receive the services, information and treatments that they need at the right time.
Although general practitioners are often the first port of call for those concerned about dementia, only 52 per cent. of GPs surveyed by the Audit Commission felt that an early diagnosis was beneficial. Fewer than half felt that they had received sufficient training to help them diagnose and manage dementia. However, early intervention can reduce stress for both the person with dementia and his or her carer, reduce crisis intervention and prevent or delay institutionalisation. Many health professionals previously dismissed dementia as old age, and people were all too frequently told that nothing could be done.
Support for GPs from local mental health professions is vital, as the Audit Commission has emphasised, so why is the national service framework not pressing for that? Why is the framework not expanded, with targets set out?
The Audit Commission correctly identified the fact that many people strongly preferred to be supported in their homes. Home-based assessments and a greater emphasis by commissioners on community-based care were identified as critical factors to tailor services to meet the complex physical and mental health needs that result from dementia. The Audit Commission recommends that the mix of staff deployed should be reviewed locally and re-balanced where necessary. Again, why is the national service framework not driving that forward?
The Minister would be surprised if I did not say that Liberal Democrats remain concerned about the Government's proposals to pay for the nursing care of people in long-term care. That will not fully reflect the health needs of people with dementia. It is essential that people with dementia have their mental and physical health needs met by the NHS and that personal care is free.
Research indicates that the prevalence rates of dementia vary little between residential and nursing home care. The personal social services research unit found that 54 per cent. of individuals admitted to residential beds had mild impairment and that 25 per cent. had severe impairment. Of those admitted to nursing beds, 38 per cent. had mild impairment and 46 per cent. had severe impairment. That means that
74WH
those people with dementia in a residential home may have exactly the same, or possibly even greater, nursing needs than those in a nursing home. However, they will be confronted with a charging regime for the care that they will receive that is entirely different from the regime facing the person in the nursing home. Where is the sense in that? Where is the justice?
I hope that the Minister can confirm that no cash limits will be set on the funds available to cover the costs of nursing care provided under the Health and Social Care Act 2001. There appears to be some doubt about that, on the basis of written answers that I received from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), in the previous Parliament. The figure that he gave was £100 a week. Clarification is needed on whether that was simply a basis for estimating costs and not a cash limit. The sooner that is clarified, the better.
Pages 98 and 99 of the national service framework appear to contain contradictory statements concerning the use of neuroleptics or anti-psychotic drugs. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate people's concern that those drugs are inappropriately prescribed and overprescribed to people with dementia. They have undesirable side effects, which may worsen the symptoms. Their effect is dramatic. Many carers report that, within days of taking the drugs, their relatives are turned into zombies; unable to speak, eat, walk or go to the toilet without assistance. Recent research suggests that older people living in nursing homes receive four times as many prescription drugs as those living at home.
Page 98 states that treatment of dementia will always involve
"prescribing antipsychotic drugs for more serious problems, such as delusions and hallucinations, serious distress or danger from behaviour disturbance.".
As I read that list last night, it occurred to me that that might apply to some hon. Members. That was a flippant comment, but there is cause for concern. Page 99 of the national service framework states that anti-psychotic drugs
"may hasten cognitive decline and may cause increased deaths.".
Is page 98 or page 99 correct? One says that prescribing anti-psychotic drugs is "always involved", and the other says that they may cause increased deaths. That is at best ambiguous and needs clearing up; at worst, it is completely confusing.
Dementia has been regarded as taboo for a long time; too long. The needs of dementia sufferers and their carers are met more by chance and personal perseverance than by any systematic planned response by the responsible agencies; something borne out by the Audit Commission and by my personal survey. In many cases, services do not exist in the depth that is required to meet the need. The national service framework is an important step in the right direction. Strides, not steps are needed now, however. I hope that the Minister can indicate how the goals set out in the national service framework can be expanded so that they are delivered sooner rather than later.
9.51 am
Dr. Evan Harris: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) for his assiduous pursuit—not

75WH
only today and for the past few weeks, but in the previous Parliament—of the issue of dementia and care of the elderly in general. He spoke about the happy coincidence of the debate taking place in Alzheimer's awareness week. Coincidence cannot be relied upon, however. One has to be persistent and continually raise these issues. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his hard work and persistence in making sure that this issue is always on the agenda for parliamentarians.
It is disappointing to note that no Government or Conservative Back Benchers seek to speak today. In all of our constituencies, there will be not only many people who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia, but many people caring for those patients, or who have relatives who are being cared for. All the issues raised by my hon. Friend will apply in every constituency to some degree. More people than those present will look to the Minister for specific reassurance on the Government's aims and aspirations and, just as important, how funding and human resources will be allocated to these areas.
My hon. Friend concentrated on care issues. While I agree with everything that he said on that subject, I intend to look at other issues as well. There are questions concerning diagnosis of dementia. We need to ensure that there is early and accurate diagnosis, and that other—more treatable—conditions are identified. We also need to ensure that co-existing conditions that are treatable are accurately and appropriately identified so that treatment can be given and that diagnosis of dementia, in its various kinds, is not just a write-off diagnosis for patients for whom there may be even more active treatments than are available for dementia. It is important that we ensure accurate diagnosis, not only of dementia but of co-existing morbidity.
I want to discuss treatment, both acute and longterm, to say a word or two about long-term care—reinforcing what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has said—and then to ask the Government a key question about their intentions as regards protecting current and future patients with dementia from the threat of being uninsurable. I have given the Minister advance warning of that question. Many people will be asking what the Government's intentions are; not least those who care for people with dementia and for their interests.
In terms of diagnosis, it is perhaps appropriate that we are holding this debate the day after the British Medical Association annual representative meeting discussed how much time GPs can spend in consultations with patients. The current average consultation time of about four minutes is inadequate for almost any interaction of quality between a patient and his GP. That is true from the patient's perspective of needing to get across what he has to say and, not least, from the point of view of the doctor, who has to take a history, do an examination, make a treatment plan and discuss it with the patients and/or their carers.
The Government's intention to extend the amount of time for consultations is welcome and will be endorsed by patients groups and doctors groups. However, it raises severe questions about whether the targets will distort clinical priorities when taken together with the demand that all general practice patients be seen within
76WH
48 hours where the resources are not available. I am talking not only about funding—although that is important—but, in particular, about staffing resources. Tales were told yesterday of patients who needed time taken with them, and in particular of older people and those with mental illness and their relatives. They have been squeezed out by the huge workload in general practice.
The Government must be clear and honest about whether their aims are deliverable, given the work force issues that we face. There are still inadequate numbers of GPs, despite the increase in the number of medical students being trained for general practice. Inadequate numbers of medical students and junior doctors choose general practice, and a large number of general practitioners are retiring. The elderly and, in particular, those with mental illness and dementia bear the brunt of truncated consultation times and the inadequate opportunity that GPs have to think, take histories, examine, plan treatment and explain all aspects of the care plan to patients and their relatives.
As regards the treatment of the elderly and the mentally ill, it is important that we consider what is happening with the new drugs for dementia. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has ruled that they are effective, and one can assume that they are effective, at least in clinical trials, from the fact that they have been cleared by the relevant regulatory committees. NICE has ruled that they are cost-effective, although it will be interesting to see what it decides is the unit of cost-effectiveness and the threshold below which it will continue to recommend drugs. It has also ruled that the new drugs are affordable.
It is hard for NICE to decide what is affordable, because it does not necessarily know the Government's full funding plans. It does not know the whole amount, or what the Government plan to earmark for specific treatments. The worry, which my health authority chief executive has expressed to me, is that spending required on the list of must-dos from NICE, which includes the greater prescribing of new drugs for dementia, exceeds the total growth money being given to health authorities. That is true, at least in my health authority.
In most health authorities, spending required on the list of must-dos exceeds the residual growth money that is left after health authorities take account of the other must-dos on which the Government have instructed them to spend. The result is that the extra prescription of cost-effective and apparently affordable medication is funded from within the existing envelope of resources; a euphemism that has replaced the word "budget". Effectively, treatments are being funded from existing budgets. That means that funding is taken from other treatment areas within the envelope of resource for a specific condition to implement the must-dos from NICE, which carry the imprimatur of national guidance.
There is a threat of potential legal action or a sanction from the Government or the Commission for Health Improvement if the guidelines are not followed. Patients wait longer waiting to see consultants, as the planned expansion in specialists able to diagnose and treat the condition is reduced to allocate more funding to the drugs budget. Clearly, not everything will be affordable within the NHS, but it is important that the Government do two things. First, they must be honest

77WH
about that. They would be praised, not criticised, for admitting that rationing exists and that some treatments and management plans from which doctors believe their patients would benefit are not available at the moment within existing resources. Secondly, over and above that, the Government must avoid too much central guidance without adequate resourcing because that will skew clinical priorities.
If sufficient funding is not available to implement those "must-dos", some people might argue that it would be better not to have the guidance because clinical priorities will be distorted and patients who cannot benefit from the new drugs will find that the services available to them are being reduced to fund those new drugs.
The figures that are emerging on the likely cost of full implementation of the NICE guidance—I accept that they come from industry sources—are between £70 million and £120 million. But that funding is not identified and, when other "must-dos" have been paid for, it probably does not exist within the growth money. The problem is difficult, and the Government's intention to put the drugs into the NICE process is well meaning, but what is their answer to the dilemma for an individual health authority that knows that the drugs bill increase will be greater than the amount of growth money that can be afforded for that disease area? Do the Government accept that an increase in prescribing cannot be funded as quickly as they wish or that they should do that even if it means cutting down on other care for patients with dementia?
Another area in which the Government must be clearer and reconsider their position is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam said, the funding of long-term care. Can it be right that if two patients with almost identical needs are receiving identical care, one may be means-tested and the other may not simply because of the nature and qualifications of the person providing the care? A registered nurse providing care for someone with dementia will be able to provide that care for free because it will be paid for by the NHS. If the care is provided by someone else who is also competent and able to provide that care, the funding will be based on a means test.
The Home Secretary said in the House on Monday that royal commissions should not be a substitute for Government decision making. However, on long-term care, the Labour Government, with our support, went for a royal commission and then overruled a critical aspect of its recommendations. They said that personal care—even when the need for that care stemmed from a recognised illness, such as dementia—would not be funded by the NHS and that only nursing care would be funded. That poverty of ambition and treatment discriminates against older people and may be one reason why the Government have been reluctant to ensure adequate regulation to cover discrimination against older people. My hon. Friends and I have tried to introduce into health legislation a duty not to discriminate; the Government's opposition to that may have stemmed from their decision to discriminate.
On insurance, a report from the Human Genetics Advisory Committee urged the Government to ensure that insurance companies do not carry out genetic tests unless they are approved, but that was ignored by the Government. The Association of British Insurers has
78WH
admitted that tests are carried out. There is no effective moratorium, unless the relevant Government committee rules that the test is not a valid one. The House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, which examined dementia, recognised that that is a problem and called on the Government to ensure that insurers do not use genetic tests before deciding whether insurance is appropriate.
I want to stress the importance of this matter for patients with dementia or those who feel that they may be at risk of suffering from it in future. There are some risk factors associated with the onset of dementia. It is a multi-factorial disease, so even the carriage of a certain genetic factor is not a good predictor of whether or when one will succumb to Alzheimer's disease; for example, through having a specific apoprotein gene. Nevertheless, long-term care represents a huge market for insurers, especially as there has to be a means test for personal care for people with dementia. Now that the Government have said that such means tests will continue—in a most un-cradle to grave-like way—insurers have recognised that there is a market for insurance in this area. Some companies want to ensure that they gain a competitive advantage over those that are not seeking such genetic tests.
The Select Committee on Science recognised the danger that, consequently, some people might be uninsurable or have to pay over the odds for insurance even when it is possible that they will not develop the illness, and that others may be encouraged to take tests to get a negative result when it is not necessarily to their advantage, from a clinical perspective, to do so. The Committee called on the Government to ensure that there is a moratorium on any testing until the matter can be debated further, and we have not yet had the necessary parliamentary, let alone public, debate.
The Government's response to the report was to ask the Human Genetics Commission to examine the issue, including a public consultation. Having considered dementia, cancer and other conditions, it concluded that the Government must ensure that there is a moratorium on the use of genetic tests. Both the Science and Technology Committee and the Government's own creation, the Human Genetics Commission, have called for a moratorium. All hon. Members present—and, more widely, the public—want to know how the Government intend to implement the recommendations of those reports.
Dementia has an impact on huge areas of Government policy, not only on health care. One of the problems in ensuring that adequate resources are put into the treatment of such illnesses is that cost-effectiveness analyses are looked at too narrowly, which misses the wider picture in terms of the effect on carers and social services budgets. This is such a prevalent condition—and its effects on patients and their carers, family members, friends and society are so profound—that, despite the admirable aims of the national service framework's plan for dementia, the Government must do more work not only on funding but on policy changes in long-term care, on honesty about what can be afforded in the NICE process and on wider issues, such as genetic testing.

79WH
We seek answers to those questions from the new Government, even at this early stage, and I hope that the Minister will provide them.
10.8 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Before turning to the subject of the debate, I should like to take this opportunity to express to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the hope that all goes well with the birth of her baby. I am sure that other hon. Members join me in wishing her a safe and happy delivery.
I declare an interest in the debate that will help hon. Members to understand my viewpoint: my mother died of Alzheimer's disease, so I have close personal knowledge of its impact. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on obtaining the debate in the week that the Alzheimer's Disease Society seeks to raise awareness of the impact of the disease. He says that the timing is a coincidence, but I am sure that he exercised foresight and planning.
Those reading the record of this debate and who take an interest in Alzheimer's will note the comments made about the absence of Back Benchers; I, too, regret their absence. For the wider audience of Hansard and in defence of new Members, I should like to point out that it can take a while to find Westminster Hall at 9.30 am during one's second week in Parliament. As experienced Members recognise, Parliament is to some extent in limbo, but the outside world may not realise that. Absence is not a mark of disrespect to the subject matter.
I congratulate the Alzheimer's Disease Society on its campaign to raise awareness of the disease. I feel passionate about the subject. Alzheimer's is the Cinderella among the major causes of disease and death that afflict us. I urge the Government to accord it the same importance as other diseases in their strategies and to find language that will draw the public's attention to the significance of the disease. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam had his soundbite when he said that we need to make "strides not steps". My soundbite is, please make Alzheimer's a sexy subject. There are cancer tsars and drug tsars, so I urge the Government to find a similar way of raising awareness of Alzheimer's.
Immediately after my mother died, I remember my father doing what many bereaved spouses do: he asked "Why?" A friend of mine was rather direct in her reply: she said that the disease was one of the three most common causes of death, which were cancer, cardiac disease and dementia. That was an abrupt way to put it, but it helped my father to understand that my mother's death was not the huge surprise that it seemed to him. The public is largely unaware of how many people are affected by dementia: previously, we heard the statistic that one in five is affected. One reason why the disease is becoming more prevalent is that we are living longer and the disease is largely one of older age. That is all the more reason to make it a sexy subject. I appeal to the Minister to see what she can do.
Others have spoken about drugs that treat Alzheimer's disease—an important aspect of the subject. Regrettably, nothing has so far been found that
80WH
cures the disease, but there are drugs that arrest its progression. The decision made by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in January this year on the clinical effectiveness of such drugs was helpful, but we Members of Parliament know that it is taking a long time for the effects of that decision to filter through to those suffering from Alzheimer's so that people can get hold of the drugs that arrest the disease.
From various surgery cases, I have recorded a number of excuses for not prescribing such drugs: for example, because of waiting lists, consultants have been allowed to prescribe to only a limited number of people. Most constituents consider it unfair if someone else gets the drugs that they cannot obtain. The development of memory clinics is also being used as a reason not to prescribe the drugs at present; and GPs are being blamed for not referring patients to consultants at a sufficiently early stage. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) offered a highly plausible explanation of why GPs are finding it difficult to cope. I was appalled to learn that the average consultation time had been reduced to four minutes, especially in view of the fact that it is quite difficult to diagnose the early onset of Alzheimer's. I doubt that four minutes of conversation would make it easy for a GP to spot the onset.
One reason why I appeal to the Minister to look again at improving access to Alzheimer's drugs is that there is a strong public savings argument involved: if an Alzheimer's drug can arrest the progression of the disease, the pace at which the state has to provide additional support and care services to the patient can be slowed. If the Government's concern is the cost of the bill for Alzheimer's drugs, a full cost-benefit analysis covering the benefit of arresting the disease's progression must be carried out. I urge the Minister to do that.
In a local case, a problem in the west midlands caused great concern to my constituents, especially those who suffer or whose relatives suffer from Alzheimer's disease A drugs trial was carried out under the title "Europe 2000", ostensibly to examine the clinical effectiveness of Alzheimer's drugs; patients could not have access to any of those drugs unless they were prepared to take part in the trial, but those who participated did not know whether they were getting the placebo or the drug. That occurred at a time when the effectiveness of the Alzheimer's drugs involved was fairly well known internationally. Some doctors, caught between patients wanting the drugs and an awareness that they must go on the trial, felt that it was profoundly unfair to experiment with patients in that way. The trial made those of us in the west midlands feel discriminated against.
I want to do something that is, I think, only possible in the early days of a new Government. I appeal to the Minister to consider an idea that might help the Government to find a way out of the postcode lottery of the prescription of drugs such as the Alzheimer's drugs. During the previous Parliament and as part of its manifesto, the Conservative party proposed an exceptional medicines fund, which would involve top-slicing the health budget and setting aside a portion of money for more expensive drugs and treatments, so that NICE's decisions about clinical effectiveness could be implemented with a budget attached. Such a solution

81WH
would also help to solve the problems that multiple sclerosis sufferers have in obtaining beta interferon. One of the Opposition's tasks is to introduce ideas that challenge the Government, and the Government have not minded accepting one or two of the Opposition's ideas. I commend our idea to her as a practical way around the problem of the postcode lottery that afflicts the prescription of Alzheimer's drugs.
As other hon. Members have said, the problem of Alzheimer's is inextricably linked with long-term care provision. It is a sad fact for sufferers of Alzheimer's and other forms of long-term dementia and for the relatives caught up in the progression of their disease that there is a long road to go down. The patient will invariably need much help and residential care, but because Alzheimer's is a degenerative disease, it takes time before that happens—time in which the prospect can become a source of real worry to relatives helping a dementia sufferer. Spouses in particular worry about whether they can afford long-term provision and whether their home might have to be sold to pay for it. Those are the real worries that grip people's minds when a doctor diagnoses the onset of Alzheimer's disease.
I was concerned to read, in the first set of weekend newspapers after the general election, that the Government have changed their mind about nursing care as a component of long-term care. Will the Minister clearly state whether the Government are rowing back from their pre-election announcement about paying for nursing care? In a written reply, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), said that the Government had no plans to change their mind, but I have been around here long enough to know that the little phrase "the Government have no plans" is not a cast iron-guarantee that the Government are not going to change their mind. We need to hear that the Government are going to implement their provisions for nursing care within long-term care provision. Alzheimer's sufferers and those who have to help to look after them are anxious to hear about that.
Several helpful pieces of research have been undertaken by the Alzheimer's Disease Society, of which I am sure the Minister is aware. However, since the debate is about care services and provision for sufferers of dementia, I should like to draw her attention to a report produced by the society called "Food for Thought"—a survey of Alzheimer's sufferers that examines the experience of care provision for those who must go into residential care or who are already in hospital. It is shocking to learn that 52 per cent. of respondents were concerned about the quality of food for dementia patients in hospital, 49 per cent. did not think that those with dementia were given enough to drink and 58 per cent. did not feel that enough assistance was provided.
I have already declared try interest in this matter and I shall recount my painful personal experience, which sheds light on the current shortcomings in provision in residential and hospital settings. Because of their mental impairment, patients who have Alzheimer's disease cannot assert their desire for the things that they need. My mother was not eating enough in a residential care setting—I must state straight away that I do not necessarily blame the care home. When Alzheimer's disease is advanced the situation becomes very difficult
82WH
and requires specialist care. It was thought that if I, as a relative, came in to feed my mother, it would help her nutritionally. It is a distressing experience to have to feed one's parent in the way in which one might feed a baby or a toddler. It suddenly occurred to me as I was feeding my mother that the problem was not that the food was unpleasant—it was very nice—but that she clearly did not have an appetite. Then I caught a glimpse of a sore on her mouth and it occurred to me that the problem might be with her teeth. In fact, she had incredible gum disease and decay and was in huge pain, which was why she did not want to eat.
I recount that experience because I fear that it may not be unusual. My mother had reached the point where she could no longer express the pain that she was in. I suspect that the inability of patients suffering Alzheimer's disease to state what they need is often overlooked—one needs to assert oneself in a care setting. This is a plea to the Minister to read "Food for Thought", which is especially relevant in Alzheimer's awareness week. She must encourage those who care for patients with dementia to think about the wider aspects of their patients' well-being such as nutrition and oral hygiene. We all accept that there is currently a crisis in the care homes sector and many of them are going out of business. It is difficult for them to make ends meet and to secure care home assistants. There is competition to employ care home staff, so to ask them to give more training and to spend more is to ask a great deal at a difficult time. However, training is an important aspect of the care that we give to patients suffering dementia.
I also commend to the Minister the report "Dignity on the Ward" by Help the Aged, which also flags up the difficulty that dementia patients experience in hospital. Sometimes it is not until their relatives come in that anyone spots anything amiss. Extra training for the care of patients with dementia is important.
Dr. Evan Harris: Does the hon. Lady accept that when nurses are overloaded and overworked, those who lose out are those who are least able to speak out for themselves and to push for the attention of overworked and overstretched nurses? The Government accept that a heavy workload falls on nurses. It is perhaps as a result of that that cases have arisen of elderly people in hospital, particularly those with mental illness, not receiving adequate nutrition.
Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I would underline it by saying that the vacancy rate for nurses is aggravating that situation. On a geriatric ward where there are four vacancies, it is difficult for the remaining staff who are, in effect, each doing the work of two people to determine that if patients are not eating, it is not because they do not want to eat, but because of a reason or reasons that they have been unable to articulate. The crisis in nursing vacancies means that the nurses who are present are—through no fault of their own—not able to give the level of care that they would like to provide. We should not underestimate the stress that that causes nursing staff: it is not satisfying to go home at the end of the day knowing that things could have been better if only the ward had been properly staffed.
I should like to reinforce the point about carers. We depend very heavily on the good will of those who care for dementia sufferers. Many of them do it well beyond

83WH
the call of duty because they love the Alzheimer's sufferer. They may well carry on caring beyond the point at which it is medically wise either for the patient or for their own health. It may be that the spouse caring for the Alzheimer's sufferer is even older than the patient. In my constituency case load, I have seen many instances in which it would have been wise for residential care to have been provided earlier. Many people go on well past the point at which they should get more help.
The money that the Government have made available to help carers is not necessarily getting through. Will the Minister look at the fact that funds allocated to local authorities to improve provision for carers, in particular respite care, are sometimes arrested at source because local authorities see the money as a way of offsetting the costs of care that they are already providing? Carers on the ground have not experienced a huge improvement in respite care provision. Sometimes those moneys are allocated to the provision of help in the home. In the eyes of the local authority, that is a form of respite care, but I am not so sure. The Alzheimer's Disease Society's report shows that 40 per cent. of carers have less than one hour to themselves each day: help for carers is not getting through properly.
Dr. Harris: The hon. Lady is making a series of important points about carers. One other that she might take up is the fact that an overwhelming predominance of carers, particularly those caring for their parents, are women who take themselves out of the work force to do such caring work either for reasons of tradition, or because they are healthier than the males in the family. The amount of support that is given to carers reflects how society treats women, on whom that burden falls.
Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman makes a generous point towards the fair sex. Many women find themselves in the caring role because that is what they are brought up to do, and they do it well, but as the number of working women increases, the position becomes more difficult. I am sure that he and other Members know of cases in their constituencies of significant income being lost as the woman retreats from the workplace to meet the demands of close members of her family for whom she feels she has a duty to care. The Government should recognise that duty. It is, in the last analysis, an act of extreme good will, but it does save the state a lot of money. That is why I said earlier that a proper cost-benefit analysis of such provision should take into account the factor of good will. That is very important.
Finally, I emphasise the social exclusion aspect. It begins at an early stage of the onset of Alzheimer's disease: the sufferer may undergo quite a change of personality, with the result that the sufferer and his or her relatives find themselves retreating from their normal social activities. At that stage, quite apart from considering the medical aspects of the disease, it is important to support the relatives of the sufferer through the period of retreat and to help the carer to keep going. Will the Minister look at that?
I concur with the views of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon on genetics and insurance. If one has an Alzheimer's sufferer in the family, the genetic link is a cause for concern. I was deeply relieved
84WH
to hear him say that the illness is multifactorial and that a predisposition does not necessarily assert itself. One of the main reasons why insurers are so wary of an indicator of Alzheimer's in a family is the long-term care implications. That brings us back to addressing longterm care provision for those who have a degenerative disease that will, almost invariably, lead to the high costs of residential care.
In closing, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to something of which I am sure she is aware: John Bayley's book about his wife, Iris Murdoch. If anyone has been successful in recent times in making Alzheimer's more of a sexy subject, it must be John Bayley, to whom I pay tribute. Through his book, he has raised awareness of the disease, and has enabled everyone to imagine what it is like if someone in the family is struck by it. He says:
"Alzheimer's sufferers are not always gentle: I know that, but Iris remains her old self in many ways…"
That is a description that many who have experienced the disease will recognise. One of the challenges to us as politicians is to reach out through the compassion and sense of duty that somebody like John Bayley feels towards his wife, and to make sure that he does not feel alone with his problem, unheeded and unsupported. I hope that this debate has given the Government some ideas that they can use to ensure that we provide better support for the John Bayleys of this world.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Before I call the Minister to reply to this important debate, which it has been fascinating for me to listen to, I should like to wish her well with her pregnancy and hope that she has a safe and happy delivery. Having chaired the Select Committee that undertook a lengthy inquiry into maternity services, I remain interested in the subject even today.
10.33 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): Thank you, Mr. Winterton. I thank you, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and others for their kind remarks. An hour and a half spent in the cool conditions of Westminster Hall has been even more pleasurable than it would normally be.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing this debate, and on his interest in the subject. It is a subject that he has pursued over a considerable time and he has raised these issues in great detail. In Alzheimer's awareness week, I must also pay tribute to the Alzheimer's Society for all the work that it has done to raise awareness of the condition.
The hon. Member for Meriden referred to the importance of raising awareness, or of making Alzheimer's dementia sexy, as she put it. That is a challenge, and it is a tribute to the work of organisations such as the Alzheimer's Society that awareness is growing; more attention is paid to the condition, which affects many people across the country.
Hon. Members have spoken about their experiences, either of family or of constituents. I join the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam in paying tribute to his constituents Joyce and Lillian and to carers throughout

85WH
the country, who put so much time and energy into looking after loved ones and relatives who suffer from such a difficult condition None of us should underestimate the dedication and effort of carers; these are difficult to imagine for someone who has not faced such circumstances.
Everyone will agree that we need to do more to support carers in the work and support that they give, often out of love or a sense of duty. They have to bear emotional as well as financial and time pressures. Many suffer from loneliness or guilt and, as a society, we should do more to support them.
As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, the Government have introduced a national carers strategy, and we have increased the amount allocated to support carers in England through the carers grant from £50 million last year to £70 million this year. That needs to increase, and it will; to £85 million in 2002–03 and to £100 million the following year. That is an important step towards ensuring that up to 75,000 more carers receive a break from their caring responsibilities. However, it is not simply a question of additional resources. We must also ensure that carers are properly involved from the very beginning in the development of services and support for those who are suffering from dementia, as the national service framework made clear.
The national service framework for older people should not relate simply to older people who suffer from particular conditions or diseases. It must relate also to carers, their families and those who support them, whether by involving them in decisions about care or in discussions with NHS or social care staff. At every stage, we need a seamless and integrated service that considers the needs and wishes of carers as well as those who suffer from the condition.
I shall deal with hon. Members' points in turn. We must recognise that we need to raise standards and investment in care for dementia. That process has already begun, but we recognise that wide variations remain throughout the country that we need to tackle over time.
The national service framework for older people that was published in March sets out for the first time national standards and service models of care for health and social services for all older people, whether they live at home or in residential care or are being cared for in hospital. To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Meriden about cancer and heart directors, we have introduced a national director for older people's services, Prof. Ian Philp, who has already begun work to raise awareness and improve services for older people.
The national service framework has eight standards for four areas: respecting the individual; intermediate care; providing evidence-based specialist care; and promoting an active, healthy life. Standard seven specifically relates to mental health in older people, but many key themes of the NSF are relevant to all older people, including those with dementia.
It is a fundamental principle that ageism should play no part in decisions about treatment and care and that people should never be unfairly discriminated against in accessing NHS or social care services as a result of their age. The second important principle is that people
86WH
should be treated as individuals and be able to make choices about their care. Older people and their carers should receive services that deal with their needs.
The aims of the mental health standard are to promote good mental health in older people, to treat and support those who suffer from dementia and depression and to ensure that older people have access to a fully integrated mental health service that provides effective diagnosis, treatment and support for them and their carers. That means agencies and professions breaking down barriers and working together in the interests of the people whom they serve.
Mrs. Spelman: The Minister's comments about mental health apply across the spectrum for mental health sufferers. Might her comments be an early sign that a Bill on mental health might shortly be introduced?
Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady will know that matters relating to the timing of Bills are announced by the Leader of the House, and that there are always pressures on parliamentary time.
Improving the prevention, care and treatment of mental problems in old age involves early recognition and diagnosis of the problem, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said. Accurate and early diagnosis can enable people with dementia and their carers to plan for the future and to make crucial decisions about where and how they want to live and about what sort of care would best suit their needs. The NSF has as a priority the establishment of protocols in primary care for early detection, diagnosis and treatment. A great deal of development work will need to be undertaken with the new primary care trusts, where responsibility will lie.
Systems need to be in place to ensure that health and social care agencies can communicate with each other and agree how and when to refer people with dementia to the appropriate services. To achieve that, we are promoting specialist mental health teams, including social workers and health professionals. Agreed protocols between health and social care will need to be implemented. Those care pathways are set out in the NSF.
Mr. Burstow: Much of my speech rested on that point. Apart from mental health, almost every other standard in the national service framework has milestones before 2004. The Minister rightly identified the need to develop protocols. Will there be earlier milestones or earlier points at which progress will be monitored and reported on?
Yvette Cooper: I intended to deal with the hon. Gentleman's points on the pace of implementation, which is important. I recognise his desire for change to be implemented as fast as possible. The fact that so many milestones will not be monitored until 2004 does not mean that change will not begin before then. It clearly needs to do so. We are urging those involved in health and social care to form local implementation teams to begin planning and developing. In the case of primary care, a lot of development work will need to be done before those milestones are reached.
We carefully considered and consulted on the timing. We must recognise that capacity issues are involved and that, to be effective, the process of reform can take time.

87WH
We need to judge the balance between the right pace of reform, or measuring reform, to ensure that everyone can meet it effectively and has the resources in place, and ensuring that milestones are in place to drive change forward.
Such issues are always difficult. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon discussed the problems of constraints on capacity in the NHS and social care and the need to expand that capacity. He said that we must be realistic about what we can deliver and at what pace. A balance must always be struck. The NSF made the right judgment on the basis of considerable consultation about when to start monitoring milestones to ensure that they are implemented and to be realistic about the progress that we believe that the NHS and social care can make over time.
Some other milestones in other areas affect people with dementia. For example, the single assessment process, which is key to delivering person-centred care, was identified as an early priority for delivery and will be introduced by April 2002. That will have a knock-on impact on mental health and dementia. as well as on other areas.
Mr. Burstow: There will be a single gateway and assessment, but not the necessary protocols for the specialist services. Will that not make the establishment of the single assessment worthless for people with dementia? The Minister and her officials should reflect that the milestone says that the plan should be in place by 2004. That is not even talking about the services being reconfigured or about any of the other issues that are dealt with by the Audit Commission.
Yvette Cooper: I do not accept that the implementation of the standard by 2002 will be worthless for people with dementia, because the single assessment is a critical step forward. It will make a big difference to many families who are not experiencing coordinated assessment as they should and will improve the care that they receive. Changes must be made across the pathway of care, but we must be realistic about the capacity of the national health service and social care to deliver changes instantly.
Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot warn on the one hand about demanding more of the NHS than it is able to achieve, given the need to expand capacity but, on the other hand, demand that all the changes, which we agree to be necessary, are implemented instantly. We need to see clear progress, but we must be realistic about the time that that progress will take. Changes are already being made and will be made during the next year to make the single assessment process work effectively, which will benefit those suffering from dementia.
The hon. Member for Meriden mentioned a specific concern about dental services. Dental and oral care will be part of the single assessment process, so I would expect to see dental assessment as part of individual care plans. I am happy to correspond further with her on that if she has more questions. I mentioned already that carers may often need practical support and have physical and mental needs of their own, which must be
88WH
recognised by the specialist mental health teams. An active community health team will find itself addressing the needs of the carer as much as of the patient.
The NSF process means that people will have an individual care plan, shared by all agencies managing their care and treatment, and the assessment of an individual with dementia will take into account the complexity of his or her needs and require frequent review. The assessment will result in care packages that help older people with dementia to live safely at home if possible and may include personal care, care of the home, finance and support for carers. The care packages may also include appropriate technology, such as cooker or door alarms, and we must increasingly look to technology to support people.
Many older people with dementia will need access to specialist mental health services, which means providing a range of services from diagnosis, including the treatment of more complex problems and community and in-patient services for those with clinical need. Again, the emphasis must be on promoting independence of older people with dementia and on supporting them and their carers in the community, whenever that is possible and practical. We are looking to all key stakeholders, including the network of dementia services development centres, to help implement the NSF at the local level.
Hon. Members raised concerns about treatment and, in particular, access to drugs for those suffering from Alzheimer's and dementia. We were pleased to accept the recommendations of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence that Aricept, Exelon and Reminyl should be available on the NHS as one component of management for people with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. All health authorities must adhere to that guidance, and we will monitor their performance. In our manifesto, we said that we would ensure that all health authorities would be required to fund the drugs and treatment recommended by NICE.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is worried that health authorities will be unable to afford that, and the hon. Member for Meriden asked why we could not have a dedicated or top-sliced fund. Health authorities are receiving extra money for NICE recommendations. We anticipated the need for extra resources to fund those recommendations and increases in the drugs budget, and we have acted.
When we announced the extra resources that were going to health authorities throughout the country, we made it clear that the extra money being invested in the NHS had increased from an average of 3 per cent. to 6 per cent. a year in real terms. Some of the extra resources and growth money will go towards funding NICE recommendations.
My problem with a top-sliced fund is that, in the end, the hon. Member for Meriden is talking not about putting more money into the system but about carving the money up differently. It is important that, where we can, we preserve the principle of giving health authorities the flexibility to be able to respond to local need, and they are receiving additional resources to do so.
Mrs. Spelman: Only 50 per cent. of health authorities currently fund Alzheimer's drugs, so there is quite a long way to go. The difficulty is the same as that with the provision of funds to local authorities for carers; implementation can be patchy around the country. Sufferers of Alzheimer's under a national health service find the postcode disparity difficult to understand.
Yvette Cooper: That is why I agree that the postcode lottery must be addressed, which is what NICE is all about. Health authorities need to fund NICE's recommendations. They do not have the discretion to decide which recommendations they like or dislike; the recommendations need to be implemented. We said that we would take further action to put that beyond doubt and we shall have discussions about how best to take the matter forward. We expect authorities to respond to NICE recommendations, because its very purpose is to tackle the postcode lottery.
Dr. Harris: The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry forecasts that the total NICE bill will be between £78.4 million and £123 million, of which about £42 million will fund the Alzheimer's drugs. If a health authority says that its must-do list exceeds its growth money, is t hat figure wrong? Does the Minister accept that cost pressures in at least some authorities will exceed the amount of growth money, so that cuts, savings and cost improvements will need to be made in other budgets to fund what she has described as a must-do?
Yvette Cooper: Different estimates have been made of the impact of different NICE recommendations, and we are providing health authorities with additional resources to respond to them. Inevitably, however, they face cost pressures in different areas. We are providing additional resources to the health service across the board so that authorities can respond to the recommendations and we shall continue to do so. We accept the need for extra investment and capacity in the NHS, but we must also ensure that national standards are in place. Some authorities have gone faster than others; that created the postcode lottery in the first place.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is concerned about the NSF's wording. I am sorry if it is misleading and I will be happy to write to him to clarify it. As I understand his point, the wording suggests that there are occasions when certain drugs may be appropriate, but that does not necessarily mean that every patient should be prescribed a particular set of drugs.
The hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam and for Oxford, West and Abingdon asked about nursing and personal care. Those matters were debated during the progress of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. From this October, for the first time, free nursing care will be introduced for people living in nursing homes. In response to the question put by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, let me make it clear that there are no cash limits on nursing care. In response to the hon. Member for Meriden, I do not know where the
90WH
speculative stories in the press came from. The plans will be implemented from next October, with free nursing care available then for people in nursing homes. That will obviously impact on those with dementia as well as others in care homes.
The Liberal Democrats have called on us many times to fund personal care as well as nursing care. I remind them that two thirds of people in nursing homes already have part or all of their care provided. Their proposals would not benefit people on low income. Providing free nursing care and making the system of personal care and support fairer will cost an additional £360 million a year. The Liberal Democrat proposals, however, would require considerable extra funding—about £1 billion—and would neither improve care for anyone nor benefit the worst off. Decisions have to be made about priorities. The Government have made it clear that they want to provide additional support for the ill and to invest in improving care.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon mentioned genetic testing and insurance. I have time to deal with it only briefly. I have grave concerns about this matter and believe that we must protect people against unfair discrimination in insurance. We asked the Human Genetics Advisory Commission for its views. In response to its interim advice and following the report of the Select Committee, we have made it clear that there should be a moratorium until the longer-term issues—about testing, implications for insurance, equity and unfairness—are properly examined.
The Human Genetics Advisory Commission continues to reflect on the issues and is examining what form the moratorium should take, how long it should be for and how much additional work should be done in the meantime. The insurance industry has expressed its willingness to extend a moratorium, but we must ensure that it is implemented. We have clarified our intentions and we shall continue to discuss with the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the insurance industry how best to implement the moratorium. Technology can provide huge benefits, but we must ensure that it does not cause huge social problems and unfairness.
I hope that I have dealt with the specific issues raised by hon. Members. On the general issue of care home capacity, work is under way with the independent care homes sector, as well as with local authorities. For a long time, people in the NHS and the social care and the voluntary sectors have worked hard to draw up proposals for the national service framework. A huge challenge lies ahead to ensure that the NSF is properly implemented in accordance with the intentions of all those who drew it up.
The fact that so many different organisations were engaged in partnership in drawing up the NSF—which has been welcomed by many people, and which we should be able to implement—is a source of optimism for the future. We need that partnership, as well as a process of investment and reform, to secure improvements in the care of those with dementia. That process is under way. I pay tribute to all those involved in caring for those with Alzheimer's disease.

Electoral Law
11 am
Mike Gapes: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise these matters. I shall focus on events that took place in my constituency and raise wider issues relating to the role of the Electoral Commission, the law as it relates to sitting Members of Parliament before an election is called and the role of the internet and of well-funded extremist groups attempting to unseat Members of Parliament.
First, let me quote from an article from my local newspaper, the Ilford Recorder, of 14 June. Under the headline "Police halt poll protest", it states:
"Police were called to a polling station on Thursday"—
that is, polling day—
"after receiving complaints about the behaviour of political activists distributing leaflets outside.
Redbridge Council staff overseeing the voting at the polling station at Christchurch Primary School in Wellesley Road, Ilford, called in police at 8pm after becoming concerned by the behaviour of members of the Association of Ilford Muslims.
The group were handing out leaflets to Asian voters asking them not to vote for Labour candidate in Ilford South, Mike Gapes. Similar events took place at other polling stations in the constituency.
Officers confiscated the leaflets and warned the activists—who are critical of Mr Gapes' support of anti-terrorist legislation, Israel and the Middle East Peace Process—that they were prohibited from demonstrating outside polling stations.
They were told they would be arrested if they returned. Police stayed on the site until the end of voting at 10 pm.
There were also heated exchanges and stand up rows outside the polling station in Eton Road, Ilford, as voters ignored the association's pleas to snub Mr Gapes."
The article goes on to print a statement from the secretary of the Association of Ilford Muslims denying that any intimidation had occurred. I shall say more about the association later.
That was not the first problem that I had encountered in the campaign. The preceding Saturday, 2 June, we had been campaigning in Ilford Lane, one of our main shopping centres. Some of my Labour supporters, who were carrying leaflets and balloons, were harangued and harassed by a group of young men as we walked down the street. It got so difficult that I called the police—I feared that some of the elderly people in our group were in danger of being physically attacked. The police came and the situation was calmed to some extent, but the group continued to follow us up and down the street for two hours, shouting such things as, "Racist", "Murderer", and "How many children have you killed today?"
That evening I received a telephone call from a local business man who runs a restaurant. He had been enthusiastic when he saw us on the street and had given food and water—it was an incredibly hot day—to some of the campaigners. That evening, members of the group that had been involved in the previous incident went into his shop, threatened him saying, "We know where you live," and ripped down the posters that he had put up in support of my candidature.
The following morning, Sunday 3 June, we were out leafleting in Loxford, a ward with a very mixed community. I have in my constituency many different
92WH
people from many different backgrounds. We live harmoniously. In a typical road in Loxford ward, one finds Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and atheists all living as neighbours. First languages spoken include Punjabi, Urdu, Gujarati, Hindi and Tamil. A whole variety of people of different backgrounds live as near neighbours without any problems. However, as we were leafleting in Loxford ward, a man arrived with a mobile phone. Within 10 minutes, five other people arrived and followed us down the streets. They chanted "Racist" and "Murderer" as I put leaflets through doors. I ignored it and for more than an hour we continued our leafleting campaign.
When all this began, I resolved not to be intimidated or prevented from carrying out my democratic duty as a candidate and contacting my electors. The incidents came as no great surprise to me. Their origin goes back some months. Toward the end of 2000, with the situation in the middle east becoming tense and the new intifada, I received telephone calls and e-mails from a few individuals who wanted me to "explain my views" to the Muslim community. My views are clear and on the record. I have a website. I have always advocated a two-state solution. I have advocated compromise and peace. I visited Gaza in 1995 and met Arafat. None the less, to those individuals, the fact that I was an officer of the Parliamentary Labour Friends of Israel somehow made me unacceptable.
They began sending questionnaires requiring yes or no answers. Then, they insisted that I should meet them to discuss whether my views were acceptable. An e-mail from Mr. Zulfiqar Bukhari was the first of many. His brother, Mr. Asghar Bukhari, whom I shall mention again later, also started to e-mail me. I said that I would be happy to meet and speak to Muslim constituents at any time. I have always been approachable and accepted such invitations to meet my constituents, so that was not a problem. However, I then tried to make arrangements. I told the general secretary of the mosque that some young people wanted to hold a meeting with me and I started to make the arrangements to have the meeting at the mosque. It was then that the mood of the group changed.
On 14 November, I got an e-mail from Asghar Bukhari that said:
"Due to the mood in the community about the continuing atrocities and elements within the mosque who feel you have done very little on behalf of the Palestinians, we feel it would be both unwise and unfair to expose you to such a crowd.
We have wisely decided to have a meeting with you within the mosque walls 'privately'…If you decide within the meeting that you will actively support our demands in the House of Commons we will read out the results of the meeting before the prayer begins to a crowd of perhaps 1000 of your constituents. Equally, if you decide you cannot agree to our demands we will also read this out.
The results will be delivered to your Muslim constituents whilst you are still within the mosque."
I gave that invitation short shrift. I attended the mosque and was warmly received by the Imam, the general secretary of the mosque and the community as a whole. I made a speech during the main prayers to 1,000 men, then answered questions from those who wanted to pursue matters further at a meeting upstairs. Some of that discussion was quite heated. Nevertheless, I was delighted to receive a good, warm response from the overwhelming majority of my constituents.

93WH
The group concerned decided that it did not like the way in which I was appealing directly to my constituents. At the end of January and the beginning of February, I started to receive e-mails from another young man, Mr. Inayat Bunglawala, who originally styled himself "Representative of the Islamic Society of Britain Ilford Branch". He wrote:
"I have compiled attached with this note a list of some of your statements in the House of Commons on various issues that will concern the Muslim population of Ilford. The Islamic Society of Britain Ilford Branch intends to vigorously encourage Ilford's Muslims to participate in upcoming general elections. We want Britain's 2 million Muslims to play a positive role in the affairs of this country, and to be frank we are very unhappy with your statements on these issues."
Mr. Bunglawala had done a scissors-and-paste job on statements that I had made in the House of Commons over a nine-year period, taking one sentence from this half-hour speech, one from that five-line question, and so on. Underneath were paragraphs of interpretation of my views. I asked, "Why be so selective? I have said a lot more of interest to all my constituents. Why do you not print everything I have said?" I sent a comprehensive statement in reply to Mr. Bunglawala's friend, Mr. Bukhari, who in November had sent me an e-mail containing a number of questions. I asked him to publish my views, but his reply was, "Oh, we don't have space to publish your statement."
I refused to go along with the game and as a result, at the end of February, I was in formed that a leaflet would be produced. It was duly printed. The first of four leaflets that were put out against me in the period from the beginning of March to the general election, it was headed: "Mike Gapes, No Friend of the Muslims". There was no imprint, just a mobile telephone number printed on the bottom of the leaflet. It was produced not by the organisation that I thought Mr. Bungalawala represented, but under a nom de convenience—a name used for political reasons: the Association of Ilford Muslims. However, I know that it was produced by Mr. Bungalawala because the text was identical to his e-mail to me. It included statements such as,
"Note there are 300,000 Jews in Britain but over 2 million Muslims in Britain. The Jewish community has over 20 declared MPs while the Muslims have only one MP."
The implication was that people should be elected on the basis of religion rather than any other criterion. I believe that these people thought that I was Jewish because I am in the Parliamentary Labour Friends of Israel. I am not, but whether I am or am not Jewish is irrelevant: I have fought anti-Semitism all my life and will continue to do so. It is one of the reasons why those responsible for the leaflets do not like me.
After the selective quotes, the concluding paragraph of the leaflet states:
"Let us in Ilford send a strong message to all that we will not tolerate Islamaphobia and anti-Islamic views in Parliament. Getting rid of Mike Gapes will send a massive shock wave through the pro-Israel lobby."
The leaflet was distributed outside all the mosques and delivered door-to-door in the constituency. I put out press releases stating that I would not be intimidated by the leaflets, that I rejected such politics and that these people were against me because they were rejectionists and extremists who opposed the middle east peace process, which I support. They criticised me because I
94WH
oppose Saddam Hussein's regime and because I warned of the dangers of a process of regression and reversion to the reactionary policies of Khomeini in Iran. They criticised me because I raise human rights issues involving Arab countries, such as the fact that women do not have the vote in Saudi Arabia and small things of that kind. The group said that I had labelled all Muslims as extremists. What I actually said was that the vast majority of my constituents of all religions and faiths reject such politics, and that the vast majority of Ilford Muslims are politically moderate and reasonable people who have no truck with such politics. The same is true of the vast majority of British Muslims. That was my view then and it is my view now.
Mr. Inayat Bunglawala was quoted as saying that 10,000 leaflets had been distributed by 10 May 2001. He had informed us that a second version was being printed in colour. That first appeared on Friday 13 April and was distributed outside mosques and put on cars in a street near my home. It had almost, but not quite, the same text. It states:
"Mike Gapes MP, A TRUE FRIEND OF ISRAEL, No Friend of the Muslims"
and included a picture of an Israeli tank and a Palestinian boy throwing a stone at it. The wording was almost identical but was changed to toughen it up and stated:
"Getting rid of Mike Gapes will send a massive shock wave through the pro-Israel lobby and make it clear that Muslims are not to be trifled with."
At the same time as that second leaflet was produced, a version of the first leaflet was printed in Urdu; that was the third leaflet. The second and third leaflets had no imprint, but included two mobile telephone numbers. I shall not put those numbers on the record, but one belongs to Mr. Bunglawala and I believe that the other belongs to Mr. Asghar Bukhari. I have their addresses and they will be sent to the Electoral Commission.
A fourth leaflet then started to appear. A scrappy document, it gave the contact name of Asghar and a mobile telephone number. It stated:
"A Vote for Mike Gapes MP Ilford South is a Vote for Israel"
and included pictures of horrific scenes. It continued:
"11,000 Palastines"—
the word was mis-spelt—
have been shot and 400 killed, Mike Gapes continues to be the deputy chairman of the Labour freinds"—
also wrongly spelt—
"of Israel.… Why?"
It urged:
"A NO VOTE FOR MIKE GAPES AND THE LABOUR PARTY".
I am not sure how many of those leaflets were distributed, but I expect that it was several thousand. Four leaflets—probably 40,000 copies—were distributed. A question arises about the legitimacy of such campaigning under electoral law.
In addition, most Saturdays for several months the Labour party had had a street stall. My Conservative opponent was also out with his "Save the pound" campaign and petition. The group decided to position themselves next to the Labour stall and handed out its leaflets to people who came to the Labour stall. On one

95WH
occasion, someone took a Labour leaflet and tore it up. Whenever they thought that someone was a Muslim—they were not good at recognising them, because Sikh and Hindu friends of mine were approached—they would go up to them and say, "Do you know that that is Mike Gapes? He is a terrible man, responsible for awful things." I have photographs of some of the slogans, which included:
"MIKE GAPES MP, WHY DON'T YOU SUPPORT HUMAN RIGHTS?"
and
"VOTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, DON'T VOTE FOR MIKE GAPES "
Those appeared before the election in April and continued to appear into May. Mr. Bunglawala, Mr. Bukhari and others campaigned from that street stall. What was the cost of that campaign? I would guess that it was quite a lot.
When the election had been called, telephone calls started and people rang me to say that they had received a telephone call at home from people saying, "Don't vote for Mike Gapes. He's an Islamophobe. He is anti-Muslim. He is against our religion." I cannot say how many calls were made, but judging by my constituents' reaction, there was a considerable number. Interestingly, the phoning was not very accurate either. A lady with the surname Chaudhry wrote me a very nice letter pointing out that although she was a Christian, it had been assumed that she was a Muslim because of her surname, and her father, who had converted to Christianity, had been somewhat shocked to receive a phone call telling him that, as a good Muslim, he should reject me. I also had calls from Muslims who were upset and offended by the allegations, and I encountered—this is where the poison started—people with genuine concerns who had seen the leaflet but did not know my real position. I spent a lot of time talking to constituents either directly or over the telephone in response to the allegations.
Then, another variation of the campaign started. Earlier this year, a group called VoteSmart set up a website linked to the Muslim Council of Britain. Asking "Will your MP support Muslim issues in the next Parliament?", they gave us ratings of zero to plus five and zero to minus five. Needless to say, I appeared with a minus five rating. Interestingly, the person responsible for the Muslim Council of Britain's website has the e-mail address: inayat—b@hotmail.com—Inayat Bunglawala, who is on the media committee of the Muslim Council of Britain. He is also my constituent and is responsible for the leaflets against me.
That website did not merely list my name with those of other MPs who had been given various ratings. It has a whole special section on "Mike Gapes MP: 'No Friend of the Muslims' ", which reproduces one of the original leaflets. It is accessible through both the Muslim Council of Britain's website and through VoteSmart. I subsequently found out that it was available on websites all over the world. An American website called Islam for Today mentions:
"A campaign by London Muslims to unseat a British member of parliament from the governing Labour party at the 2001 general election."
96WH
Again, it contains the phrase "Mike Gapes MP: 'No Friend of the Muslims' ". The website reproduces, in its entirety, Mr. Bunglawala's leaflet. Another website, Middle East News Online, carried the headline "UK Muslims launch campaign against pro-Israel MP" and said:
"The Association of Ilford Muslims, AIM, have distributed thousands of leaflets in English, Urdu and Gujarati to homes, mosques and shopping centres in the constituency."
There follows an interesting remark that contains, I presume, a misprint:
"Secretary of AIM, Inayat Bunglawala, said there had been a fanatics response".
Other material appeared in a free English-language publication called The Muslim News. That cannot be bought in bookshops, but is given out in mosques all over the country. The issue of 23 February had a headline: "Muslims urged to `votesmart' in General Election", under which was written:
"In east London. the initiative is being taken one step further by confronting Labour MP for Ilford, Mike Gapes, about his stance towards Islam and specific Muslim countries … Mr. Inayat Bunglawala told The Muslim News"—
and so on and so forth. For several issues, The Muslim News ran stories about the campaign against me, including one headed, "Campaign against Gapes".
I had been demonised and turned into a hate figure because I refused to be intimidated by such stuff. I found the reaction interesting. I received an e-mail from a man called Faisal Bodi who said that he was a freelance journalist and would like to interview me about the campaign that was being run in my constituency. He wrote:
"I'm doing a piece on the threat posed by Muslim voters to sitting Labour MPs at the forthcoming election. I know that Ilford, South has experienced a high-profile campaign and would like to use this as the main example. I'm interviewing somebody from the association of Ilford Muslims this afternoon and would like to do the same with you."
I did not know Mr. Bodi, but I assumed that he was a journalist because he was working for the BBC. I willingly agreed to put my side of the case on the basis that it was a BBC programme. I was happy to engage in the debate.
Mr. Bodi was perfectly pleasant when he interviewed me. He was late, but I rearranged my time and came all the way into Westminster, even though Parliament was in its Easter recess. For about half an hour, we discussed a range of questions, including Muslim schools, unemployment, the Lawrence report, ethnic minority recruitment to the public services and police, discrimination legislation and the situation in Bahrain, where women have recently got the vote. However, my comments about none of those issues appeared in "The World Tonight". What did appear was an unbalanced piece: my opponents were allowed to say, without being challenged, that I am an Islamophobe and, to use Mr. Bodi's phrase, a "proven enemy of Muslims".
I wrote to the BBC to challenge it about the piece being unbalanced. After I did the interview, I discovered that Mr. Bodi is not really a journalist: he is a polemicist for extreme Islamic causes. Although the BBC did not accept that the programme was unbalanced, it admitted in a letter sent by Miss Prue Keely, that
"With regard to Mr. Bodi and his political opinions, he came to us as a freelance journalist recommended as having good access to radical Muslim communities. It is my view that we should have

97WH
made a more comprehensive introduction to the piece noting his known support for Islamic causes. We were not aware of his Guardian article on Israel's right to exist. I learnt of it on Wednesday."—
the day after the broadcast on the Tuesday night. She continued:
"I regret we did not check further prior to commissioning the piece and I have told the programme team that these are my views."
The article that Miss Keely mentioned stated that Israel had no right to exist. It is one of several pieces by the prolific Mr. Bodi that I have come across on the internet. Mr. Bodi is a strong supporter of Hamas and an opponent of both the compromise policies pursued for several years by the Palestine Liberation Organisation under Arafat and the anti-terrorist legislation that we put through in the last Parliament. He is also an opponent of the process of compromise and dialogue that we have been trying to pursue and encourage in the middle east.
As the BBC decided for its own reasons that it did not want Mr. Bodi to make programmes of that nature again, he decided to write a two-page attack on the subject which was published in The Guardian during the election campaign. My picture was featured in the article, in which I was singled out as the man responsible for Faisal Bodi being banned by the BBC. As I pointed out in a letter printed in The Guardian on May 23, there was nothing shadowy about my position, which I made clear on my website. My complaint was that Mr. Bodi had misrepresented me in his unbalanced piece and that the BBC was broadcasting material during the run-up to an election that could be interpreted as encouraging people in my constituency not to vote for me. That is the nub of the electoral law issue. I have provided a lengthy account of the background, but it is important to get such matters on record.
I wrote to the BBC about the programme. The joint editor of the piece wrote back saying:
"As to electoral law, I am advised that—as a news report outside an election campaign—none of this story comes under any electoral law of any sort."
Fair enough. When I asked the Labour party head office for legal advice about the initial leaflet—the one sent out at the beginning of March or April—it contacted the Electoral Commission. The commission replied:
"The Association of Ilford Muslims have been made aware of the provisions of section 75 of the RPA 1983 and that should they continue to publish their newsletters or other local material during the election, they must operate within the £500 ceiling. They have also been informed of the imprint requirements relating to any election material. We are not aware that the leaflet in question has been reissued since the election was called."
That letter was sent on 5 June—conveniently, two days before polling day—and was a response to a statement sent by the Labour party on 5 April. By the time Labour party head office received the commission's reply, nothing could be done about it. The first I knew of the response was after polling day. The Electoral Commission clearly takes the view that material attacking a Member of Parliament is allowed. However, I believe that the material was designed to influence the election; it continued to be distributed throughout the campaign without an imprint and without meeting the conditions laid down by the Electoral Commission.
98WH
The other side of the issue relates to electoral expenses. I have some concerns about on whose election expenses return such election material will appear. The people in the Association of Ilford Muslims were not only telling people not to vote for me but telling them to vote for my Conservative opponent, Mr. Suresh Kumar. That was confirmed by Faisal Bodi's articles. Let me quote from a magazine called Jerusalem File, May 2001, Vol. III, no. 5. Under a headline, "Voters target pro-Israel MPs", an article stated:
"For the last month the east London constituency has been the scene of a gloves-off battle between Mike Gapes, the local MP—a member of the Labour Friends of Israel—and the Association of Ilford Muslim's (AIM), which wants Muslims to back the Conservative candidate, Suresh Kumar."
It then quotes Mr. Asghar Bukhari, an AIM campaigner, speaking in the radio piece that Mr. Bodi had produced. Mr. Bukhari asks:
"How can this man possibly claim to represent Muslims on Palestine when he has such anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian form and when he is even a friend of Israel?"
Mr. Bodi then writes:
"Gapes has a seemingly safe 14,000 majority but if AIM's hopeful defection of Ilford South's 7,000 Hindus to Kumar materialises, he could be in for a big shock."
Reports in other papers said the same thing.
It is clear that such matters affect election expenses. As a result, my agent decided to raise the matter with the Conservative full-time agent in my borough, Mr. Alan Doran. He wrote asking for clarification on whether the Conservative party's candidate or any of its members had had any associations or discussions with the Association of Ilford Muslims. We received a reply not from the agent but from the Conservative candidate, who was acting as his own agent—which is legal, but unusual. Mr. Kumar made it clear that he had had discussions with the Association of Ilford Muslims, but did not answer any of our questions. I shall go no further than that at the moment, because there are still a few more days before election expenses returns have to be lodged. I am waiting to see the returns lodged in my constituency to determine whether any of the material is included within the expenditure of any of the other candidates, or whether AIM has submitted a statement to the Electoral Commission about its expenditure during the campaign.
I want to raise several points with the Minister. I am sorry that the background has been so detailed, but such matters are complicated. The Association of Ilford Muslims told people to vote Conservative and put out material saying that getting rid of Mike Gapes would be a great thing. I understand that expenses incurred for a candidate before their adoption as a candidate can count as election expenses, but putting out material against a sitting Member of Parliament, implicitly or even directly on behalf of another candidate, does not. I would be grateful for clarification on that point. When one puts out material before an election, if one is running a legitimate campaign, one has a stop point and carefully ensures that none of it is put out after the election is called; otherwise it counts towards one's election expenses. The people campaigning against me carried on beyond that point. They were reprinting the leaflet on 10 May for an election campaign that had been announced before then, with Parliament having been dissolved shortly thereafter. Those are serious matters.

99WH
Another issue is the harassment and intimidation of electors. In addition, under section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, the question of expenditure arises if more than £500 was spent on a concerted plan of action against me—and I would argue that it was certainly concerted, planned and involved action. There was no printer's imprint on the material that was produced. A wider issue is that of websites that reproduced the material in its entirety, again without an imprint—with a mobile phone number and nothing else—and carrying the name of the Muslim Council of Britain, which is the legitimate umbrella group for Islamic organisations in this country. Are the people involved aware of the requirements of the 1983 Act?
This is not just a matter for me. I was re-elected on 7 June with a majority of 13,997 on a much lower turnout than in 1997. There was a swing to Labour of 2.75 per cent., when all the neighbouring seats in east London, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham), had small, in her case, or larger swings against Labour. My constituents rejected the extremists' campaign. Muslim voters rejected the politics of mass hate; they rejected those involved and what they stand for. That is the best message that can go out from Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Jews in my constituency. We work together, live together and go to school together. We are an harmonious community and we reject the politics of hate and attempts to introduce them into our community.
I have a big majority now, although when I was elected in 1992, it was 402. I could take on the association's campaign with the reasonable assurance that, whether or not it worked, I would still be re-elected. However, colleagues in all parties who have small majorities could be subject to such campaigns orchestrated not only by the AIM but by other groups and on other issues. The magazine Q News published a hit list of Members of Parliament who were to be removed because of their views on the middle east. It included Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour and, incidentally, Ulster Unionist Members—I am not sure how many Muslim voters there are in Belfast, South, but the constituency featured in the list none the less. We need to think through the role of third-party campaigning. We need to be clear about election law on such matters.
I appreciate the opportunity that the House has given me to raise these matters. The Government should, at an early stage, examine the operation of election law and take lessons from the most recent election campaign so that the behaviour that I have described is not repeated with near impunity in local government elections next year or in other elections. I will be sending a copy of my speech to the Electoral Commission, which I understand is producing a report on the election; it is already at the printers and is due out soon. Clearly, that will be too early to deal with the question of election expenses: it will be printed before the relevant deadlines and before a lot of information has become available. That is unfortunate. I hope that it will be an interim report and that the commission will produce a comprehensive report based on the experiences of those of us who were involved in the election.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. Quite a few hon. Members have indicated that they want to speak, and other hon. Members should bear that in mind when making their speeches.
11.42 am
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: My contribution will be brief.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) on giving us the opportunity to discuss electoral law. His very full contribution was something of an eye-opener to me. I represent a part of the world that is proud to have a robust tradition of political debate, but what the hon. Gentleman described goes well beyond that. When we hear tales of intimidation and victimisation, alarm bells should ring in the ears of all of us who consider ourselves to be democrats—whether Liberal or not. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take some comfort from his return to Parliament. Whatever tactics some of his constituents might have employed, the vast bulk of them are clearly of a different mindset.
I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on drafting the topic for debate sufficiently widely to allow me to take a completely different tack. I want to bring a brief point to the Minister's attention, although he might already be aware of it because I wrote to his Department on 21 June. A professional lady who has lived and worked in Orkney for a number of years is a constituent of mine and a Dutch national. For some years, she was allowed to vote in elections to the local authority—Orkney Islands council—and to the European Parliament. She has never been allowed to cast her ballot in elections to this House. That has been the case for as long as she has lived here. I would not necessarily agree with that position, but it had a logical consistency in the distinction between a national Parliament and other bodies.
Will the Minister deal with a point that my constituent raised with me—that, since the operation of the Scotland Act 1998, she is now allowed to vote for her Member of the Scottish Parliament? She pays her taxes to Westminster and is able to have a say in how taxes are spent on health, education and other devolved matters, but she cannot have a say in how the remaining 50 per cent. of taxation, which relates to Departments responsible to this House, is determined. Since the Scotland Act 1998, that position is no longer defensible and requires reform.
We are members of the European Union, which is based on the principle of freedom of movement of goods and labour. There is little sense in allowing free movement of labour if people who have moved within the EU are taxed but allowed no say in how their taxation is spent. I realise that the Government have a full legislative timetable for this Parliament, but I hope that the matter might find its way into the category of legislation that, as I recall from my previous career as a lawyer, falls under the title of "Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts". I invite the Minister to clarify the Government's position.
11.46 am
Dr. Brian Iddon: I come to this debate from a slightly different direction from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), but I want to make some serious observations about the 7 June election. I am concerned about the harassment of voters at the entrance to polling stations.
My election agent and I approached the chief returning officer in Bolton, who is also the chief executive of Bolton metropolitan council, several weeks before the election and requested that police be provided at five key polling stations in my constituency. Police used to be present at all polling stations during nearly all elections, especially general elections. We made our request following reports from our party workers about the local elections of May 2000. Our request was not met, and in my constituency on 7 June I saw little evidence of any overt police observation of the electoral process.
Our request was reasonable and the Government should take up these matters with chief returning officers. It is odd that we send our own Members of Parliament to observe electoral processes in many other countries to ensure fair play, yet we do not ensure fair play in our own country.
I knew that our Tory opponent was unlikely to play fair when he started to fabricate letters from his London fax machine to the Bolton Evening News. The local and national press took up the issue. I shall not go into all the details, except to say that the contents of those letters led me to make an official complaint to the Commission for Racial Equality. During the campaign, the Tory candidate made a verbal attack on my wife at a public meeting, even though she was not present. There was flyposting, which is illegal in Bolton, and a leaflet was sent out for a meeting at which the principal speaker was Stephen Norris, but it had no imprint and the name of the printer was not mentioned.
Altogether, we made five official complaints to our chief returning officer before polling day about the behaviour of my Tory opponent. At this stage, I should perhaps say that my Tory opponent was a Muslim of Kashmiri heritage and he openly campaigned as the Muslim candidate. I recognise that that is not illegal, but greatly regret the introduction of sectarian politics on to the political scene in my town. That was the first time that I have seen any evidence of that. I have many friends and supporters in all Muslim communities in Bolton, including from the Kashmiri community. They gave me their support as usual, for which I have thanked them. For obvious reasons, rumours were spread among the Muslim communities that my name is Jewish and that I am a strong supporter of Israeli politics. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth; I am treasurer of the Britain-Palestine group.
On polling day, we decided to put Gujarati and Urdu-speaking number-snatchers at our five key polling stations, mainly to observe my Tory opponent's tactics. From early morning, we received reports on the situation from our number-snatchers, so I went out with my agent to see exactly what was going on. Immediately outside each of those five key polling stations, cars or vans carried my Tory opponent's helpers and displayed his posters. From what we saw of their activities, the supporters were obviously there to influence the voters
102WH
as they approached the polling stations. Right outside the entrance to St. Phillip's church hall polling station was a large van, not only covered in Tory posters but carrying on its back a large blown-up version of the ballot paper, showing people how to vote for the Tory candidate—in box No. 4.
We have photographic evidence of all that I am reporting today. As the day advanced, we saw as many as five number-snatchers inside the polling stations blatantly telling people, usually in Gujarati, whom to vote for.
The worst scenes were observed at the Emmanuel church hall polling station in Derby ward. The entrance to the polling room was to the rear of the hall, and voters had to pass the gable end of the hall down a narrow walkway with a low fence on the other side. All day, a car containing a Tory helper sat at the entrance to the polling station. As the afternoon passed, the Tory candidate's supporters lined the fence, in my view to intimidate and harass Muslim voters. As mid-afternoon approached two Imam priests appeared, and even greater intimidation was apparent. Young boys tried to stick Conservative lapel badges on everyone who approached the polling station. One or two voters who turned up in cars got straight back in and left without voting.
An adjacent former medical centre was plastered in Tory posters, and stands carrying Tory posters were placed along the public footpath leading to the hall. We complained several times during the day to the chief returning officer and his staff and, to try and force the hand of either the police or the chief returning officer or both, my supporters were allowed to join the Tory supporters after 4 pm at the Emmanuel church hall polling station, but it made no difference. Two policemen merely came and went again without removing either my supporters or the Tory supporters, although we had asked them to remove everybody.
It was mayhem. In more than 30 years' campaigning in politics, I have never seen anything like what I saw at the Emmanuel church hall. Rules were blatantly abused, but the chief returning officer told me that he could take no action unless a voter complained. Many have, but only after the day and by letter. I forwarded the letters to the chief returning officer and have arranged to meet him in the next few days to discuss those matters further.
Voters should be allowed to approach and enter a polling station without being harassed by supporters of any political party. The key to that is to ensure a police presence all day—preferably at all polling stations and especially at general elections—to ensure that elections are conducted in as peaceful a manner as possible. The polling clerks are just too busy to be aware of what goes on outside their polling stations or even in the entrances. A code of conduct should be given to the candidates as well as the agents, so that they are all aware of which procedures are illegal and which are not. There is a grey area of the law to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South referred.
I hope that the Minister will ask his staff or the Electoral Commission to look at tightening the law, especially on harassment and intimidation of voters who are trying to get into a polling station. I realise that it is difficult. How can a householder be prevented from putting up a political party's posters in a window

103WH
immediately opposite a polling station? That is impossible. However, people can be kept away from the entrance to the polling station. Fortunately, I have a large majority and I was never in any danger of losing my seat. Imagine what would have happened had it been a marginal.
11.55 am
Norman Baker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) on securing the debate. In the immediate aftermath of the election it is right to review the conduct of that election in a constructive and non-partisan way. Like my colleagues I deplore the intimidation and harassment of voters wherever it occurs. As the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) rightly pointed out, we should also deplore any drift towards sectarianism in this country. Like other hon. Members I have been to Northern Ireland. We do not want the sort of system wherein people vote according to their religion, rather than according to the policies advocated by the candidates.
Compared with Bolton, South-East and Ilford, South, although perhaps not Orkney and Shetland, the campaign in Lewes was genteel and well behaved. I cannot produce reams of complaints about how candidates undertook the campaign. However, I should like to raise two issues arising from my constituency. The first—a pale shadow of the one in Ilford, South—is the campaign initiated by the Democracy Movement. That campaign was not unique to my constituency, but it was a strong campaign to denigrate my views on the pound and the euro. Surprising as it may be, my views were misrepresented; more to the point, they were misrepresented by means of a tabloid newspaper and other leaflets that were distributed during the election in a free newspaper. It was a high-quality insert and I have no doubt that the cost of producing and distributing that leaflet by means of piggybacking an existing newspaper will have been well in excess of £500.
The newspaper's objective was to help the Conservative candidate, although I do not think that the Conservatives had anything to do with it, or that the Conservative candidate knew about it or approved of it. Nevertheless, the objective was to return a Conservative rather than a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament. Mine was a marginal seat, but I am happy to say that my majority has significantly increased. However, had the issue of the euro taken off, that leaflet, which was reproduced in constituencies—especially ones represented by Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament—across the country could have been used to swing the results. Indeed, that was the intention.
We must look carefully at the rules that allow people outside political parties to produce literature that is designed to affect the result of an election. Political parties, by and large, stick to the rules on election expenses and everything else. People outside political parties, however, take a far more cavalier approach to such matters. The Government need to address that issue in the aftermath of the election.
The second issue is a minor one. My Conservative opponent and his agent tended to plaster county council verges with large Conservative posters. Occasionally,
104WH
they put up posters without the permission of the householder, but that is another matter. I do not blame the Conservatives for trying it on. However, when people complained, East Sussex county council took the view that it did not want to get involved and that it was a matter for the political parties—it was quite happy for its verges to be covered by political posters. In the end the problem became so absurd that it had to get involved and one day it cleared them all away. That was completely the wrong tack for the council to adopt. It should have insisted from day one that any posters erected on its property he removed; instead, the posters were allowed to fester for weeks before action was taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) raised some important points, in the exceedingly quick time of only four minutes. He left no room for anything other than a clear interpretation of his remarks and I hope that we get an answer to the vital issue that he raised.
I turn to the important issue of postal voting, which has not so far been mentioned. I welcome the Government's introduction of sensible measures to encourage people to vote by making it easier to do so by post. It was particularly sensible and useful to reduce the deadline to only six days before polling day, from the absurdly long period that had applied before. However, I am concerned that unless preventive measures measures are adopted, the new rules will allow exploitation and, dare I say, fraud of the electoral system. It is legitimate to ask, after the election, how robust and secure our electoral system is.
I was concerned by a report on the "Today" programme during the election campaign, which hon. Members may have heard. The reporter Andrew Gilligan undertook a project in Torbay, which at the 1997 election was carried with a Liberal Democrat majority of 12 votes. He looked up the names of deceased voters in the back issues of the Torbay local paper, the Herald Express and, using an internet site, checked whether their names were still on the electoral roll. He made applications for votes to be delivered to the addresses of various "Today" programme staff around the country—an application for a postal vote need not be sent to the address where a voter is registered. By Monday, he had received seven ballot papers, which would have been enough to have changed the 1997 result had all those voters voted for the Conservative candidate. The same logic obviously applies to other seats and other parties.
I also draw the Minister's attention to an article in The Guardian written by Nick Davies, who happens to be a constituent of mine—some erudite people live in Lewes. The article drew attention to the issue of ghost voters and commented that there were no ghostbusters to deal with them. Nick Davies said that he had evidence that those who wanted to rig elections could find a derelict building, add a couple of extra houses to a street or use the addresses of a hostel or anyone else with a transitory population, adding false names and creating false votes.
The Minister should know about an incident that took place in Cornwall, in the constituency held by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). A Conservative supporter—on that occasion—helped 17 elderly electors fill in a form to apply for postal votes and then collected the forms to take to the council. That was

105WH
fine on the face of it, but without their knowledge the 17 elderly voters ended up applying for proxy votes, naming various people who were to vote on their behalf, all of whom turned out to be Conservative party workers. Some of those workers expressed astonishment when they were told the story: they had been in ignorance of the activity. That shows that the system of proxy voting is also open to abuse.
In marginal constituencies, such abuses can swing the result. The opportunity exists for Britain to get the reputation that America temporarily acquired after the presidential count in Florida. There should be a clampdown on the use of proxy votes—indeed, now that we have better access to postal votes, I question whether proxy votes are necessary. We also need to ensure that postal votes are sent to the address where the voter is registered and not to any address that someone happens to pick out. We need checks to ensure that the register is accurate and does not contain ghosts, so that when people die they are removed from the register as soon as possible. Someone should be given the task of doing that to ensure that dead people's names cannot be used by someone else to vote. Much more has to be done in that respect.
I am also concerned about the arrangements at polling stations—not those to which the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East referred, although I accept that there is also a problem in that respect. I accept that it is possible—indeed, it happens frequently—for a person to give his name and address at a polling station, say that he has forgotten his polling card and to be given a vote none the less. The elector may or may not be known to the polling clerk; a person may have identified someone who never votes—a Jehovah's Witness, for example—and used that person's name and address to cast a vote unbeknownst to the person whose name and addressed has been used. We must clamp down on such practices: people who cannot produce their polling card at the polling station should be required, as they are not required at present, to show some other form of identification to verify their entitlement to vote under the name and address given. We in this country are in danger of becoming complacent about our system being free from exploitation and fraud. It is not.
On the matter of postal votes, I refer to a letter from constituents in Seaford who applied for a postal vote. The ballot was sent by the deputy returning officer in Lewes by first-class post on 25 May, but, according to a neighbour, it did not arrive until two days after my constituents went on holiday on 29 May, with the result that they lost their vote. How an election envelope that has to travel only nine miles by first-class post can take more than seven days to arrive is a matter for the Post Office to investigate.
There were postal strikes in some parts of the country and people who followed the procedures, who could reasonably expect to have voted, were disfranchised by the action or inaction of Post Office employees. It should be illegal to withhold postal ballot forms; if these are sent by post, it should be an absolute requirement on the Post Office to deliver them in a manner that is equivalent to recorded delivery to ensure that they arrive on time. If we encourage postal voting, it must not depend on the efficiency or inefficiency of a sorting office or a postman. The matter must be sorted out. People who apply for
106WH
postal votes are entitled to expect them to arrive in good time to be able to vote, but that was not what happened last month.
The robust and secure nature of our electoral system is in question. We can be confident that it works better than most in the world, but there are opportunities for fraud, exploitation and abuse. I hope that the Government will consider, on a non-partisan basis, hon. Members' suggestions about how the system can be improved.
12.7 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) on securing the debate. He expressed a great deal of frustration, which we can all understand. A leaflet that did not bear an imprint and that dealt with my views on hunting was distributed in my constituency. It is frustrating that legitimate candidates have limits on their expenditure and we are paranoid about breaking those limits: when people attack candidates or misrepresent their views, the first response is to produce a leaflet to refute what has been said, or to make telephone calls to that effect. However, if candidates are near to their expenditure limit, they cannot do that.
Another frustration is that if someone breaks the law, or comes close to doing so, there is precious little that can be done until the votes have been cast and the election is over. The most frustrating thing is that returning officers do not have much power and, as evidence cited in the debate shows, the Electoral Commission appears to be rather slow to respond. All parties should think about how such problems can be rectified far more quickly, because in a highly marginal seat they make a difference. It could even affect which party governs the country, although not at present, given the Government's majority. We are waiting for the Electoral Commission's report, when we shall no doubt have a fuller debate.
We were all disappointed with the turnout, but that is a political rather than a mechanical problem. There have been a number of experiments with local government, Sunday voting, postal votes for all and voting in supermarkets, but none has been a tremendous success. It is up to political parties to enthuse people to go to the polls. If we have more postal voting or proceed with voting by e-mail, the risk of fraud will be greater. I have always believed that it is good that people have to take the time to go to a polling station to cast their vote.
In general, I welcome the relaxation of the rules on postal voting, which seemed rather tightly drawn, given that the moment the election campaign started, people could not apply for votes. People can now apply towards the end of a campaign, and they generally received their postal ballot before election day, although there was concern about whether some received their ballots in time. The returning officer in Poole sent out a number of postal votes. Those who had registered early received their ballots early, and later applications were processed accordingly, which meant endless telephone calls from people saying that they were about to go away but had not received their ballot and asking when it would arrive. A provision in electoral law allows people to go back to a returning officer within four days of polling day and have

107WH
a ballot re-issued, but if people are not sure what is going on and things are somewhat chaotic, that is bound to cause difficulty.
I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) that there is considerable scope for fraud. Inevitably, the system must be based on trust, but if BBC journalists go to Torbay looking for a story, they will probably find one. We probably cannot afford a copper-bottomed system whereby every postal vote is investigated. Nevertheless, as a nation, perhaps we should invest more in our democratic services and give local authorities a little more money to ensure that registers are up to date and the names of people who have died are removed from them as soon as possible.
There are several problems with a rolling register. It is fine as a concept, although it creates much more work for political parties in updating their registers and computers. Some local authorities are very quick to remove people from the register. During the campaign, we heard about people who were taken off the register immediately after they had written to their authority to say that they were moving and no longer paying council tax in the area, but before they were registered at their new address. Such people missed out at both ends, whereas under the former system the register was current and based on being in place in October. If people were not on the register for their new address, they could return to their former address and vote there, so some people are missing out with a rolling register.
I also want to mention the telephone preference service. In the previous Parliament, the Government tightened up on telephone canvassing, mainly because of people becoming annoyed with double-glazing salesmen. The Conservative party assures me that we stuck to the TPS rules and telephoned no one, although some of my colleagues said that they were not sure whether the Labour party followed suit. Perhaps the Minister will ensure that, if there are TPS rules—the Electoral Commission may have a view on that—they are rigidly enforced and all parties do the same thing.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South referred to the internet, which is fairly important. There are problems with controlling the internet, and the trading of votes is another issue. As we all know, an election agent must authorise expenditure. If some expenditure is not authorised and unfairness is involved, we will have to consider that. We should carry out a general review. We need to take another look at postal voting, because there is concern about possible fraud. In particular, we need to ensure that, if there is a later deadline, the Post Office has the resources to get the votes out and people are able to cast their vote. We are still learning with the rolling register, and a little more money may need to be invested to ensure its accuracy.
The hon. Gentleman made another very relevant point: third-party campaigns started because of animal rights or because people have taken a dislike to a Member of Parliament may be more of a feature in future. That is not a party political point: all parties and all MPs may at some point face that problem. The hon. Member for Ilford, South has done the House a service by raising the issue. It must be investigated seriously to ensure that attempts to skew election results by unfair means are not allowed. Our democracy must operate on the basis of fair
108WH
and understandable rules so that we as political parties know what we are doing. The activities of third parties, particularly if they have a vendetta against an individual, must be nipped in the bud. We need a means of dealing with them when they are happening, not after an hon. Member has lost his constituency. Once the vote is counted and an hon. Member is returned it is far too late. We need some means of taking more immediate action or holding people responsible. It may mean having rather more draconian fines or perhaps disqualifying those who break the rules from voting.
12.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Man Whitehead): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) on securing the debate. He made an intelligent and helpful speech. All contributions this morning were positive and assisted mature consideration of the lessons that we can learn from the election to ensure that our democracy works well. My hon. Friend clearly had particular reasons for raising the debate and he set them out forcefully. I would like to draw the debate to a close by referring to some wider issues, a number of which have been discussed this morning.
All who, like us, submit themselves periodically to the electoral process have an interest in the way in which that process operates. All hon. Members probably have stories of the electoral trail and the problems that have arisen. It is important for the health of democracy that we keep matters under review and resolve any problems. As hon. Members have said it is important to get things right before elections take place, rather than having to look at a result that has sadly gone awry. Each general election gives us an opportunity to examine its workings and to come up with ideas for improvement. Today's debate is a useful contribution to that process.
United Kingdom elections are generally pretty free and fair. That has not always been the case. I am reminded of the Sandwich election of 1881, when the two parties taking part sequestered no fewer than 160 public houses as committee rooms and the beer flowed freely throughout. Indeed, an enterprising early Thatcherite who was a bill poster in the town managed to obtain work for both parties: he put up posters up for one party during the day, tore them down at night and put up posters for the other party the following day and so on throughout the election. I am also reminded of the Southampton election in 1895, when the Conservative candidate, Sir Tankerville Chamberlayne, delighted electors by proceeding from the bottom of town to Southampton common in a cart drawn by six sturdy townsmen, throwing sovereigns out as he went.
We have advanced a little from such practices, but I do not want make light of what my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, South and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) have told us this morning. I am concerned by what I have heard of the campaign in Ilford, South and the incidents in Bolton, South-East. I condemn any dirty tricks in election campaigns. If hon. Members have been subjected to intimidation or unfair practices in the election, it is not acceptable.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South will forgive me if I do not go into the details of his allegations. First, I do not know enough about it to do so

109WH
sensibly. Secondly, the appropriate way to pursue allegations of illegal and possibly criminal practices is through the law. I note that he intends to continue his investigation and to pursue those responsible. In such circumstances, it would not be right of me to comment further at this stage, but I would be interested to learn of any conclusion to those inquiries. As he emphasised, whatever went on in the campaign in Ilford, South, it had no effect on the outcome—indeed, he was returned with a swing towards him that was greater than that in my constituency, where I did not have to face the tactics that he faced. One could say that his result demonstrates the backfiring of those tactics. People should draw a moral from that.
In broadening the debate, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) made a specific and succinct point about the status of voters who are European Union citizens but cannot vote in UK elections. The fact that the voter whom he mentioned may vote in Scottish parliamentary elections underlines his point, but the Scottish Parliament is not a national parliament in the same way as those represented in the EU. There is a reciprocal agreement among EU member that states who may vote in national elections: citizens of each country may vote in their own but not other countries' national elections. A change to that agreement would be required for that position to be altered and, as far as I understand, there are no plans to make such a change. Any change would have to apply throughout the EU.
Perhaps the most important recent change on elections was the establishment last November of the Electoral Commission. I should make it clear that the commission cannot mount prosecutions for illegal actions; those are a matter for the police. Local police also decide staffing levels at polling stations, and hon. Members will know that in several parts of the country the police take an active interest in ensuring that the polling stations are free and accessible to all citizens. It is a fundamental prerequisite of our election system that people should be able to go to the polling station and cast their vote without harassment.
The commission has several duties relating to electoral practices, party funding and the conduct of any future referendums. It is also responsible for keeping electoral law under review and promoting understanding of electoral and political matters. Internet campaigning and voting, and postal voting are topics that the commission might consider in the future. It is able to produce reports at the request of the Secretary of State. One of the commission's main duties is to prepare reports on elections and its report on this year's general election is being prepared, as hon. Members have mentioned. I understand that the report will be published in late July, and I am sure that we all look forward to seeing it. It is for the commission to decide what goes into its report, but I am sure that it will want to examine how recent election legislation has operated. Its recommendations remain to be seen, but I assure hon. Members that we will consider them carefully. We will also try to ensure that hon. Members have every opportunity to contribute their views once the report has been published.
Until the report is published, data that could inform the debate remain unavailable, but we can draw a few wider conclusions on how recent changes to electoral law have operated. More changes have been made to the law
110WH
in the past year than have been made for decades, with two major pieces of electoral legislation going through the House recently: the Representation of the People Act 2000 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The former introduced a number of changes, including rolling registration, provisions to help people who are unable to register voto—for example, the homeless and those without a fixed address—postal voting on demand and provisions to help disabled voters. The latter focused more on party funding, but it established the Electoral Commission whose report we await.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) made a number of specific points on how those changes in electoral law work and whether there is cause for concern about rolling registration, the widening scope of postal voting and the security of the voting system as a whole. I concur with the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) who said that the British electoral system works on the basis of trust and that people who are determined to get round the system will occasionally be able to do so. However, there is no overwhelming evidence of systematic breaches of electoral law although occasional lurid radio and television programmes have suggested that there is.
Considerable safeguards for rolling registration are in place. Accusations have been made that the new system makes it too easy to register and that people can be registered twice. However, electoral registration officers have the power to check applications carefully and to require more information if they have any suspicions before adding someone's name to the register. The application form asks for information about voters' previous addresses so that they can be removed from the register there. Voters can be registered in two places at once, particularly if there is a delay in passing information back to the electoral registrtion officer, but it remains an offence to vote twice and voters cannot be certain that they have not been removed from the old register.
In the run-up to the election, there was much publicity about postal voting and the potential for fraud. Much of that publicity was unhelpful, but it is important to consider our reaction to concerns, given that the increase in postal voting was one of the minor successes of the recent election. Many people took the opportunity of having a postal vote without having to provide a reason, and that helped them to cast their votes.
Mr. Syms: Is there likely to be any assessment of the number of postal votes that arrived after polling day? That would be useful information.
Dr. Whitehead: I am not sure whether the data upon which such an investigation could be mounted are available, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and let him known whether such data are available and, if so, what conclusions might be drawn.
In some areas, 30 per cent. of the electorate applied for a postal vote, and there were increases of between 5 and 10 per cent. in the number of people with a postal vote in several constituencies. That shows that we are giving the electorate what is wanted. Postal voting is popular and suits modern life styles. I am not sure that we could easily place too many additional safeguards on postal voting in the way described by the hon. Member for Lewes without

111WH
undermining a number of the gains that have resulted from postal voting. For example, it is difficult to require that postal votes must go to a specific named address or the home address of postal voters because part of the reason for people wanting postal votes is that they are away from home. Allowance must be made for the nomination of an address when the postal vote is sent out.
However, there are considerable safeguards surrounding postal votes, which have been available for a long time. Postal votes are not new; the current issue is that the number of postal votes is increasing. Voters cannot obtain postal votes unless they are registered to vote in the area in which they apply. They can return to a polling station in the constituency if they wish, but cannot, having been sent a postal vote, obtain another postal vote and so vote twice. It is always possible for someone to pretend to be a deceased person and obtain a vote. That has always been an incipient problem with the postal voting system, but there is no evidence that that is a widespread fraud. Of course, it is always important to be vigilant.
All Members of Parliament who are concerned about the operation of electoral law and the smooth running of elections should ensure that we are vigilant about how the system works. We have seen enormous changes in that system in the last few months and it is time for us to pause for a moment to take stock. We can do that with the advice of the Electoral Commission when its report is published.

Footpaths (North Yorkshire)
12.30 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I am absolutely delighted to have secured this debate, but I speak with sorrow tinged with anger. I would like to express to the House the fear and anguish of the farming community in North Yorkshire and particularly in the Vale of York.
I accept that it is in everyone's interests to have accessible footpaths, especially when there is no foot and mouth disease. That has always been a priority for councils such as North Yorkshire county council, which happens to be Conservative-controlled. Nationally, 83 per cent. of all Conservative-controlled councils have accessible footpaths.
Since Easter, 800 footpaths or rights of way in North Yorkshire have been reopened. I accept that there is, as yet, no direct case of foot and mouth in the Vale of York, but it is poised all around us. We have had three contiguous culls and one suspect cull, the most recent from the outbreak at Danby Wiske. We see with horror that direct outbreaks in the whole county have now risen to 92, and they are pressing on all the frontiers of North Yorkshire's national parks. There are also outbreaks continuing at Settle and Hawes.
We are still, therefore, in the midst of a foot and mouth crisis. The Government's priority must be to eradicate the disease, and the Opposition will support them in that. Only when foot and mouth has been completely eradicated will visitors and walkers return to our rights of way and footpaths in comfort, and at the animals' safety.
The Government have recognised that. I have a letter from the Under-Secretary of State at the old Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which reached me on the day of the election. It says:
"In the light of the revised veterinary risk assessment, we are recommending that local authorities for counties where there has never been a confirmed case of foot and mouth disease, or where a previous Infected Area has been lifted, should proceed rapidly to reopen all rights of way."
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): It might be helpful if I point out that the hon. Lady received a letter from me last week setting out the current position on the opening of footpaths.
Miss McIntosh: I am sure that the Minister will wish to respond to my remarks at length, but my point is this: it seems crazy that at the start of the crisis, when the disease was nowhere near North Yorkshire, all footpaths were closed, but now, when it is lapping at our doorsteps, the Government are planning to reopen them. That is what the National Farmers' Union has said, and it also pointed out that, while most footpaths will be reopened on 20 July, it has until Friday to apply for exemptions, which means that not all will be reopened. That is the crux of my argument.
Against that background, and at a time when not only parliamentary candidates but the same county councillors who had been asked to take a decision at the end of May to come into effect at the beginning of June were up for election, the rural taskforce—albeit under a different Department—put pressure on counties such as

113WH
North Yorkshire to reopen footpaths. The timing was appalling. I put it to the Minister that the Government behaved in an utterly irresponsible and inappropriate manner by putting unwarranted pressure on counties such as North Yorkshire in circumstances in which it was difficult for them to take a political decision.
I commend the cautious approach of North Yorkshire county council. I have a copy of the order that it issued, which the chief executive has explained to me. The council has made only one exemption. In a letter to me, the chief executive states:
"The order that has been made…means that all public rights of way in the designated area are now open with the exception of those that pass through outdoor pig units where the pigs are not protected by any physical barrier, such as a fence…The power to close public rights of way outside an infected area now lies with the Government and not with Local Authorities."
Thus it is timely that I have the opportunity to request two exceptions against the background that I have described. It is especially appropriate for the Government to reconsider their decision because cases of foot and mouth in North Yorkshire are increasing. As of yesterday, the number stood at 92. The Government's own criteria, which the then Under-Secretary set out in a letter that reached me only on 7 June, are being breached. As I said, it has been difficult to take a political decision.
The first case that I want to raise concerns a footpath in Tockwith. Tockwith parish council was consulted by North Yorkshire county council at the end of May and said categorically that it did not want the right of way to reopen. It wrote to the Prime Minister on 29 June in very strong terms, stating:
"The disease is now a very real threat to North Yorkshire and at the same time we are being ordered"—
I stress the word "ordered"—
"to reopen all footpaths.
The Council contends that the situation 'on the ground' is not what you think or have been led to believe.
The edict to reopen footpaths is seen as totally out of order, especially as the outbreaks get ever nearer by the day… The Parish Council urges you to give immediate thought to the plight of farmers and country people generally and adopt a cautionary principle in the reopening of footpaths throughout the County."
In her letter, the clerk to the council also notes:
"The Council considers that ii is very short sighted to insist on reopening footpaths immediately when the County acted quickly"—
she means at the start of the outbreak—
"to close them for very good reasons. —
I also have a letter from a practitioner. There are 45 veterinary practices in North Yorkshire, but not one was asked to validate the Government's advice. What has happened is a source of great anguish, stress, worry and concern for farmers and those who advise them.
The footpath in Tockwith passes within three miles of an infected area, with livestock—cattle and sheep, albeit not pigs—roaming freely. I requested one farmer whose land is involved to provide a map for today's debate. The pink line shows a bridleway and the blue ones show footpaths and rights of way, which are the subject of the order to reopen, with which the rural taskforce has insisted that North Yorkshire county council comply.
114WH
The fields involved are immediately adjacent to those footpaths or bridleways, and cattle and sheep are loose and exposed to walkers.
Alun Michael: I intervene at this point—although I will explain the matter later—because people might be misled by the hon. Lady's statement. My understanding is that the nearest infected area is 12 miles away, to the west of Harrogate. I think that the hon. Lady is referring to the area of restrictions on the movement of animals, which is not the same thing.
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. Perhaps, the hon. Lady should not refer to maps or diagrams; it will make things extremely difficult for the Hansard reporters.
Miss McIntosh: I appreciate that, Mr. Cummings, which is why I have tried to explain that the fields are adjacent to either rights of way or bridleways. I accept what the Minister said, but the concern is that when the footpaths were closed, there was not one outbreak in North Yorkshire. Now that rights of way have been reopened, we have reached 92 cases and that figure is rising. I have no further diagrams to produce.
In the Secretary of State's opening statement to the House on foot and mouth two weeks ago, she said that animals and humans should not be in contact, to prevent any potential spread of disease.
I have a letter from a veterinary practice that serves one particular farm concerned about the situation. Having not been consulted, it took the opportunity to write to North Yorkshire county council in the following strong terms:
"It is with regret and disappointment that I learn that you may be opening footpaths through agricultural land that will now be heavily stocked with both cattle and sheep. Many of our clients (supported by 10 vets) are near financial collapse as a consequence of Foot and Mouth and they are 'the countryside.' Without them there will be no tourist industry."
He concludes:
"Do not allow a decision that will increase the risk of spread of this disease into otherwise clean areas."
I also have a letter from the Yorkshire Veterinary Society, which represents 115 vets in the county. It says:
"North Yorkshire with large areas of high animal density and an unpredictable pattern of FMD outbreaks has such a high risk of disease and potential for virus transmission that retaining the blanket ban on footpath closures is justified."
It concludes:
"For these reasons I ask that you actively oppose the removal of the closure of the rights of way which directly cross agricultural land or deer parks in North Yorkshire in order that all sectors of the rural community can concentrate on the aim of containing and eliminating the FMD virus which has been responsible for so much economic loss and emotional turmoil to all sectors of the countryside."
Another farm is at Crayke and I am happy to discuss with the Minister where that is found in relation to the nearest infected area. One farmer—whose name I shall not reveal because I do not have his permission—wrote to me saying:
"I am a farmer at the above address. My land goes from the farm onto Stillington-Easingwold Road. We have a right of way Public Footpath running from Stillington Road up our fields and through our farmyard going towards Crayke. With foot and

115WH
mouth ever present the footpath was closed. They have now reopened the footpath but we have 50 cows on the grassfield grazing.
In the farmstead the walkers pass another 30 Heifers which are 6 metres away and also 40 metres away from 300 pigs. We are very worried about this, and we should have been consulted about its reopening. We do not think it should be reopened. We are writing to ask for your help in anyway to try and get it closed again."
That is the purpose of this morning's debate.
I believe that the Government are prepared to listen and, if my understanding of North Yorkshire county council is correct, we are in time to apply for a number of exemptions—in particular for the two footpaths at Tockwith and Crayke. I urge the Government to be sensible. Our priority must be to eradicate the disease and to help businesses that have suffered, whether they are in farming or in tourism. I make an emotional yet practical plea to the Minister to keep those footpaths closed and to make exemptions to the lifting of the blanket closures where appropriate. I specify that they should exclude not just footpaths that pass pigs, but ones that pass cattle and sheep. Let us put all possible Government resources into the eradication of the disease and keep walkers, with or without dogs, away from livestock until the disease is over. Then the walkers will return in comfort and safety, posing no further threat to livestock.
12.44 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I thank the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) for giving me the opportunity to punch home some very important messages on a very important issue. I recognise that she has genuinely held concerns about opening paths in her area, but I believe that those concerns are misplaced and hope that she will be reassured by what I have to say.
The hon. Lady rightly described the anguish of farmers, but she should also be aware of the anguish of many others whose businesses have been devastated and whose problems continue. Indeed, Conservative Members made that case during a debate in this Chamber yesterday, and I believe that the hon. Lady was present for at least part of that debate. They made the point strongly and were right to do so.
I should make it clear that powers were given to local authorities to impose blanket closures initially as a precautionary measure. My colleagues who were taking the decisions at that time moved fast to give local authorities a power which it was hoped and intended they would use effectively and responsibly, and the vast majority have done so.
As the hon. Lady referred to the views of the National Farmers Union and sought to paint the rural task force as some kind of ogre, I should point out that the NFU is represented on the taskforce.
Miss McIntosh: I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that not every farmer in North Yorkshire, or the country, is a member either of the NFU or the Country Landowners Association. The issue that is causing most concern is why the criteria have changed from the letter that I received on 7 June.
Alun Michael: Of course, it is no more true that every farmer is a member of the NFU than it is of any other representative organisation. However, the hon. Lady quoted the NFU in support of her position and I am making the point that the NFU is represented on the rural taskforce. Indeed, our meeting last week was an excellent run-through of the various issues that are affecting the countryside.
For the hon. Lady to suggest that any risk is involved is irresponsible unless she, or those who have written to her, can produce evidence. We are going on the available evidence, and we have given local authorities the opportunity to show cause, on the basis of their particular circumstances, for the blanket ban to remain. It must be for a reason, not for no reason at all.
Let me make it absolutely clear what the Government are not doing or proposing to do. We are not putting pressure on any local authorities—including North Yorkshire county council— to lift restrictions on paths where they are needed as a precautionary measure. I repeat those words: where they are needed as a precautionary measure. I assure the hon. Lady that we have no intention of taking action that would increase the risk of spread of disease. For instance, there is no question of our wanting to lift restrictions around disease hotspots or other areas where there have been recent outbreaks. However, that does not mean that footpaths and other public rights of way that are well away from those areas should remain closed.
Farmers are being issued with a video on biosecurity, which we have been publicising today. I have a copy here, which the hon. Lady may wish to view. We are not giving separate messages; we are conveying two very clear messages. On the one hand, we have to maintain tight biosecurity; on the other hand, we need to get visitors back to the countryside. I make it clear again that our top priority is to beat the disease. To that end, biosecurity is essential, especially on the part of farmers and others who work in close contact with animals, because the vets tell us that that is the main way in which the disease is spread. Farmers need to take stringent precautions because they are far more likely than most people to have been in contact with foot and mouth disease without knowing it.
However, we urgently need to get visitors back to the countryside if many small country hotels, shops and many other businesses are not to go out of business. That means allowing people to walk where it is safe to do so, given that the vets' advice is that the risk that walkers will spread the disease is very small.
In that context, I shall underline the advice that is being given. If one has handled cattle, sheep, goats or pigs in the past seven days, please stay off all other farmland. Do not go near and never touch, handle or feed livestock. If walkers unexpectedly come across livestock, they are advised to move away slowly and, if necessary, retrace their routes. Keep dogs on short leads where there are livestock, do not leave waste or litter, stay on the path, leave all gates as one finds them, use disinfectant where provided and start one's walk or ride with clean equipment, footwear and clothing. If people are walking in the countryside, they should clean their boots in particular and other clothing before they undertake another walk. That is a straightforward piece of advice, which I, as a walker, certainly obey.

117WH
Government guidance to local authorities is clear and the latest veterinary evidence supports it. With the exception of paths on infected premises and on land within a 3 km radius of them, there is generally no reason for keeping paths shut—provided that people follow the sensible precautions that I have just underlined. The veterinary advice makes it clear that the risk of users of rights of way spreading disease is minimal while the continued closure of footpaths is devastating to the rural economy.
In North Yorkshire, 20 per cent. of the path network has been reopened to public access as at 29 June. That is reviewed every week, and we shall have the latest figures on Thursday. When I receive them I shall write to the hon. Lady to tell her what they show. Due to the concentration of foot and mouth disease cases, the figures for reopened footpaths in the Yorkshire dales and North Yorkshire Moors national park are significantly lower, being 1 per cent. and 8 per cent. respectively. She referred to the specific case of a footpath near Tockwith being reopened when it is within three miles of an infected area. My information is that the nearest infected area to Tockwith is some 12 miles, or 19 km, away, to the west of Harrogate. The nearest infected premises are more than 20 miles, or 30 km, away.
The hon. Lady may have in mind the Settle movement control area, the eastern edge of which runs along the Al not far from Tockwith. However, that is concerned with restrictions on the movement of animals, rather than people. Controls on livestock movements are of necessity much stricter than for users of footpaths, as the risk of disease transmission through animals is much higher and they cover wider areas.
Some people ask why the Government are so keen to reopen footpaths. The answer is simple: closed paths have been taken as a signal that the countryside as a whole is closed to visitors and the much-needed custom that they bring to local rural businesses. People feel uncertain about visiting an area if they are told that the footpaths are closed. Equally, if they do visit, they are likely to feel uneasy if they see hundreds of closed signs. We need to ensure that, wherever it is safe to do so, paths are open and that people know that.
Simple communication with the public about what is open is absolutely crucial. That is why I announced on 21 June that I am considering whether all or most of the remaining blanket closures imposed by local authorities at the start of the outbreak can now be lifted. That does not mean that authorities will no longer be able to close footpaths. They will still have powers to close paths on a selective basis where that is justified. That will apply particularly to paths within 3 km of infected premises. That is again a precautionary measure that covers a larger area than is required by the evidence because, as the hon. Lady encouraged us to do, we are taking a precautionary approach.
Miss McIntosh: What concerns me greatly is this letter which came out in the name of the former Under-Secretary of State, but was signed by his private secretary. It stated that footpaths should not be opened where there is a confirmed case of foot and mouth or where a previous infected area has been lifted. Only where there has been no case or where it has been lifted should a footpath be reopened. Is the Minister telling us
118WH
today that that was never Government policy and that the private secretary went off on a frolic of his own, or is he telling us that the policy has changed and where there are rising cases of foot and mouth they are happy to reopen rights of way?
Alun Michael: I am telling the hon. Lady that she is a bit muddled. She has been talking about an infected area that was not an infected area. The advice about what to do in relation to a case or an infected area is clear, and I have just detailed the powers that are available to local authorities.
Perhaps I should underline the fact that we have written to the chief executives of all local authorities and national park authorities in England, explaining the proposal to revoke remaining blanket closures, because we recognise that for those authorities worst hit by foot and mouth disease, revoking blanket closures could pose serious logistical problems; in some cases it might mean having to close and re-sign some hundreds of footpaths. We have, therefore, invited local authorities to make representations if they wish to retain the blanket closure for some or all of an area. I assure the hon. Lady that I shall consider such requests carefully, and aim to make decisions by 13 July with revocation a week later. The summer holiday period, which will be rushing towards us at that point, is a very important time for tourism and for rural businesses generally.
I am pleased to say that a number of local authorities have already voluntarily revoked their own blanket closures. By 29 June, 68 per cent. of all paths across country areas were open. Lifting the remaining blanket closures, wherever possible, will help to clarify which paths are open and which closed. It is important that people using the footpaths in the countryside know what precautions they should take in order to reduce even further any chance of spreading foot and mouth disease.
I hope that the hon. Lady and other colleagues will send out the clear message that the countryside is open and that walkers should be responsible in the way in which they use they countryside. That is a matter of responsibility and co-operation. I draw to the hon. Lady's attention the fact that the Ramblers Association has been strongly critical of the county councils' statutory duty work on rights of way. Those are local matters, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will examine that particular one with interest.
Our priority is to eradicate the disease. At the same time we must bear in mind the legitimate interests and concerns of the many rural businesses that depend on visitors to the countryside. We must continue to encourage people to enjoy the countryside in all the areas where that can be done with little or no risk of the spread of disease. We endorse the need to keep paths open where the risks justify it. There is no reason why the majority of the countryside should not be well and truly open by the summer holidays.
There is a danger of muddling people, and the hon. Lady might have contributed to the muddle. The position is clear, and it is based on veterinary advice. I hope that she will go from here reassured and a great deal clearer about the twin objectives of ensuring that everything is done to eradicate and defeat foot and mouth disease, and of giving hope and opportunity to rural businesses so that they can re-establish themselves, and their economy can recover.

119WH
There is a risk of giving out the wrong messages, and there is still a great deal of risk to rural businesses, which can be affected by the opening of footpaths. One example is that of a hotel that retained a lot of bookings, despite foot and mouth, because people were going to that area in the knowledge that they would not be able to walk. However, as the opportunity to walk in other areas increased, that already-damaged business experienced cancellations because people were going to places where footpaths were open. We must bear in mind the great difficulties being experienced by many businesses. Some of them are farmers, or involved in agriculture as part of their activity, but some of them are entirely dependent on tourism for their livelihood.
I very much hope that the hon. Lady will join me in getting a balanced message across to everybody concerned, and reassuring farmers about the Government's balanced and responsible approach.

Independent Insurance Company
1 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I remind the Chamber that I am an associate of the Chartered Insurance Institute and I am a chartered insurance practitioner. As such, although I no longer make my living in the financial services industry, I declare an interest in the subject of this debate.
On 14 June this year, Independent Insurance Company Ltd., the main subsidiary of Independent Insurance Group plc, a listed insurer on the London stock exchange, ceased writing new business. Four days later, PricewaterhouseCoopers was appointed as provisional liquidator, and approximately 600,000 policyholders found that their insurer, their line of last resort, had gone belly up.
My hon. Friend the Minister will undoubtedly want to assure the House that the Policyholders Protection Board will provide compensation up to 90 per cent. of the value of their proven claim of those private individuals who insured with Independent. She should point out that PricewaterhouseCoopers, as the provisional liquidator, concluded a deal with Royal and SunAlliance on 23 June, whereby that company would take over the policies of more than 250,000 Independent clients, the overwhelming preponderance of whom are private individuals from Independent's councils and tenants book of business.
Those clients transferred to Royal and SunAlliance will receive 100 per cent. of their proven claims and Royal and SunAlliance will claim that back from the Policyholders Protection Board. Those personal policyholders will continue to make their claims from Independent in the normal way as the liquidators have retained many claims staff. In my discussions yesterday with Mr. Dan Schwarzman of PricewaterhouseCoopers, he assured me that he was looking for other insurance carriers that would take over the policies not covered by the Royal and SunAlliance deal. The Policyholders Protection Board will also pay 100 per cent. of claims by companies where insurance is compulsory; hence third party motor insurance and employers' liability claims will be met in full.
I have sought to establish the above not only because it is of considerable interest to those companies and individuals affected, but as a way of ground clearing. I have long since discovered that the best way of getting a Minister to focus on the points that one wants answered in an Adjournment debate is to mention all those important, but perhaps distracting, issues that civil servants would otherwise use to pad out the Minister's reply. No self-respecting Minister would want to parrot back even the worthiest of points and I trust that, with those issues out of the way, we can move to the critical questions that the industry must have answered about the regulations in the case.
I suggest a note of caution about the Royal and SunAlliance deal concluded by the liquidators and any others that may be in the pipeline. In an interview on the BBC's "Money Box" programme, Blythe Morris, a director of Royal and SunAlliance, claimed:
"We did not pay anything for this business."
If that were the case, we must question why the liquidators, whose sole function is to liquidate the assets of Independent, agreed to the transfer of the policies.

121WH
I raised that point with PricewaterhouseCoopers yesterday, only to be told that, although it was bound by commercial confidence, it was confident that the arrangement was mutually beneficial to Independent's creditors and Royal and SunAlliance.
I come to my questions. First, the Minister will be aware that a provisional liquidator is answerable to the court rather than to a board of creditors. Will she press the liquidator, and Royal and SunAlliance, to agree to complete transparency about the deal so that all creditors may be assured that it is in their interest? Secondly, if the deal entails the transfer of more than 250,000 policies to Royal and SunAlliance, and if part of the benefit to creditors is that the administration and notification of policyholders is effected and paid for by Royal and SunAlliance, will she ensure that no policyholder details are transferred to Royal and SunAlliance in a manner that would breach the Data Protection Act 1998? My intention is not to prevent the Royal and SunAlliance deal from taking effect; I believe that it probably is in the creditors' interest. My point is to ensure that the Treasury highlights such cases to Department of Trade and Industry Ministers to see where the current data protection legislation may act against the public interest.
Since 1 January 1999, the Treasury's regulatory functions under the Insurance Companies Act 1982 have been contracted to the Financial Services Authority. It falls to the Minister to determine the exact date of N2, as it is known, when the full powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 devolve to the FSA. However, her predecessor stated on the record that that would be no later than November. Although this is clearly a time of transition in the regulation of the market, I know my hon. Friend too well and trust her integrity too much to think that she would seek to hide behind the cloak of that changing relationship with the FSA.
If the FSA failed in its regulatory function as a result of internal incompetence, the Treasury has a responsibility to discipline—and perhaps also to replace—those responsible for that incompetence. If the FSA failed through structural incapacity, the Treasury, as the author of that structure, must accept its responsibility to examine how best it might change that structure to ensure that regulatory failings do not happen again.
It will not have escaped the Minister's attention that that argument is based on a condition. If the FSA failed, it did so either through incompetence or through structural weakness. That leads to my third question: does the Minister consider that the FSA failed in the exercise of its regulatory function in relation to Independent? If she answers yes, my fourth question is: what corrective measures does she propose to take? If she does not know, my fifth question becomes clear: will she agree to establish an investigation to ascertain whether the Financial Services Authority failed in its regulatory function in that respect? I must warn the Treasury that it will not do to say that it cannot undertake such an investigation for fear of prejudicing the investigations conducted by the Serious Fraud Office or the FSA. It is clear that the Treasury would not undertake such an investigation into the Independent Insurance Company. I, on the other hand, urge the Minister to consider an investigation into the ESA itself.
122WH
The Minister could answer no and proclaim her satisfaction with the way in which the FSA discharged its regulatory role in relation to Independent. If she did so, she would find herself in the company of Peter Casey, John Whitlock and John Tiner—the new managing director—from the Financial Services Authority, with whom I spent two hours in dialogue over coffee on Monday. They agreed to meet me at short notice, and I am grateful to them for their courtesy and patience in answering what must have seemed a barrage of irksome and unwelcome questions. They were keen to impress on me that the FSA was not beset by any structural incapacity. Mr. Tiner confirmed:
"We broadly do have the powers we need to regulate the market properly."
He may not have realised that that only propelled me more surely to the first alternative conclusion—there must have been internal incompetence in the FSA. Mr. Tiner and his colleagues explained that they were contracted by the Treasury to
"monitor solvency"
and to make an
"assessment of fit and proper persons".
I asked the FSA people how they monitored solvency. The answer was staggering. Mr. Casey told me:
"We rely on information provided by management regarding solvency."
At that point, I asked him to speak slowly, so that I could be sure not to misunderstand or misrepresent him. I wrote down his words:
"We have relied on auditors as far as the veracity of underlying data is concerned
Do we really pay £232 million each year to run the Financial Services Authority, so that it can rely on auditors appointed and paid by the company that the FSA is supposed to be monitoring? The Minister should note that that was not my sixth question, but a purely rhetorical question designed to express my frustration at the FSA's complacency. Clearly the cautionary words, "When in a hole, stop digging", were unfamiliar to Mr. Casey, as he continued to answer my specific inquiries by confirming that the FSA relied on the auditors on matters such as
"that claims are properly booked and that the directors have appropriately reserved both for booked and as yet unquantified claims.".
At that point, I wanted to ask Mr. Casey whether he had ever heard of a company called Independent Insurance at which £62 million of claims had not been booked and at which the comfort level reported by external actuaries had declined markedly over three years. I refrained. I felt that irony might not be Mr. Casey's strongest suit.
I hope that the Minister will join me in welcoming the decision by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales to undertake its own investigation into the involvement of its members in the demise of Independent Insurance. Will she undertake to examine the results of that investigation carefully with a view to ending the over-close relationships that certain accountancy firms enjoy with the companies that they audit?
An audit does not usually go into sufficient detail to uncover mismanagement. Materiality considerations lead to audits missing anything but the biggest gaping

123WH
holes. Problems are explained away or seen as an opportunity to sell a consultancy project. Auditors do not usually see themselves as individuals whose role is to maintain a statutory regulatory framework set down by law. In reality, auditors face a huge conflict of interest. Audit is a loss-making business, and in order to earn money from a client, auditors need to sell consulting work. Highlighting accounting problems does not ingratiate an auditor to management, and that is an obvious conflict of interest.
Auditors uphold the law and are required to be independent. Solutions may involve the building of legally required Chinese walls and restrictions on internal communication, as with investment banks. When the ICAEW report is eventually produced, will the Minister consider putting in place a framework that ensures that there is a far less cosy relationship between auditors and their clients?
The Minister will be aware that KPMG is reported to have received £1,567,000 from Independent Insurance for its auditing and consultancy work this year. In March, it reported that the company had
"adequate resources to continue its operations for the foreseeable future."
By June, Independent had no foreseeable future. It was in liquidation. The Minister may share my view that the first call on that £1,567,000 might be for KPMG to get its corporate eyes tested. The Minister will also be aware that the last set of audited accounts showed that the group had £1.4 billion of gross liabilities against assets of £1.7 billion. Within two months of that assessment, the external actuaries, Watson Wyatt, had discovered that the company faced unquantifiable losses and the total scale of its gross liabilities could not be quantified.
My seventh question to the Minister is: will she join me in calling on the Institute of Actuaries to conduct its own investigation into the role of its members in the collapse of Independent Insurance?
I have been sidetracked from the FSA. Monitoring solvency is only one of the two functions of the regulator. We need to look at the FSA's role in the assessment of fit and proper persons. Schedule 2A to the Insurance Companies Act 1982 lays out the criteria that the regulator must use to ensure than an insurance company is managed in a sound and prudent manner. The criteria include that each manager and director
"is a fit and proper person"
and that there are
"a sufficient number of persons who are fit and proper persons"
to manage the company. How does the FSA decide whether someone is a fit and proper person? At this point in my questioning of the trinity from the FSA, I made a cardinal mistake—I tried humour. I joked that, at least in assessing whether someone was a fit and proper person, it was not possible to rely only on the information provided by the management. Deadpan, Mr. Casey replied:
"We would normally only procure external information if we already had some reason to doubt the fitness or properness of a person."
When a person has a guard dog, it is good to know that it has teeth. However, it is equally important to establish whether it has a sense of smell, some eyes and
124WH
some ears. The FSA claims to have the power and controls that it requires. However, if it is totally incapable of undertaking a proactive inquiry, the wonder is not that the Independent Insurance Company collapsed, but that we do not have many more such failures on our hands.
I pressed the FSA further on that, as I seemed to be mining an extremely productive vein. I asked what might constitute a reason to doubt the fitness or properness of a person, which triggers the decision to procure external information. I was told that an example might be if the person had previously been associated with a failing company. I asked how the FSA might know if a person had previously been associated with such a company. I was told—without a hint of embarrassment—that the FSA would know that if the person had filled in its form correctly.
I am sure, Mr. Cummings, that you will find it as comforting as I do to know that the regulatory body for the insurance industry will procure external information if a director has been associated with a failed company in the past and that such information would determine the fitness and properness of that person. The FSA would primarily establish that by looking at its form, which the person filled in, assuming that he or she had filled it in correctly.
The argument is not just circuitous, but circular. I asked Mr. Casey whether he had heard of Lombard Continental Insurance Company, which was once run by Mr. Michael Bright, Independent's chief executive. I asked him whether he was aware of the insurance solvency international report, which found that Lombard was non-viable because of under-resourcing. He responded by saying that the ISI report was published after the flotation of Independent. I pointed out to him that the report was undertaken in 1983, some 10 years previously, and had been shared with the chairman and one other director of Independent as early as 1985. Mr. Casey did not know that.
Section 45(1) of the 1982 Act gives the FSA powers to limit premium income, to address poor internal controls and, primarily, to obtain information about such matters as internal controls. I asked Mr. Casey whether he had ever exercised those powers in full, on the grounds that it would appear that the criteria of sound and proper management of a company had not been observed. He replied that he did not know, and that he would do that only if other powers proved inappropriate.
The FSA made it clear that it did not feel that that was appropriate. I believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Only by ensuring that it is common knowledge that such powers are exercised—some of them regularly—can the market draw conclusions on whether their use is a routine matter or whether it betokens something more serious. Mr. Casey told me that, if such instances were publicised, market confidence would be undermined. It would be undermined a good deal less than it was by the collapse of the Independent Insurance Company.
1.20 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on securing the debate. The

125WH
Government understand the concerns that he has raised. We appreciate the anxiety of former employees of Independent who have lost their jobs and of policyholders who are waiting for claims to be paid.
Glenda Jackson: Some of my constituents were clients of the Independent Insurance Company. They suffered a severe fire in their home and were assured that, up to and including 15 June, claims for the restitution of their home would be met in full and their hotel accommodation costs would be paid. They then discovered that, because their policy was classed as commercial, they were at the bottom of the pay-out hierarchy.
Those who look out for policyholders in that situation could not offer them any joy. PricewaterhouseCoopers has said that it can do nothing. Since such commercial policies were the core business of Independent—they sold block pensions to residents of private blocks of flats, which are mainly conversions—some pressure should be put on them to bring my constituents' claims higher up the hierarchical list.
Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will investigate the issue and write to her on that subject.
I would like to set out some background. Independent Insurance Company Ltd. was formed from a buy-out of Allstate Insurance Company Ltd. from its previous owners in 1987. It is the main subsidiary of Independent Insurance Group plc, a listed insurer on the London stock exchange. Independent wrote general insurance and re-insurance business, mainly covering liability, property, motor and other insurance for the commercial and personal lines sector.
On 8 February this year, Independent Insurance Group warned that last year's profits would be about £20 million below the market expectations of about £70 million. The main reasons cited were poor results in the French operation and a need to increase further reinsurance cover on the London market and provincial liability accounts. That news caused Independent's share price to fall 23 per cent. As a result, it was announced at the annual general meeting in April that Michael Bright had resigned as chief executive.
The group company's shares were suspended on 11 June. A subsequent announcement stated that a planned rights issue had been abandoned, and the shares remained suspended. Following further work, on 17 June, the directors of the company took the advice to appoint provisional liquidators.
The Serious Fraud Office announced that it would investigate events at the company, following a referral by the FSA on 18 June. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the affairs of Independent while there is an investigation in progress. I believe that it is important to protect both the investigation and those who are being investigated. We cannot prejudge the outcome, and it would be unfair to do so.
The Financial Services Authority, which regulates insurance companies, had been in close touch with the company during the period leading up to the announcement in June. The FSA is now keeping in close touch with the provisional liquidator, the Serious Fraud
126WH
Office and the Policyholders Protection Board and is monitoring the situation carefully. The FSA is considering, with the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry, whether any further investigations are necessary.
I shall attempt to cover some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North. In particular, he raised the issue of the transfer of policies to Royal and SunAlliance. No payment was involved in the transfer and Royal and SunAlliance will take responsibility for the paying and administering of reporting outstanding claims. As I understand it, the proposal will mean that the policyholders who are transferred to RSA will have seamless cover. All claims will be paid in full, even when the Policyholders Protection Board will provide compensation only to 90 per cent. Clearly, that is a good outcome for policyholders. Given that there was no payment involved, my hon. Friend asked in particular about the confidentiality of arrangements between Royal and SunAlliance and the provisional liquidator. Unfortunately, I must tell him that I am not in a position to press for further transparency on the details of the claim, as it is up to the courts to determine whether to provide that information. The provisional liquidator takes his authority from the court, and not from the FSA, and is entitled to keep the details of the arrangements confidential.
My hon. Friend is also concerned about the confidentiality of personal details relating to policyholders and whether the transfer might breach the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. As I understand it, when policyholders give their consent for the deal to take place, they are also giving their consent for their policy details to be transferred. No breach of the Data Protection Act would occur under those circumstances.
My hon. Friend questioned the reliance of the FSA on auditors for basic facts. Without a major increase in resources, which would allow the FSA to duplicate the efforts of auditors who are currently in place, it would be impossible for it to take on that work.
Mr. Gardiner: I am aware that it would be impossible for the FSA to duplicate the function of auditors. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that other regulatory systems, such as those in America, give the regulator the capacity to send in teams of auditors when it feels that such external independent work is needed. Will she consider incorporating that in the powers of the FSA?
Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. However, the United States has 10,000 insurance regulators, and is therefore in a different position from that of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend also raised the point about asking the Institute of Actuaries to investigate the actuaries involved in the case. That is a matter for the professional body itself. The actuaries received specific confirmation from the independent management that they were given full and accurate data.
Mr. Howard Flight: More generally, when this matter occurred, the director of enforcement of the FSA had recently moved to another job and no one was even in charge of the unit

127WH
that is supposed to monitor potential collapse and fraud. Does the Economic Secretary agree that the FSA might usefully increase its focus on and prioritisation of this territory?
Ruth Kelly: Clearly, the FSA will be considering its response to this area. However, the current priority is the Serious Fraud Office investigation. That must be got right before we determine what other reviews may be necessary.
My hon. Friend asked me to consider whether the FSA had failed in regulating the Independent Insurance Company. I re-emphasise the fact that we must ensure that the fraud investigation is conducted first. We shall keep in close contact with the FSA to ascertain what else needs to be done.
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate and I am grateful for the opportunity to answer at least some of the points that he raised.

Secondary Education (Bradley Stoke)
1.30 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: It is tempting to begin by observing that a debate on secondary education in Bradley Stoke might set a world record for brevity among Adjournment debates, because there is no secondary education in Bradley Stoke. That will be the thrust of my argument today.
Bradley Stoke is one of the largest—some say the largest—housing estate in Europe. It has 9,000 houses and more are still being built, as anyone driving through the estate will see. A lay person viewing the development would wonder how it was possible that, after 10 years, such an area could have not only no secondary school, but no prospect of securing one for several years to come. As we move through the inevitable technicalities, I hope that we shall not lose sight of the lack of common sense involved in building so many houses with no sign of a secondary school.
Bradley Stoke crosses parliamentary boundaries; it is represented by me and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith), who will be trying to catch your eye to make a brief contribution, Mr. Cummings. I am grateful to South Gloucestershire council for the brief supplied to us and to the Minister. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well in his new job.
I shall start by answering my own question about how a huge housing development could have been built without a secondary school. The dreadful term "surplus places" lurks over much of the period. In crude terms, local authorities are not permitted to build new schools while empty places are available in existing schools. The real position is slightly more complicated, but that is the gist of the problem. Although it has been painfully apparent for many years that Bradley Stoke would need a secondary school, surplus places in other secondary schools prevented the local authority from proceeding with the construction of a new one.
Those surplus places have now gone. For 2002, the local authority predicts a shortfall of 283 places, and for 2003, a shortfall of 459. Thus the argument about surplus places no longer applies. In any case, the notion of surplus places is problematic. It has always been apparent that Bradley Stoke would need a secondary school. The fact that places were available in schools outside the immediate area—I stress that I make no criticism of such schools—could not disguise the obvious need for a new secondary school. It would have been better if work had started on the new school some years ago; it might then have been up and running when places were needed. Instead, there is a lag and a crisis. We realise that there is a problem, and only then do we set about redressing it. I hope that the rules about surplus places can be changed, perhaps for other fast-growing areas, so that these problems do not arise again.
What are the problems in South Gloucestershire and Bradley Stoke as we look ahead to providing a secondary school in the area? The first is that the authority faces a huge backlog in school maintenance and repair. The authority estimates the figure to be £94 million. The figures are inevitably speculative, but the backlog is huge.

129WH
South Gloucestershire came into being in 1995 and started to set about tackling the backlog, but it is an uphill struggle and trade-offs have to be faced. A large capital investment in one big new secondary school could pre-empt much-needed spending on the maintenance of other secondary and primary schools and, indeed, spending on the authority's other capital projects. South Gloucestershire could raise capital and blow it all on a school for Bradley Stoke; many of us would like to see that, but it would pre-empt many of the authority's other urgent capital needs.
The second problem is the lack of capital from developers. The developers made lots of money from building all the houses, so why do they have no cash to put towards the school? The answer is that the predecessor local authority that gave permission for the houses secured sites in the area for schools but no capital contributions for them. In recent years, South Gloucestershire council has been far more effective at obtaining capital contributions, and some money has been found. However, it inherited a legacy of not receiving capital from developers, which is a genuine problem.
The third key problem is that, on revenue, South Gloucestershire council is grossly underfunded. People might wonder about the connection between revenue underfunding and capital expenditure, but it is intimate. I often hear debates in this Chamber in which hon. Members say that their authority is the worst funded. They usually mean the worst-funded county council. South Gloucestershire is the worst-funded local education authority.
As I have said previously, someone has to be at the bottom of the pile. I am not suggesting that we should be at the top of the pile, but the relative ranking of authorities must be fair, and the discrepancy between the amount that South Gloucestershire council receives and the amount that many other authorities receive is huge and unjustifiable. It is made much worse by the population growth that the area has faced. As the Minister may be aware, the statistics used to calculate school numbers are terribly out of date by, on average, about 18 months. I have challenged Ministers on the matter previously, and they have said how difficult it is to acquire up-to-date information. I have offered to type the numbers in myself if it would help the process. In the age of the internet and technology, it should not be difficult to count the number of children in schools at present rather than use out-of-date data. As a result, the authority not only receives less per head per child but does not even receive money for every child in the school. In south Gloucestershire, the difference between the number of children in our schools and the number that the Government use for funding is the equivalent of an entire primary school, whom we educate not for below average but for nil. We receive no money for those children, because the figures are so out of date and the population is rising rapidly. That system must be changed.
Why does it matter that we have a secondary school? There are currently 129 year 6 children in Bradley Stoke's five primary schools, with a sixth primary school coming on stream. This autumn, those 129 children will all go to schools outside their community. There are 140 year 5 children for 2002. As there is no chance of
130WH
a school by then, they will all have to go out of the area. There are 174 children in year 4 for 2003. Almost certainly, all will have to go outside the area.
Bradley Stoke is already a car community, with huge dependence on the private car and a great deal of traffic and congestion. For that reason alone, a secondary school in Bradley Stoke would improve quality of life, reduce congestion and slightly reduce dependence on the car. Far more than that, a secondary school would give much more of a sense of community to Bradley Stoke. Bradley Stoke is trying to build a sense of community, but it has limited facilities that have taken a long time to come, and a secondary school could cement the community like nothing else.
Will we get one? How could we pay for a secondary school in Bradley Stoke? The Government could allow the council to borrow the money, but they would allow it to borrow only about half the cost of a secondary school. The council estimates that it would be allowed to borrow about £6 million towards the cost of about £12 million of a new secondary school. The balance would have to be found from capital resources, which would have to come from wiping out all other capital expenditure in the authority in terms of using capital receipts. It is difficult to envisage how that could be achieved. I endorse one of the authority's pleas: I ask the Government not to give the council money, but merely to allow it to borrow a realistic amount towards the cost of building a school.
People will say, "Well, perhaps they thought that the Government gave the council money to build the school. Well, all right, they can borrow it, but why not let the council borrow a realistic amount, rather than merely half the cost of the school, especially when capital is so tight because of the failure of previous councils to get capital contributions from developers?" A decent amount of borrowed money and, perhaps, some additional capital expenditure by the council could mean that a school could be built relatively quickly, but at the moment that does not seem realistic.
The only other obvious route is the private finance initiative, which would probably involve not only Bradley Stoke but all secondary schools in the authority's area, and possibly some primary schools, too. It means tendering across the European Union and yet more delay.
The critical point about the private finance initiative is that the amount that the Government will let the authority pay the private contractor may not be what the private contractor will charge the council; there may be a shortfall. A well—funded authority could cover some of that shortfall from a generous standard spending assessment settlement, but one that was already spending way above the SSA—it may be crippled by having the worst SSA settlement in the country—could not countenance going into a long-term commitment in which it had to make up a shortfall year in, year out. That is where revenue funding and capital funding come together.
Bradley Stoke has urgently needed a secondary school for some years. We could all see the problem coming, yet for various reasons—rules about surplus places and about capital funding—it will be years before we get that school. During the general election, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West and I were approached

131WH
by parents in Bradley Stoke who said, "I have a 10-yearold. Surely he and my nine-year-old will have a school in our community." I had to say, "If you are lucky, your eight-year-old might, but by then your 11-year-old will have been sent out of the community to school, so you will be taking your children to two different schools." I did not feel comfortable giving that answer. That is why I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue early in the new Parliament.
I look forward to a constructive response from the Minister. I hope that he will appreciate the commonsense problem. Parents are likely to have to send their children to school out of the area for years to come, largely because arcane rules made under this and previous Governments have resulted in an extraordinary situation.
I hope that the Minister will be willing to receive a delegation led by the two local Members of Parliament, including local councillors and representatives of the local education authority, to express anxieties about the area in more detail. I hope that we shall be able to work together to achieve something that is long overdue and that will benefit everyone in Bradley Stoke: a good secondary school and a sense of community.
1.41 pm
Dr. Doug Naysmith: I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing this timely and appropriate debate and my gratitude to him for allowing me to contribute to it. I support the hon. Gentleman's request to the Government to treat the issue of a new secondary school for Bradley Stoke as a special case.
Bradley Stoke is a large, private housing development that has grown remarkably in recent years, and continues to grow. Unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman said, some planning decisions taken by South Gloucestershire's predecessor local authorities, Northavon and Avon county councils, were less than inspired. More and more houses have been built in the area, but the provision of essential services has lagged behind. It is relevant to the debate that, when agreements were reached with developers, the former Avon local education authority secured sites for schools but no capital contribution towards building costs.
There is a clear case now for building a secondary school in Bradley Stoke. Projections show that it will be needed in the next two or three years. The only matter that troubles me, apart from securing finance to build it, is its possible effect on surrounding schools, especially on Filton high school, which has high standards and has recently been the recipient of capital investment. It is important to build on and protect that investment and I know that South Gloucestershire council will phase in the new school sensitively.
I make no comment on the general use of PFI, but in this instance it is clear that developing a satisfactory PFI scheme to include the Bradley Stoke school will take far too long. I look forward to hearing any advice that my hon. Friend the Minister has to offer, while somewhat belatedly congratulating him on his recent appointment.
1.44 pm
The Minister for Schools (Mr. Stephen Timms): I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing the debate and on his result in the general election, which no doubt reflects his diligence in promoting the interests of the residents of Bradley Stoke and other parts of his constituency. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) for taking the trouble to raise his concerns with me.
Let me set out some of our ambitions for secondary education in Bradley Stoke and throughout the country. We are committed to raising the standard of secondary education for all pupils. In South Gloucestershire, as elsewhere, we are taking action to drive up standards and support initiatives that will achieve that. The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend referred to the need for additional school places in Bradley Stoke. We have substantially increased capital investment in schools and put in place a new capital strategy based on the development of asset management plans, which will help effective local decision making. I shall outline how that will work in a moment.
We have made a clear commitment to raising standards. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 gave us a framework within which we could accelerate our drive to raise standards. Since then, we have been taking consistent and effective action at all stages of the education system. We need to ensure that all children, wherever they live, have the opportunity to reach their full potential. We now want to build on what has already been achieved.
The education Bill to be published in the autumn will be a key step towards achieving our ambition of raising standards throughout the system, particularly by facilitating the creation of a more diverse secondary education system, in which every school has a distinct ethos and character and every pupil can take pride in his or her school.
We are supporting unprecedented levels of investment in schools. Over the next three years, we shall allocate about £8.5 billion. That capital investment is needed to create the right environment for children to learn and to ensure that high-quality education is available to all. Capital investment has risen from £683 million in the financial year to 1997 and will reach an annual rate of £3.5 billion by 2003–04—a more than fivefold increase. That reflects our great commitment to improving education. Since 1997, South Gloucestershire district council has received total capital allocations of £43.9 million for investment in its schools. That covers the period from 1997–98 to 2000–01. The allocation for the current year is more than £9 million.
Hon. Members have made important points about the availability of school places in Bradley Stoke, and I am aware that concerns have been raised about whether there are sufficient places to meet demand, given the scale of development in the area. To meet the need, the local education authority plans to build a community secondary school in Bradley Stoke, providing, I think, about 900 places for children aged 11 to 16. LEAs have a duty to provide a sufficient number of school places for their area. Decisions about the organisation and supply of places are best taken locally by the main partners in education provision.

133WH
The 1998 Act introduced a new framework for local decision making in school-place planning. LEAs must prepare a school organisation plan covering a five-year rolling period that sets out how they propose to deal with surpluses and deficits of school provision and what provision they intend to make for pupils with special educational needs. The plan sets the context for proposals to change school organisation in the area, including, for example, proposals to enlarge existing schools or establish new ones.
Parents have the right to express a preference for the school at which they wish their child to be educated, but of course we cannot guarantee every parent a place for their child in the school at the top of their list. If a school has more applications than places, it cannot admit every applicant. In such circumstances, places must be allocated to applicants according to published criteria.
A school organisation committee—SOC—has been established for each local education authority area. The role of SOCs is to consider the plan and to take decisions about statutory proposals affecting the local organisation of school places. SOCs are independent statutory bodies answerable to their local communities. If the SOC cannot reach a unanimous decision on the plan or any statutory proposals, they are passed to independent schools adjudicators for decision. The SOC will of course need to be assured that funding is available to enable the implementation of a proposal. Should an authority be able to demonstrate an overall projected deficit in actual, compared with forecast, numbers of school places—looking about three years ahead—it can apply for funding under the category of basic need in the annual capital round, just as South Gloucestershire has done, with conspicuous success.
Where there is a basic need for extra school places, allocations are made with reference to a comparison of the projected demand with the assessed capacity of all schools within a growing area, normally within a radius of three miles for secondary schools. Where an authority demonstrates that it has basic need, the Government provide funding for the required number of school places. Since 1998, we have made available a total allocation of more than £9.7 million to provide additional school places in South Gloucestershire as a whole, including 854 secondary places in the Bradley Stoke area.
Basic need cost factors are based on the averaged cost, taking account of conditions in the area concerned, of providing a school place in a new school or of extending or adapting an existing one. The values are used as the basis for calculating the basic need element of each LEA's annual capital guidelines. We have made an unprecedented overall increase in the level of capital funding for schools, and LEAs will need to consider how best to fund schemes from the various funding sources available to them—including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West said, capital receipts and contributions from developers, as well as Government funding sources.
I know that South Gloucestershire is considering proposals to provide a new school in Bradley Stoke through a partnership with the private sector. Officials from my Department have met the LEA to discuss the potential for a PFI scheme to build a new secondary school. Guidance to all authorities will be issued shortly in which it is proposed to invite bids by LEAs for the
134WH
funding of PFI schemes. Bids are expected to be received during September. The total capital investment in PFI schemes nationally includes more than 800 new or refurbished schools that are operational or have been given the green light to proceed using PFI. Those projects, valued at over £2 billion, will have the additional benefit of fully maintained buildings as part of the contract and high standard services for the lifetime of the contract. It is important not to discount the significant advantages of the PFI route for such developments, although it is not the only route available.
Mr. Webb: I am sure that many Bradley Stoke parents will read the record of our debate. I am sure that the parents of an eight-year-old or a nine-year-old in Bradley Stoke would want me to say that much of what the Minister said is true. Of course the Government have spent money on education for children in Bradley Stoke: they have to, because there is no school there. They have to find places for them somewhere else. That is not a source of particular credit. The Minister said that there were 854 places in the Bradley Stoke area, but none of them is in Bradley Stoke; that means that 854 more children are sent out of the area. I am not sure that the Minister has said anything that will make parents in Bradley Stoke feel that he has understood that we are still years away from having the secondary school that that community badly needs. Will he say anything that will encourage them to believe that they do not face years of negotiations, contracts and tendering? Must we wait for three more years?
Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman will need to await the conclusion of my remarks to find out exactly what I am going to say. I think that he has slightly misunderstood the issue. The 854 secondary places for which an allocation has been provided are specifically for children in Bradley Stoke. It is for the local authority to decide how it uses the funding allocation and where it chooses to provide the places. However, the allocation has been made to the local authority specifically to meet the secondary school needs of the population of Bradley Stoke.
I want to set out the system in full so that hon. Members can understand the context in which our discussion is taking place. We have introduced a new strategy for capital investment in schools, which is based on the development of asset management plans. Those form the basis for the allocation of capital funding to tackle identified needs and provide a transparent local framework within which schools and local education authorities can develop schemes to utilise the capital funds that are made available by the Government and other sources. Under asset management plans, a large proportion of funding will be allocated to LEAs and directly to schools under formulae that are based on relative need. LEAs and schools will be helped by three-year certainty about the allocation of the bulk of the funding.
A key part of the capital strategy is that authorities and schools should identify their priorities using clear criteria. They should address a wide range of needs from within their overall capital budgets and join up separate sources of funding locally to modernise a school's estate. As part of that process, we have committed a substantial

135WH
amount of capital funding on a three-year basis, which gives LEAs greater certainty for their planning purposes. South Gloucestershire has already been given an allocation of £13 million for its schools over three years, including new deal for schools condition support and new deal for schools devolved formula capital. In December, we shall announce allocations to all LEAs, and South Gloucestershire will again feature. There will be more than £500 million of new deal for schools modernisation funding for 2002–03 and 2003–04.
As part of the implementation of effective asset management plans, we recently issued guidance on the sufficiency of school buildings and gave details of a new measure of overall capacity in schools. Detailed guidance on that capacity method is expected to be published later this year. To ease the burden on authorities and to ensure that new capacity is measured in time for assessments to be completed by June 2002, independent surveyors who work directly with the Department will collate a schedule of accommodation for all maintained schools. The new measure is intended to be used to inform policy development on the way in which funding for extra places can be made available.
South Gloucestershire is considering options for the best way forward in meetings its needs in terms of both the sufficiency of places in Bradley Stoke and the condition and suitability of the rest of its building stock—a point to which the hon. Member for Northavon drew attention. In taking forward its plans, the authority will need to consider how schemes can best be delivered with the resources that are available.
136WH
South Gloucestershire has been well supported through capital allocations, which recognise the projected deficit of school places in three years' time.
Dr. Naysmith: Will the Minister receive a delegation including myself, the hon. Member for Northavon and the local authority?
Mr. Timms: I shall come to that in a moment, if I may.
The authority has been well supported. Capital allocations recognise the projected deficit of school places, which will be about 500 places in three years' time. In addition, the authority has its own capital receipts and can explore the scope for using PFI. I recognise that there are calls on the council's resources elsewhere in its estate. However, given the information that I have received and which has been presented in this debate, I see no reason why the authority cannot draw on the variety of resources available to it to meet both those demands and that for new secondary provision.
If there is a difficulty that has not yet become apparent, I shall be happy in the first instance, to ask officials from the Department to meet representatives of South Gloucestershire to consider the LEA's options and plans for meeting its needs. If that is not satisfactory, I shall meet the hon. Members concerned to discuss whether additional action needs to be taken.
Given those measures and others that we are taking, I hope that we have laid the foundations for improvements in secondary education for the residents of Bradley Stoke. We are, of course, committed to transforming secondary education across the country.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the contracts of employment of the Chairman, Chief Executive and Board members of the Strategic Rail Authority are due to expire. [1013]

  Mr. Spellar
  The appointments are due to expire as follows:

  Expiry date

  Sir Alastair Morton (Chairman)

  31 March 2002

  Mike Grant (Chief Executive)

  30 April 2004

  Lew Adams

  31 October 2001

  Professor Begg

  31 March 2002

  Willie Gallagher

  30 April 2002

  David Grayson

  30 April 2002

  Ann Hemingway

  30 April 2002

  David Jeffries

  31 October 2001

  Pen Kent

  31 October 2001

  Jeremy Mayhew

  30 April 2002

  David Quarmby

  31 October 2001

  Janet Runin

  30 April 2002

  Kevin Small

  30 April 2002

  Sir Alastair Morton has agreed that he will step down as soon as a new Chairman is appointed. The process for appointing his successor has already begun, and an appointment will be made as quickly as possible within the rules for public appointments of this kind.

  The appointments of Lew Adams and David Quarmby were originally due to expire on 30 June 2001, and those of David Jeffries and Pen Kent on 31 July 2001. All have accepted short extensions to their appointments to 31 October 2001.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects the Strategic Rail Authority to publish its Strategic Plan. [1012]

  Mr. Spellar
  The draft Directions and Guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) issued for consultation by the Secretary of State on 29 June would require the SRA to publish a first overall strategy in November 2001.

  Air Traffic Controllers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many air traffic controllers are at present in training; how many controllers are needed to initiate the new NERC Centre at Southampton; and when he expects to receive details of training schemes proposed by the new private partners of NATS. [1015]
  156W
  Mr. Spellar
  370 student air traffic controllers are currently undergoing training at NATS College of Air Traffic Control, or at operational units. In addition, around 50 controllers are being trained on the new Swanwick systems at any one time.

  365 controllers will be needed to bring NERC into operation next January.

  The Strategic Partnership Agreement for the NATS PPP requires the key shareholders to agree a business plan within four months of the start of the PPP. This will include a training strategy.

  Rail Franchises
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to announce(a) the completion of contract negotiations for the new (i) Chiltern, (ii) South Central and (iii) South West Trains rail franchises and (b) the preferred bidders for the East Coast Main Line and Transpennine franchises. [1026]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) will conclude negotiations and sign franchise agreements with the preferred counterparties for the new Chiltern, South Central and South West Trains rail franchises as soon as it can resolve all outstanding issues.

  Announcements will be made on the East Coast Main Line and Transpennine franchises as soon as possible.

  Freight
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of freight went by(a) road and (b) rail in May (i) 1993, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 2001. [1613]

  Mr. Byers
  The figures are not available in the form requested.

  Heathrow
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions his Department has had with British Airways concerning plans for a runway to be built along the northern perimeter of Heathrow airport. [1310]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), made clear on 6 June 2000,Official Report, columns 203–04W, it is premature to comment on what options are being considered in the South East and East of England Regional Air Services (SERAS) study. Following completion of the study there will be a public consultation on the options arising from it.

  During the course of the study we have had discussions with, and representations from, a wide range of organisations, including British Airways, about new runways in the south east of England.

  Best Value
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will state the estimated cost of the administration of Best Value in the fire service in the last financial year; [1283]
  157W
  (2) how much public money has been allocated for administrative costs associated with Best Value in the fire service in the forthcoming year. [1292]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Fire total standard spending was increased by 3.5 per cent. to £1,463 million for 2001–02. The settlements took account of information on spending pressures provided by the local authorities Fire Service Expenditure Forecasting Group. Best Value administration was not identified as a separate significant pressure in the group's most recent report. Information on overall costs for the fire service is not held centrally. The scale of costs is likely to be different for county fire authorities compared with single-service fire authorities, like East Sussex, which are Best Value authorities in their own right. Additional items of expenditure for single-service fire authorities include publication of Best Value performance plans and distribution of summary plans to local households.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the review of planning policy for mobile phone masts. [1478]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) on 25 June 2001,Official Report, column 20W.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will require tailored energy efficiency advice to be provided to people buying a new home. [1814]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Under the Building Regulations, builders are required to calculate the energy rating of a new home and to place a notice of the energy rating there. In addition, we are proposing to make it a new requirement of the Building Regulations that builders should provide occupiers of new homes with information on operation and maintenance of the heating and hot water services in ways that would help to optimise energy consumption.

  Cycling
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to require local authorities to produce cycling strategies. [1731]

  Mr. Spellar
  All local highway authorities in England (excluding London) were asked to produce a cycling strategy as part of their local transport plans (LTPs) last year. This should identify gaps in the local network and potential improvements to the cycling infrastructure. Almost all authorities subsequently included strategies for cycling as part of their LTP submissions. Initial monitoring suggests that the strategies will result in considerable additional provision for cycling. The London boroughs will be expected to implement the policies for cycling contained in the Mayor's Transport Strategy, which is due for publication in the summer.
  158W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how the Government plan to take forward their cycling strategy. [1658]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: The Government are committed to quadrupling the number of cycling trips, from a 1996 base, by 2012, and in the 10-Year Transport Plan we have set an interim target of tripling the number of cycling trips between 2000 and 2010. The local transport settlement provided £8.4 billion of Government funding which will help to promote sustainable transport measures, including cycling. The cycling strategies in local authorities' local transport plans will provide opportunities to improve the cycling infrastructure and make cycling more accessible.

  Action is being taken to effectively market the key messages of the National Cycling Strategy (NCS). An NCS website has been launched and a promotional video has been produced. A series of cycling seminars has just been concluded across England, which provided a good opportunity for local authorities, major employers and health and education practitioners to come together.

  We are also re-organising the way the National Cycle Forum, which co-ordinates progress on the NCS, works. The current Forum will be reconstituted, meeting annually to review progress on delivering the NCS, and to set the policy agenda for the year ahead. An executive board is to be established with the task of securing NCS objectives and developing broad policies established by the NCF. The NCS Board will be 8–10 people strong. We have advertised for a Chairperson, and are considering the applications at present.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what monitoring system his Department has in place to ensure that single regeneration budget programmes are delivered in line with the objectives set in the original bids; and if he will make a statement. [2124]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department's monitoring system requires Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) Partnerships to set out the objectives of their bids in annual Delivery Plans. The Regional Development Offices (RDAs) monitor Partnerships' progress in delivering their schemes, normally each quarter, against Key Indicators of Performance which are recorded in Delivery Plans. The RDAs also undertake periodic reviews of SRB Schemes to assess overall progress.

  In their recent Corporate/Business Plans, RDAs set out regional priorities and activities and key outputs for the SRB in 2001–02. They will report on achievements in their 2002–03 Plans.

  Informal Public Spaces
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is towards land used as informal open public space being developed for housing purposes; and if he will make a statement. [2119]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government's policy is set out in the draft revision of Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 17—Sport, Open Space, and Recreation. This makes
  159W
  it clear that existing open space should not be developed for housing or other forms of built development in urban areas, unless the planning authority's assessments undertaken in accordance with guidance in PPG17 shows the land to be clearly surplus to requirements.

  Surplus Farmland
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the hectarage of farmland which is surplus to agricultural requirements but cannot be used for any alternative purpose due to(a) local plans and (b) greenbelt zoning. [2130]

  Ms Keeble
  Consideration of whether to grant planning permission for the alternative use of agricultural land is a matter in the first instance for local planning authorities taking into account their development plan policies and national guidance. National planning policy for the countryside is contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 7: The Countryside—Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development. PPG7 was recently amended to encourage lo, al planning authorities to be more supportive of farm diversification projects that are consistent in their scale with their rural location.

  PPG2 sets out national planning policies for green belts and identifies those uses of land within green belts that may be appropriate.

  Election Turnout
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what studies he is undertaking into the turnouts for elections in different countries and the reasons behind the differences in turnouts; and if he will make a statement; [1694]

  (2) what research he has commissioned into the low turnout in the recent general election; and if he will make a statement; [1693]

  (3) what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) undertaken into the costs and benefits of introducing compulsory voting for elections in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [1695]

  Dr. Whitehead
  No research has been commissioned or undertaken to investigate the costs and benefits of introducing compulsory voting nor into turnouts for elections in other countries. As to the low turnout in the recent general election, the Electoral Commission is undertaking a review of the conduct of that election. The Government will give careful consideration to the findings once the report is presented to Parliament.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reasons airlines and air carriers He exempted from the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 1996; and what plans he has to bring them within the terms of the Act. [1806]

  Ms Keeble
  As travel by air is a predominantly international mode of transport, it was considered more appropriate to develop standards at international level for access to air travel for disabled people.
  160W
  My Department was closely involved, both through the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), in drawing up the relevant advice for the aviation industry. We have more recently been working with the UK industry—airlines, airports and travel agents—and with our disability advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, to draw up a voluntary code of practice for the industry on meeting the needs of disabled passengers. The draft Code on which we have been consulting over the last few months draws on the work of ICAO and ECAC. We hope to publish the final version later this year.

  In responding to the Disability Rights Task Force report we also announced our intention to take a reserve regulation making power, when a suitable legislative opportunity arises, which could be used to give the Code statutory force if voluntary compliance proves ineffective. In addition, European airline and airport associations have recently agreed to commend a series of voluntary commitments on passenger rights to their respective members. Both the airline commitments and the airport commitments contain undertakings about the treatment of passengers with reduced mobility. We expect all major UK airlines and airports to adopt the relevant commitments, which will take effect from February 2002. Our Code of Practice will complement those commitments.

  Planning Inquiries
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the changes he intends to make in the planning inquiry system; and what consultations his Department has had with non-governmental organisations on planning arrangements. [1769]

  Ms Keeble
  We introduced new rules for streamlining planning inquiries last August. We are monitoring the operation of the procedures.

  Separately, we have consulted on proposals to streamline the processing of major projects through the planning system. The proposals include measures to improve the procedures for public inquiries into major projects. Of the 127 responses to the consultation, 71 were from non-governmental organisations. We shall announce how we intend to proceed as soon as practicable.

  Transport Infrastructure
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of transport infrastructure in delivery of regeneration policies. [1767]

  Ms Keeble
  Development of transport infrastructure can have an important role to play in delivering regeneration. English Regional Planning Bodies are required by Planning Policy Guidance Note 11 to produce regional transport strategies to reflect the economic and regeneration needs of the region. Transport and regeneration (with the exception of some rail issues) in Wales are matters for the Welsh Assembly.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many civil servants were employed by(a) the Department of the Environment and (b) the Department of Transport in April 1997. [1803]

  Dr. Whitehead
  At 1 April 1997 the Department of the Environment (Central) employed 3,180 staff and the Department of Transport (Central) employed 1,777 staff. Both figures are expressed as full-time equivalents with part-time staff counted as a proportion of net conditioned hours worked.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to modify the planning system in respect of protection of sites of special scientific interest. [1772]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government are committed to ensuring that sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) receive a high level of protection through the planning system. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 included new and enhanced powers to improve the protection and management of SSSIs. We also intend to issue a revision of Planning Policy Guidance Note 9 (Nature Conservation) later this year for public consultation. In Wales, these matters are the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Noise Pollution
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's response to EU standards on noise pollution, with particular reference to noise abatement for those living close to motorways. [1657]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: As indicated in the reply of my predecessor's my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) of 30 October 2000, Official Report, column 306w, the Department has a continuing involvement in negotiating EU Directives in the reduction of noise emitted by new vehicles. These measures have already delivered a substantial reduction in noise levels from new vehicles and these measures will bring improvements as the vehicle fleet is renewed.

  The Department was involved in negotiating an EU Directive to limit tyre noise, this being the dominant source of noise from traffic at speeds above 40 mph. The Directive was adopted very recently.

  In addition, the 10-Year Plan for Transport, published in July last year, will enable the Highways Agency to install by 2011 quieter surfaces on over 60 per cent. of the national road network including all concrete stretches. The Highways Agency will also provide over the next 10 years other measures such as noise barriers in some of the worst and most pressing cases where there is no immediate need for the road to be resurfaced.

  A303
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to dual stretches of the A303 in Somerset and Devon; and if he will make a statement. [1367]
  162W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The London to South Wales and the South West Multi Modal Study currently in progress is looking at solution to problems on the main transportation corridors in the study area, including the M3/A303/A30 corridor. The study's recommendations will be considered by the Regional Planning Bodies for the South West and the South East, which are both represented on the steering group for the study. Only then will any decisions be taken on the addition of schemes to the trunk roads programme.

  Exeter to Waterloo Line
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will announce the award of the new rail franchise for the Exeter to London Waterloo Line; and if he will make a statement. [1368]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority intends that the Exeter to Waterloo line be included in the new Wessex franchise for which they invited expressions of interest in November last year. This is at a relatively early stage. The SRA has announced seven pre-qualifiers from whom it intends to invite proposals for the new franchise.

  Fylingdales
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what contingency plans exist in the Department for a spill out into the North Yorkshire Moors National Park as a result of the construction of an X Band Radar at the Fylingdales site; and what proposal, there are for expediting planning permission and holding a public inquiry. [336]

  Ms Keeble
  There are no such contingency plans or proposals.

  Rural Services
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to increase the scope of business rate relief for rural services. [836]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [pursuant to the reply, 27 June 2001, c. 103W]: The Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Act 2001 will extend the mandatory element of the village shop rate relief scheme to all food shops with rateable value of no more than £6,000, (and not £9,000 as stated) in a designated rural settlement with population up to 3,000.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Council of Europe
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what meetings of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers he plans to be represented at ministerial level for the rest of this year; and if he will make a statement. [732]

  Peter Hain
  There is one Council of Europe Ministerial remaining this year, scheduled for 7–8 November. Ministers will consider nearer the time at what level the UK should be represented, on the basis of the substantive issues on the agenda.
  163W
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was his reply to the inquiry of the Latvian Chair-in-Office of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers on the participation of parliamentarians in the national delegations to the General Assembly of the United Nations; and if he will make a statement on the composition of the UK delegation at the forthcoming session. [733]

  Peter Hain
  We do not appear to have received any inquiry from the Latvian Chairman in Office on the issue of participation of parliamentarians in national delegations.

  HMG will consider favourably any proposal that Members of Parliament join the delegation when the assembly covers issues of particular concern to them, subject to accepting that any interventions could not be made in a personal capacity but would have to represent the views and policy of HMG.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will lead the delegation to the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, and will attend parts of the General Debate. I shall also attend parts of the General Assembly. The rest of the delegation will comprise the British Permanent Representative, his staff, and officials from the FCO and other Government Departments.

  Mercenaries
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resolutions on mercenaries were put before the 57th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in 2001; which were adopted; and what position the EU delegation took on each. [980]

  Peter Hain
  The 57th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (CHR) adopted a resolution proposed by Cuba on "The use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination" by 35 votes to 11, with six abstentions. The UK, with Belgium and Germany, voted against the resolution. The other Eli members of the CHR, (Spain, France, Italy and Portugal) abstained. While fully recognising the numerous dangers caused by mercenary activity, the UK does not believe that the CHR is the appropriate forum to address the issue. This was the only resolution on mercenaries tabled at the CHR.

  UK Human Rights Committee
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Minister will attend the UN Human Rights Committee hearings on the UK Periodic report due to be discussed later this year. [981]

  Peter Hain
  The UK attaches importance to meeting its obligations to report on implementation of commitments under UN core human rights treaties. The UK's Fifth Periodic Report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), submitted in 1999, was approved by Ministers. But in line with usual practice, there are no plans for a Minister to attend the Human Rights Committee examination of the UK report in October this year. Senior officials from the relevant Government Department will attend.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is regarding the recommendations contained in James Baker's report to the UN Security Council concerning the future of the Western Sahara; and if he will make a statement. [1438]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We supported United Nations Security Council Resolution 1359 which was passed unanimously on 29 June 2001, which extended MINURSO's mandate until 30 November 2001. We fully support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary General to invite all the parties to meet directly or through proximity talks, under the auspices of his Personal Envoy, James Baker, and encourage the parties to discuss the draft Framework Agreement and to negotiate any specific changes they would like to see in this proposal, as well as to discuss any other proposal for a political solution, which may be put forward to the parties, to arrive at a mutually acceptable agreement. We also affirm that while such discussions go on, the official proposals submitted by the Polisario Front to overcome obstacles preventing implementation of the Settlement Plan will be considered.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the indicative expenditure ceilings agreed in March 1999 of(a) an enlarged Community with six additional members and (b) the existing 15 member states. [1601]

  Peter Hain
  The Berlin European Council agreed ceilings for commitments for the existing 15 member states which amount to 644.8 billion euro over the period 2000 to 2006. It also agreed a total indicative amount of 58.1 billion euro for new member states up to 2006. All figures are in terms of 1999 prices.

  Arms Trade
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his counterparts in(a) the EU, (b) USA and (c) developing countries concerning the forthcoming UN conference on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. [1302]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The first ever UN Conference on Small Arms in July will signal a step-change in the international community's efforts to combat the uncontrolled spread and misuse of small arms that are the primary instruments of death and injury in conflicts and criminal acts worldwide. The UK has been actively engaged in the conference process both in its national capacity and within the EU.

  FCO has been in frequent and close consultation with EU partners, both bilaterally and through the regular EU working groups which discuss these issues.

  We also have many formal and informal contacts with the UK, for example in various arms control regimes and working groups, through which officials are able to discuss the subject of small arms and light weapons and other related issues. We also had contact with the US during the meetings in the preparatory process for the conference itself.
  165W
  The Government attach particular importance to contacts with developing countries, as these include a large number of states most affected by the effects of small arms and light weapons. In February this year the UK hosted a small arms and light weapons policy brainstorming seminar to which a wide selection of countries was invited. The then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), addressed that meeting. We also hold regular EU Troika meetings with SADC (Southern African Development Community), and participated in an EU/SADC meeting in the margins of the third PrepCom. In addition, the EU Presidency will be organising consultations between the EU and SADC, Latin American countries and others during the early stages of the conference. The subject has been a regular agenda item for a wide variety of bilateral meetings over the past year. Most recently, the Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), discussed prospects for the conference with the South African Foreign Minister.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will be attending the UN conference on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in July; and if he will make a statement. [1303]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will not be attending the conference. The United Kingdom will be represented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who has taken a close interest in the issue and in the preparatory process for the conference since it was initiated.

  The UK attaches considerable importance to supporting efforts to reduce the uncontrolled spread and use of small arms and light weapons. It has actively undertaken numerous initiatives, bilaterally and in line with the 1998 EU Joint Action on Small Arms. These include:
  on west Africa, work on the implementation of the ECOWAS Moratorium, focusing, in the UK-authored "next steps" report of 2000, on building political will;
  on Cambodia, UK facilitation of an EU-funded visit in August 2000 by the Legal Adviser to the Deputy Prime Minister;
  on southern Africa, UK support for EU moves to bolster the EU/SADC process and its regional action programme.

  The UK also co-ordinated work leading to the November 2000 adoption of an OSCE Document on Small Arms, a significant regional contribution in itself and a major confidence-building step towards the UN conference.

  The UK hopes that the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects will agree a practical and constructive programme

  Month

  Venue

  Event

  September

  6–7

  Bruges

  External Trade Council (Ministerial Informal)

  8–9

  Genval

  Gymnich

  14–16

  Leuven and Louvain-la-neuve

  Environment Council (Ministerial Informal)

  16–18

  Alden Biezen

  Agriculture Council (Ministerial Informal)

  22–23

  Liège

  ECOFIN (Informal)

  24–25

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  27

  Brussels

  Internal Market, Consumers and Tourism Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  166W
  of action with sufficient political support to give an impetus to sustained follow-up and implementation. We are working with our EU partners to this end.

  China
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support the resolution on China's human rights record at the next UN commission on human rights. [1739]

  Mr. MacShane
  No UN member state has yet announced an intention to table a resolution on China at the next session of the UN commission on human rights, to be held in Geneva in March and April 2002. We will consider with EU partners a common approach to any resolution nearer the time.

  Council of the European Union
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for July and the major European Union events for the period between 31 July and December. [2510]

  Peter Hain
  The information is as follows:

  July 10—ECOFIN Meen fq—Brussels

  Draft Agenda

  1. Work Programme of the Presidency Presentation and public discussion

  2. Adoption of provisional agenda

  3. (poss) Adoption of "A" points list

  4. Follow-up of the European Council of Göteborg

  5. Public finances in the E.M.U. Report of the Commission

  6. Fiscal policy of the European Union Communication of the Commission Orientation debate

  7. Calendar of the Tax Package Adoption

  8. Miscellaneous

  PM Euro Group

  Other business

  5–6—Liège—Informal Employment and Social Affairs Council

  13–14—Brussels—Regimal Territories Council (Informal)?

  16–17—Brussels—General Affairs Council

  20—Brussels—Budget Council

  23–24—Brussels—Agriculture Council

  No agenda for the above are available yet.

  The following are the principal events in the EU between 1 August and December 2001 (certain relevant events are also included: the list is based on the information available at the date of issue).
  167W

  Month

  Venue

  Event

  October

  1

  Brussels

  Research Council

  1

  Brussels

  European Union Military Committee in Chiefs of Defence Session (possible)

  8

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Affairs Council

  8–9

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  9

  Brussels

  Urban Metropolitan Policy Council (Ministerial Informal)

  11–12

  Brussels

  Defence Council (Ministerial Informal)

  15–16

  Brussels

  Transport and Telecommunications Council (possible)

  16

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  19

  Gent

  European Council (Informal)

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  25

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  29

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  29–30

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  November

  5

  Brussels

  Cultural and Audio-visual Council

  6

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  8

  Brussels

  Development and Co-operation Council

  9

  Brussels

  European Union Military Committee in Chiefs of Defence Session

  12

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Affairs

  15

  Brussels

  Health Council

  16

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  19–20

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  19–20

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  19–20

  Brussels

  Capabilities Improvement Conference (Defence Ministers present)

  21–22

  Brussels

  Budget Council (possible)

  26

  Brussels

  Internal Market, Consumers and Tourism Council

  27

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council (possible)

  29

  Brussels

  Education and Youth Council

  December

  3

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Affairs Council

  4

  Bruges

  Culture Council (Informal)

  4

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  4

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  5

  Brussels

  Industry Council

  7–8

  Brussels

  Transport and Telecommunications Council

  7–8

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  10–11

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  10

  Brussels

  Research Council

  12–13

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  14–15

  Brussels/Laeken

  European Council

  17–18

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  19–20

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  British Overseas Territories (Citizenship)
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to give British citizenship to the inhabitants of St. Helena and other former dependent territories. [1941]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The British Overseas Territories Bill, which will grant British citizenihip to all British Dependent Territories citizens in qualifying territories, was given a first reading in the House of Lords on 21 June. The Second Reading is scheduled for 10 July. The Bill was published on 22 June. Copies of the Bill, with Explanatory Notes, are available from the Libraries of both Houses.

  National Missile Defence
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have taken place with the Greenland Prime Minister on the ABM Treaty. [331]
  168W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  There have been no discussions between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Greenland Prime Minister on the ABM Treaty.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from pressure groups in(a) Denmark and (b) Greenland about the use of Thule bases for National Missile Defence. [338]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I am not aware of any representations from pressure groups in Denmark or Greenland being made to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about the use of Thule base for Missile Defence.

  Passports
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the sale of passports in Eastern Europe by the Belgian Government; and if persons who have secured passports in this way have the right of entry into the UK. [2027]
  169W
  Peter Hain
  The Belgian MFA has carried out an internal inquiry into allegations made by a former employee of the Belgian Embassy in Sofia regarding the sale of visas at the Embassy. Although passports were not included in the allegations, we understand that the inquiry also looked into passports. The inquiry found no evidence to support the allegations and concluded that no rules had been broken. Separately, a judicial inquiry was launched in 1997 into the allegations and is still under way. It will be for the Belgian Procurator General to decide the outcome in this case.

  Visas issued by the Belgian authorities allow access to the countries in the Schengen zone, which covers all EU countries except the UK and Ireland. They therefore do not permit entry to the United Kingdom, which maintains its own frontier controls and does not participate in Schengen visa arrangements.

TREASURY

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has carried out into(a) cost savings and (b) efficiency savings in total Government expenditure through the use of the Private Finance Initiative; and if he will make a statement. [1382]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information that has been requested is not kept centrally. The nature and diversity of PFI projects would make any global figure broken down in the way requested ambiguous.

  However, there have been two substantive reports on PFI, since its inception, which have indicated that PFI is delivering value for money. The independent Arthur Andersen and Enterprise LSE Report stated the average percentage estimated saving against conventional procurement for the sample of projects they looked at, averaged 17 per cent. Also the NAO report on "PFI and value for money" found an average cost saving of 20 per cent. or just under £1 billion in total, across seven projects examined by the NAO up until December 1999. This saving is measured against the conventional procurement route.

  Car-sharing
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the additional number of journeys made by car-sharing in 2002–03 as a consequence of introducing a new passenger rate for authorised car mileage in the March 2001 Budget. [1392]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are introducing a tax exempt rate of 5p per mile per passenger carried on a business trip from 2002–03 onwards to help employers encourage their employees to car-share wherever possible.

  The Inland Revenue does not have a specific estimate of the additional number of journeys which will be made by car-sharing in 2002–03 owing to this, but will be evaluating the effects of this measure over time.

  VAT (Cycle Helmets)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on the demand for 170W
  adult cycle helmets in the United Kingdom of his policy of removing VAT from the purchase of such helmets from 1 April; and if he will make a statement. [1390]

  Mr. Boateng
  No such assessment has been made.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans to halve child poverty within 10 years, indicating the benchmarks against which this is to be measured. [1372]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's annual publication "Opportunity for All" sets out a full range of indicators against which we will monitor progress on our commitment to halve child poverty in 10 years and abolish it in a generation. Copies of the first two "Opportunity for All" reports are available in the Library. The next publication is due this autumn.

  Spending Plans
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the annual rate of growth of total managed expenditure, in real terms, for each of the years 1999–2000 to 2003–04, what the assumptions are for such growth in real annual total managed expenditure for 2004–05 and 2005–06 contained in the March 2001 Financial Statement and Budget report; and if he will make a statement. [1381]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The latest Treasury projections for total managed expenditure for 1999–2000 to 2003–04 were published in Table C11 on page 199 of the March 2001 "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  The assumptions underlying the real growth in total managed expenditure for 2004–05 and 2005–06 contained in the March 2001 Financial Statement and Budget Report are set out in paragraph C17 on page 186 of that document. Firm spending plans for these years will be set in the 2002 spending review.

  Beer Duty
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the costs and benefits of introducing a reduced rate of duty on the beer produced by small breweries; and if he will make a statement. [1391]

  Mr. Boateng
  Tie last Budget announced the Government were minded to introduce a reduced rate of duty on the beer produced by small breweries and will be considering the scope for doing so in the course of this year. The costs and benefits of such a scheme will be considered as part of that process.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the per capita spending of all Government Departments in each of the regions and nations of the United Kingdom was in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [2163]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Chapter 8 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2001–02 (Cm 5101) offers a full analysis of public expenditure by country and region.

  Company Cars
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 26 June 2001,Official Report, column 59W, on company cars, what assessment he has made of the impact of the loss to employees of company car tax concessions. [2084]

  Mr. Boateng
  The new company car tax system from April 2002 is designed to achieve lower levels of harmful emissions from cars. It does away with the reductions for driving higher levels of business mileage as this can be an incentive to drive unnecessary business miles. The reforms have been projected to have a broadly neutral effect on tax revenues, so in overall terms there is no loss to employees.

  Many company car drivers will be paying less tax for the benefit of their company car under the new system. Having a company car with relatively low carbon dioxide emissions would help to ameliorate tax liabilities under the new system for any driver.

  It is worth noting that we expect more drivers to take the opportunity of having a company car under the new rules. In fact the Inland Revenue has estimated that the reforms will lead to a net increase of around 200,000 company cars in the long term.

  Foot and Mouth (Tourism)
  David Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the loss in tax as a result of lost tourist industry income arising from the foot and mouth outbreak. [2192]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No robust estimates for the changes in tax revenues resulting from the impact of the foot and mouth outbreak on the tourist industry are available.

  Contracts (Advertising)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what obligation is placed on public bodies in respect of(a) PPP, (b) PFI and (c) other financial arrangements, for advertising the relevant contracts in the (i) Official Journal and (ii) other publications of the European Community; under what article of which treaty and associated legislation any such requirement is made; what publication sets out the rules which must be followed in such agreements; and whether they apply equally to charitable and profit-making enterprises. [2133]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Contracting authorities/entities are required to call for competition for procurement contracts, above certain financial thresholds, in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC). This includes PFI/PPP contracts where appropriate. Advertising in other publications is not mandatory, but must not pre-empt advertisement in OJEC.

  This requirement arises from the EC procurement directives (which are based on principles of the EC Treaty). The principal legal basis was Articles 30, 57(2), 66 and 100a and the Directives have been implemented in the UK by the following Regulations (as amended):

  The Public Works Contracts Regulations—SI 1991/2680

  The Public Services Contracts Regulations—SI 1993/3228

  The Public Supply Contracts Regulatims—SI 1995/201

  The Utilities Contracts Regulations—SI 1996/2911.

  172W
  The application of these Directives/Regulations to charities and profit-making enterprises depends on whether they fall within the definition of state, regional or local authority or "body covered by public law" for the purposes of the Regulations. The Directives do not normally apply to charities and profit-making bodies unless they propose to award a works contract funded for the most part by a public body.

  Business Costs
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the size of the changes in(a) costs and (b) taxes applying to business since 1997. [1698]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Assessments of the risks, costs and benefits of new legislative proposals are made within Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs); information on taxation is in the Financial Statement and Budget Reports, both of which can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  VAT (Empty Homes)
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many empty homes will qualify for a reduction in VAT as announced in his Budget Statement 200]. [1948]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs estimate that the reduced VAT rate for renovating empty homes should help to bring back into use up to 2,400 empty homes each year. Additionally, the Budget made a minor adjustment to the zero rate for the sale of renovated long-term empty houses, which from 1 August will benefit from relief if they have been empty for 10 years or more. This is expected to bring back into use up to 25 empty houses a year.

  The measure has been warmly welcomed by the Empty Homes Agency.

  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what criteria owners of empty properties will qualify for a reduction in VAT when renovating their properties. [1955]

  Mr. Boateng
  A reduced 5 per cent. VAT rate applies to renovation work on an empty home that has not been lived in for three years or more.

  The Government did not, however, want to disadvantage people who have to live in a house while renovating it. So if someone buys a house after it has been empty for three years or more and lives in it during the renovation work, the reduced rate applies to the building work provided it is completed within one year from the date the owner bought the house.

  In addition, from 1 August, no VAT applies to the sale of a renovated house which has been empty for 10 years more.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Smuggling
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been(a) arrested, (b) charged and (c) given a custodial sentence for

  173W
  smuggling goods across the Irish border in each of the past 10 years. [1072]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not available in this format.

  Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the job description and personal specification are for the post of Senior Legal Adviser on Human Rights to the Police Service of Northern Ireland; and what bodies and institutions were consulted about(a) the terms of reference of this post and (b) the text and placement of the advertisement. [1100]

  Mr. Browne
  A copy of the application pack sent to applicants expressing an interest in the post has been placed in the Library. It contains the job description and personal specification. The Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission for Northern Ireland was consulted and the competition is being conducted in line with best practice.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will reply to the report of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission under section 69(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. [1717]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government were pleased to receive the report from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission under section 69(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. We are currently considering the recommendations and will respond substantively as soon as possible.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the terms of reference are for the monitoring project being undertaken by Consensia to observe the recruitment process of the Northern Ireland police service; how many volunteers have been tasked to participate in this scheme; what the personal specifications were for volunteers; how they were selected; what the composition is of the monitoring teams, broken down by(a) gender and (b) perceived community origin; and what discussions took place with the civil service trade unions concerning the use of volunteer staff. [730]

  Jane Kennedy
  Observation of recruitment to the new Police Service of Northern Ireland is being undertaken by a pool of voluntary Community Observers, who are independent of Consensia and who are currently managed by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. They will become the responsibility of the Policing Board when it is established.

  The role of the Independent Community Observers is set out in Regulation 10 of the Police (Recruitment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2001.

  The personal specification for Independent Community Observers sets out the qualities and skills that potential candidates should possess. These are:

  (a) effective oral and written communication skills;

  (b) discretion and impartiality;

  174W

  (c)the ability to work w part of a team; and

  (d)the ability to make sound judgments.

  Applicants for the roles were selected on the basis of the evidence they provided in their application form, and subsequently at interview stage, to demonstrate that they possessed these qualities and skills. A merit list was then compiled from which a pool of 63 Observers was selected.

  Of that pool, 53 Observers were trained and commenced observing the recruitment process at the beginning of June 2001.

  The breakdown of the pool of 53 Observers, in the format requested, is as follows:

  Gender

  Number

  Male

  23

  Female

  30

  Total

  53

  Perceived community origin

  Number

  Protestant

  26

  Catholic

  23

  Other

  4

  Total

  53

  No discussions took place with the civil service trade unions concerning the use of volunteer staff. The process used was in accordance with best practice guidance for the selection and appointment of volunteers.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Temporary Classrooms (Somerset)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many temporary classrooms have been in use in Somerset in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement [1386]

  Mr. Timms
  We do not have information on Somerset's temporary buildings at this level of detail. This information may be available from the local education authority.

  In connection with the Department's arrangements for appraising asset management plans, we are, however, planning to publish later this year analyses of authorities' premises information for benchmarking purposes. These should include some information on temporary accommodation, although not on a year-by-year basis.

  School Repairs (Somerset)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the backlog of school buildings repair and maintenance work in Somerset; and if she will make a statement. [1387]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on the backlog should be currently available from the local education authority.
  175W
  Authorities' data on the repair and maintenance backlog, supplied as part of DfES' arrangements for appraising asset management plans, are being validated with a view to publishing analyses for benchmarking purposes later this year.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teaching staff have(a) been employed in further education colleges and (b) left further education in each of the last four academic years. [1629]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 2 July 2001]: The number of teaching staff employed in FE colleges is shown in the table:

  Number of teaching staff in FE colleges in England

  Thousand

  Number

  1995–96

  134.7

  1996–97

  130.9

  1997–98

  141.8

  1998–99

  144.7

  Notes:

  1. The latest available data are for 1998–99

  2. Information on the number of teachers who leave further education is not collected centrally

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to increase the level of tuition fees in England and Wales and if she will make a statement. [1637]

  Margaret Hodge
  Tuition fees at publicly funded institutions are uprated each year to take account of inflation.

  Post-16 Capital Allocations
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the post 16-capital allocations will be announced. [1664]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department announced on 28 March 2001 that capital provision for further education would rise to £177 million in 2003–04. The base funding is £110 million in each of the years 2001–02 and 2002–03. Allocations to individual further education colleges are made by the Learning and Skills Council throughout the year in response to bids.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the sure start proposals will be rolled out nationally. [1666]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: Sure start works with parents-to-be, parents and children to promote the physical, intellectual and social development of babies and young children. The Government's current plans are to establish 500 local programmes by 2004, in disadvantaged neighbourhoods throughout England. Of
  176W
  these, 260 programmes have been announced so far, of which 179 have now had their plans approved. We expect to announce further sure start programmes soon.

  Rapid Response Fund
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will investigate the procedures by which companies and work forces can access the rapid response fund. [1678]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: We continually monitor the rapid response fund to ensure it is used as intended—to provide specialist advice, training and other support to people involved in redundancies that have a significant impact on the local labour market and where no alternative existing provision is available. Proposals are considered against a variety of criteria that include the impact of the redundancy on the local labour market, the level of partnership involvement, clear outputs and value for money. We also expect training proposals to be matched as far as possible to the needs of employers with vacancies so that people can move quickly into new jobs. DfES officials make every effort to ensure bids submitted via regional development agencies are processed as quickly as possible and provide an initial approval decision within three working days. The fund is designed to be as flexible as possible and, within the last year, we have introduced changes to increase its flexibility and make it more responsive to local needs. Demand is high and has increased significantly over the last six months.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects to announce the findings of the early process evaluation and customer satisfaction surveys in relation to individual learning accounts. [1752]

  John Healey
  The findings of the early process evaluation and customer satisfaction surveys in relation to individual learning accounts will be published towards the end of September.

  Digital Divide
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what policies she is pursuing to tackle the problem of the digital divide; and if she will make a statement. [1807]

  John Healey
  The Department is pursuing a range of measures to tackle the digital divide in order to help increase people's employability, to enable them to use new technologies to enrich their lives, and to encourage lifelong learning for all. Our measures help provide access and the skills needed for individuals to use information and communication technologies (ICTs), particularly for those most at risk from exclusion. We are providing public access to new technologies and the internet through UK online centres. There are almost 1,500 centres now open, with 6,000 centres planned in total by the end of 2002. We are investing in wiring up communities in some of the most disadvantaged areas in England, enabling people to explore the internet in the comfort of their own homes and to develop skills, access job opportunities and become more involved in their communities. We are also
  177W
  Making progress in improving computer/pupil ratios, to ensure that in future all school leavers should be able to use and benefit from new technologies. 88 per cent. of all schools are now connected to the internet.

  AS-Levels
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils entered AS-level modules in January; and how many of those are retaking those AS modules. [1957]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: There is no information as yet on the number of pupils who sat the January AS unit tests. However, 214,384 unit entries were recorded from the analysis of the January results. The AS-level qualification is made up of three units: students may choose to sit all three unit tests in January or in June, or spread them throughout the year.

  There is no statistical information on how many of the pupils who sat the AS units in January are retaking their modules.

PRIME MINISTER

  Flooding (Torbay)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Galmpton, Torbay, to discuss flooding problems with residents. [717]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so. I am aware that Galmpton has experienced flash flooding in recent years, and that this has caused distress and damage to local residents. Decisions on flood defence projects and their timing are the responsibility of local operating authorities, in particular the Environment Agency and local councils. I understand that the agency is currently discussing options for Galmpton with Torbay council, and will work with them urgently to address the situation.

  National Missile Defence
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will discuss with President Bush unilateral proposals by the Rumsfeld Commission to delete article IX of the 1972 ABM treaty; [323]

  (2) if he will have discussions with President Bush on a co-operative approach with Russia and China on Strategic Missile Defence. [324]

  The Prime Minister
  I will continue to engage constructively with President Bush across the range of issues relating to his ideas for limited missile defence systems and a new strategic framework. The President has made no decisions on specific missile defence systems or their deployment and is currently engaged in wide-ranging international consultation with allies, Russia, China and others on his ideas.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Bush the concept of invulnerability through military supremacy in relation to the weaponisation of space. [325]
  178W
  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so. I believe that the conference on disarmament is the appropriate forum for discussion of issues relating to the military use of space, and support the creation of an ad hoc committee to discuss the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Putin the potential for the US policy on national missile defence to include a first strike capability. [327]

  The Prime Minister
  The US has made it clear that missile defence is envisaged as one element of a comprehensive strategy to deal with a new threat caused by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It is not aimed at defending against the Russian strategic arsenal, still less at giving the United States the capacity to attack Russia. President Bush has made it clear that it no longer considers Russia an enemy. I have discussed missile defence and related issues with President Putin on a number of occasions, and expect to continue to do so.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of UK participation in US national missile defence on the(a) global moratorium on nuclear testing and (b) prospects of a Comprehensive Test B m Treaty coming into force; [317]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the consequences of British participation in national missile defence for the 1993 strategic arms reduction treaty, START 2 and the START regime. [320]

  The Prime Minister
  President Bush has made no decisions on specific missile defence systems or their deployment and we therefore do not know what UK participation may be sought. The US is also currently engaged in a wide-ranging international consultation process, including with Russia. On both counts it is therefore premature to make such an assessment.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with the Secretary General of the UN, President Bush's proposal for a first test of a space-based laser in 2012. [319]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will propose to the Presidents of(a) China, (b) France, (c) Russia and (d) the United States of America that the 1967 outer space treaty cover directed energy and laser weapons. [321]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to make such a proposal.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Bush the restructuring of the missile technology control regime in relation to political initiatives based on arms control and confidence-building measures. [322]

  The Prime Minister
  We remain fully committed to the MTCR and have regular contacts with MTCR partners, including the US, to maintain and strengthen the regime and ensure it remains effective in the fight against the proliferation of long-range missiles capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction. The MTCR will continue to be a mainstay of the effort to combat missile proliferation, alongside complementary political
  179W
  initiatives such as the draft international code of conduct against ballistic missile proliferation in which the United Kingdom is also playing a key role.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss the position of modifications of non-ABM radars on UK territory with(a) Washington and (b) Moscow. [326]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with President Bush before he made his speech on 1 May 2000 about the future of the 1972 ABM treaty. [333]

  The Prime Minister
  I have discussed missile defence and related issues including the ABM treaty with President Bush on several occasions, both at our meeting at Camp David on 23 February and subsequently.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the dangers faced by the United Kingdom as a target for foreign powers, as a result of acquiescing in the construction of two new radomes at Menwith Hill. [334]

  The Prime Minister
  Two radomes have been constructed at RAF Menwith Hill as part of the European relay ground station for the space based infra red system, which is designed to detect the launch of ballistic missiles. This updates an existing system. We assess that the implications for the security of the UK have not significantly changed.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister what (1) discussions he has had with President Bush about the facilities to receive information for early warning and missile-tracking satellites at Menwith Hill ground relay station; [335]

  (2) what discussions he has had with President Bush about the installation of X Band Radar at Fylingdales operating in the X-Ray Band of the electromagnetic spectrum; [337]

  (3) what discussions he has had with President Bush for forward-deployed radars in relation to National Missile Defence. [315]

  The Prime Minister
  None. As President Bush and I both made clear following our meeting at Camp David on 23 February, the US Administration has not yet decided how it will seek to deploy missile defences. That remains the case.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set up a Royal Commission to examine the consequences and implications of British participation in the extension of war-fighting into space. [318]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the economic and political implications of British participation in the US National Missile Defence system. [2298]

  The Prime Minister
  The US has not yet decided how it will seek to proceed with missile defence and has not put forward specific proposals for UK involvement. We have made clear we would consider any such proposals 180W
  carefully taking into account all relevant factors in light of circumstances at the time, including their implications for the UK.

  Pine Bay Joint Space Research Facility
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with the Government of Australia UK participation in the Pine Bay joint space research facility, in relation to information detected by satellites covering the southern Hemisphere. [339]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  NATO Expansion
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Putin the commitment not to expand NATO into the former Soviet Republics. [332]

  The Prime Minister
  NATO has made no commitment to Russia that it will not expand into the former Soviet Republics. In signing the NATO-Russia founding act in 1997, Russia acknowledged her commitment to:"respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security."

  Any decision on NATO enlargement will be based on the three criteria set out at the 1999 Washington Summit: the aspirant must be ready to join NATO; NATO itself must be ready to accept new members; any new enlargement must enhance overall European security.

  NATO is committed to building and maintaining a strong working relationship with Russia, built on transparency and mutual respect. The regular meeting that takes place between NATO and Russia through the Permanent Joint Council (PJC) embodies this relationship.

  Engagements
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 July. [2225]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on ministerial responsibilities for disabled people; and what arrangements he has made for cross-departmental consultation on issues affecting disabled people. [1864]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 92W. As the ministerial code makes clear, it is the responsibility of the initiating Department in any area of policy to ensure that proposals have been discussed with other interested Departments. Baroness Morgan has responsibility for cross-cutting equality issues.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Walton Group
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Solicitor-General what discussions the Crown Prosecution Service has held with Merseyside police serious fraud squad concerning the investigation of the Walton Group in relation to Exchange Flags Liverpool; and if she will make a statement. [1697]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Serious Fraud Office was consulted by the Merseyside police in October 2000 concerning allegations of fraud in relation to the Walton Group plc. An extended vetting inquiry followed including examination of available files and evidence as well as meetings with Merseyside police and English Partnerships.

  After careful consideration, it was decided that there was insufficient evidence to justify an investigation under section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987.

DEFENCE

  Defence Military Assistance Fund
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a breakdown of the expenditure under the defence military assistance fund relating to(a) Zimbabwe, (b) South Africa, (c) Jordan, (d) Egypt, (e) Pakistan, (f) Indonesia, (g) Brazil, (h) Kuwait, (i) Malaysia, (j) Nigeria, (k) Oman, (l) Taiwan, (m) Thailand, (n) Turkey and (o) the United Arab Emirates for (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000 indicating separately the amounts used to support defence sales. [1309]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence's financial systems that were in place for the years in question cannot provide precise details of actual defence assistance fund (DAF) expenditure. (The DAF was formerly known as the defence military assistance fund—DMAF). However, the level of DAF funding approved and committed for each of the subject countries is known and is detailed as follows.

  £

  Policy

  Sales

  Total

  1997–98

  Brazil

  26,200

  262,200

  288,400

  Egypt

  117,612

  17,788

  135,400

  Indonesia

  42,684

  415,600

  458,284

  Jordan

  164,400

  0

  164,400

  Kuwait

  66,222

  4,978

  71,200

  Malaysia

  37,279

  261,200

  298,479

  Nigeria

  0

  0

  0

  Oman

  826,891

  450,100

  1,276,991

  Pakistan

  63,500

  0

  63,500

  South Africa

  86,898

  52,200

  139,098

  Taiwan

  0

  0

  0

  Thailand

  39,900

  0

  39,900

  Turkey

  148,636

  6,964

  155,600

  United Arab Emirates

  8,120

  785,500

  793,620

  Zimbabwe

  29,779

  6,521

  36,300

  1998–99

  Brazil

  0

  124,000

  124,000

  Egypt

  87,196

  0

  87,196

  Indonesia

  55,779

  100,000

  155,779

  Jordan

  295,511

  65,600

  361,011

  Kuwait

  16,354

  149,000

  165,354

  Malaysia

  238,850

  63,700

  302,550

  Nigeria

  76,000

  0

  76.000

  182W

  £

  Policy

  Sales

  Total

  Oman

  1,048,552

  608,300

  1,656,852

  Pakistan

  94,433

  10,000

  104,433

  South Africa

  212,293

  102,900

  315,193

  Taiwan

  0

  0

  0

  Thailand

  13,312

  17,000

  30,312

  Turkey

  113,212

  0

  113,212

  United Arab Emirates

  12,129

  440,000

  452,129

  Zimbabwe

  36,767

  0

  36,767

  1999–2000

  Brazil

  1,504

  314,000

  315,504

  Egypt

  15,378

  2,500

  17,878

  Indonesia

  15,249

  0

  15,249

  Jordan

  354,315

  161,000

  515,315

  Kuwait

  48,724

  17,500

  66.224

  Malaysia

  89,612

  1,028,750

  1,118,362

  Nigeria

  174,861

  0

  174,861

  Oman

  2,089,535

  294,400

  2,383,935

  Pakistan

  119,686

  10,000

  129,686

  South Africa

  938,261

  193,000

  1,131,261

  Taiwan

  0

  0

  0

  Thailand

  60,994

  10,000

  70,994

  Turkey

  483,000

  0

  483,000

  United Arab Emirates

  23,526

  242,873

  266,399

  Zimbabwe

  104,239

  0

  104,239

  Ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment his Department has made of the risks posed by long-range missile attacks. [2296]

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library what risk assessment of ballistic missile attack on the UK from(a) North Korea, (b) Iran, (c) Iraq, (d) Libya and (e) Syria has been made; and what assessment has been made of the potential of these countries to develop inventories of (i) global medium-range, (ii) intermediate range and (iii) inter-continental range ballistic missile. [329]

  Mr. Hoon
  We assess that there is currently no significant ballistic missile threat to the mainland of the United Kingdom. We do, however, continue to monitor developments closely, particularly as they might affect deployed forces.

  North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria all have ballistic missiles development and/or production programmes and have the potential to develop, or to obtain inventories of, longer-range ballistic missiles. North Korea and Iran already possess medium-range ballistic missiles and North Korea has the technology needed to develop ballistic missiles of intercontinental range.

  Combat Effectiveness Gender Study
  Mr. Key
  To ask he Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of the combat effectiveness gender study; and if he will make a statement. [1791]

  Mr. Hoon
  Work on the study into the effect of gender upon combat effectiveness has mainly been carried out by staff in the course of their normal business, and the costs have not therefore been recorded. Those costs that can be identified relate to work conducted on our behalf by contractors. This amounts to approximately £100,000.

  National Missile Defence
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Danish Government about the use of Thule radar sites for national missile defence. [330]

  Mr. Hoon
  My Danish counterpart and I discussed missile defence in general terms when we met on 15 February 2001.

  US National Ignition Facility
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on British participation in the national ignition facility at the Laurence Livermore laboratory in the US. [316]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK remains committed to participating in the US national ignition facility programme in order to gain access to a high powered laser which is a key element of our warhead stewardship programme.

  RAF Training Flight Paths (Wind Farms)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of proposed wind farm developments in Moray on RAF training flight paths; and if he will make a statement. [1978]

  Dr. Moonie
  As there is potential for wind farms to interfere with radar, low flying and other communications, each wind energy proposal received by the Ministry of Defence is evaluated on a case-by-case basis by several specialists; this includes the assessment of the impact upon RAF training paths.

  The Ministry of Defence supports fully the Government's renewable energy policy. However, we must ensure that the defences of the United Kingdom are not jeopardised and that our aircrews are able to conduct training safely. Of the eight proposals we have had, we had no objections to seven and one is currently being assessed. Owing to the commercial sensitivity of the information I am withholding details of the sites under exemption 7 of the code of practice on access to government information.

  Anti-satellite Weapons
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of anti-satellite weapons, called parasitic satellites. [328]

  Mr. Hoon
  Small satellites do not yet constitute a credible capability as anti-satellite systems; such threats continue to be monitored closely. The effectiveness of anti-satellite weapons is best assessed on a case-by-case basis.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices closed each year for the last 20 years. [65]
  184W
  Mr. Alexander
  I understand from the Post Office that net post office closures in each of the last 20 years have been as follows:

  Year ending

  Closures

  March

  1982

  70

  1983

  104

  1984

  243

  1985

  395

  1986

  358

  1987

  94

  1988

  140

  1989

  41

  1990

  159

  1991

  233

  1992

  478

  1993

  202

  1994

  176

  1995

  175

  1996

  193

  1997

  163

  1998

  243

  1999

  233

  2000

  382

  2001

  547

  I am informed by the Post Office that of the closures of the year ending March 2001, only four are permanent.

  Enterprise Bill
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Enterprise Bill will include measures to implement the Cruickshank review recommendations on the establishment of a payments regulator. [1480]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 2 July 2001]: The Enterprise Bill aims to encourage enterprise, strengthen competition laws and promote safeguards for consumers. As announced on 18 June, details of what will be included in the Bill will be published by the end of July.

  Yorkshire and Humberside (Economic Growth)
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will take steps to ensure that the economy of the Yorkshire and Humberside region grows to the United Kingdom per capita average. [2166]

  Alan Johnson
  The regional development agency—Yorkshire Forward—was established in April 1999 to address the economic deficit in the region. Its regional economic strategy aims to create 150,000 new jobs by 2010 and achieve above UK and European average GDP growth each year.

  In 2001–02, Yorkshire Forward has a programme budget of £213 million and a cumulative target of creating with partners up to 21,000 jobs. I will be working closely with Yorkshire Forward and its partners to ensure they deliver these improvements.

  Newspaper/Magazine Distribution
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will refer newspaper and magazine wholesaling and distribution to the Competition Commission. [1680]
  185W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: Under UK competition legislation, it is for the Director General of Fair Trading to investigate allegations of anti-competitive behaviour and if appropriate make a reference to the Competition Commission under the Fair Trading Act 1973 or take action under the Competition Act 1998.

  Rural Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the help she provides to sustain small rural sub-post offices. [1677]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: We are committed to contributing towards the costs of universal banking services, which will be available at all post offices, and to providing transitional financial assistance to rural post offices. Decisions on the provision of this assistance will be taken in the context of advice from the Postal Services Commission expected in the autumn. In addition, we have announced a £2 million fund to support volunteer and community initiatives to maintain or reopen post office facilities in rural areas where the traditional post office would otherwise close. Sub-post offices in small rural settlements are eligible for rate relief.

  Miners' Compensation
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much compensation has been paid to coal health claimants. [2072]

  Mr. Wilson
  In respect of British Coal health claims, the Department has paid almost £0.5 billion in compensation.

  Regulation
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 25 June 2001,Official Report, column 31W, how many regulations her Department has (a) introduced and (b) reviewed the operation and working of since May 1997; and if she will place copies of such reviews in the Library. [2158]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The DTI has been responsible for the introduction of 496 statutory instruments since May 1997. Of these, we estimate three quarters have not imposed costs for business, and about a tenth have saved costs for business. A third of all the regulations introduced by this Department since 1997 have been licenses allowing companies to operate as public telecommunication providers.

  We have kept the regulatory environment in all sectors under continual review since May 1997. There have been numerous reviews of regulations, and copies of relevant White and Green Papers are available from the House Libraries. I will write to the hon. Member with a full list as soon as possible and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets have been set for the reduction of regulation in those sectors of the utility industries where competition is fully developed; and if she will make a statement. [756]
  186W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The Government set the legal framework which places statutory duties on each of the regulators and consider the proper discharge of these duties is a matter for each regulator. It would therefore not be appropriate for the Government to set targets for the regulators.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 25 June 2001,Official Report, column 31W, if she will list (a) public consultations held under the Consultation Code, setting out the length of each consultation period and the reasons for consultations lasting less than 12 weeks and (b) regulations with an impact on business introduced under the new procedures setting out (i) the length of time between guidance being issued and the regulation taking effect and (ii) the reasons for guidance being issued less than 12 weeks before the regulation took effect. [2156]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The consultation code applies to all public consultations launched since January 2001. Consultations on the following subjects have consultation periods of at least 12 weeks which have not yet closed:changes to parental leave regulations.
  statutory guidance to the Gas and Electricity markets authority on Social and Environmental Objectives.
  Financial Penalties: Determination of turnover under the Utilities Act 2000.
  Removing the 20 p inner limit from partnerships and limited partnerships.

  Consultations on the following subjects launched since that date have no closing date:
  Reform of the EC competition regime.
  The impact of former coal mineshafts on the property market in Stoke-on-Trent.

  One current consultation has a consultation period of one month. It is on proposed amendments to the Working Time Regulations 1998 to remove the annual leave qualifying period. This shorter period is necessary because of the need to remove uncertainty and to amend UK law as soon as possible following a judgment by the European Court of Justice. This judgment found that the existing provision in the Regulations is contrary to the working time directive.

  Public consultations on the following subjects launched since 1 January have already closed, and the consultation period was at least 12 weeks:
  EC Directive 199/93 for electronic signatures.
  Proposals for regulations relating to fixed-term work.
  How the DTI should fulfil its obligations under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act.
  Proposed electricity safety, quality and continuity regulations.
  Possible amendments to the Equipment and Protective Systems intended for Use in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 1996.
  Proposed changes to the consents process for offshore wind farms.
  EC Directive on Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees.
  Copyright and Visually Impaired People.
  EC Directive 71/98 on Legal Protection of Designs.
  Measuring Equipment (Direct Mass Flow Measuring Systems) Regulations.
  Oil and Gas Infrastructure Access Provisions and Voluntary Arrangements.
  Trading Disclosures.
  187W
  Public consultations on the following subjects, launched since 1 January 2001 and now closed and lasting less than 12 weeks, were reconsultation, where there had already been at least one previous period of consultation on the substantive issues concerned:
  Updating the law concerning directory entries (consultation in 1999 had shown widespread agreement among stakeholders, and this new consultation concerned matters of detailed implementation). The consultation period was one month.
  Modification of the standard condition of gas and electricity licenses by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. This was a second consultation on the substantive issues, seeking further views from stakeholders on more detailed points. The consultation period was four weeks.
  Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations. Consultation was on draft regulations following two earlier consultations on the substantive issues. The consultation period was six weeks.

  Consultations on the following subjects were not reconsultations, and the consultation periods lasted less than 12 weeks:
  Draft Export Control and Non-Proliferation Bill. The consultation period in this case was eight weeks as most of the proposals in the draft Bill were the subject of previous consultation. In addition many of the issues consulted on related to secondary legislation. There will be an opportunity for further consultation during the Bill's passage through Parliament.
  Proposed amendments to electricity supply licences. This consultation period lasted for four weeks, because of the urgent need to consult on the desirability of bringing forward legislation to provide for additional powers to safeguard against potential market abuse.

  Guidance has been issued more than 12 weeks before the relevant regulation came into force in relation to the following regulations which have entered into force since 1 January 2001:
  Patent Amendment Rules 2001.
  The Noise Emission in the Environment by Equipment for Use Outdoors Regulations 2001. Guidance in this case had been published when the EC Directive was adopted, one year before the regulation came into force. Specific guidance on the regulation was published simultaneously with the regulations, four weeks before the regulation came into force.

  Guidance on the following regulations was issued less than 12 weeks prior to the regulation taking effect:
  Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations, due to the redrafting of the regulation in response to consultation responses.
  The Non-automatic Weighing Instruments Regulations 2000. No new guidance was issued but the current guidance notes will be updated.
  The Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations 2001. These regulations came into force on 8 February 2001 and guidance was sent to all relevant organisations on 11 and 25 January 2001. However these regulations state that new arrangements will enter into force finally in 2009.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 25 June 2001,Official Report, column 30W, what operational target date the Small Business Service was set for the establishment of an Index of Regulation; and what plans the Government have for the Small Business Service to introduce such an index. [2157]
  188W
  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service corporate plan 2000–01 to 2002–03 included a target to establish an index of the impact of regulation on small business by December 2000.

  Rover Task Force
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will break down the amount of money spent from the Rover task force in each local authority area. [1996]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Rover task force funds projects across the west midlands, which assist with the long-term economic regeneration of the region. All parts of the west midlands will benefit from the investment in the region's long-term future. As it is a regional initiative, data were not recorded on a local authority basis.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if funding from the Rover task force will be provided for the volunteer bureau in Bromsgrove. [1987]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has now accepted the final report of the Rover task force, which sets strategic priorities for the automotive sector and economic regeneration of the region. The funding of £129 million has already been fully allocated to good quality business projects in the region and unfortunately there are no resources remaining. However there was no scope for funding projects from the voluntary sector.

  Village Post Offices (Road Tax)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to allow village post offices to issue road tax licences. [249]

  Mr. Alexander
  Consideration is being given to increasing the pro vision of services through post offices and sub-post offices as part of developing the Government general practitioner facility.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce further legislation to control the export of arms from the UK; and if he will make a statement. [1856]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: The Export Control Bill was introduced to Parliament on 26 June. This follows a comprehensive and detailed review by the Government of the existing legislative framework governing strategic export controls, taking into account the views of all interested parties. The Export Control Bill will replace the export control provisions of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. The Bill contains new powers to strengthen the export control regime, sets out the purposes for which export controls can be imposed and provides for parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation made under the Bill.

  German Plutonium
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to make arrangements for the treatment and return of German plutonium research reactor fuel, currently at Dounreay, to Germany. [1770]

  Mr. Wilson
  I understand that UKAEA intend to return the Kalkar SNR 300 fuel, which is the majority of German plutonium research reactor fuel at Dounreay, before the end of 2001. There are no plans for treating the Kalkar SNR 300 fuel at Dounreay.

  Renewable Energy
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to encourage regional development agencies to promote the(a) manufacture and (b) installation of renewable energy technologies. [1765]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 2 July 2001]: The Department has provided financial support for regional studies of the potential for renewables throughout the UK. A number of the regional development authorities (RDAs) have been very actively involved in these assessments and some RDAs, including the Welsh Development Agency, have conducted their own studies with a focus on manufacturing and employment opportunities. On the basis of this involvement, the RDAs will be well placed to promote all aspects of renewable energy, in pursuance of regional targets.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Petrol Safety
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many petrol retailers have been prosecuted in each of the past five years for not reporting leakages from underground storage tanks. [1588]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency's prosecution database runs only from January 1999 and does not provide narrative in respect of prosecutions. The failure to report leakage from a storage tank would not therefore be specifically identified and case-by-case information would be disproportionately expensive to obtain. If leakage from a petrol tank occurred, a prosecution would be likely to be based on the leakage itself and the resulting pollution or a breach of a licence condition.

  Foot and Mouth
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average valuation price was per bovine in each week of the current foot and mouth epidemic. [790]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is not yet available in the form requested. The Department is currently preparing a database of detailed information on livestock valuations and I will right to the right hon. Member when I am able to provide the information.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many foreign vets, from which countries, have assisted the UK during the foot and mouth epidemic; and how many left the UK before receiving payment. [791]
  190W
  Mr. Morley
  Foreign veterinary assistance has been provided in two ways. Governments have loaned state veterinarians to the Department. Terms and conditions were agreed with the relevant authorities in each country prior to the vets travelling to GB. Their salaries continue to be paid by the authorities in their own country.

  Other foreign vets have also been appointed as Temporary Veterinary Inspectors (TVIs). TVIs are paid a daily rate which is claimed retrospectively. The necessary details to allow payment of money due is requested at the time of appointment. Information concerning the timing of payments to individuals in relation to their date of departure from GB is not recorded.

  To date 463 veterinarians from the following countries have provided assistance during the FMD outbreak:

  Australia

  Bulgaria

  Canada

  Cuba

  Denmark

  Finland

  France

  Germany

  Hungary

  Iceland

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Norway

  Spain

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  USA.

  The number of foreign TVIs appointed is currently 375 and they come from one of the following countries:

  Australia

  Austria

  Belgium

  Canada

  Czech

  Republic

  Denmark

  Egypt

  France

  Germany

  Greece

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Namibia

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Norway

  Portugal

  South Africa

  Spain

  Sweden

  Zimbabwe.

  191W
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many premises in Worcestershire were at any stage considered to be infected with foot and mouth disease; and of these, how many have subsequently been cleared following negative laboratory tests. [41]

  Mr. Morley
  Information is available only for Hereford and Worcester. As of 26 June there were 66 Infected Premises (IPs). Of these, 43 were tested, of which 30 returned negative results. There were 17 slaughter-on-suspicion cases. Of these 16 were tested, all returned negative results.

  An Infected Premises is one where foot and mouth disease has either been diagnosed by a vet on the farm, supported by convincing clinical evidence, or where disease is found after testing. However, a negative laboratory result does not necessarily mean that the disease was not present and does not change the status of an Infected Premises.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps were taken to inform veterinary surgeons of discrepancies between clinical diagnosis of foot and mouth disease on farms and subsequent laboratory tests; on how many occasions such discrepancies occurred; and if she will make a statement. [47]

  Mr. Morley
  Almost all cases of foot and mouth disease during the current outbreak have been confirmed on clinical grounds. Although laboratory results are being monitored, it is important to remember that a negative laboratory test does not necessarily mean that the disease does not exist within the flock or herd. Guidance has been issued to staff to assist with clinical diagnosis, including advice on diseases or conditions which might involve symptoms similar to foot and mouth disease, particularly in sheep.

  Pigswill
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the risks of using pigswill prepared to the required standards; and if she will further review her Department's ban on the use of pigswill. [2097]

  Mr. Morley
  A veterinary assessment of the risks of using pigswill was made before the ban on swill-feeding was introduced. This assessment concluded that, owing to the recent foot and mouth disease outbreak, the disease risks from swill-feeding are very much greater than they were previously.

  No further review of the ban will be made as agreement was reached at the Agriculture Council on 19 June to introduce an EU wide ban on the feeding of swill to livestock.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Luxembourg on 19 June was. [2509]

  Margaret Beckett
  I attended the meeting of EU Agriculture Ministers in Luxembourg on 19 June.
  192W
  The Council adopted by qualified majority (Spain and Netherlands opposing) measures to tackle the problems in the EU beef market resulting from the discovery of BSE in certain continental countries late last year. I was pleased to secure important exemptions for United Kingdom farmers from the measures cutting back suckler cow production, in recognition of the particular impact of FMD, as well as rejection of the excessively bureaucratic proposals to impose individual farmer quotas on beef special premiums and to reimpose the 90 head limit on individual claims.

  The Council also adopted—by qualified majority with Spain opposing and Portugal abstaining—rules to restrict the use of close confinement stalls for sows. This brings other countries into line with conditions already applying here. It is an important and welcome step to improve pig welfare across the Community, albeit less radically than I would have preferred. The Council also resolved to improve the welfare of animals during transport, which I urged must be given effect speedily.

  I updated my colleagues on the latest situation on FMD in the UK. The Council also discussed further measures on BSE, as a result of which the Commission will enact a range of further controls including an extension to the current ban on the use of animal protein in animal feed.

  The Council unanimously adopted conclusions following up the Copenhagen Conference on organic food and farming, and setting the framework for the European Action Plan. It unanimously agreed proposals concerning the olive oil and hops regimes, inspection and control of animal feedingstuffs, a special aid scheme for small farmers and a common position on controlling undesirable substances in animal feed. By qualified majority, it agreed common positions on the processing, use and disposal of animal by-products and on classical swine fever (Germany and Austria opposing in both cases).

  Landfill Tax (Fly-tipping)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has produced on changes in the incidence of fly-tipping following the increase in the level of the landfill tax; and if she will make a statement. [812]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Tidy Britain Group (TBG) has carried out three surveys to determine the effect, if any, of the landfill tax on fly-tipping. The TBG's most recent report, "Effects Of The Landfill Tax On Fly-Tipping (April 1997-March 1998)", confirmed that the type of waste most frequently fly-tipped is household waste. However, local authorities have a legal duty to collect household waste and householders are not directly affected by the landfill tax.

  The Fly-Tipping Forum, under the chairmanship of the Environment Agency, has commissioned research to assess the problem of fly-tipping on farm land. However, the survey which is an essential part of the project was suspended on the outbreak of the foot-and-mouth epidemic. The Forum will consider in the autumn whether it is then practicable to carry out the survey.

  The action being taken by the Government on fly-tipping, and other forms of unlawful waste disposal, was set out most recently in the Government's response to the

  193W
  Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's Report on the Environment Agency (Cm 4832—paragraphs 55–60).

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she is expected to make a statement on the Government's policy towards air pollution. [1674]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: The Government's policy towards air pollution is set out in the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, published in January 2000. The Strategy sets health-based standards for the eight air pollutants of most concern, as well as the Government's and devolved Administrations' air quality policy objectives for the short to medium term. We will also be consulting shortly on a number of new or revised objectives for certain pollutants. In doing so, we will take full account of the emerging evidence on the health effects of long-term exposure to air pollution.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which areas within the Yeovil constituency have air pollution above the Government's targeted limits; and if she will make a statement. [1499]

  Mr. Meacher
  Local authorities across the country have been carrying out detailed studies of their local air quality over the past three years. Within the Yeovil constituency, the relevant authority (South Somerset district council) is undertaking a major study of air quality in Yeovil town centre, having identified some potential air pollution problems there. No other areas within the Yeovil constituency have so far been identified as having levels of air pollution which might exceed the nationally prescribed objectives.

  Within Yeovil town centre, South Somerset district council has identified a potential exceedence of the nationally prescribed objective for nitrogen dioxide in the vicinity of the A30/A37 hospital roundabout. A new monitoring station has therefore been installed in the grounds of the Yeovil district hospital, to measure levels of nitrogen dioxide and particles in the area of concern. I understand that South Somerset district council is due very shortly to publish an interim report giving the first detailed monitoring results from this station.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much illegal meat was imported into the UK and confiscated from ports and airports in the last 12 months; and if she will list the species of animal concerned. [1999]

  Mr. Morley
  A number of enforcement authorities are involved in the seizure of illegal imports of meat into the UK and no central records are kept of meat confiscated from ports and airports. As part of the new action across Government on illegal imports of animal products, we are developing mechanisms to centralise such records in future. Consolidated historical figures are not available but the information we have gathered to date indicates that in excess of 1,750 kg of illegal meat was confiscated from individuals during the financial year 2000–01 194W
  and that over 450 kg was seized from commercial consignments at Heathrow airport alone in the 12-month period from May 2000.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the Government are taking to control the trade in smuggled meat, with particular reference to smuggling from countries with foot and mouth. [1998]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is co-ordinating action across Government to ensure that rules governing both commercial and personal imports are enforced effectively at ports and airports. We have introduced improved publicity to ensure travellers are aware of the restrictions on what may be imported. Posters have been placed at main airports and information is being provided by the travel industry and FCO posts abroad. New arrangements have been introduced to improve sharing of information within Government on known or suspected illegal imports to enable enforcement authorities to better target their activities. In addition, the European Commission have agreed to give urgent attention to ensuring that the law on personal imports is clear and robust so that consistent and effective controls can be maintained across all the Community's borders.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many civil servants were employed by(a) the Department of the Environment and (b) the Ministry of Agriculture in April 1997. [1802]

  Mr. Morley
  In April 1997 the Department of Environment (Central) employed 3,180 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) civil servants; this does not include staff within its Agencies. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food employed 10,314 FTE civil servants, which includes staff in its Agencies.

  Radioactive Waste
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she plans to publish the White Paper on radioactive waste. [1771]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) on 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 47W.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pensioners (Benefit Take-up)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the number of pensioners who are entitled to, but fail to claim, each benefit or allowance; what is the total annual amount which consequently remains unclaimed; and if he will make a statement. [1379]
  195W
  Mr. McCartney
  Available information on take-up of benefit can be found in "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up 1998–99", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Pension Service
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on progress to establish the new Pension Service. [2392]

  Mr. Darling
  The new Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will bring together the Government's drive to help people get into work well as to provide a better service for pensions and pensioners.

  The new Department will have two core operations to enable it to do this: Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service.

  The Pension Service will offer a local service working in partnership with local authorities and voluntary organisations. To support the local service network, we will bring together the backroom processing in about 20 locations rather than over 400 at present, allowing frontline staff to concentrate on dealing with customers. For example, they will undertake outreach activity such as home visiting, private interviews in locations that suit pensioners and drop-in services.

  As we already process much of our pensions work for the whole of the UK in Newcastle, centralising processing work is a logical next step to support the national frontline network. Staff are being consulted and kept informed as plans develop.

  The proposed phase 1 locations are to be sited in Bath, Birmingham, Blackpool, Burnley, Cwmbran, Dundee, Glasgow, Leicester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Norwich, Nottingham, Plymouth, Stockton, Swansea, Walsall, Warrington, Wolverhampton, and Wrexham. Phase 2 locations will be announced in due course.

  State Pension
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the total net cost, taking into account all offsetting benefit adjustments, of increasing the single person's basic state pension to(a) £90 per week, (b) £100 per week and (c) £110 per week, assuming the matching adjustments to pensions for couples; and if he will make a statement. [1378]

  Anti-social behaviour orders applied for and made between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2001 by police force area within England and Wales

  Number made from

  Police force area

  Number of applications to 31 March 20011,2

  1 April 1999 to 31 Mar 20001

  1 June 2000 to 31 March 20012

  Total

  Avon and Somerset

  13

  9

  4

  13

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  5

  —

  5

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  5

  1

  3

  4

  Cumbria

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Derbyshire

  11

  3

  8

  11

  Devon and Cornwall

  3

  1

  2

  3

  Dorset

  2

  —

  2

  2

  Durham

  6

  —

  6

  6

  196W
  Mr. McCartney
  We are providing significant extra help for all pensioners, including a £200 winter fuel payment and a minimum income guarantee of more than £92 a week for single pensioners. We have increased the basic state pension by £5 a week for single people and £8 a week for couples. In total, we are spending £4.4 billion more on pensioners in 2001–02 alone as a result of the changes that we have introduced.

  The table gives the cost of the options set out in the question in 2001–02 after income related benefit savings including linked benefits.

  Basic state pension

  Net cost (£ billion)

  £90 per week

  6.7

  £100 per week

  10.7

  £110 per week

  14.8

  Notes:

  1. Costs are rounded to the nearest £0.1 billion.

  2. Costs are given in current price terms.

  3. Net costs were estimated using the Policy Simulation Model.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to extend entitlement to the winter heating allowance to people below retirement age who are unable to work because of disability; and if he will make a statement. [1370]

  Mr. McCartney
  Winter Fuel Payments are made to people aged 60 or over, so disabled people who fall into this age group are already eligible for the payments. There are no plans to extend the scheme to disabled people below age 60.

  Disabled people have available disability benefits in recognition of their extra costs. The care and mobility components in Disability Living Allowance are used as broad indicators of all the extra costs of a disabled person. These could include heating, laundry or special diets.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been(a) applied for and (b) made in each police force area in England and Wales to date. [1254]

  Mr. Denham
  The available information is given in the table.
  197W

  Anti-social behaviour orders applied for and made between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2001 by police force area within England and Wales

  Number made from

  Police force area

  Number of applications to 31 March 20011,2

  1 April 1999 to 31 Mar 20001

  1 June 2000 to 31 March 20012

  Total

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Greater Manchester

  13

  10

  3

  13

  Hampshire

  2

  1

  —

  1

  Hertfordshire

  5

  1

  4

  5

  Humberside

  10

  10

  —

  10

  Kent

  10

  —

  10

  10

  Lancashire

  12

  5

  7

  12

  Leicestershire

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  12

  8

  —

  8

  Metropolitan Police Service3

  23

  9

  12

  21

  Norfolk

  10

  6

  4

  10

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  12

  8

  4

  12

  North Yorkshire

  4

  4

  —

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  5

  1

  4

  5

  South Yorkshire

  4

  3

  1

  4

  Staffordshire

  2

  —

  2

  2

  Suffolk

  3

  3

  —

  3

  Surrey

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Sussex

  4

  3

  1

  4

  Thames Valley

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Warwickshire

  1

  —

  1

  1

  West Mercia

  12

  5

  7

  12

  West Midlands

  18

  11

  7

  18

  West Yorkshire

  9

  4

  5

  9

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England

  221

  104

  109

  213

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  1

  —

  1

  1

  South Wales

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Wales

  2

  —

  2

  2

  England and Wales

  223

  104

  111

  215

  1 Based on data collected from ACPO and GLA trawls covering period 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000

  2 Data collected centrally from magistrate courts committees as from 1 June 2000 onwards

  3 Includes City of London

  Anti-social behaviour orders applied for by police force area within England and Wales

  Police force area

  Up to May 2000

  June 2000

  Q3 2000

  Q4 2000

  Q1 2001

  Total

  June 2000 to Q1 2001

  Avon and Somerset

  9

  —

  2

  —

  2

  13

  4

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  0

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  4

  3

  Cumbria

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  0

  Derbyshire

  3

  1

  —

  6

  1

  11

  8

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  2

  Dorset

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Durham

  —

  1

  1

  2

  2

  6

  6

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Greater Manchester

  10

  1

  1

  —

  1

  13

  3

  Hampshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  0

  Hertfordshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  5

  4

  Humberside

  —

  2

  —

  7

  1

  10

  10

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  2

  8

  10

  10

  Lancashire

  5

  —

  2

  3

  2

  12

  7

  Leicestershire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  0

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  0

  198W 199W

  Anti-social behaviour orders applied for by police force area within England and Wales

  Police force area

  Up to May 2000

  June 2000

  Q3 2000

  Q4 2000

  Q1 2001

  Total

  June 2000 to Q1 2001

  Metropolitan Police

  9

  —

  9

  1

  2

  21

  12

  Norfolk

  6

  —

  —

  —

  4

  10

  4

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Northumbria

  8

  —

  —

  4

  —

  12

  4

  North Yorkshire

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  —

  4

  —

  —

  5

  4

  South Yorkshire

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  1

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2

  Suffolk

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  0

  Surrey

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Sussex

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  1

  Thames Valley

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  0

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  West Mercia

  5

  —

  5

  1

  1

  12

  7

  West Midlands

  11

  3

  1

  2

  1

  18

  7

  West Yorkshire

  4

  1

  —

  —

  4

  9

  5

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  England

  104

  9

  32

  31

  37

  213

  109

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  England and Wales

  104

  9

  33

  31

  37

  214

  110

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the Government's plans to establish anti-social behaviour units in each local authority; and what the cost to public funds will be. [1245]

  Mr. Denham
  The report of policy action team 8, published in March 2000, recommended that a named person in each local authority district should co-ordinate action on anti-social behaviour and also encouraged the setting up of specialist teams to focus on anti-social behaviour. This second point has teen reiterated in our manifesto. We think it important that each local authority district should have an effective means of tackling anti-social behaviour. The precise level of resources will vary from area to area depending on local need.

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the Government's plans to increase the powers of and the resources available to HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary. [1244]

  Mr. Denham
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has a broad remit to inspect and report to the Secretary of State on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces in England and Wales, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Under the Local Government Act 1999 these powers were extended to cover the inspection of best value in police authorities. The Police Act 1996 provided that the Secretary of State may direct the inspectors of constabulary to carry out other duties for the purpose of furthering police efficiency and effectiveness. Under this provision, from April 2001, the inspectorate has additionally been tasked with 200W
  inspecting, over a five-year period, every police basic command unit (BCU) in England and Wales. There are no plans at present to further increase the powers of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary.

  Budgetary allocation for the inspectorate in 2001–02 is just over £7.7 million. This includes £1 million for the additional costs associated with the BCU inspections.

  Group Family Five Areas
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources have been allocated to each Group Family Five area; and what the level of crime is in each such area, broken down by standard category, since 1997. [1136]

  Mr. Denham
  Resource allocation for basic command units within police forces is a matter for each chief constable. The information is not held centrally.

  Recorded crime statistics at basic command unit level are available from April 1999 onwards. They are contained in the Home Office Statistical Bulletins "Recorded Crime Statistics" published on 18 January 2000, 18 July 2000 and 16 January 2001, copies of which are available in the Library.

  James Ashley
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for a public inquiry into the fatal shooting of James Ashley by police on 15 January 1998; and if he will make a statement. [263]

  Mr. Denham
  In the debate on the Address on 27 June, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said he hoped that with the continuing work of the Police Complaints
  201W
  Authority and the considerable help of the Police Authority itself, we will be able to make sense of the matter without a further public inquiry.

  It will be important to ensure that all necessary lessons are learnt from this tragic incident so that the possibility of similar events taking place in Sussex or other forces are minimised.

  I will want to listen to the concerns of the Ashley family, and I will be meeting them on 4 July.

  Postal Robberies
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many robberies of(a) post offices and (b) Royal Mail vehicles there were in each police division in the year 2000; and if he will estimate the total sum stolen. [976]

  Mr. Denham
  The requested information is not collected centrally. Data for recorded robberies involving the use of firearms indicate that there were 315 such robberies in post offices in the year ending March 2000. No details of the sums stolen are available.

  Police Numbers (North Yorkshire)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in North Yorkshire on(a) 1 May 1997, (b) 1 May 1998, (c) 1 May 1999, (d) 1 May 2000, (e) 1 May 2001, (f) projected figures for 1 May 2002 and (g) 1 May 2003. [35]

  Mr. Denham
  Police numbers are normally reported half-yearly, for 30 September and 31 March. Figures for North Yorkshire from 31 March 1997 to 31 March 2001, the most recent figures available, are given in the table.

  Number

  31 March 1997

  1,338

  31 March 1998

  1,367

  31 March 1999

  1,337

  31 March 2000

  1,283

  31 March 2001

  1,305

  North Yorkshire police estimate that officer numbers will reach 1,420 by March 2002. The force has no projections for the following year.

  Huntingdon Life Sciences
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the procedures for protecting the staff of Huntingdon Life Sciences. [2020]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: It would not be in the interests of those concerned to offer such an assessment.

  Police Pensions
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to reform the criteria for awards of medical pensions in the police. [2224]
  202W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]:I will be considering a number of issues in relation to medical pensions within the police pension scheme in the coming months.

  HMP Garth
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact in the reduction in the number of prison officers at HMP Garth on the rehabilitation programme for sex offenders. [2023]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: Her Majesty's Prison Garth does not hold sex offenders for long periods of time and therefore there is no rehabilitation programme for sex offenders at Garth prison. The sex offender treatment programme (SOTP) does operate at Wymott prison, which is adjacent to Garth. The proposed reduction in the number of prison officers at Wymott will not have any impact on completion of SOTP courses.

  Certificate of Identity
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which European Union member states refuse to accept the certificate of identity as a valid travel document; [1102]

  (2) how many certificates of identity were issued between 1 May 1997 and 7 June 2001 to grantees of exceptional leave to remain. [1101]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Office certificate of identity (CID) is a travel document issued to foreign nationals who are resident in the United Kingdom and cannot obtain a passport from their national authorities. The majority of people issued with CIDs have applied unsuccessfully for asylum, but subsequently been granted exceptional leave to remain for a limited period. Between 1 May 1997 and 7 June 2001, the Home Office issued 58,454 CIDs. Separate records are not kept of the number of CIDs issued to persons with current exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom as opposed to those with indefinite leave to remain.

  The certificate of identity is issued on a discretionary basis, not under an international convention. European Union member states are not obliged to recognise the document. Those member states which do not do so, and generally do not issue travel visas to CID holders, include France, Germany, Greece and Spain.

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to announce his conclusions following public consultation on possible changes to the law on sexual offences. [2217]
  203W
  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on 27 June 2001, Official Report, column 99W.

  Police Reform
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to reform police practices, specifying which reforms will and will not require primary legislation.[1501]

  Mr. Denham
  The police reform programme will deliver a modern police service providing the highest standards of detective capability, public reassurance, scientific and technical support, leadership, and modern working practices to secure reductions in crime and in the fear of crime. Discussions are continuing with representative police organizations to determine the best ways of delivering these goals and identify where legislation is required.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the severity of sentencing for individuals found in possession of larger quantities of illegal drugs; and if he will make a statement. [1455]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Within the broad statutory limits set by Parliament, sentences in individual cases are a matter for the courts alone, taking into account all the circumstances of the offences and the offender, including all mitigating and aggravating factors. The current maximum penalties for possession of controlled drugs are seven years, five years and two years respectively for class A, B and C. The Government believe these maximum penalties are appropriate and have no plans to increase them.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to establish an independent inquiry into the classification of illegal drugs; and if he will make a statement. [1375]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I have no such plans. There is already a statutory, independent body to advise the Government on the classification of illegal drugs—the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD).

  Avon and Somerset Police
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the ratio was bet vixen the number of police officers and notifiable offences in Avon and Somerset for each year from 1980 to 2001; and if he will make a statement. [1374]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is given in the table. Recorded crime figures for the year ending 31 March 2001 are not currently available.
  204W

  Avon and Somerset

  Year

  Recorded crimes per police officer

  1980

  20

  1981

  21

  1982

  23

  1983

  23

  1984

  25

  1985

  27

  1986

  31

  1987

  33

  1988

  33

  1989

  33

  1990

  42

  1991

  50

  1992

  57

  1993

  58

  1994

  56

  1995

  51

  1996

  53

  1997

  48

  1997–981

  49

  1998–991,2

  50

  1999–20001,2

  50

  1 Recorded crime data expressed on a financial year basis.

  2 Revised rules for recording crime were introduced on 1 April 1998.

  The ratios before and after this date are therefore not directly comparable.

  Metropolitan Police
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the numerical strength of police officers in the London Metropolitan police area in(a) April 2000 and (b) April 2001; and how many officers (i) have been recruited to the Metropolitan police and (ii) have left the service since 1 April 2001. [1778]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: The Metropolitan police had 25,485 police officers on 31 March 2000 and 24,878 officers on 31 March 2001. Most of the decrease of 607 officers can be attributed to the reduction in the size of the Metropolitan police district following the boundary changes with Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey on 1 April 2000.

  I am told by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that 412 officers were recruited in April and May of this year. 264 left in the same period.

  Young Offenders
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted juveniles aged 15 and 16 years have been given(a) a custodial sentence and (b) a non-custodial sentence in each of the past 10 years; and what has been the reconviction rate in each category. [1682]

  Beverley Hughes
  Data on custodial and non-custodial sentences imposed on 15 and 16-year-olds for standard list offences between 1990 and 1999 are shown in table 1. Reconviction rates for male offenders aged 16 and under at time of sentence and subsequently reconvicted for a standard list offence within two years of discharge from a custodial sentence between 1987 and 1997 are shown in table 2.

  Reconviction rates for non-custodial sentences for 15 and 16-year-olds have not routinely been collected. However from a sample of 15 and 16-year-old offenders sentenced during the first half of 1997, 76 per cent. of

  205W
  those given a community penalty and 63 per cent. of those given a fine, discharge or other type of sentence were reconvicted within two years of sentence. Reconviction rates monitoring performance under public service agreement target 10 will be published as a national statistic in due course.

  Table 1: number of persons aged 15 and 16 sentenced at all courts for standard list offences, England and Wales 1990–99

  Non-custodial sentence

  Total sentenced

  Immediate custodial sentence

  Community penalty

  Other non-custodial sentence

  1990

  24,039

  1,683

  9,257

  13,099

  1991

  21,825

  1,739

  8,927

  11,159

  1992

  19,372

  1,591

  7,921

  9,860

  1993

  18,360

  1,880

  7,691

  8,789

  1994

  22,820

  2,299

  9,630

  10,891

  1995

  25,457

  2,634

  10,736

  12,087

  1996

  27,224

  3,056

  11,673

  12,495

  1997

  27,956

  3,235

  12,161

  12,560

  1998

  29,983

  3,273

  13,262

  13,448

  1999

  31,393

  3,406

  13,624

  14,363

  Table 2: percentage of young males, aged 16 or under at age of sentence, who were reconvicted for a standard list offence within two years of discharge from custody, England and Wales 1987–97

  Percentage reconvicted

  1987

  83

  1988

  83

  1989

  86

  1990

  89

  1991

  88

  1992

  89

  1993

  89

  1994

  88

  1995

  88

  1996

  85

  1997

  84

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases in each police authority have been investigated relating to the deliberate infecting of farms with foot and mouth disease since 21 February. [1593]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Asylum Support
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the findings of his Department's review of the asylum voucher system. [1321]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 25 June 2001,Official Report, column 50W.

  Rural Crime (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to reduce crime in rural areas, with particular reference to Leicestershire. [1425]
  206W
  Mr. Denham
  Tackling crime and the fear of crime is a clear priority for this Government. It applies to all areas, whether suburban, rural or inner-city, and our approach is to assist the police and the local crime and disorder partnerships to address local crime effectively.

  We are providing increased funding for police forces covering rural areas to take account of the additional costs involved: £30 million is being allocated to 31 forces this year. The allocation for Leicestershire police is £433,516. In addition, the rural crime toolkit, on the Home Office's crime reduction website, provides a new resource to help local partnerships to address crime in rural areas.

  The nine crime and disorder partnerships in Leicestershire are supporting a varied programme of crime reduction initiatives and projects as part of the Government's crime reduction programme. Each of the partnerships is bring provided with £10,000 from the crime reduction programme this year to help them to improve their performance in tackling crime in their areas. In addition, the partnerships in Leicestershire have received money to support closed circuit television initiatives, and they have been allocated £565,000 this year to tackle drug related crime. In November last year, Leicestershire received £341,000 for a project to tackle burglary in Leicester as part of the reducing burglary initiative, and £168,000 was awarded to eight forces, including Leicestershire, to tackle distraction burglary in central and eastern England as part of the targeted policing initiative.

  Asylum Seekers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the method for recording failed asylum seekers as leaving the country was changed to include dependants in the total figures; when the change in recording measures was published; and if he will make a statement. [1600]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Statistics concerning asylum applications have been published since 1992. Separate figures are given both for principal applicants only, and for principal applicants and dependants; and cover the period from 1984 to the present. The information is published in the annual Home Office statistical bulletins entitled "Asylum Statistics", copies of which are available in the Library and on the Department's website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Statistics concerning asylum removals published before March 2001 have given figures for principal applicants only. From April 2001, the figures show the total number of failed asylum seekers removed, including dependants. This is to reflect the change in the removals target for failed asylum seekers for 2001–02 which is expressed in terms of the total figure for the first time. The change is intended to give a more informed picture of the number of people being removed from the United Kingdom as a result of failed asylum applications and to give a fairer reflection of the activity involved in enforcing their departure. The details were published in December 2000. The removals taro is equivalent to some 24,000 principal applicants and 6,000 dependants, although the number of dependants removed will vary according to the balance between individuals and families as well as family size, and is difficult to predict. The 30,000 target has always been extremely ambitious and high risk; no

  207W
  European country has achieved levels of this kind. We are investing substantial additional resources, and the programme to increase the numbers is continuing. I will be monitoring the position closely.

  Despite these difficulties, the Government are committed to increasing the number of failed asylum seekers who are removed from the United Kingdom. The Labour manifesto said that in excess of 30,000 people who had not justified their claim would be removed in 2003–04, which is about 2,500 people a month. We have decided that that monthly target must be met by early next year, which enables us to have a commitment to reach and exceed 30,000 removals by 2003.

  Corporate Killing
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the findings of his consultation exercise on the reform of the laws governing corporate killing. [1804]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  As I set out in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on 26 June 2001,Official Report, column 82W, we will publish the findings of our consultation exercise on reforming the law on involuntary manslaughter as soon as we have completed consideration of the responses received. We are determined to bring forward clear and workable legislation that will hold undertakings to account for serious wrongdoing. The consultation exercise has allowed us to meet with interested parties and consider this difficult area in detail.

  The Government remain committed to the introduction of an offence of corporate killing. We will honour our manifesto commitment to reform the law to make provisions against corporate manslaughter.

  Police Career Management
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to adopt mid-career exit points for police, in line with the armed services. [2127]

  Mr. Denham
  "Criminal Justice The Way Ahead", presented to Parliament in February by my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary, ref erred to the need for more flexible career management in the police service. We are currently discussing with the police service how to tackle this and other issues.

  Marsham Street
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of maintaining the former Department of the Environment buildings at Marsham street has been in each year since 1997; and what the anticipated cost is in the forthcoming year. [1287]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The management and maintenance of the former Department of the Environment buildings at 2 Marsham street became the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 1 April 1999. The intention is to provide new accommodation on this site as part of the Home Office central London 208W
  accommodation strategy. Since 1 April 1999, the cost of maintenance for each year excluding value added tax has been:
  £479,000 for 1999–2000
  £388,000 for 2000–01 and the provisional budget for part 2001–02 is £290,000.

  The existing buildings at 2 Marsham street are not empty, as there is a permanent team on site carrying out minimum health and safety maintenance. The Home Office has allowed a number of fee-paying temporary uses of these buildings and car park areas. One such use has been a temporary winter shelter under the rough sleepers initiative.

  Sentencing Reform
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on proposals for sentencing reform. [2592]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I will be publishing the report of a review of the sentencing framework at 9:30 a.m. on 5 July, copies of which will be available in the Vote Office and placed in the Library. The review was announced in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), 16 May 2000,Official Report, column 71W. The review, which was led by John Halliday—a senior official in the Home Office who has now retired—was established to consider what principles should guide sentencing decisions and what types of disposal should be made available to the courts so as more effectively to reduce reoffending.

  The report, which is a very thorough and thought-provoking document, was presented to Ministers on 1 May.

  The report contains a number of interesting proposals and recommendations, which the Government will consider very carefully. The review was conducted in an open and inclusive way and, in line with what I said in the House on 27 June 2001, Official Report, column 663, I want to build upon that process by inviting views on the report's recommendations before reaching final conclusions ourselves. I will be asking for initial comments by 31 October 2001 and, in the meantime, the Government will be examining the proposals in more detail. I will make a further statement to Parliament when the Government have considered the responses received during the consultation period.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Insurance Scheme
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to extend the insurance scheme agreed by the House on 23 May 2000. [2465]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  On 23 May 2000, the House resolved that an insurance scheme should be established to cover claims against Members in respect of defamation claims. It has since become apparent that similar insurance is needed in respect of claims of negligence, the risk of which applies to all Members, and the motion on allowances arising from the SSRB report on parliamentary
  209W
  pay and allowances, which I tabled on Monday, would, if agreed by the House in the debate tomorrow, Thursday 5 July, enable this.

  The House will wish to be aware that a specific case has already arisen, and I have tabled a motion to enable the House to reimburse my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in respect of reasonable legal expenditure including damages arising in consequence of an action against him alleging vicarious liability for an act of negligence committed in the course of his duties as a Member of this House.

  The claim arises from legal proceedings against my right hon. Friend for Blackburn (as the second defendant) and the Blackburn with Darwen borough council (as the first defendant) by a constituent alleging, in respect of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, vicarious liability on his part for an act of negligence by a member of his staff (who for unrelated reasons subsequently left his employment) committed in the course of his duties as a Member of this House.

  The constituent claims damages exceeding £50,000 for, among other matters, losses on the value of his property and for personal injury, distress and inconvenience (as well as his legal costs), which he claims are attributable to the release from the constituency office of my right hon. Friend of information which he had provided to it.

  The motion I tabled last night would, if agreed by the House following the debate on Thursday 5 July, provide for my right hon. Friend to be reimbursed his reasonable legal expenditure, including damages, already incurred and to be incurred in this instance.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which constituencies have received(a) less than 10 per cent. and (b) less than 15 per cent. of the national average for constituencies of grants to good causes from the national lottery. [1838]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department's national lottery awards database allocates awards to constituencies based on the postcodes for the project or applicant supplied by the national lottery distributing bodies. According to the figures on this database, the following constituencies have received less than 10 per cent. of the average (mean) value of awards by constituency:

  Denton and Reddish

  Hayes and Harlington

  Billericay

  Southend, West

  Hornchurch

  Morley and Rothwell

  Birmingham, Hall Green

  Doncaster, North

  Bexleyheath and Crayford

  Birmingham, Northfield

  Birmingham, Erdington

  210W

  Normanton

  Corydon, South

  Romford

  Castle Point.

  In addition, the following constituencies have received less than 15 per cent. (but more than 10 per cent.) of the mean:

  Chingford and Woodford Green

  Broxtowe

  Birmingham, Hodge Hill

  Cannock Chase

  Wentworth

  Walsall, North

  Wirral, West

  Ruislip-Northwood

  Hamilton, South

  Makerfield

  Reigate

  Airdrie and Shotts

  Reading, West

  Worthing, West

  Newport, East

  Gedling

  Haltemprice and Howden

  Crawley

  Redditch

  Tamworth

  Brent, North

  Meriden

  Blackpool, North and Fleetwood

  South-West Bedfordshire

  Cheadle.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what arrangements are made to monitor the distribution of national Lottery funds. [1830]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's directions to he national lottery distributing bodies (issued under section 26(3) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993) require them to institute systems of project monitoring. They ate also required to publish details of their monitoring activities in their annual reports (copies of which are placed in the Library of the House). My Department collects details of all national lottery grant awards and places them on the national lottery awards database, which is available via the Department's website www.culture.gov.uk

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the disparities between constituencies of grants to good causes from the national lottery. [1831]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are keen to see all areas receive a fair share c f funding. Reforms introduced under the National Lottery Act 1998, the revised policy directions issued to lottery distributors in the same year, and targeted programmes introduced by distributors, such as the Community Fund' s Priority Areas Initiative, were designed to reduced these disparities and there has been some improvement. We recognise, however, that there is
  211W
  still more to be done and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 27 June the new £150 million initiative to target funds at some 50 areas which are both deprived and have received less lottery funding than other parts of the country.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guidelines arc set for the creation and distribution of the national lottery community first fund. [1832]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the community fund to target £100 million of its funds, and the new opportunities fund to target an additional £50 million to some 50 areas which are both deprived and have received less lottery funding than other parts of the country. The community fund and the new opportunities fund will use their knowledge and experience to develop the detailed arrangements for the scheme and will take the lead in determining the areas to be targeted. The scheme will be UK-wide and will begin in April 2002.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures have been put in place to promote applications to the national lottery community fund from the areas the fund is designed to assist. [1829]

  £000

  Arts

  Sport

  Heritage

  Charities

  Millennium projects

  Health, education and environment projects1

  1994–95

  58,523

  58,518

  58,522

  58,535

  59,649

  —

  1995–96

  302,277

  302,392

  301,679

  302,909

  303,167

  —

  1996–97

  312,294

  313,946

  313,816

  313,979

  318,078

  —

  1997–87

  358,413

  368,154

  370,694

  366,205

  402,696

  107,743

  1998–99

  284,923

  306,710

  315,022

  304,414

  397,145

  330,442

  1999–2000

  262,926

  273,172

  287,593

  275,487

  349,839

  302,559

  2000–01

  285,403

  298,411

  321,859

  295,433

  345,093

  243,245

  1 Includes £200 million for the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in relation to providing further assistance to UK tourism following the foot and mouth outbreak. [2150]

  Dr. Howells
  I am in close and regular contact with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on issues relating to the impact of foot and mouth disease on tourism, including the provision of assistance to affected businesses. For example, I attended the meeting of the Rural Task Force on 26 June where these issues were discussed.

  Spoliation
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Spoliation Committee regarding the return of looted cultural property. [67]
  212W
  Mr. Caborn
  Measures to promote applications from the areas to be targeted under this new £150 million initiative will be developed by the community fund and the new opportunities fund in time for the start of the programme in April 2002.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of the money raised from the national lottery has been used(a) in the NHS and (b) in schools; and if she will make a statement. [1634]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are committed to the principle that lottery money should add to and not substitute for existing Government expenditure. Lottery funding has been used to fund projects in the NHS and schools which are additional to their core functions. According to information received from the distributors, 1.7 per cent. of the money raised by the national lottery has been allocated to projects in the NHS and 3.0 per cent. has been allocated to projects in schools.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been raised each year from the national lottery, for each category of good cause, since the establishment of the national lottery; and if she will make a statement. [1633]

  Mr. Caborn
  The amounts raised for each good cause, including interest, in each financial year since the start of the lottery are shown in the following table.

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The Spoliation Advisory Panel, under the chairmanship of retired Lord Justice of Appeal, the right hon. Sir David Hirst, announced on 18 January 2001 its first report (HC 111) on a claim to "A View of Hampton Court Palace" by Jan Griffier the Elder in Tate Britain. The report made two recommendations, both of which related to the Griffier painting, and these have been accepted and implemented. No recommendations concerning legislation were made.

  Sports Grounds
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to improve the safety of sports grounds. [99]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: I intend to keep the operation of the legislative framework for sports ground safety under review, and the culture and recreation Bill will be re-introduced as soon as this is practicable. The Government expect that the Bill will re-constitute the Football Licensing Authority as the

  213W
  sports ground safety authority, which will be able to advise local authorities and others on safety issues at all sports grounds.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the areas of responsibility that have(a) been transferred from her Department to other departments and (b) been transferred to her Department from other departments since 8 June. [95]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: None of my Department's responsibilities have been transferred to other departments. My Department has, however, taken on responsibility for the following areas from the Home Office: gambling; horseracing; licensing; censorship and film classification; and, planning for the Golden Jubilee.

  Community Sports Clubs
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to introduce charitable status for community sports clubs. [138]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The Government have no current plans to introduce legislation to extend charitable status to community sports clubs. However, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget statement the Government's intention to consult on the best way for a tax relief to help community amateur sports clubs that make a positive contribution to the local community. My officials and their Treasury and Inland Revenue colleagues are in discussions with sporting organisations including Sport England, the Central Council for Physical Recreation and the National Playing Fields Association on the detail of this relief. A consultation paper will be published later this year.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Debt Relief
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her assessment is of the impact of measures taken to alleviate indebtedness in the poorest countries. [687]

  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made by her Department in reducing third-world debt. [696]

  Clare Short
  Twenty three countries have now qualified for exceptional relief under the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative. Over $53 billion of debt relief has been agreed for these countries, which will reduce their debts by almost two-thirds on average. The money released is directly linked to poverty reduction. The impact of this debt reduction means that, after debt relief, social expenditures in these HIPC countries are projected to rise by an average of some US$1.7 billion per year during 2001–02. We hope more countries will qualify for relief this year, but many of the remaining countries are affected by conflict or have yet to demonstrate their commitment to reform.

  Aid Target
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the proportion of GNP given in official aid was over the course of each of the last two Parliaments. [688]

  Clare Short
  Under the last Conservative Administration the oda/GNP ratio fell from 0.30 per cent. in 1992 to 0.27 per cent. in 1996. In the last Parliament the ratio rose to 0.31 in 2000. We have made a commitment to reach a level of 0.33 per cent. oda/GNP by 2003–04 a level not seen in the UK since the mid 1980s.

  Street Children
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects she is supporting relating to street children. [689]

  Clare Short
  Children live on the streets because of poverty. By tackling the underlying causes of poverty and social injustice, we help to realise of the rights of all children, including street children, to health, education and protection from violence.

  In addition we support a number of projects that work directly with street children. We are currently supporting projects in Brazil, Kenya, South Africa, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Botswana, Malawi, Namibia, Burma, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

  St. Helena
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she expects to make an announcement on the feasibility study for an airfield on the island of St. Helena. [690]

  Clare Short
  The final report of the comparative study of air and sea access, which will identify the least cost solution to the island's future international passenger and cargo transport needs, has just been finalised. Its recommendations will be discussed with the St. Helena Government next week. We have agreed to provide funding equal to the least capital cost option—that is either the cost of replacing the RMS St. Helena or the estimated cost of an airport and related infrastructure.

  Copies of the report are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what actions she proposes to promote good governance in Zimbabwe. [691]

  Clare Short
  We are working through direct contact with the Commonwealth and the European Union to promote a return to good governance and the holding of a free and fair presidential election next year. We have made it clear that increased UK development support depends on a return to the rule of law and the adoption of credible economic policies. We are also working with Zimbabwean civil society organisations that are advocating good governance.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on British aid to Zimbabwe. [694]
  215W
  Clare Short
  Our efforts are focused on mitigating the effects of the current crisis on the poorest, whose plight continues to worsen. We are also continuing with our work to combat HIV/AIDS. We are working with non-governmental organisations to try to ensure we can protect the poorest—particularly children—from likely food shortages later in the year.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received about funding of projects in Zimbabwe. [698]

  Clare Short
  My Department receives a large number of requests for funding in Zimbabwe as in other countries in which we work. Most recently, we have received a number of approaches from international nongovernmental organisations. They are seeking our support to protect the poor—particularly children—from likely food shortages later in the year. We are working with them to develop and implement their proposals.

  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with other European states regarding the future of aid to Zimbabwe. [705]

  Clare Short
  We have on-going contracts at various levels with other European Governments to discuss development assistance in Zimbabwe. In addition, there is joint political dialogue between the EU and the Government of Zimbabwe under article 8 of the Cotonou agreement. We support the EU in seeking results on key governance issues; and agree that appropriate measures will be needed if the dialogue does not yield rapid results over the next two months.

  Gujarat
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with the Indian Government about further assistance in the aftermath of the earthquake in Gujarat. [692]

  Clare Short
  My Department is in active discussions with the Indian Government regarding the possibility of our providing assistance to help strengthen disaster management arrangements in the country, in the wake of the Gujarat earthquake and other major disasters. To this end, an expert DFID team has recently visited India to assess the current situation and will be putting forward recommendations shortly.

  Our priority has been to ensure that those who survived the earthquake were cared for until normal services were restored. In my statement to the House on Monday 29 January, I announced an overall allocation of up to £10 million to support the emergency relief efforts in Gujarat without reducing spending in other parts of India. To date nearly £9 million of the total allocation has been disbursed. We are considering allocating the balance to help strengthen natural disaster management capacity.

  Good Governance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to encourage improved governance in developing countries in receipt of British aid. [693]
  216W
  Clare Short
  Our strategy on good governance is outlined in the consultation document "Making Government Work for Poor People", which was placed in the Libraries of both Houses in June 2000. We have made commitments of £650 million for the period 1997–98 to 2000–01 to programmes where governance was a principal element. A further £1.3 billion was committed over the same period on programmes where governance was a significant element.

  Trade Negotiations
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she has given to developing countries to enable them to represent their interests at international negotiations about trade. [695]

  Clare Short
  Currently the WTO is hosting negotiations on trade in services and in agricultural products. For agriculture, we are funding a consultant at the South Centre to assist developing countries develop negotiating proposals. We are in the process of establishing a scheme with UNCTAD to provide assistance for developing countries for the services negotiations. We aim to add to the work that the WTO Secretariat and the EU' s new ACP office do for countries with low representation at the WTO by strengthening the work that organisations like the Commonwealth Secretariat and AITIC undertake. An important element of beneficial representation at the WTO is good trade policy capacity in capitals. We are running many programmes in developing countries to build such capacity.

  Ilisu Dam
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's involvement in decisions on granting export credit for the proposed Ilisu hydro-electric dam in Turkey. [697]

  Clare Short
  DFID was first consulted about this project as a part of ECGD's wider Whitehall consultation in January 1999. At the beginning of that year, DFID commented on ECGD's terms of reference for an independent review of environmental and resettlement impact reports produced by the project sponsors. Turkey is not a priority country for DFID and since mid-July 1999 DFID has had no further advisory input into any decisions on the project.

  HIV/AIDS (Sub-Saharan Africa)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her policy on combating HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. [699]

  Clare Short
  HIV/AIDS is the single most important development challenge in sub-Saharan Africa. The epidemic is undermining economic growth and fundamentally threatens social and economic development in many countries in the region. We know what needs to be done to tackle the disease, and I strongly believe that commitments by the international community must now be transformed into a worldwide effort to contain the spread of the disease.
  217W
  DFID continues to give greatest priority to prevention, but we also place great emphasis on reducing the personal, social and economic impact of illness and death caused by the disease.

  As national strategic plans to tackle the epidemic improve, we have begun to place our support within the framework of those plans. For example, we have recently approved significant HIV/AIDS related programmes in support of the national response in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe totalling over £60 million, and a £20 million programme is being designed to support Mozambique. A new programme for South Africa is also planned for this year. We have also committed £25 million to support the International Partnership Against AIDS in Africa, and £7.5 million to a regional initiative on HIV/AIDS with the Southern Africa Development Community.

  In addition, the Government are exploring the potential of a number of options for increasing the long-term affordability and availability of treatment for HIV/AIDS and related infections which will benefit sub-Saharan Africa, while maintaining a focus on the development of long-term sustainable health systems which is needed to deliver them.

  Nepal
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much bilateral aid was granted to Nepal in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [700]

  Clare Short
  The total bilateral aid given by HMG to Nepal in each of the last five years is as follows:

  £000

  1996–97

  15,562

  1997–98

  17,280

  1998–99

  16,627

  1999–2000

  15,989

  2000–01

  117,165

  1 Provisional

  Palestinian Authority
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about UK aid to the Palestinian Authority. [701]

  Clare Short
  Britain is providing assistance to the Palestinian Authority to help reduce poverty and support democratic and accountable government in the West Bank and Gaza.

  Palestinians are suffering badly from the effects of the current conflict and the economic sanctions imposed by Israel.

  Tibet
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last had discussions with the Chinese Government regarding human rights abuses in Tibet. [703]

  Clare Short
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office leads for British Government on the dialogue on human rights in China and raises this regularly with the Chinese Government. In addition to those held at the multilateral 218W
  and European levels, discussions on human rights are taken forward at the UK-China human rights dialogue, last held in February 2001.

  During my last visit to China in October 2000, I discussed a number of issues with the Chinese Government, including human rights. My Department's main concern is to help those people in all parts of China who live in abject poverty. Since 1978, China has experienced a remarkable reduction in poverty, and continues to achieve impressive social indicators, for example low child mortality and high rates of enrolment in primary education. There has been a significant improvement in respect for the economic and social rights of the poor in China We will continue to press the case for more progress on civil and political rights.

  Civil Society Programmes (South-eastern Europe)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to develop civil society programmes that will contribute to stability in south-eastern Europe. [704]

  Clare Short
  Strengthening of the role of civil society is one of the main objectives of our programmes in south-eastern Europe.

  In Serbia we are designing a major project to assist co-operation between civil society and government in service delivery. In Croatia we have agreed a programme of support to the Government Office for NGOs, support to civil society co- operation with government and to evaluation of government grants to NGOs. In Albania and Bosnia Herzegovina ye are supporting major social policy projects, which inch de the involvement of civil society in design and delivery of programmes. In Albania we have also assisted with the government's arrangements for consultation with civil society on its poverty reduction strategy. In Macedonia we are working with civil society agencies to develop a network of citizens advice and information services.

  Refugees (Middle East)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support Her Majesty's Government will give to refugees and refugee resettlement in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. [706]

  Clare Short
  We have increased our support to UNRWA to help with both its regular operations and its special measures to address the growing social and economic hardship it the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Our contributions in 2001 will exceed £18 million.

  Tanzania
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her recent visit to Tanzania. [707]

  Clare Short
  I last visited Tanzania in April 2000. I hope to do so again later in July.

  Poverty Reduction
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will promote partnership programmes with individual developing countries committed to poverty reduction. [708]

  Clare Short
  Partnerships with developing countries committed to poverty reduction form the cornerstone of our efforts to eliminate poverty. DFID is working with others to help partner country governments draw up nationally owned and led poverty reduction strategies. These strategies provide a framework for international efforts to help tackle poverty and for DFID's work in the majority of our major partner counties.

  Global Health Fund
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the global health fund. [684]

  Clare Short
  The fund is designed to make available drugs and commodities for the prevention and treatment of Malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS, in the poorest countries. We believe a purchasing fund will increase reliability of supply, reduce prices and encourage research leading to the production of new treatments. It will also help leverage the development of better delivery systems so that poor people get access to available drugs.

HEALTH

  TB Case, Barnet Hospital
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement concerning the risk to patients and the contraction of TB by a patient at Barnet hospital from another patient. [60]

  Yvette Cooper
  In line with departmental recommendations, Barnet and Chase Farm hospitals NHS trust has an infection control policy that covers the situations in which it is necessary for patients to be nursed in isolation. This includes patients who are thought likely to have the more infectious forms of tuberculosis.

  Patients are placed in their own room and are asked not to leave the room unnecessarily and not to have contact with other patients. Staff entering the room wear disposable gowns and gloves to prevent the spread of infection.

  A long-term patient at Barnet hospital was recently found, following a routine test, to have contracted TB. It is possible that the TB had been dormant in the patient for some time. The patient was immediately put in a side room. Once it became apparent chat the patient had contracted TB, 23 patients were recalled for testing. None of them has contracted the disease. However, 10 higher risk individuals are having follow-up tests as a precautionary measure. The trust is managing this incident in liaison with the communicable disease surveillance centre.

  CFS/ME
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many specialist clinics for myalgic encephalitis/220W
  chronic fatigue syndrome have (a) outreach/mobile units for severe housebound/bedbound sufferers and (b) in-patient ward facilities; and what the average size of such units and facilities is; [1107]

  (2) how many NHS specialist clinics there are in the United Kingdom for sufferers from myalgic encephalitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. [1106]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  The national health service provides a considerable number of services which people who have chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) can access. These patients are seen within a wide range of hospital specialties including general medicine, neurology and immunology. The CFS/ME working group is developing guidance to improve the quality of care for CFS/ME patients.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many myalgic encephalitis/chronic fatigue syndrome sufferers there are in(a) Cambridgeshire, (b) Lincolnshire and (c) Northamptonshire; [1164]

  (2) how many designated myalgic encephalitis/chronic fatigue syndrome specialists there are in the (a) Cambridgeshire, (b) Lincolnshire and (c) Northamptonshire health authority areas. [1108]

  Yvette Cooper
  We do not collect information centrally on the incidence of individual diseases. It is estimated however, that up to one or two people in every thousand may have the illness, with numbers peaking in the 20–40 age group.

  Information on the numbers of myalgic encephalitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS/ME) specialists is not available as CFS/ME is not classed as a specialty.

  The National Health Service provides a considerable number of services which people suffering from CFS/ME access. These patients are seen within a wide range of hospital specialties including general medicine, neurology and immunology. The CFS/ME working group is developing guidance to improve the quality of care for CFS/ME patients.

  Draft Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent representations he has received regarding the omission of health visitors from the draft Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 under section 62(9) of the Health Act 1999; [1233]

  (2) if he intends to amend the draft Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 under section 62(9) of the Health Act 1999 to include health visitors; [1235]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the omission of health visitors from the draft Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 under section 62(9) of the Health Act 1999. [1234]

  Mr. Hutton
  Consultation on the draft order ended on 1 July. A wide range of organisations and individuals have commented on various aspects of the draft order. We will give careful consideration to all comments received before finally putting forward legislation for parliamentary approval.
  221W
  Health visitors will continue to be regulated as part of the nursing and midwifery professions but with the capacity to recognise their special contribution to public health. The draft legislation contains several safeguards for health visiting. Health visitors will have a separate register, protection of their professional title and be guaranteed equal representation on the council with nurses and midwives, and from each United Kingdom country.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received in respect of the draft Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, part III, article 8; [1504]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that the final version of the draft Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, part III, article 8, does not require the disclosure of the personal address details of people on the register. [1502]

  Mr. Hutton
  Consultation on the draft order continues ended on 1 July. A range of organisations and individuals have commented on aspects of the draft order.

  The draft legislation does not require the publication of home addresses of registrants on the register.

  The proposals make it clear that it will be for the new Nursing and Midwifery Council to decide what details appear on the register. The new council will have a duty to have proper regard to the interests of all registrants and prospective registrants, and will be required to consult on its plans beforehand.

  GM Food
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure the labelling of processed food products includes the mention of genetically modified organisms where they are used. [593]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 28 June 2001]: The Genetically Modified Novel Foods (labelling) Regulations 2000 require foods containing genetically modified (GM) material (DNA or protein) to be labelled. The European Commission is expected to issue proposals shortly to extend the current labelling rules to require all ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms whether or not they contain GM material. The United Kingdom will seek to ensure that any new rules are practical, proportionate and enforceable.

  Autism
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being undertaken to investigate the effects of thiomersal in vaccines on children and links with autism. [1408]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department is discussing with the Public Health Laboratory Service what suitable research in this area may be possible. The United States Centers for Disease Control have conducted two studies which have not demonstrated a causal association between autism and thiomersal (the amount of thiomersal in vaccines used in the UK childhood immunisation programme is considerably less than that used in the United States programme). A full joint statement by the 222W
  American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practice s and the US Public Health Services is available on the world wide web at http://www.cdc.govinip/vacsafe/concerns/thimerosal/joint_statement_00.htm.

  The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, the Department of Health's statutory independent advisory committee, has reviewed the available evidence and has concluded that the present evidence did not support a link between thiomersal in vaccines and autism. They also concluded that there was substantial evidence that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine—which is a live attenuated vaccine and therefore has never contained thiomersal—is not a factor, but the cause of autism remains unknown. The Department has asked the Medical Research Council to review current knowledge about autism and to suggest possible areas for further research development so that a cause may be found.

  Campath
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Campath has received approval from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence; what plans he has to increase its availability to NHS patients; and if he will make a statement. [1417]

  Yvette Cooper
  Alemtuzumab (Campath, Berlex Laboratories) is not currently licensed for use in the United Kingdom and has not been considered for the institute's work programme.

  Neo-natal Hearing Screening
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will provide guidance to health service providers carrying out universal neo-natal hearing screening about the need to inform other statutory authorities about the detection of deafness. [1344]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 2 July 2001]: A pilot scheme to evaluate the practicalities of introducing universal neo-natal hearing screening is currently under way in 20 health authorities in England. It includes active participation of all key stakeholders including other statutory authorities. One of the aspects that the pilot scheme will examine is how to develop and recognise the role of education and social services authorities in the delivery of services for deaf and hard of hearing babies. The pilot evaluation will also inform protocols and good practice for national implementation.

  Strategic Review, Newcastle
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to approve(a) the hospital regeneration project at the Royal Victoria infirmary site, Newcastle and (b) the new northern centre for cancer treatment; and what the target date for completion of each is. [2074]
  223W
  Mr. Hutton
  The outline business cases for the capital schemes to complete the implementation of the Newcastle strategic review have now been approved and it is hoped that the procurement process will commence in mid July 2001.

  The provisional estimates for the new facilities being operational are late 2006 at the Roy al Victoria infirmary and late 2005/early 2006 at the Freeman hospital (including the new northern centre for cancer treatment). However, more precise estimates will emerge as the procurement progresses.

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will issue his response to the review carried out by the UK national screening committee into the case for introducing a national neo-natal cystic fibrosis screening programme. [1751]

  Yvette Cooper
  On 30 April 2001, I announced that a new national programme for neo-natal cystic fibrosis screening would be introduced. 1 his will be subject to further advice from the United Kingdom national screening committee about feasibility, time scales and costs of a national programme, which is expected in the autumn.

  Routine Screening
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to extend routine screening for middle-aged male patients; and if he will make a statement; [1482]

  (2) if he will list the diseases for which routine screening would be appropriate for men aged over 50 years; and if he will make a statement. [1484]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 2 July 2001]: The United Kingdom national screening committee (NSC) advises Ministers, the devolved Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament on all aspects of screening policy. The NSC assesses proposed new programmes against a set of internationally recognised criteria and in forming its proposals draws on the latest research evidence. Assessing programmes in this way is intended to ensure that screening does more good than harm at a reasonable cost.

  The NHS plan announced colorectal cancer screening will be introduced should the current pilot studies demonstrate its effectiveness. It also announced that a prostate cancer screening programme will be introduced if and when screening and treatment techniques have developed sufficiently. The NSC will continue to keep all research evidence for preventing disease through screening under careful review when considering the case for recommending new programmes

  NHSnet
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when all GPs will be connected to NHSnet. [1967]
  224W
  Mr. Hutton
  As stated in the Government's information management and technology strategy for the national health service, "Building the Information Core", all clinical and support staff in the NHS (including general practitioners) will be connected to NHSnet by the end of March 2002.

  Independent Hospices
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional help he intends to make available for independent hospices. [1359]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: The NHS cancer plan set out our commitment to increase national health service investment in specialist palliative care by £50 million by 2004 to end inequalities in access to care and enable the NHS to make a more realistic contribution to the cost hospices incur in providing agreed levels of services.

  Cancer networks are currently developing detailed service delivery plans, which will identify current provision and set out action plans for further development across all services including palliative care. These will be completed by the autumn.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting times for operations in each of the hospital trusts in England and Wales are; and what the equivalent figures were in May 1997. [2220]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: A table showing inpatient waiting times in national health service trusts in England has been placed in the Library. Waiting times in Wales are now a matter for the devolved Welsh Assembly.

  Data for England show that the average wait has reduced from 3.04 months at June 1997 to 2.95 months at April 2001.

  Older People's Champions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance he has issued to older people's champions on the discharge of their responsibilities under the national service framework for older people; [2012]

  (2) what response he has made to proposals he has received from Age Concern England for a pledge to be made by older people's champions; [2000]

  (3) what plans he has to monitor and evaluate the role of older people's champions. [2013]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: Age Concern England's "Champions Pledge" is welcomed and will help focus the thinking and development of local older people's champions.

  The National Service Framework for older people provided for the appointment of older people's champions and representation across every health and social services organisation by the end of June 2001. Once details of local appointments are collected in July 2001, and before detailing their role and responsibilities further or providing guidance, we will be seeking their views and

  225W
  the views of national organisations that represent older people. Age Concern England has been included in discussions around this.

  The national service framework for older people provides for a range of performance measures by which achievement of milestones and standards set will be judged. Careful consideration will be given to any identified need to monitor and evaluate the role of older people's champions once these discussions have taken place.

  MS
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent by the NHS on research into(a) the causes and (b) the treatment of MS in each of the last five years; what plans he has to increase this amount; and if he will make a statement. [1859]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]: The main Government agency for research into the causes and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. The Department of Health funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the national health service.

  The Department and MRC spend on multiple sclerosis research, which includes spend on basic work on a whole range of auto-immune disease was as follows:

  £1.86 million (estimated) in 2000–01:

  £1.425 million in 1999–2000;

  £0.77 million in 1998–99;

  £0.783 million in 1997–98;

  £0.172 million in 1996–97.

  The MRC always welcomes high quality applications for research into any aspect of human health and these are judged in open competition with other demands in funding.

  The Department will be considering further research requirements in this area in support of the national service framework for long-term conditions.

  Care Home Costs
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the costs of the first three months of a care home placement will be met; and what estimate has been made of these costs. [1503]

  Jacqui Smith
  Where a local authority provides a person with residential accommodation, it will assess the person's ability to reimburse the cost of the placement. The difference between the amount the person can reimburse and the cost of the care home placement will be funded by the local authority, which is in turn funded as part of the personal social services standard spending assessment to provide these services.

  From April 2001, a 12-week property disregard has been introduced, which removes the value of a person's property from the assessment for that period. The cost of the 12-week disregard is reflected in the PSS SSA.

  Those residents who are able to meet their care home fees fully through their income and other assets will do so from their own resources.

  Mental Health Reform
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which parts of the White Paper on mental health reform, published in December 2000, are undergoing further review. [2007]

  Jacqui Smith
  As new mental health legislation is prepared further definition will be added to all parts of the framework set out in the White Paper, "Reforming the Mental Health Act".

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans the 13overnment have to implement the proposals contained in the White Paper on mental health reform published in December 2000; and if he will make a statement; [2006]

  (2) what the Government's proposed timetable is for bringing forward legislation on mental health reform. [2008]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are committed to the reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 and will introduce new legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  The White Paper made clear our intention to reform mental health legislation and bring it into line with the contemporary patterns of care and treatment that are being created by our investment of over £300 million in mental health services under the NHS plan.

  Nursing Care (Costs)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his Department's policy to meet the full costs of nursing care for elderly people in nursing homes; and if he will make a statement. [1635]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Health and Social Care Act makes good the pledge set out in "The NHS Plan: The Government's Response to the Royal Commission on Long Term Care" to make the NHS responsible for purchasing nursing care in nursing homes, strengthening the incentives for the NHS to ensure effective rehabilitation after acute illness of injury. If they have been assessed as needling the care of a registered nurse, people will not haw to pay for the care and supervision provided by registered nurses in nursing homes, or for specialist equipment.

  Detailed draft guidance on how we plan to implement free nursing care will be issued for consultation shortly.

  Guidance on NHS and councils' responsibilities for continuing care were published on 28 June.

  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency will publish its annual business plan. [2502]

  Ms Blears
  We are pleased to announce that the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency's annual business plan has been published and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Royal Hospital, Haslar
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what undertaking has been given to review the decision to close the Royal Hospital, Haslar. [1964]
  227W
  Ms Blears
  No undertaking has been given to review the decision to close the Royal Hospital, Haslar. The decision to close the Royal Hospital, Haslar was taken by the Ministry of Defence in 1998. Portsmouth Hospitals national health service trust took over management 228W
  responsibility for clinical services provided at the hospital with effect from April 2001. The hospital will continue to treat patients until its services transfer to the planned new facilities at Queen Alexandra hospital, part of Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

Lord Morris of Aberavon
The Right Honourable Sir John Morris, Knight, QC, having been created Baron Morris of Aberavon, of Aberavon in the County of West Glamorgan and of Ceredigion in the County of Dyfed, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Prys-Davies and the Lord Merlyn-Rees.

Lord Fowler
The Right Honourable Sir Peter Norman Fowler, Knight, having been created Baron Fowler, of Sutton Coldfield in the County of West Midlands, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Saatchi and the Lord Brittan of Spennithorne.
Lord King of Wartnaby—Took the Oath.

ECHR: Compatibility Statements
2.50 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will undertake not to proceed with any legislation requiring Ministers to make statements of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights unless and until the Joint Committee on Human Rights has been appointed to scrutinise such statements for both Houses of Parliament.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, if the Joint Committee on Human Rights were appointed and fully operational, scrutiny by it of ministerial statements that legislation is ECHR compatible would not be a precondition of that legislation proceeding through Parliament. The committee has no power to restrict the progress of legislation. Therefore, we will not give the undertaking sought. The Session begins when Her Majesty opens it, not from the date that the Joint Committee is appointed.
However, I fully share the noble Lord's wish that the Joint Committee be appointed as soon as possible. The House agreed yesterday to a Motion appointing six of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to be members. My right honourable friend the President of the Council informed the other place on 21st June that it was his objective to get Select
812
Committees up and running before the House breaks for the Summer Recess. He has confirmed to me that that remains his objective.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the old committee and a proposed member of the new committee. I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that helpful and encouraging Answer. I did not intend my Question to fetter the legislative process and I understand the noble and learned Lord's reply, but I wonder whether he agrees that, whether the committee is set up sooner or later, the vital thing is that there should be effective scrutiny of compatibility statements by both Houses of Parliament and by the committee, as their watchdog. Does he agree that that requires not only the right machinery in place, but also reasons to be given at an early stage to the committee and to both Houses so that they are able effectively to understand the Government's reasons for considering that their legislation is or is not compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the convention rights?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, those are two questions in one. First, I decline to undertake that the House will not proceed with any Bills while there is no Joint Committee on Human Rights which can comment on their human rights implications. My reason is that that would be disproportionate. Although I do not in any way diminish the value of the committee, which I want to see up and running as soon as possible, during the Committee stage of any Bill this House is well able to scrutinise the human rights implications and to invite Ministers to explain their reasons for maintaining that particular provisions are compatible. The House did so with great vigour, for example, during the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The Joint Committee, although admirable, does not supplant the ordinary parliamentary processes of scrutiny.
However, in relation to the noble Lord's second question, I appreciate that he believes that a way forward may be for an early statement of the issues considered by a Minister to be made before he arrives at a positive decision to make a statement of compatibility. Conceivably that could be done in the Explanatory Notes. I shall certainly consider that and perhaps consult with my colleagues on it if the noble Lord makes detailed representations to me.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Lord Chancellor aware that the undertaking sought in this matter stems from the refusal of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, to give reasons in the exercise of his ministerial discretion for a decision taken by government? That, if I may say so respectfully, is quite contrary to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord that there is ample scope for reasoned debate in Committee. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that, save on grounds of national security, such ministerial discretion should not be exercised and that reasons for the decisions of government should always be given, in Committee and otherwise?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I gave some encouragement in my answer to the noble Lord's supplementary question. However, Ministers do experience a difficulty—that of the well recognised and established convention adhered to by successive governments that legal advice to government remains confidential. There is a tension between that and the giving of reasons. However, I have indicated to the noble Lord that I shall consider any detailed representations that he makes on how, in his view, consistent with maintaining the convention, which must not be breached, that legal advice must not be revealed, none the less reasons could be given for a decision to make a positive statement of compatibility which, if made, would assist both the Joint Committee and this House at Committee stage.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, in view of the ever-expanding importance of human rights issues, does my noble and learned friend now believe that the Government should seriously consider setting up a human rights commission?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we already have the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission, to name but three. The Government do not rule out a human rights commission as well, but we must not die from a surfeit of commissions. There may be a case for a single, overarching human rights commission to cover all those areas, perhaps with a divisional structure, and I should welcome representations on that. I gather also that, in its previous incarnation, the Joint Committee sent out a consultation document requesting views on what form a human rights commission might take. We shall consider carefully any recommendations which the new Joint Committee may in due course make.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Lord Chancellor recall the undertaking given by the present Leader of the House in one of his previous incarnations that, when introducing draft secondary legislation under the affirmative procedure, Ministers would make a statement of compatibility? It is my experience that that statement frequently is not made although in at least one case it was clearly called for. Now that the noble and learned Lord is in charge of human rights, will he ensure that all Ministers are aware of and comply with that undertaking?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is certainly a matter to which I shall attend.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, if a Minister certifies that a Bill, when it is published, is compatible with the convention but subsequently the new committee disagrees with that, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House whether, in the debate that ensues at Committee stage, the Government will have to explain their thinking—not the source of their legal advice, but their thinking—and their reasoning for
814
declaring the Bill to be compatible? Surely, once that debate ensues, they cannot hide behind the convention in the way that the noble Lord suggested.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, first, in my experience, in the course of the Committee stage of Bills, Ministers already explain their thinking. When amendments are put down, the purpose of which is to impugn the existing provisions on the grounds of non-compatibility, Ministers explain why in their view the statement was properly made and why the impugned provision is compatible. I agree, of course, that our thinking would be enhanced if antecedently the Joint Committee had expressed a view on any particular provision. However, I believe that the Joint Committee will have to ration itself; it cannot pronounce on every Bill or it will be in permanent session.

London Underground
3 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovilasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will decide on the future of the London Underground and whether they will publish an account of the discussions to date.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions yesterday met Robert Kiley, the chairman of London Transport. He heard Mr Kiley's report on the outcome of his negotiations with bidders and the Government are now considering how best to move forward. Our priority is to reach a resolution so that the massive programme of investment to modernise the Underground can start as soon as possible.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, if I may say so, that Answer falls short of the spellbinding. Can the noble and learned Lord point to any speech made by any Minister on this subject that is likely to give any comfort to those who suffer the daily agony of being one of London Underground's victims? Moreover, how does it come about that Ministers have so far been unable to congratulate the Mayor of London on being on the scene? He is uniquely qualified—his record and qualities fit him to do his task. His qualities are such as to indicate that anyone who gets in his way must be something of an idiot. I have one last question for the noble and learned Lord. Has it not yet occurred to the Government, with all the painful life of experience behind them, that to separate operations and safety is just plain stupid?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for not spellbinding him. My purpose in answering his Question was to give information. He asked about speeches by members of the Government

815
that would bring comfort to the users of London Underground. We sought to produce a policy that will bring substantial investment into London Underground over the long term so that standards can be radically improved. The obligation of Ministers, the commissioner of transport for London and the Mayor of London is to work together to produce a policy that will bring in that investment and radically improve the quality of London Underground. I hope that we are all working towards that. So far as separating operations from safety is concerned, the priority, as has always been made clear, is safety. The operation of London Underground will remain in the hands of London Transport and London Underground, which have the prime obligation in relation to safety because they are the bodies that will operate the Underground.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Cullen committee's report overwhelmingly demonstrates the enormous dangers—by emphasising the contribution it made to the Paddington accident—of separating those two activities? The report dealt with precisely that point.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am very conscious of what Lord Cullen's report said about Railtrack. The same proposal is not being made in relation to London Underground. The proposal is that London Underground will remain responsible for safety. It enters into long-term contracts with three contractors and it will remain responsible for safety. London Underground is the body that actually operates the trains. That is the important difference from the situation involving Railtrack.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, my noble and learned friend signally failed to spellbind the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, but will he try to cast his spell over me by reminding me where the responsibilities for under-investment in London Transport began? Did they begin in 1997 or do they go back even as far as the days when the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, had responsibilities?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not think that anyone would dispute the decades of under-investment in relation to London Underground. That is the problem. Since 1997, the Government have been seeking to ensure that there is a scheme or proposal that will lever in billions of pounds in the long term to ensure that that under-investment is remedied.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, on the question of safety, would the Minister care to comment on reports in yesterday's press that Mr Kiley has written to the Prime Minister emphasising that he could not answer for the safety of the Underground system under the present PPP arrangements?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I have said, safety is pre-eminent in the proposed PPP. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, sought to suggest, similar
816
to the arrangements involving the railway system. London Underground remains responsible for safety, but that is subject to the overarching direction of the Health and Safety Executive. We believe that those proposals are adequate to ensure safety.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can the Minister tell me whether there are any plans to build an Underground station at Battersea before I die? It is no good telling me to take the bus—I would have to take three buses to get here. Blocks of flats are going up all the time in Battersea and it is very expensive and inconvenient not to have a Tube.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the robustness of the noble Baroness suggests that even if the Tube were built a long time in the future, it would still be built in time. I am grateful for the signs that the noble Baroness is making towards me from a sedentary position—indeed, she is making more and more of them! I do not know the precise date, but I shall write to her about it.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, over the past four years, how much has been spent on setting up the PPP?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot give the precise figures in relation to professional costs and so on. However, I am quite sure that that money is well spent. It is incredibly important that what is produced involves a durable scheme that will produce investment for the long term.

Human Cloning Ban: Prospects of Legislation
3.6 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpoolasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to introduce legislation to outlaw human cloning.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we recognise and share the concerns of many people about human reproductive cloning. However, that cannot be carried out in the UK. Any treatment using human embryos requires a licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which has stated as a matter of policy that it would not issue such a licence. We have stated our clear intention to introduce primary legislation to put this ban on a statutory footing as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, while I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, does he recall the assurances that he gave noble Lords in our debate on this subject on 22nd January? We should assuage the fears of many who believe that therapeutic cloning will inexorably pave the way for full reproductive

817
human cloning. He said that the Government would introduce legislation and the implication was that that would be brought forward very quickly. The omission of such legislation from the gracious Speech caused disappointment to many people.
The Minister will doubtless have seen the speeches made by the Italian scientist, Severino Antinori, who, heartened by our decision in January, said that he intends to proceed with reproductive cloning. Has he seen the statements by the Royal Society and by Ian Wilmut, who cloned Dolly the sheep and who said that it would be dangerous and undesirable to go in that direction? Given that there is support from all parts of your Lordships' House and from another place for giving a statutory seal to the Minister's desired wish that there should not be reproductive cloning in this country, will he say when that legislation will be forthcoming?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Question. I do not accept the proposition that therapeutic cloning research in the UK would lead to reproductive cloning elsewhere. I accept that legislation is desired by many in your Lordships' House. In the debate earlier this year on the regulations I said that legislation would be brought before the House as soon as possible. I also referred to the normal pressures on the parliamentary timetable. This Parliament still has a little time to run and the comments of noble Lords on this matter will be carefully considered.
So far as Professor Antinori is concerned, I refer the noble Lord to the article in The Times today in which Professor Evers of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology criticised Professor Antinori as,
"a pain in the neck, because he can't even offer what he says he can".
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is essential to maintain public confidence in scientific research, not least in the life sciences? Does he further agree that that makes legislation to put this matter beyond all question a very important priority? Would he therefore make representations to his colleagues and point out that this matter is perhaps somewhat more important than some of the Bills that will be coming to us through the legislative pipeline?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly accept the noble Baroness's proposition that we must do everything we can to ensure that the scientific community commands public confidence and respect. Events over the past few years have reinforced the need for that.
I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes. I want to assure the House that the Government are committed to this legislation. Of course, I am not able to say when that will be brought forward because it is not my position to do so. But the urgency in terms of our debate last January is clearly
818
understood. It is important for me to reiterate that reproductive cloning cannot take place in this country. The HFEA made it abundantly clear that it will never permit a licence for that to happen.
Baroness Young: My Lords, while we all accept the valuable work of the Committee on Human Fertilisation and Embryology, the fact is that there is a distinction between what that committee decides and legislation. Will the Minister accept that a great many of us are extremely concerned about this matter? As he will know better than I, the French Government condemned it, along with the Germans and the Americans. Therefore we are completely out of step with other countries in not legislating on this matter. It is a subject of great concern to an enormous number of people. It is not satisfactory just to say that the Government will consider it. I hope not only for an undertaking that the Minister will raise the matter with his own Secretary of State, but also that the Lord Privy Seal will give some undertaking to bring it before the Cabinet.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have already said that, as ever, the Government remain committed to introducing legislation. I certainly accept the proposition that it will add to public reassurance in this crucial matter. The record of the HFEA is such that we can have confidence that when it says that it will never permit such a thing to happen in this country, it will never so permit it.
The publication of the Chief Medical Officer's report and the passage of the regulations earlier in the year have caused considerable discussion in other countries. It is my understanding that some, including France and Canada, are now considering changes in their laws to permit embryo research to derived stem cells, mainly from using donated spare embryos.
Lord Winston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this country has the strongest and most effective legislation which controls all reproductive technology, including human cloning? Will he further confirm that every responsible scientific opinion in this country roundly condemns the practice of reproductive cloning?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is my understanding. The HFEA is a widely admired regulatory body throughout the world. It is worth recalling that in the past 10 years it received 130 applications for research licences, of which over 10 per cent have been rejected. It has a strict procedure for considering applications to ensure that they meet its requirements. We can therefore have confidence in that authority.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, will the Minister clarify what progress has been made in research on creating stem lines from adult and somatic cells rather than embryonic cells? Will he give an assurance that the Government are consulting faith communities about the moral criteria that should lie

819
behind all these matters, including legislation and the establishment of international protocols to ban human cloning?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I welcome representations from the faith communities and the Government will be happy to enter into a dialogue with them. In relation to progress in regard to adult stem cells, I understand that advances have recently been reported in the isolation and culture of stem cells from adult tissues. I shall be happy to send further information to the right reverend Prelate and place copies of that information in the Library. However, as was debated by your Lordships some months ago, the issue is not about either embryo or adult stem cells. Essentially it is that both research potentialities will aid our knowledge and understanding. Indeed, the knowledge gained from research on embryonic stem cells may well provide the information that researchers need concerning the functioning of adult stem cells, which may then have therapeutic applications.

Meat Imports
3.15 p.m.
Lord Glentoranasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they intend to take to ensure that there are no future imports into the United Kingdom of meat containing banned specified risk materials (SRM), following the discovery of such a consignment unpacked at Eastbourne, East Sussex, on 25th June.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, European law requires specified risk material to be removed at the slaughterhouse. It is illegal under such law for another EU member state to send consignments of meat containing spinal cord to the UK. The Meat Hygiene Service is checking all consignments of imported carcass meat which are delivered to licensed meat plants, which is how the discovery of spinal cord on 25th June was made. The Meat Hygiene Service will continue to carry out a robust programme of inspections.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, although I am not totally satisfied. The discovery on Monday 25th June was by no means the first case of banned SRM being found in imports from Germany. Since then they have been found in imports from Holland, Denmark and Spain. Does the Minister agree that there appear to be two standards in relation to these materials? One standard relates to mainland Europe and the other to the United Kingdom. Does he further agree that Germany is practically incapable of exporting beef to the standards required by this country? Will he tell me what Her Majesty's Government propose to do about those differing standards.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord's analysis of the situation. He is
820
right to point out that since January 2001, 16 shipments of beef from other EU member states have been found to contain meat with spinal cord still attached, in breach of the EU rules on SRM. In eight of the 16 cases the plant from which the consignment originated has had its operating licence suspended until the appropriate authorities are satisfied with the standards at that plant. I can assure the House that in each case we took up the matter robustly with the member state concerned and with the European Commission.
The noble Lord appeared to imply that there are double standards between different countries of the EU. The view that we take is clear. We must work within the established system of European law and cooperation between responsible member states. We have an established procedure under which we can raise issues of concern with other member states. I am satisfied that the Meat Hygiene Service and the Food Standards Agency acted with the utmost vigour in those cases and that the matters were then appropriately dealt with by the member states concerned. I accept that we must be ever vigilant.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare a non-pecuniary interest as chairman of Honest Food. Can the Minister say why we need to import beef into this country, either from the European Union or from African states where foot and mouth disease is endemic, when we produce the best beef in the world? Is it not time that we looked to labelling? If the consumer was allowed to choose where his beef came from, I am sure that he would choose British beef.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree that labelling is a matter of concern to the consumer in this country. There are well established rules and laws in relation to labelling, but the Foods Standards Agency is reviewing what changes might be made within the context of EU law and directions to enable more information to be given to the public. I echo the remarks of the noble Countess in relation to the quality of British beef. I am sure other noble Lords agree also. In relation to imports, at the moment imports account for around 29 per cent of beef consumption.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if it had been 16 cases of exports from Britain of banned materials, there would be a great outcry in this country and the Government would take firm and positive action that everybody in Europe would understand. What we fail to see is what action is being taken by our partners in Europe when they are exporting this material to us. Will the Minister raise that point at the highest level?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we do raise it at the highest level. I have ensured that in each case representations have been made and discussions have taken place both with the member state and with the relevant European Commissioner. I am happy to place in the Library a note of the actions taken in respect of each of the 16 cases and the subsequent action taken by the country from which the beef came.

821
Experience has shown that our own Meat Hygiene Service has been enormously alert to the problems. Obviously, we shall continue to ensure that it carries out its duties to the highest possible standard.

House of Lords: Audibility of Proceedings
3.20 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts rose to call attention to the case for improving the audibility and comprehensibility of the proceedings of the House to visitors to the public galleries; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise this important issue in the House. Perhaps I may begin by clearing up a misunderstanding which I hope is not widespread. I was waiting to come into the Chamber today when a noble Lord approached me. He said, "I don't know why you're doing this because I can hear perfectly well". My Motion is about noble Lords being heard, seen and understood from the public galleries, not about whether noble Lords can see, hear and understand the debates. That is a different topic and one on which I could not comment.
My remarks fall into three sections: first, what is the problem I want to place before your Lordships; secondly, why is it an important issue which I believe we should address, and, thirdly, what should be done about it? I begin by making it clear that what I am about to say is in no way a criticism of the staff of the House or the Doorkeepers who seem to be doing the best they can in the circumstances they face. However, I believe that visitors to our public galleries have a raw deal.
Many noble Lords may never have visited the gallery. Indeed, as Members of the House we are discouraged from taking up seats there at the expense of members of the public who may wish to attend our debates. However, before I became a Member of your Lordships' House a year ago I paid such a visit and I should like to give my impressions.
When visitors arrive they are first given a booklet entitled The HOUSE of LORDS, a brief guide, an excellent publication produced in several languages. It is particularly good on the geography of the place and the overview of the Chamber. It is much less good on what is happening when you are sitting in the gallery. There is a page entitled A Typical Working Day, but it is difficult to relate what is said on that piece of paper to what is happening in the Chamber.
Visitors are also given an Order Paper, although I think I was not. I understand that the Order Paper is normally prepared for the use of your Lordships and not for visitors to the gallery, but it is generally unhelpful to an outsider. If we look at the Order Paper afresh, we see that it reinforces a feeling of remoteness. The strange language used and the fact that there is no timetable and no explanation of what is being discussed in the House do not help people to understand what we are about. Today's Order Paper is
822
reasonably clear. However, last Thursday, when I prepared my remarks, the Order Paper ran to three pages. The first third of the first page contained Questions. The last paragraph on the last page referred to the adjourned debate on the Queen's Speech. In between were three pages of Business of the House. There is no way that a visitor in the gallery would know that that business would probably be over in less than one minute; that the first part would last half an hour and that the debate referred to in the last paragraph would last three or four hours. Therefore, on the grounds of comprehensibility, we are not doing well by the people who come to see us.
Next, I refer to visibility from the gallery. The picture in the booklet is deceptive. On looking at it, we may think that a lot can be seen from the gallery, but when the photographer came to take the photograph he leant over the balcony at the front. If one is at the back of the Chamber, as I was, one can see only the top half of my noble friend Lord Henley when he rises to speak, or indeed of the noble Baroness the Minister when she speaks. Everybody to their left and right are invisible.
I am reminded of the description of the village cricket match in A G MacDonnell's England, their England where the ground slipped away behind the bowler behind one wicket so that the deep fielder behind the bowler saw nothing of the match apart from the bowler occasionally coming over the brow of the hill and disappearing, and from time to time, a ball being struck over the brow of the hill smartly in his direction.
Some noble Lords may say, "But there are television screens in the gallery". If we cast our eyes to the gallery, we see that there are two such screens which are about the size to be found in the average sitting room. Unless one has 20:20 vision or a pair of binoculars, one has considerable difficulty seeing the detail. Moreover, although one monitor is permanently set to the feed from the cameras inside the Chamber, the other gives the title of the debate and the name of the noble Lord who is speaking. That, therefore, does not overcome the problem.
Finally on this point, it is not easy to hear. There are microphones in the back of the benches but the benches were made for Victorian physiognomy. The backs are too short and the seats too narrow. If one tried to crouch down to listen, one would slip off the bench and would not be able to hear well.
Therefore, I believe that on the triple grounds of comprehensibility, audibility and visibility we are failing members of the public by not enabling them to see more clearly what we are doing in their name. Above all, visiting the gallery is a dry experience. No one will say when they get home that it was very interesting. They may have come to the Chamber and have been interested in what they saw, but no one's imagination will be caught by our proceedings.
Why does that matter? We have all read a great deal about the feeling of disconnection between the people of the country and the democratic process. Public opinion surveys and turn-outs in general and local

823
elections underline that fact. This is a serious matter for our country and we should think of how to reverse the trend.
I cannot remember, and have been unable to discern, which mediaeval saint said that he could stand persecution; it was indifference that hurt him. I believe that all too often our fellow countrymen regard us with indifference. We must try to make our proceedings more relevant to them.
If I wanted to introduce a sour party political note, I would say that the activities of this Government in so often bypassing both Chambers of Parliament have not helped. However, I do not intend to follow that line. I do not believe that reconnecting with the public will come about in one great action, by the turning on of a switch which floods the room with light; it will be by a series of incremental steps which convince people that their participation in our process is important and that what goes on here is relevant to their daily lives. Improving conditions in the public galleries is one such step, albeit small.
There is a further reason why we in this House need to explain our role more carefully. The role and utility of a reforming Chamber made up of appointed individuals is a sophisticated concept and one which is easy to "rubbish". For us to stand out against what can be—because of the structure of our Government—the tyranny of the majority is hard to explain and easy to undermine. I do not wish to be drawn into the issue of the reform of your Lordships' House. However, we need to build up our reputation in the country as a whole.
What can be done? There are tactical measures which could easily be taken. First, we could produce a better Order Paper—it would not, of course, be an Order Paper—for visitors to the gallery. It could consist of a two-page sheet. The left-hand side could contain a description of the proceedings of the House laid out in a way that makes sense of the Chamber. The right-side could contain a commentary of the proceedings and state, for example, whether the House is dealing with a Second Reading, Committee stage or Question Time. Where there is a reference to Second Reading, for example, perhaps there could be a few words on what the Bill seeks to achieve. Above all, there should be a timetable so that people visiting the gallery at, say, five o'clock will have an idea of where we are in the proceedings.
Secondly, I should like to see the television screens replaced and enlarged. Modern technology makes it possible to produce a screen many times larger and I hope that the images appearing on the two different screens can be shown on the same screen. Thus, the top half would carry the visual feed from the cameras inside the Chamber and the bottom half would carry the name of the speaker and perhaps a few words about the subject under discussion.
Thirdly, we could consider redesigning the seats in the gallery so that they are better suited to modern sizes and physiognomies.
However, there is a bigger and bolder step that we could take. Like me, noble Lords may recall being taken to galleries and museums as children and that they were flat experiences. Children visiting museums today have an altogether different experience because museums have adapted to arouse the interest and commitment of casual visitors. I believe that we ought to try to tap that expertise because there are many firms in this country whose primary expertise is in communication; communication with staff, customers and the public. I should like to think that we could have a public competition to find the best way of explaining continuously the workings of your Lordships' House to visitors in the public galleries. I am sure that firms would rush to put forward their ideas; public interest would be aroused; and many ingenious and perhaps impractical ideas would be put forward. However, I am sure that we would be able to break out of the slightly sterile mould in which we find ourselves.
Some noble Lords will say that this is Chamber is not a theatre but that such changes would make it a theatre. I respectfully suggest that this is not about theatre; it is about providing information. It is about providing information to the people who are ultimately our masters—the general public. People will also say that we cannot make any changes because of this building; this wonderful, old Victorian Chamber. Again, I respectfully suggest that we are not a wonderful, old Victorian legislature. If we put architecture ahead of our role as a 21st century legislature, we must not be surprised if the public draw certain conclusions from our making that choice in our priorities.
In summary, I want a visit to the public galleries here to be an engaging experience, not an experience which emphasises the separation between the legislature and the people it seeks to serve. I want a few hundred people each week to leave the public galleries feeling that they have had an interesting visit. I want them to tell their friends and relatives about it and then, imperceptibly, like the movement of grains of sand on a beach, the reputation of your Lordships' House will be broadened and strengthened.
I say to the Minister that in matters such as this for every solution there will be a problem. In order to make a change we will need wit, resolution and imagination; qualities which I know from hearing her speak in the Chamber she has aplenty. I look forward to hearing her display them again, particularly imagination, when she comes to speak in a few minutes' time. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.34 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, when the debate was mentioned at the previous party meeting of Liberal Democrat Peers there appeared to be a universal clamour for me to take part in it. Being an eternal optimist, I took it as being a form of compliment. However, on further reflection, I remembered that when at a meeting some weeks ago—and perhaps I was feeling slightly liverish—we had some spare time at the end I drew my noble friends' attention to the fact that,

825
no matter how interesting or important their comments, I had heard that a number of Peers were finding it hard to understand what some of them were saying. Those Peers were so fascinated that they wished they had been able to hear what had been said. Therefore I suggested that my noble friends might take care to stand in front of the appropriate microphone; that they should be careful not to put their hands in front of their mouths; that they should speak up; and that they should not always read from their notes.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate but I believe that my appearance is to some degree the revenge of my colleagues: I am having to speak on the subject that I raised at my party's meeting. However, the issue goes much further than that.
I suppose that I am an old-timer in this House, although I do not feel like one and I do not think I look like one. I and other noble Lords came here rather like new boys to a school and we trod carefully. I was terrified but I did not have the kind of background that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has. If any noble Lord cares to trawl through Who's Who? he will find several inches of impressive service to the Conservative Party. The noble Lord has been a deputy chairman of the national party; he has held high office at local level; and he is a distinguished merchant banker.
The noble Lord's appearance here today in putting forward this Motion and the suggestions he has made illustrate one of the effects of the first stages of reform. There are people coming to the House who have a good deal of knowledge and expertise, particularly in politics, which I did not have. I had never spoken in public before coming to your Lordships' House and had never spoken to more than several people gathered together, perhaps at a board meeting. It was a terrifying experience when I was thrown in at the deep end and it took me some time to get used to speaking.
However, I quickly realised that we in this House have a conversational style. Such a style is appropriate to what we do here—in amending and revising legislation and in general debates—and is preferable to having notes, bending one's head down and reading them out just to get them on to the record.
I do not know whether all noble Lords remember my late loved and respected colleague Lady Seear. She was the most remarkable speaker and performer, as an academic, in the commercial field and as a parliamentarian. I miss her greatly. Her great skill was that although she had a sheaf of small cards and notes she made the most extraordinary speeches without referring to them once. The only drawback was that when she came to the crucial point of her speech she suddenly bent down from the waist and went into a slow circular motion, which meant that because she lost the sensitivity of the microphones some of the words were lost to your Lordships. However, noble Lords were listening so carefully to what she said that very little was missed.
I must say that during the time I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I have not given much thought to the public gallery. I shall do so in
826
future. It is important that people should come into the gallery, particularly foreigners, as they do in large numbers. However, the last thing we should be doing is speaking to the public gallery. If we took that to the extreme, we could become like the pantomime routine, "Are you happy?" "Yes, we are.".
I am more concerned about being heard and understood by Members of your Lordships' House. I admit that sometimes I am anxious when I am being heard by representatives of the press who are in the gallery—and I see that today there are some in the gallery. I am not aware of the television. When we were mostly an hereditary House I recall that the first televised debate attracted the largest number of speakers that I had known. The novelty quickly wore off. I do not believe that any of us speaks to be seen on television. We have grown used to the television cameras and to the press gallery and visitors' gallery.
The important point is that until we are reformed and our powers and functions are changed we must do what we do to the best of our ability. I believe that we can achieve that largely by continuing in the way we have, with the benefit of the removal of most of the hereditary Peers and the influx of highly informed and experienced people, such as the noble Lord who introduced the debate today.
The noble Lord dealt with many issues. I was remiss in that I had not read—but have now done so with care—the article that he submitted to the Lords Diary. In that article he gave a little more detail about his first impressions of the House, of which I believe he has been a Member for a little over six months. I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord's conclusions from his first six months. For example, in his piece he states that the galleries must be very confused by the fact that we in this House vote Content and Not Content rather than Ayes and Noes. He said that that was a very difficult matter to explain to cynical sixth-formers.
I have spoken to a good number of sixth-formers, most of them girls—I do not want noble Lords to laugh because I make a serious point. It was suggested that I do so by the late Alan Clark. I had not been long in the House when I met him one evening. Volunteers had been sought to speak to a girls' school. I said that I certainly would not do so but he said that I must take any opportunity to speak inside the House and outside it; otherwise, I would not gain the experience that I needed to take part in political life. Whether or not I liked it, I was in political life. That was very good advice. However, I never met a cynical sixth-former. I often explained to them the bicameral system and how things worked.
I did visit a couple of boys' school but it was not so satisfactory. The boys were not cynical. However, just one boy, who was Jack-the-Lad, did all the talking; everyone cheered him on as they would a star footballer. I preferred talking to the girls because they were more intelligent. Whether or not they continue to be more intelligent is open to debate, but they probably do.
As to clear speaking in this House, I believed that I should follow Lady Seear and others. If anybody who comes into this House believes that he needs to take

827
someone as an example I suggest that there is none better than the noble Baroness who is to respond to this debate. The noble Baroness is clear and distinct and her articulation is absolutely faultless. She is able to depart from her brief and make speeches interesting. I suggest to noble Lords who come into this House, no matter how experienced, that they study her performance, among others, at the Dispatch Box. I am quite sure that every word she utters will be heard in the public gallery by all five people who occupy it this afternoon.
I tease the noble Lord slightly. He commented on how we are perceived in the country. I do not believe that our perception in the country comes through the gallery but from the way the press reports our proceedings in this House. Sometimes the press is very remiss and misses those matters that it should cover and gives attention to others that it should not.
If, as the House moves quickly to the second stage of reform, which I doubt I shall survive—the country will become cynical, to use the noble Lord's word, if we do not do so—it retains its powers and functions, or they are increased, I suggest that in very short order the best thing it can do to get the public on its side is to drop the titles Lords and Ladies. If there is anachronism in a reformed House it is not the fabric of the building or the procedures at the State Opening of Parliament but the fact that we go through the pretence of being medieval notables. If we took that step as a voluntary measure it would be very much appreciated by the country at large. We would be seen to be serious about our future. I thank the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to move slightly away from his Motion to make that point.
In all humility—I do not like my noble friends laughing when I say that—I suggest that the noble Lord's Motion could have been phrased somewhat differently. This is a small debate, although it is none the worse for that. However, there are serious implications in what he says which are not evident from the way the Motion is phrased.
I am quite sure that the bad habits of the House will continue to increase. I believe that I am a fairly amiable soul. As I say that I hope that I do not generate any sniggers from the Benches behind. In this world very few things annoy me; for example, people who spit, wink and use initials for everything when it is quite unnecessary to do so. We must put up with acronyms. Since the first stage of reform there has been an increasing tendency to use initials for everything. I do not even like "UK" which is demeaning to the country. I believe that "United Kingdom" is much better and requires no effort. The same applies in other areas. Those are the kinds of matters which will improve our reputation in the country at large. After all, we are a relatively well-educated, articulate and sensible forum which is able to set a standard. That may not necessarily be fully appreciated in the visitors' gallery—I am sure that it is to some extent—but certainly it will be in the country through television and radio if our standards fall. I believe that we must guard against that.
828
I thank the noble Lord for introducing this debate and allowing me to range quite freely round his Motion, as I am rather apt to do.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, I should like to offer my praise to the noble Baroness the Deputy Leader of the House for her clarity, comprehensibility, audibility and visibility. We look forward to her speech at the end of the debate. One was always told that if one indulged in flattery one might as well lay it on with a trowel. I follow the noble Viscount in doing just that.
I also offer my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Hodgson on introducing the debate This is an important subject but it is rather sad that it has attracted such relatively little support. That may be due to a number of different reasons; for example, the mere fact that my noble friend's Motion appeared on the Order Paper only on 25th June for ballot on 27th June, which meant that most noble Lords saw it on the Order Paper only on the 28th. It may be that in future we should look at balloted debates which are held at relatively short notice. I am not sure of the answer to that problem, or whether there is an answer. However, that is a possible explanation for the relatively few speakers. It may also be due to the fact that the holiday is to start somewhat earlier than normal and there is a relatively light load of work in the run-up to the break towards the end of the month. The Bills which the Government have seen fit to introduce are not exactly the most exciting and controversial. I am sure that all of them are of extreme importance, but some might be called good stuff for the lawyers, if not for the rest of us.
Despite the lack of interest in my noble friend's Motion, I believe that it is very important that we consider the whole visibility and audibility of this House and how we present our image outside. One should remember that until the 18th century—relatively recent in the history of Parliament—the proceedings in both Houses were not reported at all, and both Houses stuck to their right of keeping proceedings secret. Gradually pressure mounted on them until, in the late 18th and early 19th century, Hansard was developed and there was proper reporting of Parliament. That is right and should be the case. Therefore, the people to whom Parliament was accountable knew what was going on.
Similarly, there was very heavy resistance to the televising of both Houses of Parliament. I remember debates in the 1980s when this House was the first one to introduce television. There were a great many Peers and Members of another place who had considerable misgivings about the idea of bringing television into Parliament. I cannot remember what my personal view was, but I believe that all of us now completely and utterly accept the fact that both Houses of Parliament should be televised. There are many of us who would like to go even further and see a dedicated channel on terrestrial television for each House so that its proceedings are available to everyone at all times. That might come about in due course.

829
All of us accept that television is essential. It is quite right that Parliament should be televised. Most of us would accept that it has not made that much difference to how either House behaves and that it has not changed the character of this House. It might be that because so many of us now have screens and watch the proceedings in our offices, attendance has been reduced in both Chambers. That is arguable. Therefore, there are considerable advantages to television being available.
The image that this House presents to the world is very important. It will become even more so, particularly in the coming years as we await the details of the Government's plans for consultation with regard to stage two of the reform of this House, and, presumably, after that process of consultation—whatever that process is—their intentions.
When talking about the image of this House I should also offer some praise, which I am sure will be echoed by all parts of the House, to the work of the Information Office in publicising just what we do, how long we sit and with what—I always like to stress this point—economy we perform our duties compared to other legislative bodies. I refer to another place, and to the European Parliament and others. Those responsible do a very fine job indeed.
I must make an admission. Unlike my noble friend, I have never taken the opportunity of listening to our proceedings from the public gallery. I understand that what he said is probably true and that it can on occasions be somewhat difficult for some people in certain parts of the public gallery to hear, to follow and to understand our proceedings.
There are a number of possible remedies. There are also a number of routes that we should be wary of following. Obviously, there are a number of straightforward practical solutions of a kind which the Offices Committee and its appropriate subcommittee—I presume that it would be the Administration and Works Sub-Committee—could pursue. There could be developments and changes to the microphones and the speakers attached to them. The microphones have been changed in the last 20 years. I remember a time when they were much larger and more obtrusive. That indicates that in a House such as this we can always make changes even though, as my noble friend put it, there are some who are resistant to physical change in a building of this kind. But it is always possible. My noble friend made some very good points along those lines and in support of larger television screens and so on.
My noble friend mentioned seating and stressed the fact that body sizes have changed over the last 150 years and that therefore the seats in the public gallery are no longer suitable for the bodies of the 21st century. I do not know whether the same is true of the Benches down here, but certainly I find them perfectly comfortable. As my noble friend also suggested, one could pursue the idea of some new type of Order Paper.
830
I am very grateful that my noble friend referred to the brief guide to the House of Lords with its charming introduction by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the equally charming photograph of him. My noble friend said that it was quite useful but that it did not go far enough. Again it might be appropriate for some other body such as the Procedure Committee to look at what changes might be made.
I said that there were some routes that we should be wary of pursuing. In a desire to make ourselves more open we should not go down false roads. There is a frequent desire—dare I say it—for new Labour to pursue options which, in its terms, are "more modern" or "more relevant". I would strongly caution against any changes to our procedures which were promoted by the noble Baroness and her party under the guise of making our workings more understandable, or, to use another new Labour word, "more relevant". I have no objection to change in itself, but I am always suspicious of change when it is promoted by the Government under the guise of making things clearer, more modern or whatever. That is normally mere shorthand for making life easier for them.
I congratulate again my noble friend Lord Hodgson for raising what I believe is an important point. It is very important that this House makes sure that it can be understood by all those who come to observe it and that those to whom we are in the end accountable understand what we are doing, how we are doing it, and—dare I say—how well we are doing it.
3.57 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for introducing this debate and also the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for their very kind remarks.
I understand that the acoustics in this Chamber have always been the subject of criticism. Your Lordships may be interested to know that in 1921, in his book Lords and Commoners, Sir H Lucy described this very Chamber as,
"the sepulchre of speech".
He went on to state:
"There are not more than half a dozen peers who can successfully combat its grievous acoustical properties".
Another famous and graphic simile suggested that speaking in your Lordships' House was,
"like speaking by torchlight to corpses in a charnel house".
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, I believe that things are not quite as bad as that today.
The subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, relates to audibility and comprehensibility. In terms of audibility, I have listened with great care to the remarks of the noble Lord. I shall of course pass on those remarks to the House authorities to see whether matters can be improved. I should be frank with the noble Lord, I have not been aware of any complaints from any of my visitors about audibility in the galleries. Comprehensibility might be another point.

831
In recent years, a speaker system identical to the one used in the Chamber has been fitted to every bench in the gallery, and I am sure that that has improved matters. In addition, there is an induction loop for people who wear a hearing aid. I am not sure what more can reasonably be done to improve audibility except perhaps asking that your Lordships speak clearly and not too fast. Quite often, in particular when we are speaking against time limits—despite what my colleagues on their various Front Benches have said, at times we all speak very quickly when we see the clock ticking—audibility can be that much more difficult. However, I shall be happy to raise what I can with the House authorities on those points.
In relation to comprehensibility, we move into rather more interesting territory offering perhaps a little more scope. There are two separate issues here: comprehensibility of the speeches and comprehensibility of procedures. I fear that there is little that we can do about the comprehensibility of speeches. The responsibility for that lies squarely with individual Members of the House and I would not dream of making any comment. However, I take some issue with what the noble Lord said as regards whether speeches are interesting. The noble Lord said that he did not think that they are as interesting as they used to be. I think that some of the contributions to our debates are absolutely riveting. Furthermore, on those occasions when they are riveting, it is usually the case that the House is packed full so that we have standing room only.
However, we cannot escape the fact that the subject matter of speeches and the speeches themselves are enormously important. It is the quality of both that gains the interest of the House. Perhaps I may gently point out to the noble Lord that when matters of real interest are to be discussed in your Lordships' House, usually there is a very long list of speakers. Thus in my view the notion that debates used to be more interesting is simply not true. I came to the House very often as a young civil servant. I sat in the Civil Service Box and advised Ministers. Some of the longest feats of endurance were encountered during those very long watches, when handwritten amendments to legislation were accepted from our predecessors. It was not so much a matter of what was comprehensible, but what was legible to the poor people sitting in the Box. Without comprehensibility and without legibility, it was at times very difficult indeed to judge whether the matters in hand were interesting.
I shall turn to the significant efforts that have been made to make our procedures more interesting for our visitors. Every visitor to the House is now offered the booklet illustrated in colour to which the noble Lord referred: The House of Lords: a brief guide. The guides are available in English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Japanese—the languages most frequently requested by our visitors. The guide explains a good deal about your Lordships' House: what the House does; what are the stages of a Bill; what are the different items on the Order Paper; what are Statements and Introductions; what are the categories of Members in the House; how the party system works
832
in the House; and where further information can be found on paper, on television and on-line. The guides also offer some important historical background to help the visitor to place all this information in its proper context. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that it is nothing short of miraculous that so much has been included in the small space available in the guide. Furthermore, I am happy to inform noble Lords that this extremely useful and informative guide is also available in Braille for our visually impaired visitors. I join with the noble Lord, Lord. Henley, in thanking all those who have helped to draw this information together.
I should like also to thank our Doorkeepers, who so far have not been mentioned in our exchanges. The Doorkeepers do a splendid job of explaining this House to visitors to the House who visit in the mornings and up until the time that the House sits. They also help to explain matters to those visitors who come to the House while it is sitting.
It must be said that there are certain parts of the public gallery where the view is somewhat restricted. In order to try to make it easier for visitors to see what is going on, noble Lords will note that two television monitors have been fitted in the gallery. One of the monitors shows the current business while the other—perhaps more helpfully—is tuned to the Lords' annunciator so that visitors can see what business is being taken and who is the current speaker. Perhaps we should install more of those monitors.
As regards the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on televising our proceedings, again that is something that we may look into. However, I am bound to point out that that is to a certain extent a matter for the TV companies, although I understand that yesterday the administration sub-committee agreed that an investigation should be launched into the possibility of webcasting Lords' proceedings, because the BBC Parliament channel covers Lords' proceedings only when the House of Commons is not sitting. Noble Lords will know that sometimes the proceedings in this House are a great deal more interesting than are the proceedings in the other place.
The noble Lord went into some detail on the democratic process and the need for accessibility. Of course we would all agree with that. In a democracy it is of the utmost importance that visitors can see and understand what is going on in the legislature of the country. It is precisely because of that need that the House authorities are acutely aware of the need for a great deal of thought to be given to making our proceedings as transparent as possible.
As to the question of the procedures themselves, frankly, this is not a question that we shall be able to resolve today. Perhaps I may say gently to the noble Lord that in the past there have been some sterling attempts to resolve these issues. It has been argued that our language is antiquated: we are "Content" or we are "Not-Content"; we "divide" rather than vote; and we have something called a "First Reading" where nothing at all is read. Of course those descriptions have grown out of many years of history and tradition and

833
thus might not be the words that we would use today if we were starting with a blank sheet of paper. But we are not starting with a blank sheet of paper; we are where we are. If noble Lords wish to change the ways in which we conduct our business or the words we use to describe it, the answer to that is in our own hands.
The noble Lord is quite right to say that we do not have timetabling. That is partly because we are a self-regulating House. Personally, I would agree with much of what the noble Lord said about timetabling, but he will find that many in your Lordships' House regard the lack of a timetable as a legitimate lever to use when trying to come to understandings with the executive. I thought I heard quite a strong hint of that in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in relation to the possibility of timetabling. However, I should remind noble Lords that my noble friend the Leader of the House has already indicated that he is considering setting up a leaders' group to consider ways of improving the working practices of the House. I am sure that the working group will be happy to consider the representations that any noble Lord—including the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson—wishes to make. No doubt when the moment comes, the noble Lord will be a doughty fighter for reform.
I have sat in the public gallery on many occasions, in particular in my younger days when I was the General Secretary of the Association of First Division Civil Servants. I should say that I did manage to hear the proceedings of your Lordships' House, but that was usually because I was very interested in what was going on. When we began this discussion I believe that some seven or eight individuals were sitting in the gallery. I see that we are now down to six, outside the press boxes.
As to the question of provision for disability, I have dealt already with the issue of monitors, but here we come up against issues of architecture. The noble Lord was rather dismissive on this point, but the fact is that English Heritage would have quite a lot to say about changes being made to the interior of your Lordships' House. I am afraid that there are many things which cannot be changed, given that we work in such splendid government buildings. Significant changes would not find acceptance in the eyes of English Heritage, which regulates us on these matters.
I hope that I have managed to convey a flavour of the facilities and the explanations which are provided for our visitors. If any noble Lord has a visitor who is in any way perplexed by what they have seen in the Chamber, I am sure that the Clerk of the Parliaments—who so far has not been the subject of any of our exchanges—would be glad to hear of any suggestions for improvement. I thank the noble Lord for drawing these matters to our attention.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I shall take only a minute or so to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for his speech. I shall resist his teasing; I have not been the beneficiary of advice from Alan
834
Clark. The noble Viscount made a wide-ranging set of remarks. Where he appeared to be sympathetic, I thank him for his support. I thank also my noble friend Lord Henley for his support and I take on board his words of caution.
I should say two things to the Minister. First, I was not making any comment about the content of speeches in the House. I was merely wondering whether they could be heard in the gallery. I was not saying whether they were more or less interesting than they were years ago. Secondly, my comments about timetabling referred to the redesigning of the Order Paper for the gallery and not to the procedures of the House.
There remains a problem which needs to be addressed. I am glad that I have had a chance to raise it. The Chinese proverb is that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. I hope that we have made a single step today. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Disability Discrimination
4.10 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to call attention to the means now available under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to improve the situation of severely disabled people; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after what was said in the previous debate, I must make myself audible today. The ballot was held only a week ago, at very short notice, and the first inkling that the debate was about to come on appeared only last Thursday, so I am grateful to all Peers and Peeresses who have put down their names to speak.
My aim in the debate, and after it, is to spread more widely information about the availability and potential applications of the Disability Discrimination Act, which, from now on, I shall allude to as the DDA. Parts of the Act have been coming into effect at different times following its enactment in 1995. I should remind the House of my own situation and declare a financial interest. I have received pensions for being severely wounded and partially disabled in World War II as a regular army officer commissioned at the beginning of the war.
I should remind the House of the origins of the DDA, which was the first legislation of its kind to be introduced by any government since the war. Previously it had been left to Private Member's Bills, most of which never reached the statute book, including two of mine, one introduced in the other place and the other, later, in this House.
A notable exception was the Chronically Ill and Disabled Persons Bill 1970, a Private Member's Bill, which was introduced and piloted through by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. The Bill was supported by several noble Lords who were in that House at the time. It was a major landmark. We discussed the Bill on its 30th anniversary last year, so

835
I need not describe it now. I shall comment only that at the time it was welcomed everywhere in the field of disablement in this country.
The Private Member's Bills which never completed their passage through Parliament nevertheless served a useful purpose; they indicated to governments what needed to be done. Much discussion was made possible at various stages—for instance, at Second Reading and in Committee—in both Houses. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, became the first Minister for the Disabled. Since then, all governments have continued to designate a member of their administration in this way. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be able to confirm whether I am right in thinking that since the election last month the honourable Maria Eagle MP has been appointed to that position, or whether we are without a Minister.
I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is to reply to the debate. She has dealt with this subject for several years in this House, both as a Minister and from the Opposition Front Bench. If I may say so, she knows it all.
There was a limit to what could be done in Private Member's Bills. Many of us had been urging governments to embark on anti-discrimination legislation and were pleased when we heard that this was happening in the mid-1990s. The Bill produced by the then government became the DDA. It was a huge advance that only a government Bill could achieve, covering, as it did, many subjects.
There was some criticism at the time that it did not include education; nor was it complete on transport. I knew the reasons for this. At the time, there were serious disagreements among various organisations concerned with education—for example, as to whether mainstream schools or special schools were most appropriate for disabled pupils in various circumstances. And so, rather than allow the DDA to be delayed, education was left out to be dealt with later.
On transport, much was added during the Bill's passage through this House and the other place. It was—if I may so describe them—our "wheelchair squadron" in this House who helped to insert some of the clauses on transport.
The wisdom of the decision on education was confirmed when, to a lesser degree, similar disagreements arose when special education needs were dealt with in the recent SEN Bill. Again, the controversy was based on arguments about mainstream versus special schooling.
There was also some criticism that the DDA produced a national disablement council rather than a full-blown commission. But later it took more than three years to reach agreement and establish the Disability Rights Commission in place of the council under a separate Act of Parliament. Thank heavens that the DDA was not delayed by those events and that disabled people have been benefiting from it since its enactment six years ago.
It is important that disabled people and their carers know about the DDA and, if they have not heard about it before, learn about it, especially as different
836
parts of the Act are still coming into effect al different times. In the past few months, disability organisations have gone out of their way to tell me that disabled people and their carers are availing themselves of relevant sections of the Act. The more widely this is known, the more likely it is that others will do the same and benefit.
By 2004 the providers of services to the public will, subject to reasonable considerations, have to make physical changes to buildings, if that is found to be necessary to permit access for disabled people.
The DDA applies to mental as well as physical disabilities. The main parts of the Act are concerned with employment and the supply of goods and services. The principles of mediation and conciliation apply when complaints and disputes arise, but the law is now there if and when it is needed. That is an important background.
On employment, the Act makes it Illegal to discriminate against a disabled person, taking also into account whether the kind of job is appropriate and what is considered reasonable. A key term is "reasonable arrangements". This is similar to "reasonable accommodation", the key wording in the equivalent American legislation—the Americans With Disabilities Act—which was passed shortly before our Act.
I understand that by the beginning of this year some 5,000 complaints of disability discrimination in employment had gone before employment tribunals. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that figure or provide the latest information. It is clear that the system is working. While I am against frivolous or adventurous claims, I would encourage any severely disabled person who has a serious complaint about employment to avail himself or herself of the provisions of the DDA.
Small firms below a certain size are exempted for the time being from the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act. That exemption should gradually be ended. When the DDA was enacted, it applied to firms with fewer than 20 employees. Now the figure is 15, and is due to be reduced. Will the Minister bring us up to date on the matter? Is the aim still to apply the provisions of the Act to small firms by 2004, so that all employers are covered by its provisions regardless of size?
The explanation for the exemption lies in the quota scheme introduced towards the end of the war. Employers were required to reserve 3 per cent of places within their workforce for those who were registered disabled. In later years, that gave rise to difficulty in many areas because less than 3 per cent of the working population in those areas were registered as disabled. It became mathematically impossible for all employers to comply. Small firms were exempted because of the complications of accounting for a "fraction of a person". For example, if a total workforce was 12, then 3 per cent of those employees was 0.36 per cent of a person. Therefore, businesses employing fewer than 20 people were not obliged by law to employ anyone who was disabled.
The DDA has ended that situation. Both the quota system and the register have been abolished. There is now no reason why small firms should not be treated in the same way as others. I understand that the change is being phased simply to give small firms time to adjust to the situation.
I now turn to goods and services. It is against the provisions of the DDA for a supplier to refuse to serve a disabled person, subject to the test of reasonableness. For example, a restaurant which has a rule not to allow dogs inside must admit a guide dog needed by someone who is blind. Also in relation to dogs, Section 37 of the DDA specifies that taxis must accept guide dogs with passengers. I and other Members of this House have raised this matter at Question Time because the provision is still not being carried out.
At least one useful code of practice has been issued to help all concerned by describing the duties under the Act.Rights of Access, Goods, Facilities, Services and Premises was published in 1996. It is an easily readable brief for those who are involved with public premises and services, as well as for disabled people. I ask the Minister whether other codes of practice have been issued or whether any are in prospect?
Today, we learn that the Government are to announce proposals to place a time limit of three years on incapacity benefit—a proposal that The Times suggests is likely to upset Labour Members of Parliament. For my part, I shall examine the proposal and I shall not comment on it before doing so. There will, however, be concern among disability organisations because of what happened in the previous Parliament when reductions in benefit appeared clumsily to affect adversely some of the most seriously disabled people in the country. After protests and a revolt by Labour MPs, adjustments were made. I hope that we shall not find ourselves in that situation again.
I should mention a scheme which functions well alongside the provisions of the DDA; namely, the Access to Work scheme which began some 12 years ago. The scheme enables the Government to give grants for special equipment to enable disabled people to work. It was retained following the change of government in 1997. Its existence should be made more widely known.
I shall not now describe the special problems of war disabled ex-servicemen—most of whom received their injuries in World War II and are at least 73. That is a subject for a separate debate. I have a Motion on the "No Day Named" list which I hope may be selected in the future. It would be appropriate for the subject to be discussed in this House because, I understand there is no one left in the other place who is old enough to have been in the Armed Forces during the war.
Much remains to be done in this country to improve the quality of life for people with various disabilities. We must not be complacent. Nonetheless, the DDA was a huge step forward. I am pleased that the government initiative and the parliamentary time
838
allotted to it happened during an administration of which I was a supporter, namely, a Conservative government.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for giving us an opportunity to discuss this important issue. The noble Lord, with his vast experience, is a doughty warrior for disabled people and is an honoured member of the Parliamentary All-Party Disability Group. We treasure his contributions, both within the group and in this House. I agree with many of the points that the noble Lord made. We have been dealing with them for some time. Some have been rewarded by the Government and some still require action.
This Government deserve great credit for their policies on disability. There is a vast range of policies for which we are all grateful. They have vigorously promoted, the interests of disabled people and I congratulate them warmly on so doing.
With the best of intentions, one can slip up and fall from a pedestal. I believe that Alistair Darling's speech today was just such a slip-up. He risks losing the good will of disabled people. This revival of the unjustified slur that disabled people may be scroungers who are trying to "fiddle" is a throwback to a very unfortunate period during the Government's previous term in office. Alistair Darling has changed the atmosphere: instead of disabled people appreciating all that is being done, now many will fear that they may be challenged and have their benefits reduced, which will be disastrous for them.
There is no point in instilling fear into disabled people; they are insecure enough as it is. The matter has been badly handled. There has been no consultation with those of us who are intimately involved in disability issues. We have a very good relationship with Ministers in this House and—I thought—in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, this has been a rather aggressive move. I shall not speak at great length on the matter because it is slightly outside the terms of the remit set by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.
When we come to consider discrimination against disabled people, we realise that there is, in fact, a continuum of discrimination. Many people have good will towards disabled people and would not discriminate against them. That is both admirable and welcome. Then we have the vast majority of people who, in my view, could not care less: they would discriminate if it suited their purpose. They are indifferent and, if necessary, willing to wound if it is in their interests. If it is not in their interests, they will not discriminate. However, the approach of those people can be quite damaging unless due care is taken. Then there is the minority of vicious people who will discriminate, and who will not be influenced by any kind of pleas and suggestions; or, indeed, by education and persuasion. They will discriminate because they want to do so—again, in their own interests.

839
To their great credit, this Government have brought in the Disability Rights Commission, remedying a grave weakness in the DDA. Those of us who campaigned earlier for that legislation were disappointed that no commission was established. However, we now have such a commission, with which we are delighted. We have scrutinised its work, and it is most promising. The commission has a splendid chairman in Bert Massey, who is extremely experienced in disability and who is, himself, disabled. He knows a good deal about the subject. It also has Bob Niven, who is very experienced, as its chief executive. He has shown every indication of sympathising with disabled people. He has great knowledge of such matters and is acquiring an even greater knowledge. Those two people have a fine staff to serve them. Indeed, they are very lucky to have the brilliant Agnes Fletcher working with them, as well as other people of a similar calibre. With that kind of man and woman power, the commission can hardly fail.
The commission has been co-operating with government and with employers. I am all for that kind of approach. Unless you have co-operation, you get nowhere. I believe that the work of the commission is most skilful. Members of the commission visited the all-party group and explained what they are seeking to achieve. I found them to be most impressive. However, in any walk of life there is always the danger that, if you become too "cosy" with authority, you can lose your bite. It would be regrettable, deplorable—indeed, disastrous—if the commission became too cosy with employers or my noble friend Lady Hollis, although everyone wants to co-operate with her. It could be a case of, "Let's have lunch old boy; let's have another drink; and then lunch again next week. We'll do what we can". That kind of approach is dangerous.
I repeat: I am all for co-operation and conciliation. However, I remember vividly something that happened when we were fighting for the establishment of such a commission. Certain politicians said, "We don't want a commission: what we want is education and persuasion". But how do you deal with the tough guys; that is to say, those who are recalcitrant and who say, "To hell with disabled people. I don't want them on my payroll. Fm not having them"? Those people seek to discriminate because they do not want disabled people. Admittedly, that may not be in their interests, but that is by the way. It is just too bad. Our job is to ensure that disabled people have a fair crack at the whip. If those people are allowed to get away with it merely because a policy of education and persuasion is adopted, the commission will have failed. So this is just a friendly, flag-waving exercise from me to the commission in the hope that it will buttress education and persuasion with tough court action. Where people are insistent on discrimination, I trust that they will be taken to court with all the legal expertise at the commission's command.
I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister, who has clone a great deal in the field of disability, about the "Access to Work" scheme. She may have heard of it, as, indeed, have a few experts; but many other people have not heard of it. They simply do not
840
know what is going on. Members of the public do not know about it and, similarly, many disabled people are unaware of the scheme. I believe that the Government should initiate a big PR exercise. They should really go to town on this and ensure that everyone is aware of the scheme's existence. We asked my noble friend previously to campaign on benefits as a PR exercise. This would be a second such exercise to publicise the "Access to Work" scheme. If that were to be done, I believe that the take-up would startle the Government. It would be a big step forward for disabled people.
Perhaps I may mention the subject of transport to my noble friend. At present, this is something of a no-man's land. A disabled person can go to a railway station and access is fine; there are no problems in that respect. People are not allowed to discriminate in terms of access. However, if a disabled person tries to get on a train, that is just too bad because you cannot have equality on the trains. The Government have arranged for disabled people to be able to get into a railway station with their wheelchairs, and so on, and that is admirable as far as it goes. But, thereafter, nothing—or virtually nothing—is done when disabled people wish to gain access to a train. How do you get on to the train, how do you get security on the train; indeed, how do you ensure equitable provision on the train? The Government are working on it, but, in my view, they are not working quickly enough. Some of the initiatives that the Government have in mind are admirable, but could not my noble friend the Minister bring them forward? What we really require from her today—if not today, then possibly tomorrow or the day after, but no later—is a few dates as to when the Government intend to implement such proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell—I nearly said "my noble friend", though he is, of course, my friend—mentioned small employers. Again, it is to their great credit that the Government have brought down the number of employers who must come under the Act's provisions. However, I believe that the Government made a serious mistake when they accepted the pleas of small firms to exclude many thousands of them from the discrimination legislation. I say that because the Act specifically says that only reasonable provision should be made, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. Therefore, it is impossible for unreasonable burdens to be imposed on small employers. That plea from small employers was quite bogus, but they managed to persuade the Government to exclude thousands of them from the provisions of the DDA.
However, the Government are seeking to correct that mistake. As far as I can tell, they now intend to bring all employers into that category; but they are not doing so until 2004. That is far too long a time-scale. I recently read that they may do so by the year 2003, but that is still far too long to wait. I should appreciate it if my noble friend could find some way of speeding up the process so that all these firms will no longer be allowed to discriminate in such a way against potential workers.
I should like to conclude by saying that I admire the work of my noble friend on issues of disability; and, indeed, on social security matters. Although we clash

841
on occasions, the thrust of her work is both valuable and admirable. That applies also to the Government, who perform a splendid job. Disabled people are in their debt. All I hope for is that the other elements that I have mentioned today, and which I believe to be errors of judgment, will be corrected soon.
4.39 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for initiating this debate and for giving us an opportunity to reflect on our shared life in the community. In my diocese in Guildford, we are in the process of working towards full compliance with the 1995 Act. We have appointed an officer and a team of people working closely with those most directly affected to ensure that we have made the necessary journey by 2004.
As we were thinking about making that provision, we were told a story that made us all sit up. Those who are familiar with the churches will recognise the story. It was the custom in a local parish church— many who attend church will be well aware of this—for the priest, at the end of the administration of communion, to take the sacrament to one beloved member who was brought to the service week by week in a wheelchair. One Sunday after the service, in conversation with the person who brought the man in the wheelchair, he was thanked for making the effort to ensure that the sacrament was received. However, the man in the wheelchair burst into tears. When he was able to speak he said that he had always longed to be able to go to the altar and receive communion alongside everyone else. How often, when we are responding to people with particular disabilities, do we fail to understand their feelings and their sense of belonging to a shared human community?
The Peacock Centre in Woking has an important "Shopmobility" facility and has made considerable efforts to ensure ease of access for people with disabilities. It is noticeable how many people with disabilities use that centre. I am told that there is similar provision in other places such as Telford and that people come from miles around to use the facilities there. These developments make visible what the failure to provide has made invisible.
This enabling of participation in the common life by all requires a profound change of attitudes. People with disabilities are discriminated against not just in the failure to take good steps to ensure access, but in the way in which many see them, understand them and speak of them. Two such people who had requested provision in their church for visually impaired people overheard others say after the meeting at which they had raised the issue that they were "pushy". Another who had moved into a community facility for people with learning difficulties arrived for the first time at the parish church to find that the person giving out the books was the one who had led the campaign against the building of the facility in the community. NIMBY
842
attitudes are to be found across the whole community in relation to these needs. I endorse all that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has just said about the spectrum.
The task is not simply to provide ramps, better toilet facilities, loops and books in Braille, excellent though such changes are. The real task is to shift public attitudes. In that, the 1995 Act is rooted in the soundest of doctrines about human life. It challenges the long held assumption about humanity that there are "normal" human beings and the rest who live on the margins. We are at last beginning to recognise that God gave us our humanity in a multitude of sizes and shapes. What we share is not normality but a common humanity—the same flesh and blood.
This past week I came across a wonderful definition of health by one of the Church's great theologians of recent times, Jurgan Moltmann. He states in the book, Liberate Yourselves by Accepting One Another, that health is,
"The strength to live, the strength to suffer and the strength to die. Health is not a condition of the human body. It is the power of my soul to cope with the various conditions of that body".
Because we are all different yet fundamentally sharing in a common humanity, we all need support from one another, and that support must take account of who we are and the character of our living. The largest and most challenging task is to root into the public consciousness this understanding of human life.
We have heard from the media today that the Secretary of State for Health has indicated that he would like all who are registered as disabled and unfit for work to be regularly assessed. But that raises the question of doctrine—how do we see one another? People are not just economic numbers who, if they are not at work, are a drain on the public purse. If we are to get the language right, we must get the doctrine right. How can people make a contribution if they are faced with negative attitudes in the workplace, lack of decent provision for their needs and a constant struggle to gain acceptance for who they are and what their life is all about? There is a huge and growing contribution to be made by people with particular needs, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has clearly indicated. But turning the screw on them as if they are reluctant participants is no way to go about the matter; tackling the issues which prevent people sharing in the common life is.
There is a lot to do. I understand that in my own diocese in Surrey thus far only two boroughs have appointed access officers to ensure compliance with the Act. There are many opportunities for the Government to assist in furthering these matters, and much is being done of which we are immensely appreciative. I understand, for example, that a proposal is before the Government to exempt Braille equipment from VAT. I hope that it will be sympathetically considered, for those small and large steps all convey the right message to the whole community. There are so many things we can all do to make use of the opportunities which the Act gives us.
I hope that noble Lords will not think that I have overstepped the mark in introducing doctrinal themes into our debate, but what we believe matters. It

843
matters in terms of how we think and how we behave. The 1995 Act is rooted in sound doctrine and, as such, challenges us in the Churches as much as in the wider community. Let us pray that by 2004 we shall all have made the journey with courage, joy and success.
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for introducing this debate on one of the most significant pieces of legislation yet passed for disabled people in the UK. I declare my interests as a wheelchair user and as someone who receives disability living allowance.
In reviewing the impact of the Disability Discrimination Act to date it is difficult to tell how well it is working for severely disabled people; that is, those who face the greatest level of social exclusion. Blind people with guide dogs continue to be banned from restaurants and people with learning difficulties continue to face appalling levels of bullying. To my knowledge there are no readily available tools for measuring the precise impact of the DDA on that, but there are some pretty clear indicators that the law, the way in which it is being enforced and the support available to disabled people seeking redress present huge barriers. This debate offers the opportunity to consider how we can better empower disabled people to exercise their rights under the law.
First, the law is unnecessarily complex and inaccessible. You need to be a lawyer specialising in the field to understand all its intricacies. You need to know about the "triggers" for making reasonable adjustments, the "threshold for justification" and similarly obscure concepts, to have any sense of whether you have a strong case. The DDA seems to be designed to present a series of forbidding hoops to jump through, not as a user friendly tool for building a culture of respect for disabled people's rights. The Government's proposals for future legislative change outlined in the recent consultation paper, Towards Inclusion, would remove many of the unnecessary hoops but there is a wider need for all future legislation to be written in plain English and scrutinised for its accessibility.
Secondly, agencies undertaking case work with disabled people are hugely overstretched. Even with the Disability Rights Commission there is inadequate infrastructure to ensure that anyone who needs it can get advice and representation from a lawyer who specialises in DDA cases. Someone presenting themselves as a test case that may set a precedent or clarify a particularly obscure aspect of the law is more likely to get support and resources, assuming they know where to look for them in the first place. That is a major barrier in itself. Research shows that people who have to represent themselves have much less chance of success. Those problems were anticipated at the time of the passing of the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999, when higher funding for the DRC and local DDA resource bases were called for. Will the Minister assure us that the Government are prepared to revisit that?
844
Thirdly, we know little of the impact of the DDA in areas such as access to goods, services and facilities, because there is virtually no case law. Discrimination against disabled people in everyday situations can be pretty relentless, so one would expect a large number of cases to come forward under Part III, but that has not been so. By the autumn of last year, only 25 cases had been brought to the county or sheriff courts under Part III of the DDA, as against more than 5,000 to employment tribunals. Perhaps the following example will show why.
Recently, a disabled man was in court challenging a train operating company's failure to provide him with assistance at a station. No specialist lawyer was available to represent him, so he represented himself and asked for an adjournment so that lie could have another go at seeking legal representation. The judge granted the adjournment, but ordered him to pay £600. That was eventually reduced to £175 plus VAT. The train company then attempted to have the case moved to the multi-track system, which meant that if he lost he would be liable to pay the company's costs as well. That does not happen in an employment tribunal. The respondent does not get to manipulate the system to their advantage and the issue of paying their costs does not arise.
Undoubtedly, the court system provides a powerful deterrent to disabled people seeking redress. The DRC will be addressing that key issue as part of its current review, but the sooner change can happen, the better.
Compliance with the DDA is too dependent on the willingness and ability of already disadvantaged people to take the case to court or tribunal. Enabling the DRC to undertake representative actions in its own name might overcome some of those obstacles, as will the Government's proposal to place public bodies under a statutory duty to promote equality for disabled people. Such a positive, proactive duty will encourage the spread of good practice and oblige policy makers to assess the impact of their policies and decisions on disability equality.
Lastly, and most importantly for severely disabled people, they will not be able to challenge some of the more blatant abuses of their rights unless and until the DRC is empowered to bring cases involving alleged breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998. Most urgent of these are the issues concerning lack of essential local authority support services for people who need them to carry out their daily lives. The Government have said that that cannot be done immediately because of the need to secure consistency with the other equality commissions and because the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights is consulting on the establishment of a human rights commission. That may be a long way off. Will the Minister reconsider that and allow protection for severely disabled people under the Human Rights Act to be covered by the Disability Rights Commission as a matter of urgency?

845
One group who urgently require the effective protection of the Human Rights Act are those with profound and multiple disabilities and complex needs, who may find it difficult or impossible to advocate for themselves, or even communicate with their own family. That includes many who live in the last of the long-stay mental hospitals or in other forms of residential care. They may be denied the most basic rights, such as the rights to receive treatment for serious illness or to form relationships or marry. They would find it almost impossible to challenge such abuses without the support of the Disability Rights Commission. The DDA offers no protection against those abuses. Only assistance under the Human Rights Act offers that protection.
Furthermore, the complexity and multiplicity of human rights issues facing that group makes a strategic intervention by the Disability Rights Commission doubly essential, because it is uniquely placed to conceive and execute a legal strategy to tackle the most serious abuses, establish key precedents and help ensure that case law in that area develops in a positive and orderly way.
The swift introduction of regulations enabling the DRC to support disabled people in such cases would send a powerful message of much-needed hope and support to disabled people and their families. It would enhance the authority and effectiveness of the DRC and would be one of the Government's most positive and lasting achievements for severely disabled people. I hope that the Minister will be able to oblige.
4.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to make a brief intervention before the wind-up speeches. My mother was in a wheelchair for much of her life. As a teenage boy wheeling her out, I was often deeply embarrassed and very angry about the discrimination shown in the 1950s to severely disabled people like her. Thankfully, we have come a long way since then, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, have said, much remains to be done.
My particular concern in this intervention—this concern was mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley—is with Section 7 of the DDA, which has introduced discrimination of the sort that the Act is meant to oppose. A firm with fewer than 20 employees that discriminates against a person with a disability who is also female and/or black would not be guilty in law of discrimination if that discrimination was shown to be on the grounds of disability alone. The Section 7 exemption applies a numerical formula to an Act that is supposed to be about rights. Thus 34 per cent of the workforce and 96 per cent of firms are excluded from the measures. I am concerned about the delay in putting right that wrong. If, as my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford has rightly said,
846
freeing people with disabilities from discrimination is a moral quest, I cannot see why the law still allows some firms to be less moral than others.
4.57 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for this timely opportunity to review and evaluate the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which is widely recognised as landmark legislation. It is an ambitious and large-scale Act that places diverse duties on public and private sector bodies. It is right that it should be reviewed regularly so that checks can be made on progress. This debate is a welcome opportunity to do that.
In preparing for the debate, I looked at the report of the Disability Rights Task Force, From Exclusion to Inclusion, and the Government's response, Towards Inclusion. Both are wide-ranging documents, as this afternoon's debate has reflected. I shall focus on one or two particular areas and one theme.
Today's debate is timely because, despite the best efforts of some of us, during the recent election campaign the needs and rights of disabled people went without mention. Although disabled people are citizens who share common concerns with the rest of us, they have additional needs and additional qualities to bring to communal life. At the start of a new Parliament it is right to pay attention to issues that directly affect between 8 million and 10 million people in the United Kingdom. In doing so, I shall revive a theme from the last Parliament that seems to have been forgotten but should not be, particularly in relation to this subject. I refer to the phrase "joined-up government".
I have two interests to declare. As noble Lords may know, I work for Age Concern England. Secondly, and more relevantly, my mum is profoundly deaf and has been dependent on NHS hearing aids since the 1940s. She is post-lingually deaf and does not use BSL, although we all learnt to finger spell the alphabet as children in case of emergencies. Her life has been largely spent in the hearing world. We did not have adaptations in our home; we just had the television turned up very loud. People of my generation are wont to say that they used to watch "Dr Who" from behind the sofa because they were so frightened. In our house our experience of "Dr Who" was two bars of thumping, pulsating music and a voice saying, "Turn that noise off now".
It has been interesting to experience at first and second hand the effects of the policy of successive governments on the lives of individuals. When I was small my mother had an old box hearing aid with a cord. It was not until the 1980s when we moved house and she happened to come under the audiology department of a general hospital that she came to use a hearing aid which fitted behind the ear.
I can vouch for the veracity of the Audit Commission report, Fully Equipped. Obtaining the right equipment and having it properly fitted is still a matter of chance for disabled people. The

847
consequences of not finding it are severely debilitating for some disabled people. As the RNID report, Still Waiting to Hear, demonstrates, most NHS hearing aid models are over 30 years old. There are only 20 First Wave of Modernising NHS Hearing Aid services. If a deaf person does not live in one of those areas, not only does he not benefit but, as many of the means of communication become digital, he is left more and more in isolation and exclusion.
In addition, waiting times for hearing tests are becoming longer and investment in equipment and skilled staff is failing to keep pace with need. As devolution of decision making in the health service moves towards primary care, what assurances will there be that specialist services and equipment will keep pace with change and that disabled people will be able to seek the help of appropriately skilled professionals? Although the debate on reform of public services is beginning to happen, the reliance placed by severely disabled people on the NHS should not be subject to the vagaries of the market place.
On digital matters, it seems appropriate to mention one of the obvious omissions of the DDA. While terrestrial broadcasters are under an obligation to provide captioning and subtitling, digital and satellite broadcasters are not. Recent reports in newspapers suggest that some digital broadcasters are in financial difficulty and that the range of digital suppliers may decrease. It is therefore of even greater importance that those who remain have an obligation to make their broadcasts accessible. What plans do the Government have to bring digital broadcasting within the scope of the DDA?
From broadcasting I turn to advertising and information. In 1999 the Government launched the campaign, See the Person, designed to raise awareness of disability among employers and service providers by challenging misconceptions about disability. Those of us who were aware of that campaign were encouraged by the engaging and often amusing way in which the campaign challenged stereotypes of disabled people. Have the Government any evidence about the effectiveness of that campaign and similar campaigns? I am not convinced that such blanket advertising gets through effectively to those who need to change although I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. I very much welcome any evidence.
I return to the theme of joined-up government. Other noble Lords have mentioned the Government's intention to introduce the new medical check for incapacity benefit. The announcement, and the manner in which it was made without any consultation with disability groups, runs counter to the Government's stated intention of enhancing inclusion. On the one hand, the Government have accepted that conditions such as HIV serostatus and cancer should be included in the DDA. However, at the same time they propose to make disabled people prove every three years that they cannot undertake tasks which make therm suitable for work. That has a ring of discordance about it.
848
When the national minimum wage was introduced, there was a great deal of apprehension from disabled people and employers alike about the effect it could have upon disabled people who were working but whose package of benefits and support would be jeopardised by their increased earnings. Good employers, notably B&Q, did a considerable amount of work to ensure that their disabled employees could be retained. What progress has been made on that front? I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. This Government have done a great deal of positive work for disabled people.
Part of my work with Age Concern involves advising small voluntary organisations about employment matters. From my experience it is clear that there is a huge amount of ignorance particularly in small businesses and organisations about the provisions of the DDA but, most importantly, about the various sources of support for employers who wish to hire and retain staff with disabilities. The availability of money for adaptations and capital equipment is extremely valuable, as is the provision of support workers. I know of a number of instances where experienced staff have been able to carry on working following strokes which have left them with a disability. However, I wish to draw to the Minister's attention to a shortcoming in the system. While the costs of travel to work can be met, the costs of travel incurred during work cannot be recovered. For example, the cost of a taxi to enable a member of staff to carry out a home visit to someone who is housebound cannot be recovered. For small employers such matters can be a significant barrier to the retention of extremely valued and experienced staff who are disabled.
An additional limitation of the DDA is that it does not cover volunteers. Volunteering is an important and rewarding experience for many people. It is also an important opportunity to gain experience and confidence. For many it is a route to finding paid work. The fact that organisations, many quite small, cannot access resources to facilitate volunteering by disabled people in a way that can encourage employment is a barrier. I hope that the Government may reconsider the matter.
As many noble Lords have said, transport remains the most significant omission from the DDA and blunts the effectiveness of the Act in almost every respect. Although regulations have been introduced to make new trains and buses accessible, there is still no date by which all trains have to be accessible. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, spoke of equality of rail travel. He will agree with me that standards are an important issue. At present, travel can be equally miserable for disabled and able-bodied. The lack of accessible transport is a fundamental flaw not only in this Act but in many others. For example, the Health and Social Care Act places on health bodies a duty to consult with users. Many of those users are disabled people. If they cannot travel to consultation meetings, they will not be able to take part in that partnership. Many areas of government policy which espouse inclusion will fail to meet their targets as a result. At a

849
time when transport is a key issue for disabled and able-bodied people alike, joined-up thinking is of the essence. The anomaly that airlines, rail companies and car hire providers will have obligations to make their modes of transport accessible for employees but not for passengers is strange.
In passing, I make a plea for all rail companies to stop referring to their users as clients and start treating them as passengers with varying needs, all of whom would benefit from greater access.
The Disability Rights Task Force identifies a number of areas in which further work should be undertaken to strengthen the DDA. Sitting as we are today in the Victorian splendour of the Palace of Westminster, it would be remiss not to mention Part M of the building regulations and guidance on access from English Partnerships. New and old buildings alike are inaccessible and often there is much which can be done to rectify that without great expense. On these Benches, we believe that timetables for reviewing both measures should be set as soon as possible.
Finally, I refer to one factor which is not but should be in the Act: that is, disability awareness training for architects, designers and planners. Much of what the Act sets out to rectify and address are the effect of bad or ill-considered design. Much could be done through disability awareness training. To experience the world, as disabled people do every day, is a powerful means of making able-bodied people think about the world as it is for us all. I believe that it should be a compulsory part of training for anyone who is involved in design and building.
Much has changed since the 1940s when eugenicists tried to persuade politicians that there should be laws to prevent deaf people from marrying and having children with hearing people. That disabled people increasingly have the right to equal treatment, rather than having to depend upon the chance of fair consideration and charity from the rest of society, is only just. But good as the DDA is—it is widely recognised as a good law—rights without access for disabled people are pretty meaningless.
Full implementation of the Act could be the best response this Government make. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, they have made far more significant strides than have most other governments, and they have built upon the work which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, identified as being so important on the part of the previous administration.
I hope that today the Minister will give an encouraging response to suggestions that have been made not only for improving the Act but, in very direct ways, for improving the lives of disabled people.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, this is the first opportunity that I have had to welcome the noble Baroness the Minister back to the Dispatch Box. In the previous Parliament she earned a great deal of respect
850
from all sides of the House. I very much look forward to helping, critically but constructively, to improve her department's Bills in this Parliament.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy on initiating this important debate. I always listen to his speeches with very great interest. The noble Lord has first-hand experience of severe disability which, since the war, he has bravely borne. That gives him a real insight into the problems of, and opportunities for, disabled people. But, beyond that, he brings to these debates imagination, energy and extensive knowledge of the parliamentary system, particularly as a former Cabinet Minister, for which I know that disability groups are very grateful.
My noble friend is right to point out the importance of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—a landmark Conservative Bill introduced in the other place by William Hague. The DDA, which built on the foundation of the 1970 Act introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, was described by the Equal Opportunities Review as,
"the most important legislation in a generation".
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, asked me to say how much he regrets being unable to speak in this debate. The DDA opened up new markets for business, new job opportunities for people who had envisaged life on benefits, and new designs for all principles built into the latest technology.
I much enjoyed the speeches of the two right reverend Prelates. As a trustee of the two Kent cathedrals, I can assure them that we work very hard to make both cathedrals as user-friendly as possible for all disabled people.
One in every four customers either has a disability or a close relative or friend who is disabled. The estimated annual purchasing power of people with disabilities is £40 billion to £50 billion. Many providers of goods and services are showing themselves willing to make their services accessible to disabled people. Increasingly, they are approaching disability organisations and consultancies proactively to ask for advice on good practice. But that is only the beginning, and my noble friend is right to call attention to the means now available under the 1995 Act to improve the situation of severely disabled people.
What else needs to be done? There is still an Everest of ignorance that needs to be climbed. Many employers are unaware of the DDA and the Access to Work scheme, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. Like my noble friend, he is also a doughty warrior for the disabled. An example of such ignorance is a recent case of 10 adults with learning disabilities who were refused permission to enter a pre-booked party at a pub. The landlady considered that they would constitute a breach of the fire regulations and affect her regulars' comfort. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, brought to our attention the bullying that takes place.

851
Earlier this year, the Disability Rights Commission carried out a survey in which they asked people about attitudes towards disabled people and awareness of the DDA. Worryingly, fewer than half—only 46 per cent—had heard of the DDA. Clearly, the Government's "See the Person" campaign, launched in June 1999, has been a hopeless flop. It was designed to raise awareness of disability and the requirements of the DDA among employers, service providers and disabled people. Many disabled people are unaware of their rights under the DDA. That can act as a deterrent to many who believe that they may have been discriminated against.
Future progress for disabled people depends on effective publicity of the DDA and its benefits. Can the Minister tell the House what plans the Government have to widen the exposure and understanding of the DDA and the work of the RDA?
Disabled people make up a large and growing proportion of the working-age population. Employers, in particular, must be made more aware of the DDA and the Access to Work scheme. Many service providers or their advice agencies and solicitors do not understand either their obligations or the huge potential opportunities that enhancing their service with disabled people could bring to their business. I know employers who tell me enthusiastically about the loyalty, abilities and hard work that disabled people have brought to their jobs and the new perspectives that they have brought to the work. Sadly, that is not the norm.
Mencap, for example, points out that a recent public opinion survey suggested that nearly 90 per cent of the general public believe that people with a learning disability are employable. However, only 10 per cent of people with learning disabilities have paid employment. Most people said that they would be happy to live next door to someone with a learning disability. Yet a high proportion experience unfair discrimination in their daily lives, and the housing of such people in the community faces regular objections from neighbours.
Access for disabled people remains a high priority. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, mentioned transport problems. We on these Benches urge the Government to set end dates by which all passenger rail vehicles must be accessible. Without a more accessible transport network, greater access to the workplace for disabled people will not follow.
We supported recent legislation establishing the Disability Rights Commission. We also welcomed the extension of the DDA to cover education. However, my noble friend Lady Blatch has expressed our concerns in relation to other aspects of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act. We are concerned that the Government require local authorities to place children with special needs—many are severely disabled—in mainstream schools, regardless of the child's interests. That push for inclusion at all costs has put pressure on special schools and has resulted in the closure of many of them.
852
Maria Eagle has been brought in with considerable fanfare as the Minister for Disabled People. She is responsible for the issues that are classified as work and pensions; namely, disability policy, the Disability Rights Commission, disability benefits and long-term care. However, it would seem that she is not the only Minister with responsibility for disability issues. In the Department for Education and Skills the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, is responsible for pupils with individual needs, such as SEN. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, is responsible for matters relating to disabled people and training in the workplace; or does that fall within the remit of Maria Eagle or Nick Brown? Which Minister within the DfES is responsible for access for disabled people to further education and higher education institutions, as provided for in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act; or does that fall under the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions?
The Cabinet Office is responsible for social exclusion, which cuts across many different government departments. Disability is a major ca use of poverty and, as Leonard Cheshire and Scope point out, many disabled people are excluded. Do the Government have any plans for the Social Exclusion Unit to pick up on disability as a special area of work?
In the Department of Health, Jacqui Smith is listed as responsible for disability services. Indeed, during health Oral Questions last Tuesday she answered a Question on the national strategy for learning disabilities, now a Department of Health issue. Clearly, there is an overlap between these four departments, with no one person responsible for issues relating to disabled people. How wide is the remit of Maria Eagle, as Minister for Disabled People, throughout Whitehall? If it is wide-ranging, does she have the resources to make this possible?
The apparent lack of arrangements for cross-departmental consultation on issues affecting disabled people is causing alarm bells to ring among the disability groups. So important is this point to the chair of one disability charity that she has taken the decision, reluctantly, to listen to our debate rather than watch Wimbledon and Tim Henman on television! Disability organisations are already concerned at the Government's welfare reform plans to toughen up conditions for the 2.3 million disabled people who currently rely on incapacity benefits. I have been fielding calls all day from different disability organisations on the MoT tests for people with disabilities.
We all want disabled people to find work, but the disability groups, with whom there has apparently been absolutely no consultation, tell me that these measures will do little to help achieve that. The measures were leaked first to the press and then announced this morning by the Secretary of State to the IPPR. Why was no Statement on such an important matter made, before anywhere else, to both Houses of Parliament?
5.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on his success in the ballot on this occasion. We have had a short, thoughtful and, as I would expect in your Lordships' House, expert debate. I also very much welcome his choice of subject. Helping severely disabled people within society is an issue which this Government have taken seriously and on which, as noble Lords around the House have acknowledged, we have made great progress. We have helped to empower, support and protect them.
Although I should like to focus, as did the noble Lord, on the Disability Discrimination Act, I shall also mention some of the other areas which noble Lords have raised, including the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, about the comments made this morning. The DDA was brought in by the previous government only after much pressure over the years from colleagues in this House and another place to provide civil rights for disabled people. I know that the involvement of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in promoting statutory help for disabled people has been very significant. I should like to pay a special tribute to my noble friend Lord Ashley—although given his concerns about "cosying up", I suspect that I can no longer take a drink from him in future—and to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for their efforts over the years to introduce and strengthen civil rights legislation for disabled people.
Although the DDA was a very welcome Act, we said from the Opposition Benches at the time that as and when we came to power it needed to be strengthened. We recognised that it provided helpful protection for around 8.5 million disabled people, but that we needed to build on it. In October we announced that we would continue to implement the access to goods and services provisions in the DDA, set up a Disability Rights Task Force and, above all—in our view this was the main omission from the 1997 Act—establish a Disability Rights Commission to "powerhouse" the Act and make actions accountable in law.
In 1997, the DDA already meant that businesses and public bodies had to treat disabled people fairly. In 1999, we made sure that service providers would also have to change the way they delivered their services to make them accessible. We also announced in 1997 that in 2004 service providers may have to make adjustments to their premises for disabled people. That might mean a ramp or a wider doorway, for instance, but only things that are reasonable for a particular provider. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was right to emphasise the word "reasonable" in that context.
We also moved quickly to set up the Disability Rights Task Force. Its first job was to make recommendations on setting up a Disability Rights Commission. In setting it up a year ago a major flaw in the DDA has been put right.
The next job we gave the task force was to look at comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. Its second and final report, which was mentioned by the
854
noble Baroness, Lady Barker, was called From Exclusion to Inclusion and contained more than 150 recommendations across all areas of life. We immediately announced that we would legislate to introduce rights for disabled pupils and students. We have now done that in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, which corrects another major flaw in the DDA.
In a thoughtful and well informed speech, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked about mainstreaming in this respect. The SEN provisions will make a drive towards the greater inclusion of children with statements into mainstream schools where parents want it and where it is compatible with the efficient education of other children. That means that we must give greater support to those parents by creating a duty to establish parent partnership services and a new duty to establish conciliation arrangements and working codes. It can be a balancing act, not so much, if I may speak personally now, where a child has a physical disability but where his or her behaviour may be severely challenging and therefore very demanding in terms of the teacher's time vis-à-vis other children. Clearly, judgments have to be made, but the push of the Act is that teachers with proper support may be able to take more such children into mainstream schools. I am sure that that will be welcomed on all sides.
In March, we published our response to the task force's recommendations. We reported on the progress we had made in education, the provision of services, travel, the environment and housing, participation in public life, local government, health, social services and social security. We made clear that we will be ending the exemption of small firms from the DDA's provisions—the 20, then the 15 limit—in 2004. I am happy to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield that as from 2004 all firms will be brought within the coverage of the DDA. More than that, we are bringing in more occupations such as police officers, fire fighters, prison officers, barristers in chambers, partners in partnerships and employees on ships and planes. That will bring nearly 7 million more jobs, including over 600,000 currently filled by disabled people, within the scope of the Act's employment provisions. That will be a huge achievement.
We are also committed to extending the DDA to cover most functions of public services—not just, as now, services to the public—and to introducing a new duty on public services to promote equalisation of opportunities for disabled people. Noble Lords asked a number of specific questions on that point. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked to what extent digital broadcasting would be included. In so far as it is a service or facility for members of the public, it comes within the remit of Part III of the Act. We are looking to see how we can improve co-ordination between various agencies. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked about the codes of practice. We have three codes of practice: one on employment, one on goods and services, and one on trade organisation. There will also be another later this year on education.

855
My noble friend Lord Ashley picked up the role of the Disability Rights Commission. He was warm in his praise of Bert Massie, its chairman. I am sure that my noble friend agrees with Bert Massie, who said that this is the most significant programme of reforms since disability rights legislation was first introduced 30 years ago.
My noble friend understandably asked—or perhaps I should say that he worried about—whether the fact that the Disability Rights Commission sought to work through conciliation and negotiation at least as much as through consultation meant that it would, in his words, "cosy up" too easily to the establishment in its various forms. Knowing Bert Massie as I have done over many years—my noble friend has also known him for a long time—and knowing that he has suffered from discrimination that I personally would find deeply offensive, I cannot easily believe that he could be bought off by the old boy network in the way in which my noble friend might fear.
Just for the record, the Disability Rights Commission has already taken on 2,000 cases, although the predicted number for this first year was 200. That sounds pretty tough.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I hope that there was no misunderstanding about my statement about being too cosy. No allegation was made against Bert Massie or Bob Niven; I praise them lavishly. I was referring to a trend that is normal and natural. I was giving the warning, "Just be careful".
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will be the first to keep Bert Massie up to the mark in his task as chair of the Disability Rights Commission and in relation to its efforts to combat discrimination, should he need any scrutiny.
The DRC brought to the courts 40 cases last year and 70 cases this year. Again, that is a strong record. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, suggested that 5,000 cases had been brought to employment tribunals. My understanding is that as of last September there were 9,000 cases. Most of them were settled or withdrawn but, of the 1,165 cases that were heard, about one-quarter were successful. I say to my noble friend Lady Wilkins that the funding of the DRC must and will be kept under review.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, indicated that the Acts were being used. It may reaffirm what he said to point out that the DRC and the Government had expected that during the DRC's first year of operation there would be about 45,000 calls or inquiries to it; in fact, there were more than 62,000 calls. Interestingly, 20 per cent of them were from employers or providers. Again, that shows that the DRC is undertaking a helpful role.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked who was responsible for the employment and training of disabled people. My right honourable friend Nick Brown, who is in the other place, is responsible for the New Deal for Disabled People. Colleagues in the
856
Department for Education and Skills are responsible for training. Maria Eagle is the Minister responsible for disabled people; specifically, she is responsible for civil rights, disability benefits and access to work in Remploy, and she co-ordinates work across government. I hope that that meets my noble friend's point.
I was asked about transport. The Government will be consulting separately on the task force's transport recommendations. My noble friend Lord Ashley will know that we have already improved accessibility for new rail vehicles from 1st January 1999 and for new buses from 31st December 2000. There are currently proposals in the pipeline for further improvements, such as those relating to small vehicles—that is, those that seat fewer than 22 people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about building regulations. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has surveyed the matter and it is considering its response. The DRC is taking on board issues such as ensuring that architects and so on are well briefed. My experience of local government is that many authorities have superb records in that field.
I was pressed by my noble friend Lady Wilkins on human rights. Last year we signed up to the European Union employment directive, which will ensure that all member states protect disabled people against discrimination in employment and training. That would make it easier for disabled people from the UK to work in other member states. I hope that it does not sound boastful but, with the possible exception of Ireland and Sweden, the UK has more widely drawn, comprehensive and enforceable rights for disabled people than anywhere else in the EU. My noble friend, who raised a point about human rights, was right: we need to ensure that there are coherent arrangements. The new parliamentary Joint Committee will consider that and we do not want to pre-empt it. We shall obviously take seriously its recommendations.
Legislation is only one issue. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said in his moving speech, we also need to change attitudes about disability and about raising awareness. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, gave some interesting figures about learning difficulties; his statistics were compelling and his point was absolutely right. They convey the mountain that many disabled people still have to climb. There is a need to confront, in the best possible way, people's stereotypes. People too often see the disability first. We have to change attitudes—we have to "read" people for their ability and contribution, not for their disability, which may be the most minor part of their lives. The Government recently launched a publicity campaign that was aimed largely at showing smaller businesses how easy it can be to help their disabled customers. The DRC is also working in that field.
A third area in which we have needed to focus our attention has been in providing practical help for disabled people who want to work or to stay in work. Most disabled people can and do use the same

857
employment services as non-disabled people. However, some need additional or separate help, especially those with more severe disabilities. We have about 600 specialist disability employment advisers working at job centres. Our work preparation programme delivers employment rehabilitation for those who need it to become ready for work. Access to work—the comments of my noble friend Lord Ashley on this matter were absolutely right—provides important help for about 25,000 disabled people who face employment barriers. Our expenditure has doubled over the past few years and twice as many are being helped compared with the figures for four years ago. We spend £300,000 publicising its services, but we should do so to a greater extent. I shall draw that to the attention of my honourable friend Maria Eagle. Having facilities that are not fully utilised is such a waste of potential and talent.
Workstep is our newly developed programme of supported employment. We are investing an additional £40 million to give it a good start. Under our New Deal for Disabled People we have been testing ways of supporting disabled people to get or to keep jobs. Our disabled person's tax credit, together with the national minimum wage, ensures that for disabled people, work pays. We are also giving greater support to those who are most severely disabled, who need help and for whom income from work is not the whole answer. The disability income guarantee has ensured that the poorest, most severely disabled people who are below pension age will receive an income of at least £142 a week for a single person and £186 for a couple. About 130,000 families and 30,000 families with severely disabled children have benefited from that.
Those noble Lords who have taken a particular interest in this area, including above all my noble friend Lord Ashley, will know that we have moved to help severely disabled people who are victims of vaccine damage. That has not been mentioned so far today but it is very much on the Government's agenda. Nothing can make up for what happened to the affected people but we have a duty to support them. Last year we increased vaccine damage payments to £100,000, including back-dated top-ups for people who had received earlier settlements. I am delighted that we shall also be legislating to reduce the disability threshold for a payment from 80 per cent to 60 per cent and to extend the limit on claiming for children to the age of 21. We shall shortly be issuing a consultation document on those changes. Noble Lords have pressed me on such matters in this House on many occasions and I am delighted that we have been able to respond in this way.
Before I conclude I turn to a point that was raised by many noble Lords; namely, the comments in the press on the speech this morning by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the Institute for Public Policy Research. There may be some misunderstanding of what the situation is now for people on incapacity benefit and perhaps I can help to set it in context. I hope that noble Lords will distance themselves from
858
comments like "MOTs" and so forth, which I find offensive, inappropriate and deeply degrading. The use of such language helps no one.
At the moment the Benefits Agency carries out 1 million personal capability assessments every year. Half of those tests are repeat assessments, the other half are first-time applications. So all new claims for incapacity benefit are now subject to review at some point between the timespan of six months and five years. There is nothing new about checking ongoing claims for incapacity benefit.
An obvious example is somebody who may be receiving IB because they had been on kidney dialysis, which had implications for their health, but subsequently went on to receive a kidney transplant. Their situation, their capacity for work and their dependence on incapacity benefit would have been transformed almost within a matter of weeks. It would be absurd then to regard TB as a benefit for life when the disability from which that person suffered had been overcome.
In a Bill later this year we are proposing that new claimants of incapacity benefits be normally subject to a review after three years. It is not about forcing people off benefit if they are still unable to work. The review will look at people's condition after they have been on benefit for three years, rather than the more random six months, five years and now three years. It is about helping people back into work, where possible, by offering the necessary help and support through the personal advisory service at job centres. It has been a huge success for other groups of people, including lone parents. We may be talking about rehabilitation, the new developments that have emerged; we may be talking about re-skilling, and someone who was previously a manual worker may be happy to take on computer skills which open up new fields of employment; we may be reminding people on IB that they can test the water for work, but that with the benefit of linking rules they have nothing to lose.
There is a range of issues which are worth exploring which will support disabled people in making the same choices that all of us take for granted. Such new claimants will normally attend a work-focused interview, though of course if somebody is terminally ill the requirement can be waived. We will be listening to all views on this proposal, both before and during the passage of the Bill. We are still considering the detail of the proposals and how they will work in practice. A version of them will come forward in the forthcoming Welfare Reform Bill. But I emphasise that I regard this as an opportunity, not a threat. We already carry out fairly regular repeat interviews for a vast number of people on incapacity benefit, and certainly all new claimants. What we have not done in the past is offer them the personal adviser service, focusing on work and opportunities, that so many disabled people tell us they would welcome.
One million disabled people say that they can work; a further 400,000 believe that they could work if given the right support. Our proposals will deliver that increased support. I hope that they will he welcomed by disabled people.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, before the noble Baroness moves off that subject, clearly this morning's announcement was very important. Why was it made to the IPPR rather than in the form of a Statement to both Houses of Parliament?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, first, it is not a major new initiative, as the noble Lord opposite seems to think. We already repeatedly check eligibility for all benefits, whether it is disability living allowance, housing benefit, JSA—the noble Lord will know because he took part in those debates—and of course with IB. We are now proposing the three-year repeat interviews in the job centre plus environment with the help of a personal adviser. Those interviews will be work-focused to go over the range of opportunities.
It seemed to me important that this matter, which will be included in a Bill later this autumn, should be in the public domain so that disabled people can comment and consult on it, particularly when our proposals are worked through in greater detail. Given that this Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech and it was made clear then that it would include broad proposals addressing incapacity benefit, there could not be any question of impropriety in the speech made by my right honourable friend this morning.
In conclusion. we want a society where there is opportunity for everyone and not just a few. We want it free of discrimination and prejudice. We want everyone to play a full part. But some people, particularly those with more severe disabilities, need extra help and support. We have, as noble Lords today acknowledged, made important changes, specifically for severely disabled people. We need to do more. Employers and service providers will have to consider making reasonable adjustments for any disabled person. It is intolerable that physical barriers, for example, or out-of-date stereotypes which at reasonable expense can be adjusted to bring disabled people into the full life of our society, including the life of work, should stand in their way. Our job is to help them move those hurdles and barriers.
Our record over the past four years in supporting civil rights for disabled people shows we mean business. Your Lordships have always been expert, supportive, helpful and, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said, well-judged; constructively critical. I expect nothing less from your Lordships as we go into the new Parliament ahead.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank all who have spoken in this debate. Perhaps I may deal briefly with some of the points raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, spoke about "Access to Work" and, I am glad to say, supported the words in my opening speech urging wider publicity for that scheme. I would add that it is not expensive. The provision of a small piece of special equipment, with
860
the cost shared by the Government and the employer, could make all the difference as to whether or not an individual could be employed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, spoke about the difficulties of representation when cases are brought before tribunals and courts. I am sure we were interested to hear those experiences and her comments will no doubt be read elsewhere.
I felt very much complimented by the fact that two right reverend Prelates decided to take part in this debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield referred to Section 7. But I believe his concerns have been answered. I tried to answer them in my opening speech and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said more. Section 7 originally laid down that small firms employing fewer than 20 employees would be excluded from the legislation. But subsections (2) and the following subsections laid down the way in which those numbers can be reduced. That has already happened once. The figure of 20 is now 15. In answer to me the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that that will continue and will come to nought in 2004. So the right reverend Prelate need not worry. It is not a discrimination in favour of small firms that will continue for long.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, spoke of the need to spread public awareness. She is absolutely right. I speak having had the experience of being appointed to take a prominent part in the United Kingdom, in 1981, in the International Year of Disabled People. We decided then to make promoting public awareness one of our primary aims. It was estimated after wards that we managed to do more in that one year than in 10 normal years. But that is 20 years ago and a great deal still needs to be done.
I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who replied to all the points raised in the debate. Perhaps I can just say that she spoke of the number of cases with which the DRC is presently dealing. But what will really matter are the results of those cases; how they go and whether or not at the end of it the disabled people concerned actually benefit or feel that they have been well treated or badly treated.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving the figure of 9,000 cases where tribunals were concerned. My figure of 5,000, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, also quoted, was for the end of last year. We did not have any later information. I am glad to hear that the figure is now 9,000.
My only quibble with the remarks of the noble Baroness is that she described the omission of education in the 1995 Act as a flaw. I would regard it as an omission which was to be dealt with later. It is a pity if the DDA was to be described as "flawed" which is the next stage, given current parlance.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may take back the word "flawed" and say "incomplete".
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I hope that the departmental briefs will be

861
altered in future. Within the past year I have heard another Minister—I shall not mention her name—describe the DDA as "flawed" on the same count. I am sure that the government of the day would like to have included education. However, as I indicated, there were so many arguments going on within the educational world that rather than hold up all the other subjects and delay the Bill so that it would not have been passed in 1995, it was best to wait on
862
education until there was some agreement on the important subject of which kinds of school disabled pupils should attend. That was dealt with in a later Act.
I am grateful to everybody who has taken part in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at seven minutes before six o'clock.

  Fur Farmers: Compensation
  Fur Farmers: Compensation
  Agriculture Council, 19 June 2001
  Agriculture Council, 19 June 2001
  Treaty of Nice
  Treaty of Nice
  Council of the European Union: Forthcoming Business
  Council of the European Union: Forthcoming Business
  Additional Pension Recipients: Forecast
  Additional Pension Recipients: Forecast
  Warrington: Benefit Recipients
  Warrington: Benefit Recipients
  Lone Parents in Work
  Lone Parents in Work
  Ascension Island: Feral Cats
  Ascension Island: Feral Cats
  Northern Ireland: Immigration Act Detainees
  Northern Ireland: Immigration Act Detainees
  Pet Shops and Animal Rights Extremism
  Pet Shops and Animal Rights Extremism
  Assaults on Police Officers
  Assaults on Police Officers
  National Hi-Tech Crime Unit
  National Hi-Tech Crime Unit
  Sentencing Reform
  Sentencing Reform
  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Rail Systems: International Comparisons
  Rail Systems: International Comparisons
  London Underground and Directive 91/440
  London Underground and Directive 91/440