Sitting of 9 July 2001

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

    Heavy Lift Aircraft
    Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the availability of heavy lift aircraft for the European rapid reaction force. [1183]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): There is no standing European rapid reaction force. European Union member states have nominated those elements of their own national forces that they believe could contribute to the requirements of the headline goal, including existing transport aircraft where appropriate, which could be assembled case by case to meet particular contingencies.
    At the Paris air show on 19 June, I signed a memorandum of understanding with other partner nations committing the United Kingdom to purchase 25 of the new A400M aircraft. We have also leased four American C17 aircraft to provide a new outsize strategic lift capability until the A400M enters service. Two have been delivered, ahead of schedule, and I expect the remaining two to be delivered next month.
    Our aircraft will be available for operations under either NATO or the EU, as well as for national operations.
    Michael Fabricant: I thank the Secretary of State for that helpful answer. Does the memorandum of understanding to which he referred go as far as a contract? Does it mean that a contract will be signed this year for the A400M or does he share the concern of Conservative Members that defence cuts in Germany will result in the 180 A400Ms not being produced and the Airbus Industrie target therefore not being reached? Will a contract be signed this year?
    Mr. Hoon: A memorandum of understanding is a memorandum of understanding. It is not a contract, as the hon. Gentleman so perceptively noticed in following up my earlier answer. I am optimistic about the prospect of a contract being signed this year, and I am confident that the German Government will be part of that contract.
    Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will understand that many Labour Members
    522
    are pleased that he was able to sign the memorandum at the Paris air show, but can he confirm that, in procurement of this or any other aircraft, the Department will always take account of the opinions of aircrew and ground crew in particular? That will ensure that we have a sustainable, well maintained product that will do what this country needs it to do—provide adequate defence.
    Mr. Hoon: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. In coming to what were difficult decisions about the right choice of heavy lift aircraft for the Royal Air Force, we took account of the views of the RAF, those who are responsible for servicing those aircraft and, crucially, the military leadership, which required us to make available a strategic heavy lift capability.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that, notwithstanding the undoubted political, industrial and, ultimately, operational benefits of bringing the A400M into service, the RAF will still need genuine heavy lift aircraft such as the C17s, which have been leased? When the A400M enters squadron service, will he ensure either that the C17s are run on or that Antonovs are available on lease from Air Foyle or Heavy Lift Cargo Airlines?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right in his analysis of the need to have heavy lift capability available. That is precisely why we have chosen to lease C17s immediately, to fill the gap until the A400M becomes available. I can give him the assurance that he seeks: those C17s will remain with the RAF unless and until the A400M is available.

    National Missile Defence
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: What discussions he has had with his European counterparts about US proposals for a national missile defence system. [1184]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I continue to have regular bilateral discussions on missile defence with NATO allies, European partners and others.
    Mr. Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is sufficient uncertainty in the technology in the programme to make it difficult for us to draw definitive conclusions—certainly those that would allow us to go ahead and support the scheme—and, in particular, that that uncertainty, coupled with a lack of proper negotiation with the Russians, is itself problematic for Europeans? If the Americans were to abrogate the anti-ballistic missile treaty and if Russia then stepped back and put its own missiles on hair-trigger alert, this uncertain long-term technology would simply not be worth the massive increase in insecurity in Europe.
    Mr. Hoon: That is precisely why the Government have not yet taken any decision on whether to use assets in the United Kingdom for those purposes and why it makes sense for us to await any decision by the United States, which must be taken in the light of the available technology. I accept my hon. Friend's assertion that there

    523
    is little purpose in going to the trouble of taking such a decision unless and until the United States has a system that it is confident will work.
    Mr. David Curry: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that Menwith Hill in my constituency performs a vital role in collecting intelligence that protects the lives of British service men serving abroad in peacekeeping operations? Does he equally accept that Menwith Hill is well respected and well integrated in the local community?
    In deciding how to deal with the recent incursions by clowns in costumes, will the right hon. Gentleman bear it in mind that we do not want to turn Menwith Hill into a prison camp, but that the operational area of the base should be properly defended? The section of the base that is a local community living in North Yorkshire should be enabled to continue to integrate as successfully as it has up to now.
    Mr. Hoon: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I visited Menwith Hill last Thursday, and I agree about the importance of that facility to Britain's armed forces, and, equally, to the local community. While the present security arrangements are far from satisfactory, and will be reviewed, I accept the importance of ensuring that the people who live at Menwith Hill do so in tolerable circumstances.
    Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is time for Britain to convey to the United States the clear message that the promotion of national missile defence—the whole star wars experiment—fundamentally undermines the nuclear disarmament process, would undermine all the treaties that have been so carefully and painstakingly negotiated over the past 40 years, and constitutes a massive escalation of nuclear firepower around the world? Our job is not to be a broker between the United States and the rest of the world but to say bluntly, "We want to live in a nuclear-free world, and it is time you did the same."
    Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that at all. The reason why I do not accept it is that my hon. Friend—I think deliberately—confuses two separate approaches to the problem of nuclear proliferation. He keeps talking about star wars, awakening echoes of President Reagan's programme to develop a comprehensive anti-missile system, rather than examining the specific proposals developed by the last US Administration to deal with a modest number of missiles fired by states of concern. That is the position that the present Administration seek to address.
    It would help my hon. Friend, when he talks about this important subject, if he concentrated on what is being suggested rather than harking back to bygone days.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Government want to have it both ways. The Secretary of State is busy trying to slap down his colleague, while at the same time saying that the Government have not taken a view.
    The reality is that the Government are in a complete mess over this issue. Before the general election, the Prime Minister was publicly saying that they did not have a
    524
    position, but behind the scenes his own briefer, Mr. Campbell, was busily telling the press that they were in favour of the American position, and had reached a conclusion. Then, in their party manifesto, the Government came up with what is probably one of the most pathetic phrases ever seen in any manifesto. They said:
    "We will encourage the US to consult closely with Nato allies on its ideas for missile defence".
    That was powerful language, but has the Secretary of State missed the point? A week and a half ago, the President of the United States came round and did his consulting.
    Just exactly what is the Government's position? Are they in favour of this, or are they opposed to it?
    Mr. Hoon: I want to demonstrate that I am entirely even-handed in the way in which I deal with these matters. Talking of harking back to bygone days, the hon. Gentleman really ought to look carefully at the proposals that the present Administration are examining. They are not examining President Clinton's proposals for national missile defence; they are examining a range of different systems that they might decide to deploy.
    The hon. Gentleman's problem—and, indeed, his party's problem—is that the Conservatives have already said what kind of system they would like, without having the funds, or any of the other resources, to deploy it. They are telling the United States what sort of system they believe that it should deploy. We do not consider that right, which is why it is entirely sensible for us to say what we are saying. Unless and until the United States comes forward with a specific proposal—we do not know what that proposal is yet, and I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that in the consultations the US Administration have not made clear what specific proposal they will present—the position of Her Majesty's Government is wholly consistent and wholly straightforward.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State is simply not telling the truth. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that remark.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.
    The Secretary of State is avoiding reaching a conclusion. He is doing so because almost 200 Labour Members have signed an early-day motion that utterly opposes such a system. The French utterly oppose such a system.
    The Secretary of State is privately telling the Americans that the Government are in favour of the system, but he cannot make that statement publicly because he is scared stiff of his Back Benchers and of some of his European counterparts. Has he not left it to countries such as Spain, Italy, the Czech Republic and Poland to say that they are in favour of the system while we fail to give leadership? The Government are no longer sitting on the fence, they are impaled on it.
    Mr. Hoon: A cursory examination of the countries that the hon. Gentleman mentioned would show him that a vigorous debate is taking place right across Europe. In France, which he mentioned, there are those who are in

    525
    favour of such a system and those who are against it. Equally, if he checks, he will find that in the United States Congress, there are those who are in favour as there are those who are against. It is important that we should have a debate and that these sensitive matters, following consultation by the United States, should be considered carefully. Unfortunately, in terms of debate and careful consideration, the hon. Gentleman fails on both counts.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: Last week, in a written answer, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the conference on disarmament was the right place to discuss the military use of space and that he wanted a committee of that conference to discuss the prevention of an arms race in space. Is it correct, therefore, that the British Government's policy is that there can be no question of the United Kingdom participating directly or indirectly in the weaponisation of space until an international agreement for that exists?
    Mr. Hoon: That is not quite the Government's position—[Laughter.] I am sorry that Opposition Members find this entertaining. There are circumstances in which it would be necessary for us to use space for technology that allows us to protect British forces deployed in theatre. It is important that we should continue to do that while at the same time examining ways of restricting the proliferation of weapons in space and finding international agreement to that. Certainly we would want to reserve the position on the use of space to protect deployed British forces.

    Army Deployments
    Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell): If he will list the five largest deployments of the British Army abroad. [1185]
    The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): We have sizeable numbers of British Army personnel permanently based in Germany and deployed on operations in Northern Ireland. The five largest operational deployments of the British Army outside the United Kingdom are in Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus and in support of coalition operations in the Gulf.
    Chris Grayling: The Minister will be aware of the significant operational difficulties that the Army faces owing to the Government's failure to meet their targets for recruitment and retention. Against that background, will he tell the House what contingency arrangements he has been able to make should British forces have to be deployed in Macedonia? Should such an eventuality arise, what form might such a deployment take?
    Mr. Ingram: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that we have been unsuccessful; although there are difficulties in recruitment and retention right across the armed forces, there are many successful schemes to tackle them all. The current deployment level is 20 per cent., which is consistent with the level that operational commanders believe is necessary to maintain the Army's operational readiness to tackle any development such as Macedonia. Of course, no detailed decision has yet been taken on a deployment in Macedonia because all the
    526
    ingredients are not yet in place to achieve that objective. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, if those conditions apply, we would want the British Army to be deployed in sufficient strength alongside NATO forces to achieve the objective of disarming the National Liberation Army.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: Liberal Democrat Members have always supported British and NATO deployment in the Balkans, which is the principal deployment area. As we will be the spearhead nation in Macedonia, can the Minister tell us what regiments have been earmarked to go there if necessary? Will that affect our continued commitment in Kosovo and Bosnia? Can he also tell us the exit strategy from Macedonia? Although we believe that any NATO force should be supported by other NATO members, we also believe that it must be a force that can move out as well as it moves in.
    Mr. Ingram: I am surprised at the latter part of that question.
    The hon. Gentleman asked which forces we had decided to send to Macedonia. As I said earlier, we are not yet at the stage of deployment. If we made a decision today, it would be a certain configuration, but if we made it three or six months hence it would be a different configuration, so it would be wrong to make a pronouncement now. The United Kingdom has offered a brigade headquarters as part of our contribution should NATO deploy to disarm the NLA, as part of the peace agreement for which we all hope.
    Mr. Robert Key: I welcome the Minister to the Defence portfolio, and I hope that he will enjoy what is the second best job in the British Government, after that of Secretary of State for Defence. I hope that he does not occupy the position for too long.
    A direct consequence of overstretch and shortened tour intervals is huge strain on Army families. Will the Minister investigate why the 3 per cent. efficiency savings continue to apply to Army welfare services—in effect, another 3 per cent. cut in those services this year—with the direct consequence, in the garrison towns around Salisbury plain, that the county council social services have to find another £400,000 to support military families? That should be the job of the Ministry of Defence, and it would not even need to be done if the Ministry matched its resources with its commitments.
    Mr. Ingrain: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome to me in my new portfolio. I do not know who he wished to remain in his post for a short duration, myself or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I look forward to this portfolio, having served in another difficult job on behalf of the Government, in the Northern Ireland Office. I will try to be gracious to the hon. Gentleman as often as he is gracious to me.
    The impact on military families around Salisbury plain that the hon. Gentleman describes is precisely the reason for our having set up a joint services taskforce, which I chair, to examine how we can begin to deal with some of the issues. Contrary to what he says, there have not been cuts. It is a matter of trying to ensure that all arms of Government service delivery, including social security, best meet the needs of our armed forces. That is not an easy task, but we have begun to tackle it, unlike the

    527
    previous Administration. If the hon. Gentleman's wish for me to have a short duration in post was a wish for his party, rather than mine, to be in power, I am sure that many people in the armed forces would wish otherwise.

    Peacekeeping
    Mr. David Borrow: What changes there have been in the global security environment and the role of the UK's defence forces with respect to peacekeeping since the 1998 strategic defence review. [1186]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): In February, the Ministry of Defence published its reappraisal of the future strategic context for defence, which reaffirmed the assessments made in the strategic defence review of a rapidly changing security environment. It confirmed the lack of an immediate and direct military threat to the United Kingdom but forecast a continuing need for our armed forces to engage in preventing conflict and restoring and maintaining peace.
    Since 1998, our armed forces have been involved in a number of peacekeeping operations, including those in the Balkans, Sierra Leone and East Timor. Those recent experiences have demonstrated the excellence of our armed forces in a peacekeeping role and their valuable contribution to Britain's role as a force for good in the world.
    We are not complacent, however, about the burden that peacekeeping operations place on our armed forces. That is why we continually reassess the levels of commitment, reducing numbers as soon as is realistic.
    Mr. Borrow: When the strategic defence review was published in July 1998, it anticipated a greater peacekeeping role for our service men and women, and in fact the increase in that role has been greater than many of us then anticipated. What actions is the Ministry taking to ensure that that is recognised in the structures of our services, and how does the Minister anticipate that role will change—does he foresee an increase or a decrease?
    Mr. Hoon: We have always recognised that the armed forces need to be trained to fulfil the most demanding of tasks—fighting wars—but it is the case around the world that those armed forces that are best trained for war fighting also happen to be the ones that are best suited to peacekeeping, because of the demands on them made in areas such as the Balkans. That is why we have kept careful control over the number and quantity of deployments. As was said earlier, it is important when considering a new deployment that we anticipate its end, perhaps by reducing force levels as the deployment continues. Since I became Secretary of State, we have certainly sought to reduce numbers deployed where we can, both in Bosnia and in Kosovo. We try to minimise our involvement, consistent with our obligations to the international community.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: I warmly endorse the Secretary of State's comments about the absolute requirement for troops to be trained for the most demanding levels of warfare, but does he acknowledge that because of the extensive and, in many cases, welcome deployments of our forces, the intervals between
    528
    deployments and the amount of high-quality training available to troops are becoming increasingly limited? That, in turn, could lead to a degrading of the truly exceptional capabilities of the British armed forces. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will ensure—as much as he is able, given the demands made of our soldiers, sailors and airmen—that training time will be kept sacrosanct?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right, and it is often overlooked, in the enthusiasm and, perhaps, the excitement of a deployment, that if forces are to remain in a theatre for any length of time, the personnel must be replaced. Other forces that have had appropriate training have to replace them, and those who have been deployed in a particular theatre must maintain the level of their training for the future. We keep that need in mind, although I do not pretend that it is always easy, given our present range of deployments. The chiefs advise me on the issue, and I certainly take that advice into account.

    Royal Navy
    Mr. Andrew Miller: If he will make a statement on policy priorities for the Royal Navy; and how they have changed since the publication of the strategic defence review. [1187]
    The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Policy priorities for the Royal Navy have not changed since the strategic defence review. The strategic direction and development of the Royal Navy was set out by the Admiralty Board in November 2000 in a paper entitled "The Future Navy". Copies of this paper have been placed in the Library of the House. As it makes clear, the key policy priority for the Royal Navy is to retain its core emphasis on war fighting and the ability to operate and sustain forces worldwide, achieved through the continued development of a versatile maritime force.
    In that light, I have today approved the plan of the Commander-in-Chief, Fleet to streamline and relocate key elements of his headquarters to Whale Island in Portsmouth. That will bring together, in a single modern headquarters, the key defence and management expertise needed to allow him to continue to deliver a world class navy, fit for its wide range of key operational tasks in the 21st century. The organisational restructuring will be in place by April 2002, and the new headquarters building will be available from late 2003.
    Mr. Miller: My right hon. Friend's announcement will be welcomed by many people, but will he assure the House that the proposals are driven by the need for greater effectiveness, rather than for cost savings? Will he also assure the House that proper steps have been taken to protect the interests of civilian staff?
    Mr. Ingram: I can give my hon. Friend assurances on both counts. The changes were not driven by the need to make cost savings, although substantial savings will result from the rationalisation and relocation, to the extent of £10 million, which will be retained by the Navy for its use. It will be necessary to consult the trade unions and civilian staff affected by the changes. All staff at the sites

    529
    that will no longer be used will be given the option to relocate to the new location or help in finding another post in the same area.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: While Ministers reorganise the organisation chart of the Royal Navy yet again, will the Minister confirm that today, compared with four years ago, we have fewer sailors, with a higher proportion of them medically unfit; fewer submarines, with a higher proportion on maintenance; and far fewer frigates? Will he also confirm that we are planning two enormous aircraft carriers for the distant future, while the number of fixed-wing, fast-jet pilots in the Navy has collapsed to an all-time low?
    Mr. Ingram: In so far as there may be fewer personnel employed in some wings of the armed forces, that is about the most effective and efficient use of the armed personnel that we have. It is about ensuring that they have the best equipment. We are dealing with a completely changed world environment, which is why the strategic defence review was originally put in place. If we had continued with the previous Administration's policies, there would have been cut upon cut. That is not the future for the modern armed forces in this country.
    Syd Rapson: I welcome the Minister to his post and also thank his predecessor, who did a magnificent job for four years.
    I welcome today's statement, particularly as Whale Island is in my constituency. It further consolidates an area that has HMS Excellent, as well as making the Navy much more secure in Portsmouth and providing more jobs. As the icing on the cake, is there any news on the type 45 destroyer contract? I understand that a statement should be imminent, but I need more information.
    Mr. Ingram: On behalf of my predecessor, I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. I am sure that my predecessor will read avidly everything that is said today by his successor. He will keep a close watch on his previous brief, as all Ministers do with their former Departments. My hon. Friend's compliments will therefore not go amiss, but in case my predecessor does not read Hansard, I will make sure that they are brought to his attention.
    I also thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for today's announcement which, as he says, will greatly benefit not only the Navy but his constituency. On the T45 programme, I think that he should wait. Christmas is coming, but there may be an announcement sooner than that.
    Mr. David Chidgey: On that point, the Minister will be aware that for the Royal Navy to meet its policy objectives, it needs these ships and the type 45 destroyer as soon as possible. This is already long delayed. I accept his point about making a statement later, but can he confirm that it will not be delayed any further than necessary, and that the Government's commitment
    530
    to Vosper Thornycroft and BAE Marine that the work for construction will be shared fairly and equally will be maintained when that announcement is made?
    Mr. Ingram: I think that the hon. Gentleman should await the announcement. I have not made it today, and I will not anticipate what it will say. However, the term "fair distribution" shows how we will approach the matter.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: I warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman to the Defence team. Has he yet had a chance to read Admiral Essenhigh's annexe to the fleet risk register? If he has, can he think when there has ever been such a devastating or authoritative indictment of the state of the Royal Navy and of Government neglect of it? Let me quote a very few of the charges:
    "FA2 pilot numbers are well below requirement with PVR—
    premature voluntary release—
    "rising critically … The upgrade of FA2 engines to 1161 standard is still required in order to make the aircraft properly operable world-wide … There are serious limitations in current underwater capability, including sensors, weapons and self-protection … There is a failure to meet spares demands in support activity across all Type Command impacting Fleet ability to meet tasking … Continued pressure, both financial and operational, impacts upon the ability to conduct the full training packages".
    Of the attack helicopter, it says:
    "System procured currently unable to operate from the sea as envisaged".
    It goes on and on. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the seriousness of the situation described by Admiral Essenhigh, or does he simply think that the admiral does not know what he is talking about?
    Mr. Ingram: From my experience during the short time I have spent in this post, I believe that Admiral Essenhigh does know what he is talking about. It is an important requirement that all senior commanders-in-chief look at the worst-case scenarios and take a proper view of all the risks that they have to deal with. Of course, the hon. Gentleman quotes from a leaked document, and we deplore the fact that it has been leaked. While it may allow some knockabout in the Chamber, it also provides people who may be hostile to this country with views about our planning scenarios, so we treat these issues with some sensitivity, which is why we do not put them into the public domain.
    The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of points, and I cannot go into them all in detail. However, as he refers to the need to identify issues by means of a risk register, may I recommend the same approach to his party? The Conservatives may want to think about the worst-case scenario in respect of their procedures for the appointment of a new leader.
    Mr. Davies: This is a serious matter.
    Mr. Ingram: Of course it is; the real thrust is that the document is important. It should not have been leaked, and it should not have been exploited to the extent that it has. However, even more important is the fact that the Royal Navy continues to meet its operational commitments across a whole spectrum of defence missions. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman's questions.

    Surplus Land and Buildings
    Sir Robert Smith: What steps he is taking to involve local communities in the sale of his Department's former sites.[1188]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The disposal of surplus Ministry of Defence land and buildings is conducted in accordance with Government accounting regulations—normally on the open market, in the interests of taxpayers generally. Sites are usually sold with the benefit of outline planning permission or a planning brief. Thus, in the case of a major closure or draw-down, it is normal practice for officials in Defence Estates to work closely with the relevant local authorities, and to liaise with recognised local community bodies as part of the disposal process. We seek to take local aspirations into account wherever possible. The Ministry of Defence recognises that that can be particularly important when surplus sites are in rural or isolated locations.
    Sir Robert Smith: I thank the Minister for his reply. As he knows, constituents of mine at RAF Edzell have been occupying housing that was formerly on the MOD base there. Will he take into account their experience when he considers future sales? Will he consider the qualities of future purchasers or developers, and the way in which they handle the sale of property to private individuals?
    Dr. Moonie: It is generally assumed that people who can find the financial backing to take over such a scheme are competent to deal with the issues involved—but if the hon. Gentleman wants to make specific points, I shall be happy to meet him to discuss them.
    Mr. John Smith: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply to the question. Does he also think that it would be good policy for companies owned by the Ministry of Defence to consult local communities before those companies acquire new sites? The Defence Aviation Repair Agency, in St. Athan in my constituency, has managed to alienate almost the entire community of Rhoose in the Vale of Glamorgan, although the decision to move has not yet even been taken. Local people should be consulted.
    Dr. Moonie: That is a good point, but one on which I must confess that I know little, because it is not part of my brief. I shall look into the matter for my hon. Friend and send him a note about it.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister make my constituents and me an offer similar to the one he made to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith)? From exchanges that he witnessed between myself and his hon. Friend the Minister for Transport—when his hon. Friend was part of the Defence team—he will know that when officers from my local authority were asked to keep the plans to convert the staff college building into a luxury hotel secret, they showed great sensitivity. Those plans were stopped only when it was revealed that the staff college in my constituency contained a war memorial. As concern has
    532
    been expressed that some civil servants who work for the Minister have not been as sensitive and as sensible as my local authority officers in dealing with such issues, will he agree to meet a delegation, including the leader of Surrey Heath council, to ensure that there is no repetition of those problems?
    Dr. Moonie: Yes, I shall be happy to do so.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Will my hon. Friend take a personal interest in the proposed sale of Derby barracks on Fletcher street in my constituency, which is the home of Bolton sea cadets and several community groups? Those organisations are trying to raise money by various means—including lottery funding—but will my hon. Friend consider renting the premises to them rather than selling the buildings from under their feet in the near future?
    Dr. Moonie: I am certainly prepared to consider that. However, where we decide to sell barracks, it is our normal practice to try to ensure that re-provision is made.

    RAF Saxa Vord
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: What plans he has for the disposal of housing stock owned and maintained by his Department in support of RAF Saxa Vord. [1189]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): As a result of the draw-down of RAF Saxa Vord, it is expected that 38 houses in the Setters Hill estate will be surplus to requirements and will therefore be passed to Defence Estates for disposal in the next few months.
    Mr. Carmichael: Does the Minister recognise the very fragile state of the economy on Unst—Britain's most northerly community—since the draw-down of RAF Saxa Vord? Does he appreciate the central role that local management of the housing stock will have in providing a sustainable future for Unst? Will he give an assurance to the people of Unst that when the time comes for disposal, preference will be given to a local bid, and that they will not be left to the mercy of the property developers?
    Dr. Moonie: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that that is a difficult undertaking to give, but we are conducting a survey of public opinion among the islanders to find out what the general view of the sales is. We are discussing the issue closely with the local authority and the Highlands and Islands development board, and all their views will be carefully taken into account before we proceed with the sale. We are well aware of the sensitivities involved.

    Porton Down
    Mr. David Atkinson: How many claims for compensation by service volunteers at Porton Down have been received by the War Pensions Agency. [1190]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Between 19 February and 31 May 2001, the War Pensions Agency received 31 claims from Porton Down service volunteers. Information prior to 19 February is not available as separate records of war pension claims from Porton Down volunteers were not identified before then.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is that not a rather surprising and disappointing reply, in view of the recent investigation by Wiltshire police into hundreds of volunteers whose health was impaired at Porton Down and whose claims for compensation were turned down by the agency, including that of my constituent, Mr. Michael Painter? Now that the agency has been transferred from what was the Department of Social Security to his Department, will he ensure that an independent medical reassessment of all those claimants takes place, to ensure just compensation for them before they are all dead?
    Dr. Moonie: We have found no evidence at present to support the contention that deaths and ill health are linked to the experiments that were carried out at Porton Down. That is why we are conducting a very careful epidemiological study of those who were involved to try to establish whether there really are any effects. It is important that we proceed on the basis of solid fact, rather than needless speculation.
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: As in the case of the Porton Down volunteers, investigation and clear information are always vital, so does the Minister agree that workers at the nuclear refit facility at Chatham deserve accurate information from the MOD? In January this year the Minister advised me that two former workers and their families were due to receive an offer of compensation, but it is now July, and no offer has been forthcoming. I acknowledge the answer about interim payments that he gave me earlier last week, but does he understand the concern? Will he therefore order a review of the no-fault compensation scheme, so that former Chatham dockyard workers and their families can have some confidence in it?
    Dr. Moonie: I am disappointed that it is taking so long to reach a conclusion in those cases. We have offered interim payments, and I am happy to consider the procedure to find out whether anything can be done to speed it up. However, it is very difficult, on occasion, to move the legal profession forward at the speed that we might like.

    European Security and Defence Policy
    Dr. Robert Spink: What representations he has received concerning the European security and defence policy. [1191]
    Mr. David Amess: When he last met the NATO Secretary-General to discuss European security. [1193]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others on European security and defence policy. I have also discussed the policy with Lord
    534
    Robertson—most recently on 25 June. NATO members, including the United States, have recognised the importance of improving the defence capabilities of European partners, to allow Europe to act when NATO as a whole is not engaged and to contribute to the improvements identified in the European Union's headline goal and NATO's defence capabilities initiative.
    Dr. Spink: How does the Secretary of State explain the crystal-clear contradiction that exists, given that the Prime Minister told the US President in February that planning for any EU military operation would take place in NATO, yet the EU military staffs have made it clear that high-level and operational planning will be undertaken by their organisation? Will the Secretary of State tell us which of those statements is true?
    Mr. Hoon: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House—although he could possibly have spent the interim period reading about the arrangements for the European Union and NATO more carefully. Had he done so, he would have identified the fact that operational planning will be a matter for NATO. [Interruption.] Operational planning will be a matter for NATO; I have said it twice so that the hon. Gentleman can get that point quite clearly into his mind.
    Mr. Amess: Does the Secretary of State recall telling the House last year that defence spending among European nations was growing? In the light of that, will he explain whether he agrees with his former colleague Lord Robertson, the Secretary-General of NATO, who said that Europe's response to the defence capability initiative was totally inadequate?
    Mr. Hoon: The two observations are not necessarily inconsistent, in the sense that what is important about the defence capabilities initiative is that European nations develop particular kinds of capabilities that are consistent with the aims of the Helsinki headline goal, and relate to the need to deal with modern issues. Instead of having large numbers of forces deployed on the west German plain to confront the threat from the Soviet Union, we now need rapidly deployable forces along the lines envisaged by the strategic defence review. Although we certainly urge our European partners to increase their defence spending, we also urge them to spend their defence money in a different way—on satisfying the Helsinki headline goal as well as on the defence capabilities initiative.
    Roger Casale: As well as ensuring that European funds are spent more effectively in, for example, combat and peacekeeping areas such as the Balkans, is not one of the benefits to Britain of participating in the European defence initiative the fact that, over time, other European countries will spend more on their own and on European defence in general? Will my right hon. Friend use his contacts with our European partners to urge them to spend more, and to make sure that the money is spent more effectively?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. He is right. It is important that European nations spend their defence money more effectively than they have in the past, and this country recognised that point before we conducted the strategic defence review.

    535
    The review was broadly supported by Members on both sides of the House, and it is important that the lesson is also learned elsewhere.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Secretary of State not agree that the Prime Minister is in danger of becoming habitually inexact about what he has arranged for the euro-army—or the European defence force, as he calls it? Did the Prime Minister not come to the House at one stage and say that any significant operation that the force carried out
    "will require NATO assets and … will be planned at NATO"?—[Official Report, 11 December 2000: Vol. 359, c. 349.]
    However, General Schuwirth, who is now a member of the military staff, has said:
    "If necessary, we engage in high-level-planning."
    Is not the reality that what the Prime Minister signed up to at Nice and what he tells the House and the country are two completely different things? Are the Prime Minister and his Government not becoming rather like the pushme-pullyou? When they go to Washington, they are against, when they go to Brussels, they are in favour, and when they come to Parliament, they are in denial.
    Mr. Hoon: I should have thought that it was rather dangerous for the hon. Gentleman to refer to Dr. Dolittle—but as he hopes to be busy in due course, perhaps we can depend on him for further literary references in future.
    I have made the position absolutely clear: operational planning will be conducted in NATO. That was agreed at Nice.
    Mr. Duncan Smith indicated dissent.
    Mr. Hoon: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head to suggest that he knows best. If he examines the Nice agreement carefully, he will see that there was an acceptance right across the European Union that operational planning will be conducted through NATO.

    Service Strengths
    Mr. Tim Boswell: When he expects each of the three services to reach their full manning strength. [1192]
    The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Royal Air Force is in broad manning balance. The aim of the naval service remains to achieve broad manning balance by 2002. The Army's aim is to achieve full manning by 2005. However, we recognise that there are shortages in particular skill areas in all three services, and those are being addressed by a range of measures, some of which have already produced positive results.
    Mr. Boswell: Yes, but in April, did Ministers not concede within the space of 48 hours, first, that the Army was 8,000 under strength, and, secondly, that the other two services were short of nearly 200 operational pilots? Does the Minister remember that Catherine the Great's Minister Potemkin, who thoughtfully laid on a series of
    536
    empty peasant villages for her, got a real battleship named after him? Is this Minister going to measure himself for the role of the empty vessel?
    Mr. Ingram: As I come from Glasgow, I can take some satisfaction from the fact that the name of HMS Glasgow is a reflection of that city.
    As for the relative strength of the armed forces, I have given the hon. Gentleman our objectives. I have also recognised the shortages in particular skills, which we have to address against strong competing demands in the wider economy. If there were easy solutions to those problems, they would be lifted off the shelf and implemented. If the hon. Gentleman has any good ideas that we have not thought of to bring the Army, the Air Force and the Navy up to strength, perhaps he will write to me.
    Laura Moffatt: Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to recruitment to the defence medical services? The Select Committee on Defence considered that closely, and there were many initiatives to encourage people to enter the service. I know that this is a vexed question, but has thought been given to holding further discussions with the national health service to explain how wonderful it is for people to join the medical services as volunteers?
    Mr. Ingram: I can reassure my hon. Friend that much thought is being given to that. In my early rounds of meetings with senior commanders and others in the armed forces, the need to ensure that that medical support is available has been strongly put. We are considering ways in which that and other support services can be brought up to reasonable strength. There are significant career opportunities for people who want to join those wings of the armed services, and I am sure that the Select Committee's report will help to advance the campaign to attract more people to them.

    Army Recruitment
    Patrick Mercer: If he will make a statement on the number of Army recruits recruited (a) by the recruiting group and (b) by soldiers detached from battalions in the last five years. [1194]
    The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Army recruiting is an integrated operation involving both the Army Training and Recruiting Agency and the field Army. All recruits are enlisted at an armed forces careers office, and no central record of the source of their interest is maintained.
    Patrick Mercer: I thank the Minister for that clear response, but does he agree that soldiers detached from regiments contribute disproportionately to the number of civilians who come forward for enlistment? Is he aware that those soldiers come from established regiments that are on active service? Does he not agree that as we take them away from regiments—a form of "de-weaponising"—they should be properly established and properly funded, as a matter of some urgency?
    Mr. Ingram: I had already intended to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House, and to pay tribute to his

    537
    important contribution to Army recruitment in his previous role in the Army Training and Recruiting Agency. I am sure he will recognise that many people make a considerable effort to recruit sufficient numbers of the right quality of people to the Army. As I said to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), if the hon. Gentleman has any good ideas, he should bring them to my attention. We all want the Army, Navy and Air Force brought up to strength, as set out in the targets. It is a collective effort, and it is right that different parts of the Army contribute to the important role of recruitment. It is also important that we retain that role in the Army.

    Army Equipment
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What plans he has to improve front-line equipment for the Army. [1195]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Our equipment modernisation programme aims to ensure that the front-line capability of our land forces remains among the best in the world. We are investing heavily in programmes such as the Apache attack helicopter, which entered service earlier this year. In the longer term, we have plans to acquire artillery weapons with improved range and accuracy, a fully integrated fighting system for the infantry and a range of new armoured fighting vehicles.
    We are also resolving two longer-term deficiencies in equipment that is fundamental to the Army's effectiveness. The SA80 rifle is due to be modified later this year. The trials conducted on the new weapons have gone extremely well. We also expect to select a preferred supplier for the Bowman communications system soon.
    Mr. Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he tell the House exactly what modifications have been made to the SA80, and can he assure us that those modifications will make it more reliable?
    Dr. Moonie: The pilot programme to modify the weapon has been taking place, and the Army has been testing it. I am happy to say that it appears to be very satisfied with the modifications, which seem to have remedied the weapon's faults, particularly its unreliability, in a very small number of cases, in extreme conditions. The work is proceeding well, and the weapon will come back into service, after modification, at the beginning of next year.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: The Minister mentioned the long-delayed acquisition of the Bowman communications system. I understand that a decision is to be made about that in the next few days. Is there any reason why the preferred bidder should not be the Thales consortium, given that, unlike the Canadian and American competitors for the contract, the firm employs more than 14,500 British people, and that the Thales bid, unlike the others, would mean that 88 per cent. of the work would be done in this country?
    Dr. Moonie: I cannot give an opinion on any specific bid, because we are not in t position to announce our preferred supplier. The bids have been carefully evaluated, and are broadly comparable in the investment
    538
    that they would make in this country and in the quantity and quality of jobs that they would supply. We are confident that, whoever we proceed with, we will have a solution to the problem within the time limits that we have set.

    Peacekeeping
    Paul Goggins: What recent discussions he has had with the United Nations about the promotion of peacekeeping. [1197]
    The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed peacekeeping issues with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on 21 June during his visit to the UK. Discussion included implementation of the Brahimi report to improve UN peacekeeping, peacekeeping training and current UN operations.
    Paul Goggins: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, and welcome the action taken so far on the Brahimi report. Will he act to speed up the implementation of the report? What action is he taking to develop the capacity and commitment of our UN partners to play their full role in international peacekeeping?
    Mr. Ingram: The British armed forces have particular experience and expertise in peacekeeping operations, and that is an example to others. We are already doing much to assist others through bilateral and regional programmes of training, seminars, workshops and exercises. We operate several military training teams that provide such support permanently. We are looking to do more in partnership with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, through new initiatives funded by the global conflict prevention fund. I am sure that all those initiatives will allow us to make rapid progress on the Brahimi report.
    Mr. John Bercow: Precisely what financial contribution does the Minister envisage Britain making this year, and how exactly does it compare with the figure for last year?
    Mr. Ingram: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with those details.

    Trident
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What the basis is for holding the present number of Trident missiles. [1198]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): During the 1998 strategic defence review, we conducted a fundamental re-examination of the level of nuclear deterrence capability required, and concluded that one ballistic missile submarine on patrol at all times, with 48 nuclear warheads, would be sufficient to deter the threat from potential aggressors. That continues to be the case, although we keep the situation under constant review.
    Dr. Cable: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. My colleagues and I welcome the reduction in the scale of the national minimum deterrent in the SDR, which

    539
    reflects the post-cold-war environment. What plans does the Secretary of State have to redefine the minimum deterrent, particularly the Moscow criterion, in the light of the emergence of national missile defence systems?
    Mr. Hoon: As I said in answer to an earlier question, and in reply to a written question from the hon. Gentleman, we keep the situation under constant review, although we recognise that the United States of America is right to be concerned about the threat from states of concern—states that may not be deterred by a nuclear response. In those circumstances, we understand why the United States is seeking ways of developing missile defence.

    Iraq
    Mr. George Galloway: What military action Her Majesty's forces engaged in during June over Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [1199]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): During June, coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones came under attack from the Iraqi air defence system on more than 80 occasions. They responded in self-defence against elements of that system on six of those occasions. The House should note Iraqi claims that some 23 people lost their lives on 19 June during a football match in the town of Tal Afar. On that day, coalition aircraft were certainly fired on by a range of
    540
    systems, including anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles, but there was no coalition self-defence response on that day. We believe that the incident was the result of an Iraqi missile falling back to the ground.
    Mr. Galloway: Of course I accept my right hon. Friend's unequivocal and categoric assurance that the 23 young people who were killed on that killing field that had been a football field were not killed by British or American forces. However, they are dead, and their families are in mourning. Will my right hon. Friend not reflect with me—and, more importantly, with former supporters of the no-fly zone policy, such as Liberal Democrat Members and, even more significantly, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, from whose territory those missions were flown—that the no-fly zone operations are becoming part of the problem rather than the solution, and that those 23 victims have to be added to the long melancholy list of victims of war and sanctions in Iraq? Would it not be better to pause for reflection on whether the no-fly zones should be suspended?
    Mr. Hoon: I might feel a little more confident about my hon. Friend's assertion if he had raised the matter directly with Saddam Hussein, who is responsible for those 23 deaths, and who has inflicted on his own people the horrors that we are seeking to prevent by patrolling in the no-fly zones. I commend my hon. Friend for his concern about those deaths, but that concern would have been much strengthened if he had raised the matter directly with Saddam Hussein.

Point of Order
3.33 pm
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that, over the weekend, 164 police officers were injured in Bradford. You will also be aware that the Home Secretary said that he is actively considering the use of water cannon and tear gas. Have you received any indication as to whether he will make a statement in the House this week?
Mr. Speaker: I do know that the Home Secretary is very aware of the deep concern in the House.

Orders of the Day

  Export Control Bill
  [Relevant documents: The Seventh Report from the Defence Committee, the Seventh Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Sixth Report from the International Development Committee and the Eleventh Report from the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 2000–01, on the Draft Export Control and Non-Proliferation Bill, printed jointly as HC 445.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.34 pm
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  As hon. Members will know, the Queen's Speech set out a programme of reform and renewal in this country: to extend opportunity for all to reach their full potential, and provide excellent schools and hospitals for all. As we build a future here for our people in Britain, we shall not ignore our international responsibilities: to reduce poverty, promote sustainable development and reduce conflict.
  That is what the Export Control Bill is about. It is about people like Fatima, the young girl in Sierra Leone who saw her son shot dead in 1997, along with many others in her village. It is also about people such as Mute-garu-gori, who had to watch her mother and father being killed by soldiers in Rwanda, and three-year-old M'penzi, whose parents were killed in the dawn attack on her village in north-east Congo. She was shot in the shoulder and foot, but survived. Those are just a few examples of the people who suffer when guns get into the wrong hands. Illicit gun running and unregulated arms brokering contribute to the suffering and death of children, adult civilians and whole communities around the world. When we consider the Bill, therefore, let us remember what it will mean to people throughout the world.
  The Bill introduces new powers to control the arms trade and also greater democratic accountability for the exercise of those powers. The defence industry here in the United Kingdom employs thousands of workers. It is an important part of our manufacturing base and exports are vital to it. Responsible and legitimate trade in arms, together with our own defence efforts, can ensure security and peace for people around the world. Our exports are other people's defence procurement. They help people to keep the peace by deterring aggression, and when that fails, they help them to defend themselves.
  Of course, we also know that there is a dark and unacceptable side to the arms trade: the irresponsible—and indeed immoral—trafficking and brokering of arms to conflict zones and areas of instability. The Bill enables us to ensure that Britain cannot be used as a base for an illicit trade that causes so much suffering. It will ensure that Britain has one of the most effective and comprehensive export control regimes in the world.
  The legislation that governs our exports is the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Secretary of State give us some evidence to show that Britain is used as a base for such illegal weapons trafficking? On what evidence are her assertions based? very aware of the deep concern in the House.
  Ms Hewitt: I think that all hon. Members must be aware of the serious danger of weaponry that is made in

  543
  Britain for legitimate purposes being used abroad for illegitimate ends, as has happened before. All hon. Members will be aware of the danger of equipment or arms that have been licensed for legitimate use none the less ending up in the hands of illegitimate arms traffickers and repressive regimes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the very full report that the Government publish annually on our licensing decisions. It deals with the very tough controls that we have already imposed to ensure that the illicit use of weapons does not arise.
  Mr. Howarth rose—
  Mr. John Bercow rose—
  Ms Hewitt: I have given way on that point, and I should like to make a little more progress before I give way again.
  The legislation that governs the export of weapons and related technology has not fundamentally changed since it was introduced at the start of the second world war. The report by Sir Richard Scott—or Lord Scott, as he is now—on defence-related exports to Iraq highlighted the faults of that legislation and called for change. The Bill is the result of the thorough and comprehensive review of legislation for which the Scott report called. The 1998 White Paper on strategic export controls invited views on proposals for a new, more accountable and more modern legislative framework. Earlier this year, we published a draft Bill for further consultation, so hon. Members, non-governmental organisations and business had the opportunity to comment on a draft version before the Bill was formally presented to the House.
  We listened to what people had to say and have made a number of important changes. In particular, we decided in the light of responses to the White Paper to introduce a general licensing system for arms trafficking and brokering, as well as our original proposals for controls to allow us to prohibit trafficking and brokering both to embargoed destinations and in relation to torture equipment.
  Hon. Members have made a valuable and expert contribution to the review process. We have been greatly helped by the work of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which published a report in December 1998 on the White Paper. We have also been helped by the Quadripartite Committee, which so helpfully reported on the draft Bill soon after it was published. Our response to the Quadripartite Committee's report was published this morning. We made some changes to the draft Bill in response to the report. As the Committee requested, the Bill makes it clear that licensing decisions should have regard to the purposes that are set out in the Bill. We have revised the schedule that outlines the purposes to make it absolutely clear that export controls can be imposed when there is a risk of internal conflict.
  Mr. Bercow: I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on her appointment. Given that the Government are far short of achieving their objective of processing 70 per cent. of standard individual export licence applications in 20 working days—a matter of continuing and widespread anxiety to companies—will the right hon. Lady confirm
  544
  that the Bill's honourable objectives will not be achieved at the cost of continuing delay and therefore expense to commercial enterprises?
  Ms Hewitt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. Like him, I am worried about the delays and our failure to meet the target for dealing with all the applications on time. However, I am sure that he acknowledges that some of the applications raise complex and difficult issues on which a careful judgment must be made. On the one hand, we must not interfere with proper and legitimate business and thus impose unnecessary or unjustified costs on British business. On the other, we must not risk the prospect of arms and technology that have been developed and manufactured here ending up in the hands of repressive regimes, which will use them against their own people. The hon. Gentleman would want to ensure that those judgments were made properly. We shall do everything possible to speed up decision making, but we shall not risk making wrong decisions.
  Jeremy Corbyn: In the light of the Secretary of State's reply to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), will she outline the extent of the parliamentary scrutiny of individual licences that she envisages before they are granted?
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises a matter that was of considerable concern to the Quadripartite Committee. It is important to draw a distinction between accountability to Parliament for the orders that will be made under the Bill—I shall revert to that later—and accountability for the individual decisions on export licences. As I suggested earlier, we have already prepared a much fuller report on the detail of the applications and the reasons for granting or refusing them. That allows for parliamentary scrutiny and accountability, which, as my hon. Friend would acknowledge, was never available under the Conservative Administration.
  Ann Clwyd: We shall revert to the subject of parliamentary scrutiny during the debate. However, the scrutiny that my right hon. Friend is considering is retrospective, whereas the Committee proposed that scrutiny should take place before contentious licences are agreed.
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point and I understand precisely the nature of the scrutiny for which she asks. Lord Scott made it clear in his evidence to the Committee that some serious constitutional issues—impropriety, even—were involved in confusing the proper roles of the Executive and the legislature and handing over decisions on individual applications, which should properly be made by Ministers, to a parliamentary Committee. I share my hon. Friend's view, however, that proper accountability is essential. Part of the purpose of the Bill and the detailed annual report, which we have already begun to publish, is to allow more effective parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
  The Bill responds to Lord Scott's key recommendations for new legislation by setting out in primary legislation the purposes for which orders imposing export controls can be made, and providing for effective parliamentary scrutiny of those orders. It will strengthen and improve the effectiveness of strategic export controls, introducing

  545
  new powers that will enable us to control electronic transfers of technology and technical assistance, and of course it will provide new powers to control illicit arms dealing.
  The Bill does provide for wide powers on export controls, which will enable us to meet our international obligations on arms controls, and to respond to changing circumstances and new technology. At the same time, as I emphasised, the Bill gives Parliament more control, to protect against any possible abuse of these powers.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Some of us are very concerned about the sale of arms and what happens to them. I ask my right hon. Friend to help me with an example. In the case of an unfortunate arms sale to Morocco that has been agreed by the Government, it is quite clear that the only reason Morocco would want any of those arms is to pursue a war against the Polisario, when one would hope that there is to be a United Nations-sponsored referendum to bring about peace in the western Sahara. I submit to my right hon. Friend that, had there been parliamentary scrutiny of that export licence before it was granted, it would never have been granted, because many people would have been able to make the perfectly legitimate point that we were in danger of arming one side in a conflict that we wished would not happen.
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I believe that we are all agreed on the purposes for which we want to license and, in appropriate cases, to limit and prevent the export of arms. We are bound to return to the specific example that my hon. Friend gives during the debate and in Committee. However, as I said, the annual report that we are publishing on these matters and all such applications gives Members of the House far more information on the basis of which to understand the system of export licensing that we are putting in place. Moreover, the system of purposes for export control enshrined in the Bill, and the consolidated national and European criteria, state the precise criteria that we shall continue to take into account when taking these individual decisions.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Gordon Prentice rose—
  Ms Hewitt: I should like to make progress before I give way again.
  Perhaps I may say a little more about the specific provisions of the Bill. Under present legislative provision, individuals and companies need a licence to export arms, but they do not need a licence to broker and traffic in arms. That simply cannot be right, so clause 5 provides comprehensive new powers to introduce controls on United Kingdom involvement in trade between overseas countries in goods that are subject to export controls.
  We shall use those powers, first, to introduce a new licensing requirement for trafficking and brokering in weapons and related equipment; and secondly, to control trafficking and brokering of arms to embargoed destinations. We shall also use those powers to ban the trafficking and brokering of torture equipment. These measures together will allow us to prohibit the supply of weapons to regions of conflict, while of course continuing to allow legitimate trade by British defence companies.
  Mr. Graham Brady: It is obviously right to do what can be done to limit the trade
  546
  in illegal arms, but can the Secretary of State give any assurance to legitimate engineering and military equipment manufacturers in this country that the current system of licences will be improved and expedited? A company in my constituency has just lost an order. It was an order for repeat business; there were no new or contentious circumstances. It applied for the licences in November and December last year. The goods were ready for delivery in January this year and the company still has not heard from the Department of Trade and Industry whether the licences will be issued.
  Ms Hewitt: If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with the details of that case, I will of course look into it. I should say that on at least one previous occasion, when a problem of that kind was raised with me, I found that the company had not provided the necessary information in time for us to take a timely decision. That may or may not be the case in relation to the company that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
  I stress that the Defence Manufacturers Association welcomed the draft Bill, and stated that it
  "fully supports the Government's efforts to replace the existing legislation."
  It said that it
  "warmly welcomes the fact that the Government has sought in the new Export Control Bill … to introduce controls on the activities of brokers and traffickers."
  I believe that the DMA, to its credit, recognises that what we are seeking to do here is absolutely essential, and does not compromise the legitimate activities of defence manufacturers and exporters in our country.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Can the Secretary of State reassure me that the new regulations will apply to brokers with UK passports operating abroad?
  Ms Hewitt: We made clear in the White Paper, the draft Bill and the manifesto on which we have just been re-elected our determination to deal with the problem of illicit brokering and trafficking. The specific point that the hon. Lady raises involves complex enforcement issues, and we shall continue to consider the matter as we develop the secondary legislation that will be introduced under the Bill.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Ms Hewitt: Just once more, as I must make progress.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, but I must press her on that point. She owes it to Parliament and to the country at large and defence industries in particular—in spirit, they sympathise with the Government's objectives—to give examples of how British-manufactured equipment is getting into the hands of people who are using it unscrupulously; and to identify those British nationals who are engaged in that illegal and quite disgraceful traffic.
  Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman repeats a point that he made earlier and which I have already answered.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Ms Hewitt: No, I want to make progress. I have already given way many times.

  547
  Clause 2 will give us important powers to control the transfer of technology, including by electronic means. That will end the anomaly that has arisen whereby people need a licence to export paper instructions on how to make a weapon, but are entirely free to send the same information by e-mail. We shall use the powers in clauses 2 and 4 to introduce controls to prevent the transfer of technology or the provision of technical assistance that could help in the development of weapons of mass destruction.
  Clause 7 provides for the introduction of tough penalties for export control offences by raising the maximum seven years' imprisonment to 10. Clause 6 will introduce a new power to require exporters to provide information on goods that are to be exported under licences. We need such powers to enable us effectively to fulfil international obligations, including our annual return to the United Nations register of conventional arms. The Bill will provide us with the powers that we need to meet our international obligations and our national commitments.
  As I told my hon. Friends earlier, however, the Bill will also ensure that the Government are accountable to Parliament for the use of these new powers. First, in clause 3 we have established the purposes for which export control orders can be made, and they are set out in the schedule. Secondly, clause 12 provides for parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation to be made under the Bill. The purposes for which export controls can be imposed include, crucially, meeting our international obligations and our obligations to the EU.
  The Bill will allow controls to be imposed to counter risks to national security, peace and stability anywhere in the world and the risk of goods being used for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, internal repression, and human rights abuses or serious crime and terrorism.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Ms Hewitt: One more time to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bercow: I am exceptionally grateful to the Secretary of State, because she has been extremely generous in giving way.
  The Secretary of State talks about parliamentary scrutiny, but does she not accept that, on preliminary perusal, clause 12(4) appears to provide for the application of the affirmative procedure and thus to offer an entitlement to parliamentary debate in respect of orders made under clauses 6 and 11, although the negative procedure will apply in respect of no fewer than five other clauses? That means, in simple terms, that Members of Parliament will be denied the opportunity to debate those important matters. Does she sign up to that in every particular?
  Ms Hewitt: As the hon. Gentleman himself says, the crucial measures in respect of which orders may be made will indeed be subject to the affirmative procedure, but I am sure that the point as to whether the affirmative or the negative procedure should apply to other measures will be dealt with in detail in Committee.
  548
  We make it clear in clause 8 that the consolidated national and European criteria announced to the House last October remain the basis for licensing decisions. In the Bill, we bind ourselves to abide by the guidance published by me, and by subsequent Secretaries of State, including those consolidated criteria. That is a crucial point when it comes to any possible judicial review, and also crucial to effective parliamentary accountability.
  We have ensured, in clause 9, that the Government will publish an annual report on export controls. In its response to the White Paper, Oxfam suggested that publication of the annual report—which this Government introduced—should be enshrined in law. We agree, and the Bill therefore requires Government to submit a report to Parliament every year.
  The Bill also provides for control of the export of objects of cultural interest, and replaces the current provisions on the subject contained in the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act. The proposals have rightly been welcomed by the art trade.
  The Bill builds on a number of steps that we have already taken to develop a responsible, accountable framework for trade in arms. First, we have already presented the most open report on arms exports produced by any European nation. In 1997, we published the criteria against which licensing decisions are made. Since 1999, we have voluntarily laid orders under the 1939 Act before Parliament, and we have published increasingly full annual reports on strategic export controls. Secondly, we have taken action to ban the manufacture of and trade in land mines, and we have banned the export of torture equipment.
  Thirdly, we have reached an unprecedented agreement in the European Union on a code of conduct enabling any member state to object if another member state takes up an arms order which has been rejected under the code. That is a crucial provision, ensuring that the approach we take here in Britain will be reinforced by other member states. For the first time, the countries of the European Union have all agreed to abide by similar standards when assessing licences for arms exports.
  The Bill will help to ensure that the United Kingdom plays its part as effectively as it can in making the world a safer place. At the same time, it provides a clear, accountable framework for legitimate business, and for our defence industry. I commend it to the House.
  3.57 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I start by declaring any relevant interests. I do not think I have any as such, but the Bill is drawn so widely that almost any commercial interest may be relevant, so for safety's sake I draw the House's attention to the Register of Members' Interests.
  The House should welcome a Bill that defines the controls that should be placed on exports of defence equipment and related goods, and brings the whole subject within the scope of parliamentary scrutiny. The Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 on which successive Governments have relied since the second world war, is clearly inadequate and inappropriate, although it was confirmed and extended in 1990 with the agreement of the then Opposition.
  Although the aims of the Bill in that respect are welcome, however, I must qualify the welcome heavily after reading it. In truth, it is little more than an enabling

  549
  Bill: most of the clauses simply give the Secretary of State power to bring in subsequent orders that will supply the actual substance of the legislation. It is difficult for us to form a definite judgment about a Bill the great bulk of which remains submerged.
  The Quadripartite Committee, which brought together the Select Committees on Defence, on Foreign Affairs, on International Development and on Trade and Industry, recommended that the Government publish the secondary legislation, in draft form, before the House was asked to give the Bill a Second Reading. That is in the Committee's report published on 1 May this year. I very much regret—I expect that the Select Committee members share that regret—that the Government have refused to do that. In truth, therefore, we are being asked to consider a Bill that we have not really seen yet.
  Much worse is the fact that the Government have responded to the report only today. Moreover, at a quick reading, they seem not to have satisfied the report's requirements and recommendations. It really is scandalous that, today, the Government have rushed out a very late response to a series of very good Select Committee reports. That is treating the House with considerable contempt. Hon. Members seeking to speak in this debate will not have had a real opportunity to examine the Government's views. It would also have been a courtesy if the Government had supplied an advance copy of the document to those who they knew would be speaking, such as me.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: My right hon. Friend's concerns about our inability to know what will be in the secondary legislation are shared by the Saferworld organisation, which is perhaps not usually associated with our part of the political spectrum. In its briefing document, it said:
  "In the absence of detailed mechanisms for putting the principles set out in the primary legislation into operation, parliamentarians, and also NGOs and the defence industry, will find it impossible to judge the overall impact of the new legislation."
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing the point that, on all sides of the debate, right across the spectrum, people are dismayed about the Government's failure to introduce the necessary draft secondary legislation anti by their very late response to the Select Committee report.
  It is not as though the Government have not had plenty of time. They published a White Paper on the subject in 1998, but then they did nothing. That omission, too, was critically reported on by the Select Committee to which I have referred, when it expressed its dismay at the Government's failure to introduce earlier legislation.
  We all remember that, in 1996, the current Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) worked himself up into a lather of self-righteous indignation about the Scott report. However, when he was in office and able to do something about export controls, he simply sat on the subject. It is only now, in another Parliament, that the Government are introducing the necessary legislation. It is yet another example of all words and no delivery.
  Roger Casale: Before the right hon. Gentleman works himself up into a lather of self-righteous
  550
  indignation over parliamentary courtesies, perhaps he will answer a question. Is he not rather ashamed to have been part of a Government who did nothing to introduce legislation to tighten up export control in the light of precisely the abuses that were highlighted in the Scott report?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman had been awake a few moments ago, he would have heard me say that Governments of all complexions relied on the 1939 legislation for too long. In the light of the Scott report, however, the previous Conservative Government immediately issued a consultation document and said that we would legislate to introduce the recommendations made by Sir Richard Scott, as he then was. Subsequently, however, we lost office. The incoming Labour Government could have introduced the necessary legislation, but they did absolutely nothing. It is only now that the Government are introducing a Bill to try to do the job.
  I shall draw another item to the attention of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale), as he is so interested in the matter. The Select Committee observed that the Government could have used non-legislative means to implement some of the Scott recommendations. They could, for instance, have laid voluntarily before the House the necessary export orders. Instead, they did absolutely nothing in that respect until December 1999. It is, I am afraid, a shameful story of drift and neglect by the previous Labour Government.
  Without the substance of the legislation, it is very difficult to make a final judgment on whether the Government have achieved the right balance between the acknowledged need for control over the export of such goods and related technology and the need not to inhibit legitimate trade unnecessarily, by imposing unrealistic or burdensome regulations.
  The Secretary of State gave some purported examples of the damage done by unauthorised weaponry, but under questioning she failed to substantiate whether British firms or British defence equipment could be held responsible. It is no good her making generalised allegations about the inadequacies of existing controls unless she is prepared to say which firms are involved and whether the problem originates from a failure of existing export controls.
  Mr. Bercow: Did my right hon. Friend, with his customary powers of observation, note that the Secretary of State declined to reaffirm the Government's commitment to the target of processing 70 per cent. of standard individual export licence applications within 20 working days, in response to my challenge to her to assure the House that the Bill would not exacerbate the delays?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The existing licensing system is a scandal, and the Bill could easily make it worse. It was characteristic of the Government to start blaming industry for the delays. When my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) asked about a specific example, the Secretary of State suggested that the delay was caused by the failure of the firm to provide the right information, but the statistics that he cited exclude examples where the Government have to return to the company to get additional information, so the missing of the 20-day target

  551
  is purely down to the incompetence of the licensing authority—in this case, the Department of Trade and Industry.
  Conservative Members know that the defence industry is important in a very wide sense. It employs about 350,000 people in the UK, and the export trade is vital to those people as well as being important in keeping down the cost of equipment for our own armed forces. Moreover, because defence firms are heavily weighted towards manufacturing, they provide about 10 per cent. of the output and the work force in manufacturing generally, and that sector is practically in recession. The sector was ignored and badly treated by the previous Labour Government and is now suffering grievously from excessive regulation and taxation.
  We hope that the Bill will not be another opportunity for the Government to repeat all the mistakes that they made in the previous Parliament. We have often commented on their in-built tendency to interfere and over-regulate, to the detriment of the industries concerned.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that some of the most difficult decisions concern dual-use technology, with the terrible dangers brought by the proliferation of techniques of warfare that can rebound on our own forces and our own interests in the world? Does he also accept that that was precisely the area in which the Conservative Government failed so badly?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Of course I acknowledge the importance of the subject and the need for a workable and realistic system of export controls, and I have already said that we give our support to that endeavour. However, we are entitled to look carefully at the Bill and ask whether it will discharge that responsibility. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, in a non-partisan spirit, will help us in that endeavour. The issue does not necessarily split the parties, because the whole House wants a parliamentary system of scrutiny to ensure that the Government are performing that task.
  I cannot overlook the Liberal Democrats' contribution to the debate. Their only real contribution to the debate last year on the subject of the defence industry and exports was to suggest that the Government should withdraw cover under the exports credits guarantee system from that industry. In other words, that sector of British industry uniquely should not be able to export with cover obtained from export credits. When it was pointed out that that would put British industry at a disadvantage compared to other competitor countries, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who is in her place, conceded that it would lead to job losses. She said, in a slightly unfortunate phrase, that
  "we shall have to bite the bullet."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 2 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 193WH.]
  Of course, it would be those who work in that important industry who would have to do so, not the hon. Lady and her party.
  Mr. Bercow: I know how committed my right hon. Friend is to the principle of freedom of information. In those circumstances, does he agree that it is important
  552
  that the Liberal Democrat position on that subject—unprecedented and deeply injurious to legitimate defence commercial interests as it is—should be widely communicated in every constituency that has a substantial defence interest and the misfortune to be represented by a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I will join my hon. Friend in that endeavour, but he will know as well as I do that Liberal Democrats tell a different story when they are speaking in constituencies with important defence interests.
  I welcome parts of the Bill and, in particular, the purposes contained in the schedule for which the Government can impose export controls. That is a definite advance on previous legislation. Rather less happy is the fact that the Government can change the schedule simply by order, and will not need primary legislation. Even worse, the Government can override the schedule and impose export controls that ignore the restrictions in the schedule simply by introducing such a control in secondary legislation. The Bill is a good example of restrictions and controls apparently being applied to the Government, but if they do not like them they can easily change them.
  The Government's ability to introduce secondary legislation in that way was the subject of adverse comment by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of the other place. The Government may have set out with the laudable intention of establishing a system of parliamentary scrutiny of the issue, but they are retreating further towards a system of ministerial discretion. The same is true of the export control orders—in other words, the orders that will be brought forward to impose or change restrictions on exports of defence equipment to specific countries or parts of the world.
  The Government say that there are about six such export control orders a year, and the Scott report recommended that they should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has already observed, the Government have insisted on the use of the negative resolution procedure. In other words, they will pass unless they are voted down. The point about the negative resolution procedure is that whether there is a debate or a vote is entirely at the discretion of the Government, not the House.
  The Government used weasel words in their consultation document on the Bill, saying:
  "the negative procedure would provide Parliament with the opportunity to debate and vote on secondary legislation where appropriate."
  I am afraid that that is not true. Parliament does not have control over that. If the Government do not want a debate, there will not be one. If this new Parliament wants to take seriously the issues of parliamentary scrutiny and the powers of the House, it should at the very least ensure that the House itself decides whether there is a debate and a vote on matters of this importance.
  The Bill also extends the licensing system. We do not know how many people will be caught up in these controls. They refer to activities that facilitate the acquisition or disposal of certain goods. Presumably, the airlines and shipping companies that transport the goods as well as the banks and finance houses that provide the

  553
  credit all in some way facilitate the acquisition or disposal of such goods. All, therefore, will—at least in theory—be covered by the Bill. It could— and probably will—include British nationals who are working overseas, even if they are employed by foreign companies. All of them will be swept into the net. If that is not the case, we should be told early in the debate so that we do not unnecessarily suppose that the Bill's scope is as wide as it appears.
  The Secretary of State alluded to the extension with regard to the transfer of technology where that is done by electronic means rather than by the physical export of equipment, tapes, plans or drawings. In other words, from now on electronic means will include the telephone, fax and e-mail. The Government's aim is understandable, but is it practical and enforceable?
  The academic world is worried about being caught by oral transmission of information. For instance, giving a seminar or lecture on a scientific subject with possible defence implications to foreign students could be a licensable activity because it could mean that information was being transferred to people in another country.
  Mr. John Smith: In the example that the right hon. Gentleman uses, is it not the case that people would fall foul of the legislation only if they knowingly divulged sensitive information?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman is right. That assurance has, I understand, been given to the academic world. My point is that it should be in the Bill. It is not good enough for the Government to give verbal assurances to universities and research institutions that are not encoded in legislation. That is my request to the Government.
  The Defence Manufacturers Association has a related concern about telephone conversations being licensable. The Bill will require, one supposes, considerable monitoring of employees having such conversations. Monitoring e-mails and telephone calls is a contentious issue in firms, and some trade unions do not like the scrutiny and intrusiveness involved. The Bill and its related literature is silent on that point.
  The Bill also extends controls to trafficking and brokering between overseas countries. That raises the separate and important issue of extra-territoriality. Is it realistic to try to control the activities of British citizens, or—as the Bill states—a person acting under the control of a British citizen, when such activities take place entirely abroad? For example, a British citizen might be employed by a foreign company which was ordering, selling or transferring equipment or technology between countries other than the UK—transactions that had nothing to do with this country or anyone in it. However, that person would come within the scope of the Bill.
  The situation would he even more bizarre if such a person was a clerk working for a defence company based abroad who merely filled in export licence applications—perhaps for the export of equipment from the UK to another country. However, although the person was working abroad for a company based abroad, the company would still have to apply for a licence from the DTI. That is wholly unrealistic and certainly unenforceable.
  Until now, the UK has been rather critical of the United States when it has tried to claim extra-territoriality over American companies based it this country, so it is odd
  554
  that we are trying to claim such rights over British citizens and foreign firms based in other countries and trading in goods that have nothing to do with the UK. We all have good intentions, but the Government's good intentions could lead them into the most appalling muddle of unenforceable laws that might discredit the whole system.
  Under the Bill, the Government plan to increase the penalties for export control offences—the term of imprisonment will be increased from seven to 10 years. That is somewhat odd because recently there has been only about one conviction a year for such offences, incurring an average prison sentence of 30 months.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the right hon. Gentleman endorse the extra-territorial provisions under legislation relating to land mines and sex offenders? Such provisions are considerably stronger than those proposed in the Bill.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am merely asking questions. It is not my Bill. We are entitled to ask whether its provisions are realistic and enforceable. In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I think that we should consider carefully whether the land mines legislation is being properly enforced and whether there are lessons to be learned from it; otherwise, Parliament could get into the habit of constantly increasing penalties, while the enforcement of legislation is poor and its applications are confused. Nothing in the Bill supplies an answer to my questions.
  What we do know is that such measures have costs. Under the Bill, there will be costs to the Government: extra staff will be needed in Customs and Excise and other departments. There will also be hidden costs to business and industry in complying with the Bill.
  Those costs will fall not only on the defence industries. Cultural goods—defined as being more than 50 years old—will be included. If the Government introduce provisions, again by secondary legislation, that require records to be kept of all such goods, the result might be that every antique shop—indeed, every junk shop—might have to keep records of all its goods and, if they found their way abroad, to whom they were sold. Those costs are hidden, but they are real. The Government must provide further information about them, if we are to take a mature view of the measure.
  The licensing system for the export of defence equipment is already unsatisfactory—a point made in several interventions. The Government's aim is to deal with individual export licences within 20 working days. However, when I asked the previous Secretary of State whether that target was being met, it turned out that, last year, only 57 per cent. of such applications met the target. The longest time taken was 222 working days. That excludes complex cases in which additional information is required from the applicant firm. That recorded delay is purely one experienced in government and between Departments.
  When asked about the issue, the previous Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston, was almost completely dismissive. He said:
  "I have limited sympathy with complaints we are not moving fast enough."
  I am sure that he has limited sympathy with trade and industry, but that is not good enough for the House. No one doubts that we require a system that strikes the right

  555
  balance between the legitimate need to scrutinise such applications and the fact that the great delays caused by such scrutiny are costing jobs and causing orders to be lost to British industry. The worry is that the Bill could make matters worse.
  The Defence Manufacturers Association says that the Government already underestimate the additional burden that will be imposed under the Bill. In opening the debate, the Secretary of State mentioned other member states and appeared confident that there would be one set of rules for all member states. I am sorry to disabuse her of that view, but that issue was tackled specifically by the Quadripartite Committee, which said:
  "There is regrettably little sign that other Member States are taking very seriously the suggestion that they should be more transparent in their reporting of the operation of arms export controls."
  Earlier, the Committee warned that
  "none of our European competitors have achieved the UK's … level of transparency".
  Indeed, the previous Foreign Secretary admitted to two examples where licences for export had been turned down by this country, but then agreed by other members states in the European Union. Again, we are in danger of putting our own industries at a disadvantage, and we are not creating the comparability of rules that the Secretary of State said was important.
  My conclusion—it has to be an interim one—is that the Bill is necessary and that the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 needs to be replaced, but it is difficult to judge the Bill in the absence of secondary legislation. There has been an unnecessary delay in introducing the Bill, which seems as though it will be over-bureaucratic and highly regulatory. Although it will increase the penalties, we have severe doubts about its feasibility and enforceability. It is in that spirit that we shall continue to scrutinise the Bill in its remaining stages in the House.
  4.28 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: When the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) asked probing questions in Committee—the sort of questions that we would expect—he made some relevant points, but, if he does not mind my saying so, he has also indulged in yah-boo politics. First, that is uncharacteristic—it does not fit well with his personality at the Dispatch Box; and, secondly, the British people were not at all impressed by it, as they unfortunately showed in the low turnout at the election. I therefore hope that he will not mind if I pay a bit more attention to his probing questions and seek to emulate that attitude by making a speech along those lines, because this is a good Bill.
  The Bill is welcome, and it says a lot for the Government that they have introduced it at this stage in this Parliament. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is associated with it and that she has made her own position clear—I thought it very farsighted indeed. I am also delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), will make the winding-up speech. I welcome both of them to their
  556
  rightful positions on the Front Bench. I hope that they will not take it amiss if I, too, ask a few questions, some of which have been put to me by some of the aid agencies, non-governmental bodies and others who also welcome the spirit of the Bill and would like to suggest some improvements that can be made to it during its passage through this House and perhaps another place.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done, we can take a lead in being tougher on the international arms trade and in seeking relevant controls. We have two opportunities to do that. The first is provided by the Bill and by the chance that we have to tighten it up. The second results from the fact that the United Nations conference on all small arms starts today in New York. We therefore have an opportunity to send an important signal to the conference to show how seriously the British House of Commons takes such matters. I hope that other countries will seek to emulate us.
  There has been a massive proliferation in the trade in small arms in the past decade. That has not been helpful for international development, for human rights or for seeking to improve the lives of millions of people in all parts of the world. Some say that 500 million people—one person in every 12 on the planet—have been victims of the arms trade in the past decade. Clearly, that is an issue that we should address.
  As supplies increase, we know that prices fall. I am grateful to one aid agency for drawing my attention to the fact that, in north-east Kenya, the barter rate for an AK47 has dropped from 10 cows in 1986 to the present level of two cows. That might seem a trivial point, but it suggests that, if we are to tackle the problem of world poverty, we must control the terrible issue of the arms trade, which has an impact on poverty and on people's lives.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Can I tease from the right hon. Gentleman an answer that the Secretary of State was unable to give? He knows a great deal about such matters and he referred to the proliferation of AK47—Soviet—weapons, so can he shed any light on whether British nationals are involved in that trade? In addition, does he know of any similar British equipment that might form part of such an horrific trade?
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman attributes to me expertise that I do not claim, but he makes an important point. I will touch on it later in my speech if he allows me to do so.
  We are dealing with the reality of wars in the developing world. Only a decade ago, some people were using spears and bows and arrows, but we are now in a world of automatic and semi-automatic weapons. That is extremely worrying, so it is right that the trade in them should be controlled.
  As we all recognise, the victims of the trade are civilians—ordinary men, women and children. On our travels, many us have seen orphans and orphanages in Africa, Asia and elsewhere. Much suffering is caused by this unnecessary arms trade, so I welcome the view of the right hon. Member for Wells that the Bill should receive the scrutiny that it requires. It is far too easy for people to get access to those weapons. If we can tighten the controls, so much the better. We have seen too much suffering in the past 10 years and we must stop it. If we make a start today—as I believe we can—consistent with discussions in New York, the international community can only welcome that.

  557
  The United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, said that the death toll from small arms in most years greatly exceeds the toll of the atomic bombs that devastated Nagasaki and Hiroshima. That is a compelling point. Even those who work in the industry are honest and decent enough to want to address that reality. I have no criticism of hon. Members on either side of the House who have to deal with problems in their constituencies. They should have the support of the whole House when they address the more sensitive issues, such as jobs that conflict with stopping the arms trade for humanitarian and other reasons, which we might consider a reasonable approach. It is not an easy issue.
  Of course, there has been too much suffering and displacement and there have been too many deaths, injuries, human rights violations and obstructions of humanitarian aid. If the Bill helps to reduce that suffering, it must be welcome. We need to break the cycle of violence, or people will be reluctant to surrender their weapons, which we must encourage them to do in a practical way. There is a responsibility on nation states, which the Government are accepting, to ensure that weapons do not end up in the wrong hands, as they so often do. The Bill is a big step in the right direction.
  My right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House made a major contribution as Foreign Secretary in what he said to the House about the Scott inquiry and the compelling conclusions that lie reached. Given that he was dealing with problems that had arisen during the previous 18 years, his contribution in those four short years should be acknowledged rather than decried, and I am happy to do that in his absence.
  I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said. Most voluntary organisations and non-governmental organisations share her view. However, they have probing questions for the Government, which I am sure she will want to address. I want to raise only two of the many points that concern Oxfam. The organisation says:
  "If the secondary legislation includes a requirement for brokers to register and apply for a licence for each deal they arrange then these measures will make considerable progress towards preventing Britons from engaging in the brokering and trafficking of weapons into conflict and human rights crisis zones."
  It goes on to say:
  "However, Oxfam believes that there are still some significant absences from the bill which, if addressed during its passage through Parliament, would give the UK one of the best control regimes for strategic exports in the world."
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) will take that on board. Oxfam accepts that we can make the improvements and that the basis for that is right.
  On sustainable development, to which we are all absolutely committed, the organisation says:
  "Oxfam is concerned that the introduction of new clause 8 is actually a weaker mechanism for protection of sustainable development than if the issue was addressed in the main Schedule of the Bill, as was proposed in the original draft. "Guidance" is primarily aimed at licensing procedure and will not give the Secretary of State powers to impose controls to protect sustainable development. "Guidance" issued by the Secretary of State will not have full statutory weight, and while changes to the Purposes in the Schedule are subject to an affirmative resolution procedure, no such requirement exists for changes made to the "guidance" referred to in clause 8. It is therefore conceivable that within the lifetime of this primary legislation, reference to sustainable development could
  558
  be removed without due consideration by Parliament. We therefore urge HMG to reconsider re-introducing such a reference into the Schedule."
  I put that on the record so that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can reply to it, if he feels so disposed. I want also to underline the fact that it is the view of an important organisation.
  The right hon. Member for Wells referred to parliamentary scrutiny, which was dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Bill takes us much closer to our goal, although I do not know whether such scrutiny can be conducted before decisions are made. Certainly, we all want to know as much as possible about exports, especially of arms. We want to know where they are going, how they will be received, who will receive them and how they will be used.
  As I said, I have some probing questions. What will the Bill do to solve the problems faced by British shippers? Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for Aldershot, we all remember the delivery of arms to Saddam in 1998 by Occidental Airlines, which was co-owned by a UK citizen, and we want to deal with such problems.
  There is also the issue of unlicensed production overseas. The Bill does not include powers to enable the Government to require companies to impose controls on their customers regarding the manufacture of arms overseas under UK licence. Many hope that in secondary legislation the Government will take full responsibility for extending licence production controls beyond embargoed destinations. Many end-users fail to observe international human rights and humanitarian law and operate in countries without arms embargoes. Oxfam has led the way in asking the Government to use the opportunity afforded by secondary legislation to tighten end-user controls. In Oxfam's view, the increased use of overseas posts in risk assessment does not go far enough, and results in end-users monitoring subject to ad hoc checks rather than to a proper regulatory system. What thoughts does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have on that matter?
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I share the right hon. Gentleman's belief that there is not much point in restricting trafficking and brokering if weapons end up with people who we do not believe should have them. I, too, have been following the contributions of Oxfam and other groups, and it is not clear what effective sanctions could be recommended if that result were to be outlawed. In the groups' recommendations, I have seen only the suggestion that licences could be revoked. Surely by then, however, it would be too late?
  Mr. Clarke: It may not be, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question, because that is what I want the debate to be about. If the Government take it on themselves to revoke licences which they consider to have been used inappropriately, I, for one, will support them. Indeed. I would have advocated that during my speech.
  Ann Clwyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the situation in the United States, which has very clear guidelines indeed? Apart from prior scrutiny, which obviates some of the difficulties surrounding sending weapons to countries with dubious human rights records,

  559
  all contracts exchanged between the United States and the countries to which it exports arms include an opportunity to revoke the agreement without penalty.
  Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has done outstanding work on those matters. I very much value her experience and knowledge of the United States; the House has benefited from her contribution. Again, we must take that experience on board.
  In response to my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), if the Government feel that it is necessary, they should unashamedly exercise their right as a Government to revoke export licences, as I have sought to advocate. If people are aware of that, we will make much more progress. I am therefore grateful for the interventions of my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman.
  I shall end by referring to the role of the Department for International Development which, I am sure, is very much in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am sure, too, that, during our discussion of the Bill, consultation will continue. I shall give a final quote from Oxfam which I am certain my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will find helpful. Oxfam encapsulates the role that I want for the Department for International Development and says:
  "The Department for International Development is asked by the Department for Trade and Industry to comment on the impact of individual arms licences on sustainable development. Whilst we welcome this provision, we believe that it needs to be extended to cover the cumulative effect of arms exports as it is only when the broader picture is considered that the true impact of arms transfers on sustainable development is revealed. We would like the Bill to explicitly state that the Department for International Development has the power to monitor the cumulative effect of export licences."
  That is an important point, and I look forward to the response of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. It is excellent that the DTI and the Department for International Development are working together because, in our desire to ensure that we continue to make the best contribution that we can as a trading nation, exercising our responsibilities to the developing world, sometimes we come into conflict.
  Today, we are seeking to erase at least part of that dilemma and some of those difficulties; we are doing so at a time when international bodies, such as the conference in New York that I mentioned, are seeking to do precisely the same thing. For those practical reasons and because of the inspiration that the Bill is giving all those who deplore the arms trade, especially in developing countries, and all the damage that that trade has done, I welcome the Bill and wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary godspeed in getting it through its various stages.
  4.49 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I, too, welcome the new Secretary of State. I also welcome the Bill which, although belated, completes the work on the implementation of the Scott report, following the European code of conduct and the new arms export criteria.
  For those who were not in the House when the arms to Iraq scandal erupted, it is a salutary experience to look at some of the documents and remind ourselves how great the scandal was. The export control system had fallen into
  560
  such disrepute that British companies could supply Saddam Hussein with the equipment and technology to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. That was the extent to which the system had become porous.
  As the Conservative spokesman, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said, the Bill is essentially a framework measure. Like the right hon. Gentleman—although probably for the opposite reasons—we look forward to seeing as much as possible of the secondary legislation. The White Paper, the draft Bill and the consultations were detailed enough to give us a view on how the Bill should be strengthened. We support Second Reading, but like the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), we feel that some aspects of the Bill should be stiffened, including prior scrutiny. Lest we forget it, I remind hon. Members that, although such scrutiny has been presented by the Opposition as a slightly way-out proposal, it was recommended by the Quadripartite Committee, which comprised four Select Committees. We also want the Bill to be stiffened in respect of brokerage, extra-territorial application of control, overseas production and end use, and we want more explicit provisions relating to sustainable development—all points that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  I should like to put the Bill into a slightly wider context. It is essentially about strategic exports and big arms contracts, but as the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston said, we know that many of the problems associated with the arms export trade now centre on small arms. Indeed, that is probably more clearly understood now than when the Scott report was published. British firms have been involved in such business. Several hon. Members asked for the names of those firms, but I remember at least two relevant debates in this House, concerning Sandline shipments from Bulgaria to Sierra Leone and the Miltec transactions in support of Rwandan Hutu rebels. There must be many other such examples.
  Such trade is big business. I understand that there is a stock of about 500 million small arm units in circulation. As a successful manufacturer, Britain must have a substantial share of the originating materials. Why is that important? It has only just begun to be appreciated—
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman says that Britain must have a substantial share in the trade. That is a very serious accusation. Will he specify the nature of the small arms and tell us which British manufacturers he thinks are responsible for allowing this kit to get into the wrong hands?
  Dr. Cable: I have just given two examples. Britain has roughly 25 per cent. of the world arms export trade, and simple logic suggests that we must have a substantial component of most segments within it. I am sure that we can discuss the matter in more detail in Committee, but I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman denies the facts.
  The importance of the small arms business is that much of the material is highly persistent. Any country that purchases a sophisticated fighter such as the F16, which has about 60,000 moving parts, will be closely tied to the country of origin through maintenance, spares and control. However, even very unsophisticated military operations can keep small arms with few moving parts in circulation for a long time. That is why small arms are a problem and are so destructive.

  561
  My other general point was mentioned by the Conservative spokesman, who gave me a friendly trailer on the way in which the anus business functions in this country. It is tempting to say that such business is terribly important for the British economy. That is partly true, as we have a large share of world trade that is disproportionate to our role in manufacturing in general, and as many jobs are involved, but it must be stressed that this is not normal business. It is not based on free-market transactions between private businesses and private customers, as much of it involves the Government in a supporting and sometimes subsidising role. In the current argot, we could almost describe such business as a public-private partnership, even though, through the mediation of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, the private sector has offloaded many of the risks on to the Government. I introduced the debate to which the right hon. Member for Wells referred. So far from its being hidden, I got my party to endorse the policy at our party conference. The debate emphasised the volume of research that showed the extent to which the British taxpayer subsidises the arms export business.
  Research showed that approximately £300 million a year was written off as a result of ECGD defaults on the arms trade alone. In the past few weeks, Saferworld has published some useful work, which was endorsed earlier by Conservative Members. Its thorough research shows that the British public subsidy to the arms export business is considerably greater than £300 million. It employed the simple method of ascertaining the cost of capital and the cost of providing for risk it the market, and comparing that with the cost of borrowing under the ECGD arrangement. On average, the cost to the British taxpayer is approximately £400 million a year, when all support costs are added. That is relevant to the debate because it is linked directly to scrutiny
  As the right hon. Member for Wells suggested, I would have reservations about the Government becoming heavily involved in second-guessing private transactions that risk no damage to humanity. However, the taxpayer is substantially involved in many cases, and it borders on impertinence for British companies to claim that scrutiny is no role for Parliament.
  Before plunging into detail, I want to explain my position a little. I have no experience of the parliamentary review process; I did not serve on any of the four Select Committees. I served on tie Select Committee on the Treasury, which should perhaps also be one of the main parties to the discussions. I therefore have no experience of the way in which Parliament has reviewed arms exports. However, I have some experience of operating the arms export control system from within Whitehall, albeit a long time ago, in the pre-Scott era.
  I was a first secretary in the Foreign Office, and I looked after 15 Latin American countries, which at the time were flush with a lot of cash and regarded as one of the primary targets for the British arms export industry. It is probably fortunate for my subsequent career in politics that my signature does not appear on orders that went to General Pinochet—a different bit of the office was responsible for that—or, perhaps more important, on the papers from the Department that authorised the substantial exports of British hardware to General Videla and the junta in Argentina. That hardware was subsequently used to kill British service men.
  562
  Being part of that process provided me with considerable food for thought about the operation of the arms export control system. There were enormous institutional pressures to promote arms exports. They came from Ministry of Defence sales staff, who of course have a professional commitment to promoting British arms exports; from the then Department of Trade, which operated—perhaps its successor continues to do so—on the basis of the old-fashioned, 19th-century, French mercantilist view that exports are good and imports are bad, and any method of pushing exports must be good; and the Foreign Office, which had a strong belief in Great Britain Ltd., and that what was good for GE-Marconi or British Aerospace was good for Britain.
  There were powerful pressures to sell more and get the deals, with British civil servants working behind them, as I did. I did my job, for which I was paid. There was little counter-pressure. The only source of resistance that I recall was the Treasury, which was always a bastion of economic sanity. It pointed out that our method of operation was not good economics and was costly to the British taxpayer.
  Mr. George Howarth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that what is good for British Aerospace is not good for Britain. As I have the headquarters of British Aerospace—as I continue to call it—in my constituency. I can assure him that British Aerospace is a fantastic force for good in this country.
  Dr. Cable: I am saying, and have already said, that what is good for British Aerospace is not necessarily good for Britain. It might be, but it is not necessarily.
  Mr. Cousins: Does the hon. Gentleman have very much in mind the sales that were made to Iraq—the British taxpayer is still owed upwards of £500 million in respect of export credit guarantees that were never fulfilled—and, with regard to the Conservative Administration, the fact that Saddam Hussein proved to be a very good liar and a very bad payer?
  Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and Iraq is one of the many reasons why the Export Credits Guarantee Department has ended up effectively having to be subsidised by the taxpayer in respect of those defaults. Often with much less publicity, every one of the 15 countries for which I was responsible in my job defaulted on its debt. They were flush with capital in the mid 1970s and they defaulted in the early 1980s. They could not sustain their payments on their export credit guarantees, which had to be rescheduled through the Paris Club. In such circumstances, the credit has an implicit cost.
  Only once in my several years in that interesting job was I prevented by the system from approving an arms export. I will tell the story because it is quite instructive to the wider argument. The case was almost comical. We received an application from a small company in the west midlands that wanted to supply an armoured car to Fidel Castro, who had been the subject of several assassination attempts. In view of the other hardware that we were selling, I could see no reason why that sale should not take place, and I approved it and suggested that it was not worth referring to Ministers.

  563
  A few days later, the roof fell in. Minutes came from all over the Foreign Office, from people who had not shown a great deal of interest in our exports to the juntas in Brazil and Argentina, to say that this was outrageous, and that terrible human rights abuses were occurring in Havana; people were dying in dungeons and this really was not good enough. The matter was referred to the Foreign Secretary, who referred it back and said, "We must consult the Americans."
  I was asked to draft a letter to the Secretary of State, who was then Dr. Henry Kissinger of all people. A few weeks later, an answering letter arrived. I am sure that it will appear in a few years' time under the 30-year rule. It was something to the following effect: "Dear Jim, Had you not informed me of this transaction, I am almost certain that I would never have become aware of it, but since you have asked my permission, the answer is no." That struck me as one of the most eloquent statements of the Anglo-American relationship that I have ever encountered, but it was also an eloquent description of the way in which the arms control system operated until very recently. If one wanted to export to the communist bloc, the answer was no, and there were COCOM rules to underline that; but it was good and desirable, and to be encouraged, to export elsewhere.
  Enough of reminiscences. Let me return to the Bill, and to those bits of it that need to be strengthened. First, as the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston said, there is the issue of development and the Bill's objectives. In the past few years, the Government have advanced in setting out more explicitly what the aims of arms exports should be and the criteria that should be employed, but they contain nothing that specifically relates to the issue of sustainability, especially where there are cumulatively large exports.
  It may be one thing to supply a motor torpedo boat to Peru, but if everyone else is doing it and one's exporters are supplying large quantities of other armaments to Peru, it is likely that Peru will eventually default—as it did—so sustainability is very important. That aspect has been picked up by people such as Mr. Camdessus and the International Monetary Fund, who regard the arms export industry, and especially the subsidising of it, as wholly unacceptable, on the basis that the products exported do not generate income, have no asset value, depreciate very quickly and incur a debt. That is why the sustainability of arms exports, in context, must be part of the review process.
  The second issue—again I return to what the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston said—is the issue of end use and overseas manufacture. In yesterday's newspaper, there was a very good illustration of why end use is an important issue. There was a description, I believe in The Sunday Times, of a Ukrainian gentleman who was responsible for supplying most of the equipment that goes to President Taylor in Liberia and to his friends in the murderous Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone. That gentleman operated on the basis of supplying most of the arms to Burkina Faso, and one does not need to be Hercule Poirot to work out that a large quantity of arms going to Burkina Faso is not entirely kosher. Eventually, Interpol reached that conclusion, and it has intervened to stop the trade.
  564
  Unless explicit end-use provisions are in place, it is difficult to trace the paper and exercise the necessary discipline, and the position on overseas manufacture is similar. Unless we include a clause that specifically refers to it, there will be no provision whereby the Government could act in examples such as British armoured cars being manufactured in the Philippines and trans-shipped to Indonesia and Burma. I know that the Chairman of the International Development Committee has been involved with that case.
  The third issue is brokerage and the requirement, which has already been set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), that British passport holders living and operating overseas need to be subject to extra-territorial control. Such controls already exist in British legislation, so they are not new.
  If hon. Members want a good description of offshore brokerage, there is a fictional but near-real example in the recent Le Carè novel "The Night Manager", which describes a gentleman called Richard Roper who flits between the Caribbean and Switzerland. Of course, Le Cane's characters are based on reality. The novel describes how the brokerage system works and why there must be extra-territorial jurisdiction over those who operate almost entirely outside the UK but trade on British citizenship.
  On prior scrutiny, the Government have been disappointing. The Quadripartite Committee strongly recommended that prior scrutiny should occur, but two arguments against it have been advanced. The first is delay, but there is a way to deal with that. The Committee clearly said that it is possible to introduce a two-stage process of rapid screening and more detailed scrutiny of the remainder. That is not an insuperable problem.
  The second argument—concerning confidentiality—is more worrying. There is an implication that, somehow, Members of Parliament are not as trustworthy as officials. I find that uncomfortable. Why should not MPs observe confidentiality? Confidentiality is observed by Members in the United States, where such a system applies. One operates in Sweden as well, and those countries are important arms exporters. Why should we not operate such a system in the UK?
  Sir John Stanley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the canard that MPs cannot be trusted with confidential information was laid to rest by the decision of the House to set up the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has shown itself over many years to be entirely capable of handling confidential information?
  Dr. Cable: That excellent contribution reinforces the point.
  Were the Government not involved in supporting arms exports in cash and in kind, through subsidy and political backing, there might be an argument for saying that business priorities should prevail. However, public support makes all Members the House stakeholders in the arms export business. We therefore have every right to demand that such business decisions be subject to scrutiny, and prior scrutiny at that.
  5.8 pm
  Vera Baird: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech to the House.
  We are debating a topic of considerable public interest. I say that in particular because the first parliamentary correspondence that I opened when I arrived here four weeks ago was a letter from the Redcar branch of Campaign Against Arms Trade bemoaning the failure to pass such a Bill in the previous Session and asking whether I would support its introduction.
  The second letter that I opened four weeks ago was from the Redcar branch of Campaign Against Arms Trade bemoaning the fact that no such Bill had been passed in the previous Session and asking whether I would support its introduction.
  The third letter that I opened as a new Member of Parliament was from the Redcar branch of Campaign Against Arms Trade. And so on. I replied to all 34 letters, saying that I would support the introduction of such a measure and that, furthermore, I would write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to commend the Bill to her. So I sent the letters on to her. We are all very pleased to see the Bill, but I think this is an unpromising first step towards the eventual publication of my collected parliamentary correspondence.
  My distinguished predecessor is said to be about to publish. As to that, I cannot say; but I do know that the right hon. Dr. Marjorie Mowlam—my distinguished predecessor—has earned, and will keep, what can only be described as the affectionate veneration of the people of Redcar. I suspect that she will also long retain the admiration of the House. In Redcar, she has helped countless people. On the doorstep, stories of Mo's good deeds were legion—and she did them, famously, always remembering an individual's name, and treating that individual as a friend.
  Mo did so much for the place. Legendary is the occasion on which the biggest retailer for our new town centre might have pulled out. Mo left her Whitehall office. Mo strode down the street. Mo entered the developers' office and told them, in what I believe was a quite straightforward way, what they had better do. The supermarket, happily, was re-engaged.
  Mo's well known warmth, her openness and her lack of pretension undoubtedly played a great part in all that she did, but, centrally, she was a great shadow Minister, a great Minister and a stateswoman, because she is a formidable intelligence. She will go on to a different career; I know that the whole House, together with the people of Redcar, will wish her good health, success and satisfaction in that new career.
  Redcar was fortunate in having Mo as its Member of Parliament, and now I am its lucky representative. The constituency's western boundary is the River Tees, which, although it is an industrial artery for much of its old age, is pure enough at its mouth for seals to play around the lighthouse at the tip of the breakwater. There is usually a chain of massive ships anchored off, until the pilot cutter can come to guide them through the narrow channel into Teesmouth, the second busiest port in the United Kingdom.
  I pause to indicate what a debt of gratitude hon. Members and the public owe to Customs officers who serve at Teesport, for it was they who, on 10 April 1990,
  566
  detained eight large steel tubes which they believed might require an export licence and which were, in fact, the components of the Iraqi supergun. There can be no doubt that, but for their vigilance, serious military consequences could have followed. I believe that those diligent officers—who, in many senses, have brought about this Bill—will welcome its introduction.
  A mile from the estuary where the officers work, down a duney coast, is the seaside town of Redcar itself, set on miles of golden sand. Fish and chips, amusements, buckets and spades and bracing walks along the esplanade summarise its principal attractions. Until 1872, the beach was used for horse racing; then they built our famous Redcar race course. It is in the middle of the town, and race days fill the streets with a carnival atmosphere.
  Four miles away is Marske, an ancient fishing village, now a pleasant residential area. Inland lies the leafy Domesday book village of Kirkleatham, with its newly renovated Sir William Turner almshouses. Inland, also, is Dormanstown, built in 1917 as a garden city for the steelworkers of Dorman Long. It is green and it is spacious, but it now suffers from the inner-urban deprivation that is all too often the concomitant of a damaged industrial base, and to which I must later return.
  Within a tiny distance of pretty Kirkleatham lies, rather less prettily, the Wilton International chemical site. It is a major manufacturing location for petrochemicals, polymers and fibre intermediaries, and is one of three complexes on Teesside that, together, make up the United Kingdom's largest cluster of chemical manufacturers. Currently, they directly employ 11,000 people; indirectly they employ 25,000 more; and they contribute an annual cash turnover that sustains many more thousands of jobs.
  There is one matter about the complex that I hope to pursue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—namely, that it is imperative to our Teesside economy that she support as actively as possible proposed new investment in the complex. That is particularly so since the complex is in cluster formation, with plant linked with plant, and some components of some chains are now approaching the end of their viable life.
  The Tees has a proud history of shipbuilding and repair. In April, however, Cammell Laird went into receivership. The next day, 110 workers at the South Bank yard in my constituency were told, "Pack up and go." The yard, which used to be called Smiths dock, is a byword in the north-east for the highest skills and craftsmanship. It was a shattering blow, dealt in an unacceptable manner. The council, regional agencies and I are doing everything that we can to support the efforts of a respected local business man to restart the yard, to run it on its own as a viable local enterprise.
  Between Redcar and the river is the mighty Cones Teesside steelworks. In the same week in April as the shipyard went down, the closure of the Lackenby coil plate mill was confirmed. In all, 1,100 jobs are to be lost in a work force who have improved productivity year after year. They, too, were treated with scandalous disregard. Both of those body blows to the traditions, morale and economy of my constituency have made it plain to me that it is unacceptable that such restructuring and cutting should be lawful without any reference to loyal employees. Those of my constituents who have suffered thus join me in giving a strong welcome to the directive on information and consultation rights for employees.

  567
  Travelling west in the constituency, one comes to Eston, at the foot of the Eston hills, where the iron ore that gave Teesside that industry was found. The first blast furnace was built in 1851, after which the area produced one third of the country's output, with nearby South Bank and Grangetown two of its proud industrial producers.
  Now, Grangetown has a 14.6 per cent. unemployment rate, which is about four and a half times the national average. With South Bank, it suffers according to every index from critical social deprivation. I need not list its characteristics, as they are all too familiar to hon. Members whose regional constituencies were, like mine, neglected to the point of abandonment by the previous, Conservative, Government. Those hard-hit communities house what that Government called an underclass, but what I see, and what I believe the Government recognise, are families who want nothing more than to work, earn a living, educate their children and live in dignity and safety.
  Although the figures all remain high, critical ones such as youth unemployment, nursery provision and five A to C GCSE scores in schools are much improved in the past three years. Such communities welcome the Government's certainty that regional economies must be made to flourish if the national economy as a whole is to grow still stronger. We applaud the Government's resolution to apply substantial regeneration resources on a regional basis to poor areas such as these.
  The constituency could therefore be described as going from Redcar rock to many a struggling industrial hard place. The Redcar people are positive, however. That can be seen by the fact that, despite a heavy industrial culture, which usually reinforces traditional polarised gender roles, they have elected two successive women Members of Parliament. I do not know what comment to make about the fact that they have now elected their first lawyer, but I do know a lot of jokes about lawyers.
  My two roles merge when I welcome the Bill to encourage women further into democratic life. It is a far from straightforward legislative drafting task, and one that I urge be carried out in time to legislate this Session. Local authority elections for, among others, Redcar and Cleveland council, are but a short time away. We intend, in our new party women's forum, to set up a system of prospective councillor candidates, so that those who are selected to stand can get involved early in their wards' affairs. It is essential, if we are to build on the confidence that my electors have shown in women, quickly to have available to us weapons to use against any reactionary backlash.
  As a criminal lawyer, I am interested in issues of crime control, access to justice, the courts and criminal sentencing. Sadly, the communities that I have described in my constituency have high crime rates and seemingly intractable drugs problems. This morning's bad news was that knife crime has soared on Teesside. In the past six months, there were 62 stabbings, three of them murders, one of which was in Grangetown.
  The police see the problem as drugs related, with dealers mainly arming themselves in self-defence in this dangerous world. In that context, I welcome the Home Secretary's weekend announcement that he will hold an open-minded inquiry into the possibility of legalizing
  568
  cannabis. Unless it proves to be a gateway to hard drugs, it is an area of crime on which I suspect that police have to spend an amount of time disproportionate to its social mischief, leaving them less time for graver criminal matters.
  I further welcome many of the proposals in "Making Punishment Work", the report on sentencing by Mr. Halliday, delivered last week—especially its emphasis on extended periods of post-prison supervision in the community for violent offenders, and its revelation that the social exclusion unit is already working with the Home Office on ways of cutting ex-prisoners' reoffending rates by boosting employment and lowering homelessness: joined-up government of the very best kind.
  Our phrase, "A lot done, a lot still to do," applies to crime. I resort again to my dual role as a woman representative and a lawyer in mentioning that I hope to ask Ministers to examine again the question of rape and the use of women's previous sexual history in trials; to reassess the criminal defences to murder, which ill serve women victims of domestic violence who finally kill their batterers; and to implement straight away the gender impact assessment scheme for criminal justice measures, which was set up at the Home Office when my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio was Minister of State there, but which is not yet in operation.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on her appointment to high office, and seriously return to where I facetiously started in complementing her on the coincidence of her judgment with that of many of my constituents in the wisdom of the measure that she has introduced today.
  5.24 pm
  Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): I am sure that the whole House will want me to offer warns congratulations to the hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on an admirable maiden speech. She spoke with deserved generosity about her predecessor, who, I can assure her, will be remembered with respect and admiration in all parts of the House. She spoke with fluency and humour, with already a deep knowledge of her constituency, and clearly with much to bring to the House by way of her legal background and knowledge of the criminal justice system. I am sure that the whole House will regard her as a worthy successor to her distinguished predecessor, and we look forward to hearing plenty more from her in the future.
  I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the Second Reading of a Bill that has been much delayed. That delay occasioned me to read the origins of the commitment to the Bill contained in the Labour manifesto in 1997. In pristine new Labour terminology, an unequivocal commitment was given, which stated:
  "Labour will not permit the sale of arms to regimes that might use them for internal repression or international aggression. We will increase the transparency and accountability of decisions on export licences for arms."
  We confidently expected that the Bill would appear in the previous Parliament, but it is welcome now because the export licensing system is much in need of an overhaul. The current system dates back to 1939, as has been mentioned.
  On the issue of delay, I echo the comments by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). The Bill is an important piece of legislation.

  569
  It has been preceded by some intensive work by four Select Committees of the House in the Quadripartite Committee and it was effectively published in draft in the White Paper. Despite that, the Government's response to the Quadripartite Committee's report on the Bill was published this morning—the very day of Second Reading. In a Session of more than usual length, in which the Government have many choices of date for the Bill's Second Reading, to publish a document as important as that response a matter of hours before the debate is a shameful way to treat Members of Parliament and the many outside bodies that have taken a great interest in the Bill, which would have wished to pass on comment to right hon. and hon. Members if they had had the opportunity to do so.
  I give a broad welcome to the Bill, even though it is difficult to reach an overall judgment on it, given that it is enabling legislation. The guts of the Bill will depend on the nature of the secondary legislation, and it is again disappointing that the Government have not yet been able to give the House any sight of that key legislation in draft before Second Reading. The House is therefore unsighted on the real implications of the legislation.
  I wish to highlight three areas in the Bill that give me some concern. The first is the Government's position on extending arms control procedures to licensed production overseas. It is not a viable basis for a credible arms control policy if it is possible for UK companies to circumvent UK export controls by the simple device of a licensed production agreement in a third country where export controls are limited or barely exist.
  There was a glaring example of that in the previous Parliament. In 1999, the Turkish company MKEK exported Heckler and Koch sub-machine guns to the Indonesian police. That order, had it come before the British Government, would certainly not have been given an export licence. Those Heckler and Koch sub-machine guns were manufactured under licence in Turkey and, at the time, Heckler and Koch was owned by Royal Ordnance plc. That is a clear example of a British company being enabled to circumvent British arms export control policy by the expedient of licensed production.
  In its report, the Quadripartite Committee recommended that controls were introduced for licensed production overseas. It said:
  "We do however continue to believe that some statutory powers may be necessary to control licensed production overseas, and recommend that the Bill provide for such powers to be taken in the future under secondary legislation, to be used only if a non-statutory regime is shown to have failed."
  The Government's response this morning reads as follows:
  "The Government has decided, in the light of the results of the consultation, not to introduce specific powers in the Bill on licensed production overseas."
  The Government give no reasons as to why they have reached that conclusion; I hope that the Minister will give us some indication. The Government's response is strange, given the obvious gaping hole that it opens up in arms export control arrangements if, by the simple expedient of entering into licensing agreements overseas, a British company is able to evade the export control policy that the Government have established.
  In addition, I put this point to the Minister: if the Government are to continue to have the power to exempt licensing arrangements, there may be a significant danger
  570
  that some British defence manufacturers will decide to move manufacturing capacity overseas by means of licensing arrangements to widen their export market potential. The Government's failure to deal with that loophole could have adverse implications for jobs in Britain in the defence manufacturing industry.
  Secondly, I want to consider how the Government will deal with the key issue of trafficking and brokering. As with licensed production overseas, this is another area in which, unless the right legislation is brought forward, there is considerable capacity effectively to nullify the Government's arms control policy.
  Trafficking and brokering require the introduction of a measure of extra-territoriality. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, that is not unprecedented in legislation. The Quadripartite Committee said, in paragraph 96:
  "Whilst recognising the practical difficulties in policing activities outside the United Kingdom, we see compelling arguments in favour of extending controls on brokering and trafficking to activities outside the country and recommend that controls be introduced on the activities of UK citizens and companies wherever they take place.
  The Government's response is somewhat mystifying. They simply say:
  "The Government notes the Committee's views. This is a matter that will be set out in secondary legislation, which as noted in our response to recommendation (a) we aim to submit to Parliament in dummy form as soon as possible."
  The Government propose the introduction of secondary legislation. For reasons best known to themselves, they do not tell us whether they accept the Quadripartite Committee's recommendation. Furthermore, we have no idea when that important secondary legislation will be introduced. I hope the Minister can assure the House that it will at least be available in dummy form before the Bill goes into Committee. That is a key point. I am sure that the right hon. and hon. Members who are asked to serve on the Standing Committee will want to see that and other dummy secondary legislation before the Committee's proceedings commence.
  Mr. Richard Page: The Committee stage will begin a week from tomorrow and, even though I shall be serving on the Committee, I have received no information as to when the details of the secondary legislation will be available.
  Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. I hope that the Minister has taken careful note of his and my remarks. Later in the debate, other hon. Members may also refer to the importance of the House having sight, before the Committee stage, of those key measures that the Government describe as dummy secondary legislation.
  Transportation is another aspect of trafficking and brokering. In her opening remarks, the Secretary of State referred to the terrible tragedy of the Sierra Leone civil war. It was widely reported, and not denied by the company concerned, that a British-based company—based in Luton—was involved in the air freighting of arms to rebel forces in Sierra Leone. The weapons came from the Ukraine via Burkina Faso—the hon. Member for Twickenham will be interested to know that—and Liberia. There is strong circumstantial evidence for that report. Apart from the fact that a British company was involved

  571
  in the transportation and brokering of arms in a civil war, British armed forces are currently deployed in Sierra Leone. A British company may thus unwittingly or not have been engaged in the transfer to rebel forces of arms that could be used against British forces.
  The Government's response on the logistics of trafficking and brokering notes that
  "Clause 5 of the Bill provides a broad power which does allow for the introduction of controls on the transport, or the arrangement of transport, of controlled goods."
  However, notwithstanding that response, clause 5 does not include the words "transport" or "transportation". I assume that behind the Government's response is a reference to clause 5(5)(c). If it is the Government's intention to cover transportation, would not it be far better to make that word explicit in clause 5? The point may be implicit, but that gives rise to the possible danger of subsequent litigation as to whether transportation undertakings in relation to arms trafficking and brokering are included within the legal powers in the Bill.
  Finally, I want to consider the key question of whether it is possible to introduce a degree of legal control in the sphere of the transfer of knowledge and technology relating to the construction of weapons of mass destruction. I certainly applaud the Government's intention to try to choke off a key route for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, it could well be argued that the greatest danger in the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons lies in the transfer of technical information and knowledge, rather than that of hardware and materials.
  I strongly support the Government's policy aims, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells rightly said, unless the Government are extraordinarily careful, the Bill could affect wholly legitimate research and academic activities in higher education. In an example that the House will easily understand, at what point does knowledge gained in academic research into the toxicity of certain chemicals create a risk of proliferation of chemical weapons; or at what point does academic research and teaching into the microbiology of anthrax constitute a proliferation danger in the manufacture of biological weapons?
  As I have said, the Government have to be extremely careful. For the benefit of the Minister and the House, I wish to put on record the wording of a fax that I received just before the debate from Universities UK.
  "You will remember from our evidence to the Quadripartite Committee in April that we support controls on weapons of mass destruction. But Universities UK is concerned that new controls might have the unintended consequence of damaging higher education. We believe that the proposal in the Bill to extend licensing controls to include intangibles could have adverse effects on universities and the UK research base generally."
  The Government have said that they will submit dummy legislation to Parliament as soon as possible. I trust that they will take very careful note of the views of the higher education establishment so that the proper teaching carried out in higher education in Britain and the proper work done in research establishments is in no way
  572
  jeopardised by the certainly well intentioned and wholly laudable efforts that the Government are making to try to choke off such proliferation.
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: What is the right hon. Gentleman's view of the fact that many of the most revolutionary technologies—whether nuclear power, computers or genetic engineering—can be used for good and for evil? Will he please tell us how he thinks the Government might differentiate between those technologies and know whether they are being used for good or evil?
  Sir John Stanley: The hon. Gentleman is on to the key point—how the Bill is drafted. I should be happy to share with him the fax that I have received, and he may be interested to know that Universities UK has suggested an alternative way to define what should be outside the arms export licensing control regime from that which the Government appear to offer. That will be a matter for detailed consultation between the Government and the higher education establishment.
  Prior parliamentary scrutiny has been mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesman and other hon. Members in interventions. I was disappointed by the Secretary of State's replies to interventions, because it is clear that she had not been adequately briefed or had not done sufficient reading on the Quadripartite Committee's proposals. She cited the criticism of prior parliamentary scrutiny that Lord Scott had made when he came before the Committee, but I am afraid that she quoted him very selectively.
  Lord Scott made an initial —if I may presume to say so—knee-jerk response to a question about prior parliamentary scrutiny from another member of the Committee. However, when I pursued the matter further and asked Lord Scott whether he had read the Committee's detailed proposals, he replied; as paragraph 142 of the report of the proceedings of 25 April shows:
  "I can confirm that I have not read that material and I reserve on this occasion, as most, the right to change my mind."
  Lord Scott is not a good witness to call to defend the criticisms of prior parliamentary scrutiny that the Secretary of State may or may not have advanced.
  The Secretary of State also said in response to interventions that prior parliamentary scrutiny might create a blurring of the responsibilities between the Executive and the legislature. I therefore draw the House's attention to the fact that the Quadripartite Committee is absolutely clear on this point. There is no blurring or removal of the Executive's responsibility for arms export policy. That is stated with total and unambiguous clarity in paragraph 88 of our report of July 2000, which says:
  "We fully understand and accept that, even with a system of prior parliamentary scrutiny in place, responsibility for strategic export decisions will continue to lie wholly with the Government, who will be accountable to Parliament for those decisions."
  Our proposal for prior parliamentary scrutiny would lead to no blurring whatever of responsibility between the Executive and the legislature.
  I wish to return to the Government's failure to respond to our final proposals made, to the Government on 14 March. There has also been a sad delay in their previous response to the Quadripartite Committee's proposals on

  573
  prior parliamentary scrutiny. We made our initial proposal in July 2000, but it took the Government five months to respond even though they should respond within two months to the proposals of Select Committees. In our latest submission to the Government in March this year, we said:
  "Our new proposals deserve proper scrutiny within Whitehall; but there is no reason to wait another five months for an answer. There is every good reason to have a system of prior parliamentary scrutiny ready to operate as soon as committees are set up in a new Parliament."
  As the House knows, there is every sign that Select Committees will be set up before the House rises for the recess at the end of next week. We still await the Government's response to our final and refined proposals and we are wholly confident that the unanimous report of the four Select Committees concerned will in no way jeopardise or weaken the competitive position of British arms exporters, but that they will materially increase the Executive's accountability to Parliament in this key area. We earnestly hope that the Government will make their response on this key issue before the Committee stage of the Bill begins.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Roger Berry: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley). As someone who served on the Quadripartite Committee and who would like to do so again, may I say that he made a significant contribution to the Committee's work? In addition, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on her maiden speech and welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister to their new positions on the Front Bench.
  I warmly welcome the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) said, the opening session of the UN conference on the illicit trade in small arms takes place today in New York. Such sales are not the sole problem but make a significant contribution to the difficulties that arise from arms sales. In the past 11 years, illicit small arms sales have been blamed for 4 million deaths. Most of the victims have been civilians, 80 per cent. of them children and women. UNICEF UK is running a campaign on children who are alone because of war. Most of them are the victims of people who sell arms and who are interested only in the money that they make on a deal; they do not think about the consequences. It is a major problem in our society and the international community.
  I recognise the right of countries to export and import weapons for their own defence. Indeed, the UN charter guarantees that. Many of my constituents work in the aerospace industry and I welcome the contribution that it and others make to legitimate arms sales. However, the Bill deals with the export of arms that may be used to violate human rights which, if we are not careful, will result in external aggression or internal repression. Its underlying principle is an attempt to control such exports.
  Arms control is a major problem for the United Kingdom. We account for a quarter of arms exports, worth about $7 billion each year. Two issues need to be addressed: the first is what policy a Government should adopt towards arms exports; the second is what control regime should be put in place to enable that policy to be effective. I congratulate the Government on the progress
  574
  that has been made on those. It was churlish for the Conservatives to make snide comments about why the Bill was not introduced earlier. I, too, should have liked that, but we have achieved many things that we did not obtain under the previous Conservative Government.
  Ms Dari Taylor: Would my hon. Friend have liked the Bill to be introduced at least 15 years earlier?
  Mr. Berry: I would indeed, but I should have also liked decent and sensible criteria to evaluate arms exports. It was not until July 1997—two months after the general election—that they made any sense. I wanted the Landmines Act 1998 to be introduced earlier—the Conservative Government refused to act on that— and a White Paper on arms export controls to be produced before 1998, when the Labour Government addressed the problem for the first time in that way.
  I shall not detain the House by referring at length to other achievements except to mention our support for the European Union code of conduct on arms exports and the establishment of the Quadripartite Committee on strategic exports. The Committee might not have the most elegant title, but it deals with arms exports and considers important business. I am sure that other Committee members in the previous Parliament will agree that its Chairman, the former hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, Ted Rowlands, made a major contribution in ensuring that its work proceeded efficiently and effectively.
  My first concern relates to brokering and trafficking. The Bill, which we also saw in draft form, has powers in clause 5 to impose controls on those activities, which I welcome. They go further than the proposals in the 1998 White Paper. It is unacceptable that if a UK company brokers a deal, no licence is required so long as the arms do not touch UK soil. A child of 10 knows that if he wants arms to go to country X, he can simply broker a deal to export from country Y without bringing them on to UK soil. There is nothing clever about avoiding export controls; it is dead simple. Unless we address brokering and trafficking, there is one obvious mechanism available for dodging arms export controls. Conservative Members might never have heard of the problem. Perhaps they have not read the Scott report and do not know how the UK company Miltec brokered arms to Rwanda in 1994 at the height of the genocide.
  If I want to drive a car, get married, watch television or run a raffle for my local Labour party, I have to get a licence. If I want to sell alcohol or go fishing, I probably have to get a licence. However, if I want to broker arms deals with the most unscrupulous individuals and regimes, I do not have to obtain one. That is the absurdity of the current arrangements. A licence is required for many activities, but not to broker arms. I am delighted that clause 5 gives the Secretary of State powers to impose controls on brokering and trafficking.
  Extra-territorial controls are the subject of clause 5(6). It is essential that we have those. The Labour manifesto made a clear commitment to introduce a licensing system
  "to control the activities of arms brokers and traffickers wherever they are located".
  People who draft manifestos tell me that they choose their words carefully. The phrase "wherever they are located" can have only one clear interpretation. Controls must

  575
  apply to UK passport holders who operate overseas, for the simple reason that if they do not, it is possible to evade controls simply by stepping out of the country. I cannot believe that anyone would want a system of arms export controls with such an obvious loophole. I welcome the Government's commitment.
  There are countless examples of extra-territorial powers in our legislation. Reference was made to the Sex Offenders Act 1997, the Landmines Act and the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. There is nothing novel about the Bill. It would be extraordinary if anyone thought that we could have effective arms export controls without extraterritoriality—a terrible phrase, but I hope that the House knows what I mean. Interestingly, German controls on trafficking and brokering suffer from that weakness.
  When the Defence Manufacturers Association gave evidence to the Quadripartite Committee, its exports director, Brinley Salzmann, said of the German system:
  "It catches the good guys and the bad guys have moved to Cyprus."
  I am sure that the House would not regard that solution as adequate. Comprehensive measures should be taken to control the activities of British arms brokers operating on foreign soil.
  I turn now to another obvious way of circumventing existing controls which must be dealt with. I refer to the practice of allowing a second company in another country to produce the arms under licence, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing. He gave the example of the Turkish company MKEK, which in 1999 exported to the Indonesian police sub-machine guns manufactured under licence by Heckler and Koch, which was owned by Royal Ordnance. That incident was at the height of the East Timor conflict, and the shipment would not have been given an export licence by the UK. Indeed, an application for a licence from a British company for a similar transfer had already been rejected by the Government.
  It is important that we deal with licensed production. It is unfortunate that the Bill contains no new statutory powers to control licensed production overseas. I believe that it should. I realise that the Government are considering non-legislative measures, but they will need to convince the Committee and the House that they will be effective. Without adequate control, the objectives of export control policy, and of the Bill, will be seriously undermined.
  I turn now to end-use monitoring. The Scott report showed how easy it was for UK arms exports to be diverted. The subject of the report was arms that had been diverted to Iraq via Jordan. I served on the Trade and Industry Committee a couple of years later, and we considered the problem of large numbers of arms exports being diverted, via Singapore, to Iran. As I said, a child of 10 who wanted to get around the controls could find various ways of doing so, and one way of allowing people to get around them is to have inadequate monitoring of the end use of arms exports.
  It is ironic that this country, which has led the way in tracing the movement of beef from producer to consumer, should still have so much to learn about tracing the full journey of arms exports. I am sorry that the Bill does not contain new measures for end-use monitoring. We need
  576
  to strengthen end-use controls at the licensing stage, and we need follow-up checks when the equipment has been exported.
  On parliamentary scrutiny, I cannot add much to the recommendations of the Quadripartite Committee and the comments of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling. I warmly welcomed the publication of annual reports on arms exports, which never happened under the Conservative Government, and I welcome the proposal in the Bill to put them on a statutory footing. That is a major step forward. I recognise that the reports are the best in Europe, and possibly the world, but no matter how transparent and comprehensive they become, they will be no substitute for prior parliamentary scrutiny of sensitive licence applications.
  The House will be aware that there has been an interesting dialogue between the Quadripartite Committee and the Government. The Committee submitted revised proposals in its report of 6 March which took account of the Government's earlier objections, and we eagerly await their response. Prior parliamentary scrutiny would enhance ministerial accountability, and such a system could operate without damaging our defence industries or bilateral relations, as is the case in Sweden and the United States, among other countries.
  The Bill is a breath of fresh air. Who would have thought, six years ago, that we would eventually have a Bill that took the Scott report seriously? It is a great improvement on the White Paper, and it gets better with each drafting. I hope that we can continue gradually to improve it as it proceeds through its parliamentary stages. I warmly welcome the fact that the Bill makes a clean break with the past, and the Government have every reason to be proud of it. Nevertheless, it has several significant weaknesses, which, I hope, can be dealt with in Committee. I hope that the Bill achieves an unopposed Second Reading.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: As you can see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the number of Conservative Members present is somewhat depleted because there are five reasons for not being here.
  The hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) spoke most eloquently about her predecessor. I do not think that anyone will forget the time that Mo Mowlam spent in Northern Ireland or the work that she did to try to resolve the problems in that troubled Province.
  I pay tribute to my predecessor, who was also very involved in Northern Ireland. He was the Member of Parliament for Bridgwater for 31 years, and in that time he worked tirelessly for his constituency. He was also involved in the environment and in transport, Northern Ireland and defence. I am, of course, talking about Tom King. Tom said recently that he felt that the problems in Northern Ireland were a great shame because, when he was there, he felt that great progress was being made to resolve them. That was nearly 15 years ago. What is the position today? We must continue to work as hard as we can to solve the problems in the Province.
  Much of Tom's time in the Ministry of Defence was taken up with the Gulf war. At the same time, he was responsible for the leadership election, so he had not only to strive to ensure that Saddam Hussein was put firmly back in his box, but to look after what was happening in this country.

  577
  As a Member of Parliament, Tom strived always to give Bridgwater the representation that it deserved. It is a very diverse constituency, running from Exmoor down to the Levels. It is very large, and resembles, if anything, a banana. It is also unusual in that it is a high constituency—it contains the highest peak in Somerset—which extends to land below sea level. In Bridgwater itself, the constituency has the most westerly industrial town in the United Kingdom.
  We are discussing export controls, and Bridgwater has many companies that send huge amounts of goods across the world. They include Gerbers, which is now the largest supplier of soft drinks in Europe, and British Cellophane. The constituency also produces pistons of the highest grade made in this country, and they are sent all over the world. Bridgwater has many other companies that have transformed it from the second largest port in the 15th century to what is now not a high-tech but a medium-tech industrial town.
  Bridgwater has a long history. It is the home of the tile and brick industry, which, I am afraid, is long gone, owing to exports and imports. The last battle on English soil was fought in Bridgwater—that was the last time, I am glad to say, that republicanism reared its ugly head, and it was beaten fairly soundly on the Levels outside Sedgemoor.
  In the past few weeks we have had our first case of foot and mouth. I was told about it on the night of the election. As a farmer, I had wondered what it would be like to be told that there was foot and mouth in the area, and I found out that night. I can assure the House that everyone was extremely concerned to be told that we had to start slaughtering cattle and sheep. I am glad to say that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made great strides, and we hope to have the exclusion zone lifted in three weeks so that normal trade can be resumed.
  Bridgwater has a large tourism industry. We have one of the largest Butlins—there are only three. Butlins attracts 13,000 people a week, and has made an enormous contribution to local industry. Without a shadow of a doubt, west Somerset would not have been sustained without that extremely large employer; indeed, without Butlins, west Somerset would have been like a transposed part of rural Scotland.
  There has also been another menace—flooding—which has got worse in the past few years. In west Somerset, we used to expect flooding once every 60 years; we have now experienced it in three of the past five. In the past two years, it has been so bad that not only has the town represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) nearly gone under water, but so has Bridgwater. The Environment Agency is based in Bridgwater, and its total budget this year for capital works to maintain defences and make sure that we do not have a disaster is £3.7 million. I am afraid that that sum is woefully inadequate when one takes into account the fact that we have a coastline which, in the past two years, has suffered two major breaches that could have been catastrophic and put under water a major proportion of industry and farming.
  Our rivers have given rise to a moral dilemma that the House may, in future, have to debate. Our rivers silt easily; we have one of the highest tidal ranges in the world—22 ft—and, as hon. Members can imagine, our rivers go up and down like yo-yo. In the past few years,
  578
  they have silted badly, but they are not being dredged because people wish to maintain them as habitats for wild birds and mammals. However, if we do not dredge, we create a bottleneck of water. As that bottleneck gets tighter and tighter, there is bound to be a breach somewhere. When it comes, it could be disastrous.
  The Environment Agency has pleaded the case for Somerset with this Government and the previous one. The Levels cover thousands of acres and include the island of Avalon in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory); all hon. Members know that after the battle there, King Arthur was laid to rest. We do not want serious flooding there again, as it will cause untold damage.
  The House must address the issue of building houses on flood plains, not just in Somerset but throughout the country. If we continue as we are doing under present planning laws, ultimately we shall have to build on flood plains. In my constituency, if we do not build on Exmoor, the Quantocks and the flood plains, we have very little space to build on. If we do not sort that out in the near future, we may be in situation where, because of the policies decided by the House, we cannot avoid having to build in those areas.
  Looking further ahead, the problem must be resolved either by the House passing legislation or by local councils being given the capability, with the Environment Agency, to sort it out. The longer we leave it, the more likely we are to have a disaster. Last year, in Malton in Yorkshire, the town centre went under water; the Environment Agency calculated that had that happened to Bridgwater, it would have been under 18 inches of water—think of the exports that would have been wiped out, to put it crudely. We do not want that to happen; I am sure that no Member does.
  To give a council or the Environment Agency the capability to sort out the problem, we must look at the issue of money; that is what it boils down to. We cannot get money from Europe; we must get it from taxpayers. The longer we put things off, and the more we push the problem away, the more likely we are to have a disaster.
  I was left in no doubt about the importance of flooding, when, in this august building, I was allowed to have an office in the yellow submarine. Since then, I have felt that I need a submarine to deal with the problem, unless we can sort it out soon.
  6.14 pm
  Rob Marris: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on his excellent and interesting maiden speech. I am sure that he will be a major asset to the House. It is a measure of his worth that, having been allocated an office in the yellow submarine and finding out that I, a fellow new Member, had not been allocated an office, he immediately and kindly offered to lend it to me if I needed it to meet constituents. I salute him for his generosity and look forward to his future contributions.
  I am the newly elected Member for Wolverhampton, South-West in the industrial heartland of the west midlands. I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate. Before the House is a Bill radically to reform the United Kingdom's export control regime, principally in relation to defence and

  579
  military matters but also in relation to objects of cultural interest. I propose to make some remarks about the former. I am delighted that the Bill will implement the recommendations of the Scott inquiry; no doubt Lord Scott of Foscote, as he now is, will follow its passage with interest. I am only sorry that, next month, it will be three years since the original White Paper was published.
  The indiscriminate peddling of weaponry around the world is a major evil. There must be strict controls on the export of military equipment and know-how; there must be no export of items for torture nor of instruments of repression. Until now, our controls have been based on legislation dating back as far as 1939. It is a tribute to our predecessors that the old legislation continued to have relevance for as long as it did. However, the Bill brings us into the modern age, as it encompasses the computer revolution and new technology which even one of my heroes, Alan Turing, could barely have envisaged in 1939.
  I commend the Government for introducing the Bill. I am particularly pleased that there will be annual reports to Parliament on its operation. However, I hope that clause 9 can be tightened further and that the provisions on the negative resolution procedure can be revisited.
  In making my first speech about defence-related matters, I am following something of a local tradition. One of my predecessors, Herbert "Billy" Hughes, who represented what was then Wolverhampton, West, made his maiden speech on defence matters. He represented the seat from 1945 until 1950, then became the distinguished principal of Ruskin College for almost 30 years. In the House in 1945, he was presciently concerned about a possible atomic arms race.
  Herbert Hughes's erudite successor also made his maiden speech on defence matters. Enoch Powell represented Wolverhampton, South-West from 1950 until February 1974, and subsequently returned to the House in October 1974 as the Ulster Unionist Member for Down, South. In 1950, Mr. Powell was concerned about the size and ethnic composition of our armed forces.
  Many Members will recall Mr. Powell's successor, Nick Budgen, who represented the constituency from 1974 until 1997. For benefit of the curious, I might say that his maiden speech concentrated on inflation. Mr. Budgen was a colourful character of the old school—mostly a Conservative, except at the odd time when the Whip was withdrawn. His manifest contributions to the workings of the House earned him the accolade of "Back Bencher of the Year" on one occasion.
  Like me, Mr. Budgen was a lawyer; like me, he opposed the death penalty, as Mr. Powell interestingly did before him and as Jenny Jones did after him. Jenny Jones represented the constituency ably in the last previous Parliament. Through her work in the House and the Council of Europe, she, with others, persuaded hon. Members to vote to restrict further the rare circumstances in which that ultimate sanction, death, might possibly still be allowed.
  It was as a delegate to the Council of Europe that she really made her mark, bravely upholding the cause of human rights and democracy; she continues that struggle while her term of office there lasts for a few more months. She was in Albania last weekend, monitoring the second
  580
  round of elections. I pay tribute to her hard work in the Council of Europe, in the House and on behalf of her constituency.
  The constituency is wholly urban, and lacks the golden beaches of Redcar, which were mentioned earlier, and the Butlins of Bridgwater. Wolverhampton was proud to become a city last year. It took us only slightly more than 1,000 years to get there after our founding by Lady Wulfruna. The city is perhaps unique in terms of its representation in Parliament. It has three hon. Members who are sometimes styled as the three musketeers. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), who is sitting beside me, was born and raised in his constituency and still lives there. The same is true of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. North-East (Mr. Purchase). I complete the set, as I was born and raised in the constituency that I am now proud to represent, and I still live there.
  My constituency is home to the venerable Wolverhampton Wanderers football club—the Wolves—which is currently in the first division. Although the Molineux stadium is one of the finest in the country, the team, alas, is not. After 40 years, we are still waiting for renewed success. It took us more than 1,000 years to achieve city status, but I hope that we will not spend so long outside the premier division.
  Soccer is by no means the only sport in Wolverhampton. We have cricket on the green at Tettenhall, one of the oldest swimming clubs in the country, and lots of field hockey and rugby. At Aldersley stadium, we have cyclo-cross, shooting and, above all, athletics. The freedom of the borough was recently awarded to Olympic champion Denise Lewis, who was raised and went to school in the constituency, which also boasts Dunstall park, the only floodlit, all-weather race course in the country. I confess that I was there last week, but only to use its excellent conference facilities.
  There is not only sport; we are also a literate lot in Wolverhampton. Headquartered in my constituency is the United Kingdom's largest regional newspaper, the Express and Star, which has the largest circulation of any newspaper in the country and is a local institution that sells almost 300,000 copies a night, six nights a week. Like many midlanders, it has a fine tradition of embracing new technology. For example, it was the first daily newspaper in the country to publish colour pictures.
  We are also a centre of learning, as we are home to the university of Wolverhampton, which has an admirable record of tackling social exclusion. Less than a quarter of its students are admitted through the traditional means of entry and it is now the sixth largest university in the country.
  Perhaps student numbers are so high because we are such a friendly city. Northerners feel comfortable coming that far south, and southerners are happy to venture that far north, as hon. Members will doubtless discover when they flock to Wolverhampton on their summer holidays in a few weeks' time.
  Of course, student numbers might be high because of the fine local ales. The constituency is the home of Banks's, the largest independent brewer in the country, which is sadly now facing a most unwelcome takeover

  581
  bid. Many hon. Members will know its excellent beer. For those who do not, I suggest a short trip downstairs to the Strangers' Bar, where it is on sale.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: Hear, hear.
  Rob Marris: I thank my hon. Friend.
  I am delighted that Wolverhampton, South-West is a multicultural and multi-faith community. It is well served by the Inter-Faith Group and by Wolverhampton Race Equality Council. As well as many Christian churches, we have four Sikh gurdwaras, five mosques, a Hindu temple, and a large Buddhist temple. Long may our communities continue to live in harmony. That harmony has come about only because of the hard work of many people from all the communities and from many spheres, who have worked hard for years. In Wolverhampton, we celebrate our diversity, because it enriches us all.
  6.23 pm
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: It is a great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). Although I represent Richmond Park, I was born, bred and educated in the black country and am a black country woman. The hon. Gentleman's speech was a trip down memory lane, although I am not a supporter of Wolverhampton Wanderers; I am a Baggies supporter—for me, it is West Bromwich Albion to the death. None the less, I congratulate him and welcome him to the House.
  Today is a great moment for me in my time as a Member of Parliament. I am pleased to be here as we discuss this Bill, which is long awaited—indeed, I have asked for it on many occasions during my four years in Parliament. I congratulate the Government on publishing the draft Bill, which allowed time for scrutiny and for valuable comments to be made by non-governmental organisations before the final Bill was published.
  I make many speeches against arms brokers and the arms industry but I am not a pacifist and I have no hang-ups about the industry which, sadly, has to exist. It employs thousands of people—the United Kingdom has the second largest share of the world's defence industry—and is worth $10 billion every year. Clearly, about 18.7 per cent. of the world's defence industry is not to be sneered at. All countries have legitimate defence needs and the Government have already gone some way to making the industry more transparent by introducing their annual reports, however incomprehensible they are—and I at least find them incomprehensible when they are first published; it is pretty difficult to wade through them before the NGOs have had a go and have explained what all the codes mean. The Quadripartite Committee has also been introduced to scrutinise exports.
  Great strides have been made in that direction, but I support my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on the idea that we should not have export credits for arms. There seems to be no reason why the defence industry should be picked out for subsidy by the taxpayer. It cannot be right. I shall stick to my support of measures against that practice and I hope that the Government will consider the matter seriously. As I said in another debate, I realise that dropping export credits may lead to job losses, and I remember saying that we
  582
  had to bite the bullet. I am usually telling people to swallow the pill, but I thought on that occasion that the other suggestion was more appropriate.
  There is still a huge need for prior scrutiny, for which issues of sustainability are the main reason. Let us consider a few brief statistics. Of the 40 poorest countries in the world, 24 are engaged in conflict or have just emerged from it, as we were told in the Department for International Development White Paper. Some 20 per cent. of the population of Africa is currently affected by war and civil war. Military expenditure in Africa in 1999 amounted to $11 billion. Interestingly, Oxfam says that universal primary education could be provided for $8 billion—$3 billion less than the cost of the wars.
  The Bill must take account of the consequences of arms exports for sustainable development. The draft Bill dealt with those issues, but they have been dropped in the Bill that is before us. I do not understand why the Government have dropped them. I know that the Secretary of State for International Development can issue guidance on the issues during the licensing process and can take into consideration the EU code of conduct on arms, but how much notice do the Government take of what she says? If past experience is anything to go by, the guidance will not have much impact. The Secretary of State signs only a small percentage of current export licences. She has raised objections in the past, but licences have still been granted. For example, she was not listened to in 1992 with regard to the export of arms to Ethiopia and Eritrea. She chooses not to sign the annual report on strategic export controls. I understand from a letter that I received from her Minister in April last year that it was Clare Short's decision not to sign off that annual report.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady must remember to refer to hon. Members by their correct titles.
  Dr. Tonge: I apologise and accept your correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  No licence has been refused under criterion 8 of the European code of conduct because it is impossible to prove that any single licence will damage development. However, what about the cumulative effect of many export licences? That has already been mentioned, and we should take it into account in prior scrutiny, before we let arms go to a developing country.
  My four years in international development, two of them as a member of the Select Committee on International Development, have left me in no doubt that arms brokers and trafficking cause some of the greatest evil and suffering in the world today. In a brilliant and interesting speech, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) mentioned 4 million deaths in 46 conflicts since 1990. Trafficking is such a scourge.
  I have visited areas of the world where the illegal arms trade has fuelled conflict and destroyed lives. This country abandoned southern Sudan more than 40 years ago; a civil war continues there.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Lady probably anticipates my question. She refers to conflicts around the world, which are a source of great anxiety to all hon. Members. But how will the Bill make a substantial,

  583
  tangible difference? No evidence has been forthcoming to show that British weapons are involved in that ghastly business.
  Dr. Tonge: I expected the hon. Gentleman's intervention. If the claims for the secondary legislation are to be believed—I hope that they are—we shall have a register of arms brokers. We can thus identify people in this country who traffic. On several occasions, the hon. Gentleman has asked about the identity of those people. The examples of Sandline and Miltec have already been cited; there could be many more. We must not assume that all Brits are honourable and would not dream of becoming arms brokers, because the opposite is true. The Bill will make a difference; a similar measure has made a difference to practices in the United States of America.
  I have visited the civil war area Bahr-el-Ghazal in southern Sudan. I have seen rebel commanders, who, faced with villagers who have come to hear their words, brandish a kalashnikov and say, "This is strength. This will save you. If you follow the gun, you will be all right." That gun was supplied by an arms broker. Who are we to say that it was not a British arms broker?
  Mr. Howarth: We do not make kalashnikovs.
  Dr. Tonge: One does not have to make guns to traffic them. Surely the hon. Gentleman understands that an arms broker needs no more than a mobile phone to contact an eastern European country and get the guns to wherever they are wanted in Africa.
  Colombia is racked by drugs and arms dealers; the two often go together. We spend much time, money and effort on the illicit drugs trade; why do not we spend as much on the illicit arms trade? People have been raped, tortured and mutilated for refusing to grow coca on their land. All those actions are backed by illegal arms, which are supplied through trafficking.
  In Rwanda and the great lakes, the genocide is supported by the illegal arms trade. Before the hon. Member for Aldershot leaps up to tell me that genocide in Rwanda was committed with machetes, I emphasise that they were backed by men wielding guns. Guns multiply violence. Women in southern Sudan are used to Arab raiders from the north attacking their cattle and villages. In the old days, they had spears; now they have guns, and they do far more damage.
  All those conflicts were backed by arms from eastern Europe. Bulgaria is currently the largest supplier, and Makarov pistols sell for £80. It was said earlier that an AK47 costs two cows in African markets; a non-governmental organisation claims that it now costs a chicken. Those weapons are getting cheaper by the minute.
  European enlargement offers an opportunity to control the trade and strengthen the Bill. That also applies to the United Nations conference on small arms, which starts today in the United States. The Secretary of State for International Development will be there, but the Foreign Secretary will not. The previous Foreign Secretary—I am pleased that he has just appeared in the Chamber—was interested in the conference and intended to attend it. What an insult that neither the new Foreign Secretary nor
  584
  any representative of the Department of Trade and Industry there. The Department for International Development has to cope with the consequences of arms trafficking, but other Departments are responsible for the practice. Why do not their representatives attend? There is still a lack of joined-up government.
  I was appalled to read in newspapers today that the President of the US has ordered his delegation to block the main proposals for a legally binding United Nations resolution to control the flow of small arms because he fears the gun lobby, which is led by the National Rifle Association. Until now, the US has had a good record on this issue. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will explain later what the Government intend to do about that. Are they going to continue to be a lapdog of the US, as they were on national missile defence, or are we going to join our European partners and protest?
  The proposals on brokering are welcome, but I am worried about the application of controls to United Kingdom passport holders who operate overseas. Clause 2, which deals with transfer control, is almost a Gilbert and Sullivan patter-song of legal language about UK passport holders operating here, there and everywhere. Sadly, the clause does not apply to the brokers who traffic in arms. The Minister must tell us whether the secondary legislation will contain such measures. We must ensure that UK nationals, wherever they are in the world, are prevented from trafficking. It is easy for an arms broker simply to pick up a mobile phone and do a deal from beside his pool in the Bahamas.
  It is sad that we shall not be debating programming. We have been told that the Committee stage will start next week and be completed by 23 October. We hoped that secondary legislation would be available for scrutiny at the same time. I am worried at the fact that only 10 days of parliamentary time has been allocated to the Committee. It is simply not enough.
  A lot of persuasion is required about aspects of the Bill, but I am pleased that the Government have introduced it at last. I thank them on behalf of many women in the countries that I have visited who begged me to try to stop the flow of arms into their towns and villages. It is those women and their children who suffer most.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech in this debate.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) on his first contribution to the House. I had to confess to him that, until the other week, I had never been to Wolverhampton, but I feel that I have learned a lot about it in the past few weeks and as a result of hearing that speech. I am sorry to say, though, that I do not think that I will be giving up my summer holidays to visit my hon. Friend's home town.
  I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on his speech. I know that he has very strong ties with the north-east of England. I am glad that he has finally found a berth in Somerset, having unsuccessfully fought several election campaigns in the north-east.
  Standing for election and being elected to the House is both humbling and a proud moment in one's life. I should like to thank the people of North Durham for giving me

  585
  the opportunity to represent them in the House, and I give today a clear commitment to repay the trust that they have put in me.
  I follow into the House Giles Radice, a man of great courage and integrity who, in the 28 years that he served here, was respected by all in the House. When my party was facing its darkest days, in the early 1980s, Giles was one those few who fought for the survival of our party, not because—as he will admit—he was born into it, but because he passionately believed in it. He saw it as the only political party that could give a voice to those who had no voice, and right the wrongs that he saw in society. Like me, before entering the House he worked for the GMB—in his days, the GMW—an organisation with which he maintained close links, acting as chair of the parliamentary GMB group. He was proud of that association, a pride which I share.
  Giles Radice was never one to say something just because it was the right thing to say. I am confident that, over the coming years, we shall be hearing much from him from the Benches in the other place. Giles is a passionate European, and I share some of that passion, but a few weeks ago I had the nerve to tell him that he was taking his support for the single European currency a little far by naming his new dog Euro. It conjures up some great images. I can see it now—my right hon. and noble Friend, in carpet slippers and dressing gown late at night at home in Grantham, shouting, "Come in, Euro! Come in Euro! That's a good boy," obviously to the great distress of his Conservative neighbours. I trust that he and his wife, Lisanne, will enjoy a long, happy and active retirement. On a personal note, I look forward to his continued counsel for many years to come.
  The Chester-Le-Street part of my constituency holds a unique place in the history of my party, having returned a Labour Member to the House continually since 1906. Even at the disastrous election of 1931, when Labour returned fewer than 50 Members nationally, Chester-Le-Street remained loyal to the Labour party.
  Chester-Le-Street is only one part of North Durham, the other major town being Stanley. My constituency is rural. The two major centres of population that I have mentioned are supplemented by numerous villages: Sacriston, Tantobie, Tanfield, Beamish, Bournmour, Lumley, Pelton, Craghead and Ouston, all former mining communities.
  I noted from Giles Radice's maiden speech to the House in 1973 that there were five pits in the constituency then. Alas, today there is only one, at the Beamish open air industrial museum, to remind people of the days when my constituency formed part of the mighty Durham coalfield. The mines may have gone, but there is still a proud sense of tradition across the constituency and, sadly, a legacy of those who still suffer from crippling industrial diseases, which blight their old age.
  My constituency must also be unique in having a place—a village, in fact—called No Place. It is located on the road between Chester-Le-Street and Stanley. I have asked numerous times how it got its name—or did not get its name—but alas, nobody has yet come up with a good explanation. Likewise, between Tantobie and Stanley is the charmingly named community of Sleepy Valley.
  On being elected, I was asked how I would sum up my constituency in social and economic terms. The phrase that I used then, and will use now, is that it is a rural
  586
  constituency with urban problems. I have described my constituency's mining tradition. Its decline was long; it began in the 1960s and was brought to an abrupt end in the 1980s by the action of the Conservative party. That decline, with the closure of the Consett iron works and the downsizing of the Royal Ordnance plant at Birtley, brought about a community where hope on the jobs front had disappeared and young men and women had no sense of their place in the world.
  I have spoken about the traditions of my constituency and the hard times that it has been through, but there are signs of recovery and the rebuilding of communities, and unemployment is falling for the first time in a generation.
  In Craghead, a community that lost its pit in the 1960s and its clothing factory in the 1980s, is leading the way in community regeneration. The Craghead partnership, formed in 1996 by local people, is making a real difference. With the support of funding from the lottery, Europe and the single regeneration budget, Craghead has a new village hall. Modern, with internet access, it is becoming a focal point for young and old in the village. The project, along with countless others, aims to involve everyone. Tribute must be paid to the energy of local people and their local councillors, Janice Docherty and Garry Reed, and to former county councillor Lennie James, for their hard work and commitment to their community. I know that such commitment, and the measures in the Gracious Speech, will make a real difference to constituencies like mine.
  I speak today in a debate on the control of arms. I come from a region whose wealth at the beginning of the last century was founded on the production of arms and armaments. There was a time when the mighty Armstrong works on the Scotswood road and the yards of the Tyne supplied the world's arms. Today, the industry is smaller and more diverse but remains important to the economy of the north-east. The northern defence initiative alone has 80 companies in the region, and estimates that 250 other companies in the region depend on defence-related work, adding about £500 million a year to the regional economy.
  The industry has also become more diverse. The best example in the region must be the House of Hardy in Ainwick, Northumberland, producer of fine fishing rods but now also producing aerials for military radio equipment. Many of these companies rely on exports. SAFT, in South Shields, which employs constituents of mine, produces batteries, 15 per cent. of which are exported for military use.
  The measures in the Bill set out clearly a framework for the regulation of arms and defence-related exports. Many, rightly, like me, call for regulation but recognise the importance of the defence industry to regions such as the north-east. The Bill, long awaited, gets the balance right. It is about setting out the ground rules for the first time, thereby enabling companies in the north-east and elsewhere to tender for overseas contracts while meeting the high ethical standards that the public of today demand.
  I thank the House for listening to me tonight. I look forward in the coming years to contributing to the work and debates of the House and championing the cause of my constituency and that of the north-east.
  6.49 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and I congratulate him most warmly on an excellent

  587
  maiden speech—I am sure that the whole House will echo that view. He follows a distinguished and hugely civilised predecessor; it will be no easy act to follow. His predecessor is a splendid chap, although of course hopelessly Euro-fanatical. I am not at all surprised that he called his dog Euro. Of course, the difficulty may be that the Prime Minister has aspirations to kick the issue into the long grass. I hope that the same fate does not befall Lord Radice's dog.
  The hon. Gentleman not only paid tribute to his distinguished predecessor and his long and distinguished service to the House, but made interesting comments about his constituency. I can tell him that I experienced the same difficulties with coal mine closures when I served as Member for Cannock and Burntwood. I do not want to make a partisan point, but the previous Government in particular and no doubt this Government also have sought to ease the transition from coal mining to other activities in such constituencies.
  Hon. Members will be interested to know that so much defence activity goes on in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We have regular defence debates in the House, and I see the Leader of the House in his place. I can tell him that even though we had many defence debates in the last Session of the previous Parliament, we have not exhausted the matter, so we look forward to another debate in due course. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will contribute to it.
  Like the hon. Gentleman, I, too, have constituency defence interests. Indeed, they very much dominate. BAE Systems, which was formerly known as British Aerospace, has its headquarters in my constituency. It is the world's third largest defence contractor and is a massive, hugely successful organisation that employs people of great skill throughout the United Kingdom. BAE is represented in many constituencies, so many Members are keen both to know what it is up to and to represent the concerns of their constituents who work for the company. Indeed, 80 per cent. of its production goes to export. Of course, Airbus accounts for a large part of that, although its defence activities are also extremely important.
  What was known as the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency has its headquarters in my constituency, although it has assumed a new name—QinetiQ, which carries no "u"—as it is about to be privatised. It has been at the forefront not only of developing defence equipment for the United Kingdom and undertaking splendid research but of applying defence equipment to civilian uses. We were all interested to hear that Hardy fishing rods are finding a military use as aerials. That is an example of civilian industry spilling over into the defence industry, and I am sure that Sir John Chisholm of QinetiQ will take note.
  The Bill will replace the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act but I am bound to say that the latter does not seem to have done too badly over 62 years, given that it was introduced as an emergency measure and that large chunks of it are to remain on the statute book. In addressing the issue, we must acknowledge not only that there has been a defence export licensing system in this country—listening to some commentators, one gets the impression that no such system was available at all—but that, overall, it has worked pretty well.
  588
  I criticise those who suggest that previous Governments, particularly the Conservative Government, were cavalier in approving export licences for defence equipment. Successive Governments have always taken a keen interest in ensuring that we have a proper licensing system and it is clearly not in the interest of any Government for equipment manufactured in the UK to end up in the hands of our enemies and be turned on our own forces wherever in the world they are called to serve their country. Clearly, that would be monstrous, and successive Governments have always tried to prevent it from happening.
  After the Scott report and the Matrix Churchill scandal, however, it seems that everybody is agreed that we need to update the 1939 legislation. I understand that, but it is important to recognise that the Bill contains draconian powers. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said, it is an enabling measure and we do not have the secondary legislation before us. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) rightly pointed out, it appears that it will not be available for scrutiny by the House until half way through consideration of the Bill in Committee. That is a scandal, and I hope that the Leader of the House will take note of my remarks.
  Conservative Members often complain that we are unable properly to scrutinise legislation, but as the Leader of the House is new to his post, I hope that he will take on board the criticisms made not only from these Benches, but from the Liberal Benches. Given that the Bill is so dependent on the detail of the secondary legislation, it is unacceptable that it is to be made available to the Committee only half way through its deliberations, following the summer recess. Perhaps the Leader of the House will bear those points in mind, as he will be asked about them at business questions.
  We are debating Second Reading, but the Secretary of State herself and other hon. Members have failed adequately to answer the concern that I have raised throughout the debate—namely, that no evidence appears to have been produced that British citizens are acting irresponsibly in promoting illegal trafficking in weapons, thereby adding to the human misery in domestic conflicts around the world.
  The Liberals have referred to a couple of companies in the debate, but everybody else has been talking about the AK47 Kalashnikov and similar small arms, which are not manufactured in the United Kingdom. I am not aware that great supplies of the SA80 or other British equipment are ending up in the appalling conflicts that are taking place around the world, so it is important to produce evidence of abuse by British companies or British individuals to justify the acquisition of the extensive powers proposed in the Bill.
  The Secretary of State referred to tragic examples of children caught up in horrific conflicts, citing Sierra Leone, the Balkans, Rwanda and a host of places around the world where atrocities are taking place, but no one has suggested that weapons produced in the UK have fallen into the hands of those terrorists.
  I want to make it clear that I support the concept of licensing. However, although I am not enough of a libertarian to believe that there is no need for licensing, there is also a moral case for defence exports. It is easy to be pejorative about the arms trade, and newspaper

  589
  headlines about people engaged in nefarious activity often refer to arms dealers, thereby implying that there is something disreputable about that activity. I refer generally to the defence industries, because it is important to recognise the contribution that our defence industry makes to the United Kingdom.
  I shall set out five key points as to why I believe that defence exports are morally sound. I have called them the Masefield five, as a tribute to Sir Charles Masefield. After a distinguished career with British Aerospace, he served with even more distinction as head of defence export sales. He has now returned to BAE.
  The first key point is that article 51 of the UN charter upholds the right of every nation to acquire defence equipment to protect itself. That is the most fundamental of human rights. I believe that, in pursuance of article 51, it is entirely right and proper that we should assist those nations around the world that we consider to be our friends, because that helps them to defend themselves against invasion. It also helps us to cement relationships with countries with which we want to do business.
  Let me cite an example: Saudi Arabia. The biggest defence contract ever signed in the United Kingdom was the A1 Yamamah contract, signed by the British and Saudi Governments. That contract helped to bring the United Kingdom and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia together, and as a result of the relationship we were able to rely on an Arab state to support our endeavours to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi invasion. Who knows? If we had not had that relationship with Saudi Arabia, those land bases might have been denied us and we might have been unable to liberate Kuwait.
  Clearly, there are risks. Governments can change, and the assessment of the stability of the Government of a country to which we export defence equipment is a key consideration. Nevertheless, we will not always get it right; inevitably, on occasion we will get it wrong. The argument in favour of British military exports to Iraq was based on a wish to overcome an imbalance whereby Iran seemed more threatening than Iraq—but I will not go into that history, especially as the Father of the House is not present. Mine would probably not be a very fruitful argument.
  As I think was mentioned earlier, the Argentines deployed Exocets against us, which were supplied by the French.
  My second key point in favour of defence exports is that exporting defence equipment is the best guarantee of peace and stability. That follows from my first point. Being weak, Kuwait could not defend itself, and became vulnerable to attack from Iraq. If it had had a stronger defence of its own, it would have been able to deter Iraq.
  There are some safeguards. We sold Hawk aircraft to Zimbabwe. We control the supply of spares for those aircraft. I do not think there are 60,000 parts in a Hawk aircraft, as there are in the F16, but there may well be: it certainly contains thousands of parts. Anyway, we are able to exert some influence over Zimbabwe, if only a modicum. In the case of other countries engaged in exporting their particular brand of tyranny, I think that the ability to withhold the supply of spares is advantageous.
  My third point is a particularly important one, which I think we must all bear in mind. Defence exports enable us to produce economies of scale in the production of our own equipment for our own services. If we did not have
  590
  longer production runs, we would not be able to buy British for our armed forces. The idea that the United Kingdom should not supply its own equipment—tanks, aircraft or warships—to its own services would land us in very hot water with the British people. I think that they expect us, especially as a nation that has this ability, to manufacture equipment for our own purposes, and for our own forces. Unless we can secure longer production runs, however, we shall not be able to afford to buy that equipment from our own factories, because the unit costs will be prohibitive. There will be pressure on us to buy off the shelf, from overseas.
  Moreover, by buying equipment in the United Kingdom and maintaining economies of scale, we maintain our ability to compete technologically, to keep up our scientific advances, and not to become dependent on other nations. That in itself helps to secure the defence of the United Kingdom.
  Fourthly, as has been mentioned, jobs are involved. There are some 400,000 jobs in the defence industries, which sustain families throughout the United Kingdom. I believe those who work in the defence industries to be honourable. We have noted the implicit criticism that they do not care what they do, and are impervious to some of the atrocities being perpetrated around the world. That is an outrageous suggestion: they are honourable and decent people. They not only provide the United Kingdom with its defence, but enable us to help the defence of our allies.
  Manufacturing industry faces a severe difficulty. It is already in recession, and I think that we have now seen two successive quarters of falling output, which is the official definition of a recession. We should avoid landing them with further burdens at this time. The Defence Manufacturers Association has already expressed concern about the additional burdens that the Bill threatens to impose on it. It is incumbent on the Government to make it clear that they do not intend to impose intolerable burdens on business.
  Fifthly, we have competitors. Although, as has been pointed out, Britain is the world's second largest defence exporter, there are those competitors, and I suspect that they are infinitely less scrupulous than we are. We must not lose sight of the need to protect our own industry, and ensure that comparable actions are taken in other countries engaged in defence exports.
  BAE Systems has written to a number of us. Its representative wrote to me:
  "it is … our hope that the Bill wil not have the effect of adversely affecting either the competitiveness of UK companies or their ability to collaborate effectively with EU and/or US partners."
  That is an extremely important point which the Government must take on board.
  I suspect that industry is, to an extent, inhibited in respect of whatever criticisms it wants to make of the Bill, given that so many defence companies rely on the British Government as their principal customer. I suspect that the criticisms, or concerns, that we may have heard are of a muted nature.
  Let me conclude my five key points by drawing attention to what the Ministry of Defence has said. According to the MOD, it is estimated that, without export markets, the British defence industrial base would be less than half its current size, with a loss not only of jobs but technological capability.

  591
  Mention has been made of the role of the Liberal party. The hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) were candid enough to say that they were in favour of scrapping Export Credits Guarantee Department support for defence exports. I hope that all Conservative candidates and Conservative MPs in the country—and, indeed, Labour MPs and Labour candidates—whose constituencies contain substantial military facilities, including manufacturing plants, will note the Liberal policy, which is to cut the ground from under their feet. If the Liberals had their way, when those businesses were competing against the French, the Americans or others, they would not benefit from British Government support, and would be seriously disadvantaged in a highly competitive world. We would thus lose the value of defence exports, and all the benefits that I have described.
  Dr. Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: Of course I will give way to the hon. Lady, having provoked her.
  Dr. Tonge: Another feature of Liberal policy is our suggestion that we should join the single currency. That would counterbalance the possibility of a loss of exports, because exporting would be so much easier if the exchange rate were different.
  Mr. Howarth: I am not sure that that is entirely relevant to my argument, but I note the hon. Lady's point. We would then have a uniform interest rate across Europe. We know how difficult it is to achieve a uniform interest rate across the United Kingdom that matches the requirements of its component parts; it would be even more difficult across Europe, and I suspect that ultimately that would damage manufacturing industry.
  I am not sure that the Bill will do anything to help civilians who are caught up in the horror of domestic conflict. I have been to Peshawar in Pakistan, at the base of the Khyber pass. In the market, it is possible to get any weapon of any kind made—and it does not take long: I think it takes about a week to have the most sophisticated weapon made, while others can be knocked up in a matter of hours. The idea that the Bill will eliminate that type of trade is simply wishful thinking on the part of some hon. Members. They need to be absolutely clear about that.
  I am clear that the Bill could seriously disadvantage one of the United Kingdom's most responsible and successful industries. The devil will be in the secondary legislation. When we are able to see that, we shall be able to judge whether the Bill will seriously undermine one of Britain's great success stories.
  7.10 pm
  Ann Clwyd: This has been an interesting debate particularly for those of us who were members of the Quadripartite Committee on arms exports because we have been able to hear the views of colleagues who were not members of it. The Committee was an exceptional experiment in combining four Select Committees, composed of hon. Members from all the
  592
  main parties in the House, to discuss an issue on which we had very divergent views. Initially, I was almost afraid to speak because I did not want to upset the apple-cart. However, after several sittings, a consensus seemed to emerge. Considering some of the hon. Members on the Committee, I was very surprised to see it coming together on the issue.
  I come from a very particular standpoint on the issue. I am very concerned about human rights and have been very active in that sphere for many years. I have also been critical of the arms export industry, particularly its effect on developing countries and on human rights in some of the countries where our arms have gone. I am not proud that we are the world's second biggest arms manufacturer—it is not a matter of pride, because arms kill. I do not particularly want to be involved with an industry that kills people.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ann Clwyd: I shall in a moment. I have listened for many months to the hon. Gentleman's attacks in the Chamber on members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and on the women of Greenham common, but I remind him that the Greenham common march started in Cardiff and that I was the only politician present. I am exceptionally proud of that fact, and it should be quite clear where I am coming from in this debate.
  Dr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Lady, whom I much admire, for her sincerity in giving way and for that little trip down memory lane. I take issue only with her statement that arms kill. Is it not also true that, sometimes, arms prevent killing, deter killing or even stop killing?
  Ann Clwyd: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that observation, which is patently true. It is also patently clear that arms kill.
  I am sorry that the Leader of the House has left the Chamber and is not participating in this debate. He has been so heavily involved in the issue since the then Conservative Government exported arms to Iraq and he responded to the Scott report after having seen it for only about half a day. It was an occasion that anyone who was in the House will never forget.
  I do not believe that hon. Members would ever have allowed arms to be exported to Iraq if they had been asked. Anyone who knew about events such as Halabja and the chemical gassing of the Kurds would never have agreed to export arms to Iraq, unless they thought that those considerations were of no importance. When he was Foreign Secretary, the Leader of the House was deeply involved in those issues and attempted to introduce an ethical foreign policy. He also knew that Scott had criticised the fact that the House was not involved in that type of decision making. As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) said, some of Richard Scott's comments on that issue have been quoted out of context.
  We could not believe that those who were making the decisions on exports to Iraq were not aware of the type of regime that existed in that country. We were aware of the nature of the regime; so why were those making the export decisions not aware that the Iraqi regime would eventually use those arms against us? Although that may

  593
  be water under the bridge in some respects, Iraq still owes us at least £500 million in export credit guarantees. That is a loss to the British taxpayer.
  The confessions of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) about his days as a civil servant at the Foreign Office and elsewhere were very interesting. He described some of the considerations in decisions that he had to make, and he made it clear that he had doubts about some things. When 30 years have elapsed, perhaps we shall even see whether his signature was on those documents. The point is that, occasionally, some hon. Members are more aware than Ministers or civil servants about the situation in some of the countries that the hon. Gentleman listed.
  The Select Committee had an exchange with the former Foreign Secretary on arms to Indonesia. As we all know, in 1997, while attempting to introduce an ethical foreign policy, one of his first major speeches at the Foreign Office was on that very subject. Those of us who had been campaigning since 1987 for human rights in Indonesia were very much hoping that that speech would influence the ultimate decision on whether to continue exporting Hawk aircraft and spare parts to Indonesia.
  It was at that time that the former Foreign Secretary and I first fell out. He argued that legal considerations required him to continue those exports. As I said in an earlier intervention, we should not be in such a position. There may be an agreement with a country, but we should be able to review that agreement when circumstances change in that country.
  The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, some other Select Committee members and I visited the United States. People there expressed astonishment that the United Kingdom Government were bound by legal considerations in determining whether to continue sending arms to Indonesia. They said that that would never happen in the United States, and that they could cancel exports to a country if the circumstances in that country changed. They said that their contracts contained a provision enabling them to do that without any obligation at all, including, financial obligation.
  In the past few years, and even in the past few months, there have been some interesting developments in the United States in relation to arms exports to Indonesia. Although we continue to export to Indonesia, the United States has stopped not only its arms exports but its military training there. I believe that that change is due primarily to the prior scrutiny exercised by members of the United States Congress.
  Despite prior scrutiny, the United States is still the world's biggest arms manufacturer. Such scrutiny simply spares United States Ministers and congressional members the embarrassment that was felt all too often by Ministers in the previous Government and in the current one when they discovered that arms were being exported to a country that was committing human rights abuses.
  I cannot see any objection to our having a similar system of prior scrutiny. I would have thought that the Government would welcome it. In his last session of giving evidence to our Committee, the then Foreign Secretary seemed to be coming round to our point of view. He saw that our arguments were consistent, and we came up with a compromise that would probably have been acceptable to him.
  I ask the Department to think again about this important aspect of arms exports. The Government have done good work in producing the annual report, which I welcome.
  594
  It was a considerable stride forward, as was producing a common European Union code of conduct. However, to fail on prior scrutiny would be a major failure and would not bring the transparency that Labour Members have been calling for since Scott.
  Licensed production deals are increasingly supplementing or even replacing direct strategic exports. The number of licensed production facilities worldwide has grown dramatically in recent decades and continues to grow year by year. It is vital to introduce strict controls to ensure that such arms production is not allowed where there is a likelihood of use for human rights violation in the country of manufacture or subsequent transfer to other destinations or end users of concern.
  One example of a licensed production deal of concern is the agreement between GKN Defence Ltd. and Asian Armoured Vehicle Technologies in the Philippines to produce Simba vehicles. It was reported in 1994 that the first seven Simba armoured personnel carriers had been delivered to the Philippine armed forces. A total of 150 vehicles had been ordered and fitted with a 12.7 mm Browning machine gun turret. Eight vehicles were to be supplied from the UK, several as kits, and the rest to be assembled at the plant operated by Asian Armoured Vehicle Technologies.
  I asked the President of the Board of Trade
  "what control she has over the transfer of (a) armoured vehicles and (b) armoured personnel carriers to (i) Indonesia and (ii) other countries from the GKN Defence licensed production facility in the Philippines."
  The answer was:
  "The control of exports from the Philippines is a matter for the Philippine Government. Any export of licensable goods from the UK to the Philippines would be subject to UK export controls."—[Official Report, 15 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 134W.]
  That answer illustrates the fact that the inadequacy of UK licensed production agreements leads to the establishment of new centres of production of military/security equipment over which the UK Government have little or no control. We must introduce statutory powers to control licensed production overseas.
  I am concerned about end-use monitoring. Those of us who have spent many years asking questions about arms exports have found it very difficult to get answers. I could paper many walls with the questions that I have asked about exports to Indonesia, for example. We are told that we cannot get answers because of "disproportionate cost", meaning that no one plans to answer the questions at all. We have yet to get to the bottom of what "disproportionate cost" means. At a conference in Ireland to discuss East Timor, an Irish senator handed me an Irish £10 note, which I still have, and said, "This is to help the UK Government answer your questions on arms to Indonesia."
  Fortunately, things have changed a bit since then. In her international development role some time ago, Lynda Chalker admitted that end-use monitoring was practically impossible. When he was a Foreign Office Minister, Derek Fatchett said that no formal mechanisms existed to monitor the end use of British defence equipment once it had been exported. It is true that it is almost impossible to monitor the end use of arms that we send to some dodgy countries.
  Campaigners on Indonesia and East Timor have told me that British-supplied armoured cars, fitted with water cannons, were used by the Indonesians to spray protesters

  595
  with coloured water, enabling them to be identified, arrested and probably tortured. Hawk aircraft were spotted flying over East Timor just before the referendum. When asked about that, Ministers said that embassy staff were monitoring the situation. Given that East Timor is a long way from Jakarta and that people from our embassy did not go there all that often, the reality is probably that people did not know.
  I welcome the Government's steps to improve risk assessment at the licensing stage and the strengthened pre-sales checks on exports, but there are no specific measures in the Bill for monitoring goods once they have been exported. With the best will in the world, all Governments make mistakes, and it is quite possible that some of the countries that are not currently considered dodgy may become dodgy in the future. All export licences should have end-use certificates, and minimum requirements should be specified. It would be fairly easy to do that. Monitoring by embassy staff is not a sufficient answer.
  Those of us on the International Development Committee know the consequences of selling arms to countries that simply cannot afford them. The world is littered with developing countries that bought arms under previous rulers, sometimes spending 50 per cent. or more of their budget, leaving the poor people there with the bill after the regime had changed. It is important that the schedule of purposes for export controls should contain specific reference to the need to ensure that arms transfers do not have an adverse effect on the economy of any country or the sustainable development of the country to which the goods are exported or the technology transferred.
  It is a matter of concern that so many developing countries are in debt, and our Government have led the way in addressing that problem. The Chancellor has done everything in his power to try to get help for those countries that are bogged down by past bills for arms that they did not need. Without those arms, they would have had the scope to spend more on education and health.
  The Quadripartite Committee was a particular experience. It showed that Members of Parliament can come together, even on a contentious subject, to test the arguments on representatives of, for example, the Defence Manufacturers Association. By the way, the association's point of view was heard, in spite of what the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said.
  We are convinced that prior scrutiny will not affect the arms trade, if that is what people are worried about. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malting (Sir J. Stanley) mentioned the amount of money that is spent propping up the defence export industry by the Defence Export Services Organisation, which has a considerable budget, and we need to ask whether that is good value for money or whether it would be better to prop up other industries, such as the pharmaceutical industry. I personally think that that would be much more worth while, and that is the sort of debate that we should have in the House. Samuel Brittan, one of the leader writers for the Financial Times, has made the argument several times that if we were looking for value for money, we would not spend money propping up the defence industry, because we could use that money for other reasons and on better causes.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Mark Prisk: I am most grateful for the opportunity to make my first contribution in the House. I preface my remarks by congratulating the hon. Members for Redcar (Vera Baird), for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on excellent maiden speeches. My only regret is that they chose today to make them before me, but excellent they were in their entirety.
  I wish to begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Bowen Wells. Bowen served his constituents for 22 years, first as the Member for Hertford and Stevenage, and after 1983 for the redrawn division of Hertford and Stortford. In addition to his roles in the Government, Bowen played an active part on various Committees of the House, culminating in the previous Parliament with his chairmanship of the International Development Committee. Members on both sides of the House have told me of his extensive knowledge of the problems of the third world and of his dedication in seeking their solution. I am pleased to report that Bowen remains as committed to that cause now as he was when he first entered the House and that he is continuing his work to help the poorest nations of the world.
  In the constituency, Bowen's dedication to service was just as strong. He believed, as I do, that Members of Parliament have a duty to serve every constituent, no matter how they may have voted. Indeed, many people in Hertford and Stortford have told me that they felt lucky to have Bowen as their Member of Parliament; they described him as one of the last gentlemen in politics. I am not sure whether they will say the same of me. At school, I played rugby in the front row, as hon. Members can probably guess from my shape, where we do not take a genteel, subtle approach. Indeed, some would say that we take no prisoners. I therefore suspect that people will regard me as less of a gentleman and more of a player.
  Hertford and Stortford is a wonderful constituency to represent. Situated in the south-east corner of Hertfordshire, it is in many ways the epitome of shire England. It has a combination of attractive market towns, historic villages and that soft, gentle rolling countryside that could only be England. I live in Much Hadham, in the heart of the constituency, and I know how lucky I am, as are many of my constituents, to live in such a beautiful part of England. However, in both the towns and villages, we are having to face up to new pressures and challenges.
  Our towns are struggling to compete for shoppers and some local family firms such as Gravesons in Hertford have had to close. Our roads cannot cope with the traffic, but for many people their car is not a luxury but a necessity. Our public services are unable to recruit and retain the staff they need. Our health service is in debt, school class sizes have risen, and by Christmas our county could be short of 250 police officers.
  Equally importantly, development at the edge of towns such as Bishop's Stortford, Hertford and Ware is draining the life away from the town centres, while putting a great strain on essential services. Without concerted and co-ordinated investment in our roads, our public services and our local amenities, our town centres, and those mentioned by the hon. Member for North Durham, could face a future of decline.

  597
  At the same time, our rural communities face the greatest agricultural crisis in a generation. Sadly, Whitehall seems to have other priorities. It seems determined to force us to build thousands of extra houses, many of them on our green belt. Those problems of town and country are interwoven, and I for one will fight and fight again to ensure that we breathe life back into our towns and that we defend our green belt from excessive development.
  The Bill before the House today seeks to strengthen the controls on the export of defence equipment. No one doubts the need to improve the accountability and transparency of decision making in Whitehall, by Ministers and officials alike, and I take a direct interest in that issue, for two reasons.
  First, the economy of Hertfordshire has a long and respected tradition in the defence and aviation sectors, and many of my constituents work for leading names in those industries. Secondly, I have a long-held interest in matters of defence and international security. Indeed, I believe that the first duty of Governments is to ensure the security of their people.
  While it is right to try to keep military hardware out of the hands of tyrants and terrorists, it is also essential, as several hon. Members have pointed out, that we recognise the right of every nation, large and small, to defend itself. As the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) pointed out, that right is upheld in the United Nations charter. Without the means to deter and repel aggression, that right is worthless. Many small nations today—the names of which are familiar to us all—would not be enjoying their independence had they not had the means to defend their freedom.
  It is freedom that has brought me to this House. I believe that personal freedom—freedom of speech, the freedom to be oneself, free choice, free enterprise, or simply the freedom from constant intrusion and interference in our daily lives—lies at the heart of a civilised society, but throughout my lifetime each of those liberties has been steadily eroded. There is always a plausible reason—always a good excuse—but every intrusion, ban and restriction tilts the balance away from us as individuals and local communities and towards the large lobby groups, multinationals or big business. Indeed, the Government are perhaps the largest lobby group of all.
  Only an effective Parliament can restore that balance. Throughout this country's history, this House, more than any other institution, has been the champion of our liberty. We, as Members of this House, are privileged, for we are free to speak without fear or favour. We also have the opportunity to provide a voice for those who are rarely heard. That is why I say that we all have a duty to challenge Government—every Government—and to question and hold to account those in authority, not for ourselves but for those whom we seek to represent.
  In recent years, I have been saddened to watch the status of this House diminish in our nation's affairs. The impact of the European Union, a burgeoning media and the development of semi-detached Government agencies have all served to undermine the role of this place; yet I still believe that this House can and should remain at the heart of our national debate. That is why, even though I am a new boy, I passionately believe that we must strengthen the House's Committees, extend the scope and powers of scrutiny and ensure that the career of a
  598
  parliamentarian is as respected as that of a Minister: after all, it is likely to last somewhat longer. The recent Hansard Society report is an excellent manifesto for restoring the House as our national forum, and I strongly support its aims and conclusions.
  To be elected to this House is an honour. I will do my best to serve my constituents as well as I can. I know that I will make mistakes along that path and probably upset some people in the process, but none of that will matter if I can make a small difference to the lives of some of my constituents.
  To be a member of this House is also a privilege because it affords each of us the chance to speak freely and hold authority to account. It gives us the opportunity to provide a clear, distinctive voice for those values that we each hold dear to our hearts. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to make my first contribution, and to right hon. and hon. Members for listening to me with such patience.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Bill Tynan: It is a new experience for me to congratulate an hon. Member on a maiden speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on a thoughtful and well-judged speech. He rightly paid tribute to his predecessor, who was renowned in the House for his work with the third world. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford will continue in the same vein.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he lives in a lovely part of the country. I hope that if I holiday down there, I will be able to experience his delight in that part of the country. He gave notice that he will be a champion for his constituents. I wish him well in this House over the next few years.
  I congratulate my hon. Friends for North Durham (Mr. Jones), for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), for Redcar (Vera Baird) and the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on their excellent speeches. The talent that has been displayed today demonstrates that the House is in very good hands for the future.
  I wish, in welcoming the Bill, to show my support for the opportunity that it provides. We can rightly be proud of the fact that we are overhauling export control powers for the first time in 60 years. The Bill clearly responds to the increasingly complex and volatile world in which we live, and I believe that it will bolster and enhance the vital and significant role that we can play in making the world a safer place now and in the future.
  I welcome the action that the Government have already taken on export controls, including the adoption of a European Union code of conduct on arms exports and the publication of comprehensive annual reports on strategic export controls. The fourth report is currently being prepared, and I believe that it will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  In addition, the Government have strengthened and improved the effectiveness of export controls. A key measure that comes to mind is the Landmines Act 1998, which has been referred to today. The Act gave effect to the Ottawa convention banning the import, export and manufacture of all forms of anti-personnel land mines.
  We have sought to minimise the risk of United Kingdom defence exports being diverted to undesirable end-users by putting in place procedures to strengthen the

  599
  process of risk assessment at the export licensing stage. We have played a leading role in contributing to the work of international bodies, which has resulted in the UN conference taking place in New York today on illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. More clearly needs to be done in this area, and I welcome the further advances that the Bill will make possible.
  I should like to focus on two specific areas addressed by the Bill—the trafficking and brokering of weapons and related equipment and the transfer of technology by intangible means. It is important to recognise that the UK arms industry employs thousands of workers. I declare an interest as a former official of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, which covered the defence industry. The arms industry is a vital component of an already declining manufacturing base, and I believe that it deserves support. We must also recognise, however, the distasteful and dangerous side to the arms trade through the trafficking and brokering of arms to areas of instability and conflict.
  At present, a licence to broker in arms is not required. As the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) have pointed out, in a country where one needs a licence to marry, go fishing and drive a car, that is clearly absurd and must be addressed. The benefits of a system of licensing have been articulated succinctly. As the director of Oxfam, David Bryer, has said, tougher licensing will make a real difference to countless people in developing countries whose lives are wrecked by bullets and guns sold by British arms brokers.
  In an increasingly volatile world, with the worrying proliferation of rogue states, the balance of world power will in large part be decided by the military hardware and destructive capability of individual nation states. There is increasing evidence that significant amounts of arms flowing into regions of conflict are being transferred there by arms brokers. For example, in 1995 a company based in the Isle of Man was involved in supplying arms to Rwandan rebels based in Zaire.
  I therefore welcome the new powers that the Bill will provide to enable a licensing regime to regulate the trafficking and brokering of arms. Among other things, it will cover all major weapons and weapons platforms, light weapons and small arms, ammunition and key items of military equipment. I particularly welcome the fact that details of those applying for licences will be placed on a register, which will make the process more transparent and open, and it would be further enhanced if such a system were made available on an international basis.
  A key area of concern remains, however. Although the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 allows the Government to regulate exports from and imports to the UK, it does not allow them to impose controls on UK persons overseas trafficking in goods between overseas countries or brokering such deals. Although I welcome the Government's intention to tackle the issue through secondary legislation under the Bill, it is essential that such legislation effectively addresses that serious omission by controlling the activities of UK citizens and companies wherever they are conducted.
  600
  Concern was recently articulated by Dr. Ian Davis of Saferworld. He said that if full extra-territorial measures are not taken, the danger is that British citizens will simply evade controls by operating from another country. A recent case provides a perfect example. In 1997, Sandline was involved in supplying Sierra Leone with military hardware from Bulgaria. It is vital that the measure covers such cases.
  It has been argued that legislation would be difficult to implement and police, but there is increasing international co-operation to deal with trafficking in other goods, such as humans and drugs, and to combat organised crime through organisations such as Interpol and the use of joint intelligence operations. Surely such international co-operation could be used to combat and police the international arms trade.
  Previous legislation was compromised by the fact that extra-territorial questions were not dealt with adequately. I am sure that the House will welcome and appreciate the Government's intention to introduce secondary legislation that will allow powers to tackle such questions.
  My second focus is on the transfer of technology by intangible means. At present, a licence is needed to export certain technologies. Controls on technology and software exports derive mainly from various international export control regimes. However, for technologies and software—mainly military—to be subject to national control, export licences are currently needed only when technology or software is exported in a physical form, such as a disk. Crucially, that does not include export by electronic or other intangible means.
  That provision does not dovetail with the European Council regulation in respect of dual-use technology and, furthermore, it clearly highlights the inadequacy of the 1939 Act, which gives the Government power to control only tangible exports. The Act falls short of the provisions required in the age of e-mail, fax, telephone and sophisticated computer technology. Indeed, when the 1939 Act was passed, the bright age of the computer had yet to dawn.
  In the 21st century, it is plain that the central means of communication—especially over considerable distances—will be electronic. It is thus vital that we recognise that advance and the potential and power that it provides. The current loophole under the 1939 Act will obviously be effectively and systematically exploited unless we close it.
  For that reason, I welcome the new powers that the Bill provides to allow the Government to control transfers of technology by intangible means. The measure will allow for the establishment of controls on military technology exports, in line with those that already exist for dual-use technology. Those controls will, rightly, include the export of documents, blueprints, manuals, diagrams and so forth by both tangible and electronic means. I also welcome the provisions made for the introduction of controls on the transfer of technology by non-electronic tangible means, together with controls on the provision of technical services where they would assist in the development of weapons of mass destruction or related missile programmes.
  I welcome the Bill. It provides the UK with a more adequate legislative framework and will promote global peace. I welcome powers to prohibit the supply of weapons to regions of conflict, while allowing legitimate trade by British defence companies. I welcome powers to

  601
  introduce a licensing requirement on the export of military technology by electronic means as well as in tangible form. At the same time, the Bill responds to the Scott report by ensuring that the Government are accountable to Parliament for the use of those new powers by providing for parliamentary scrutiny of the secondary legislation introduced under them. In the main, the Bill meets the rightful criticisms made in the Scott report about the lack of such provisions in the 1939 Act. It will undoubtedly contribute to meeting our global obligations and in making the world a safer place.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I add my sincere congratulations to those already offered to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on a thoughtful and confident maiden speech. I wish him well for the future.
  The debate has been most interesting. It takes place on the first day of the UN conference in New York on the reduction of global trade in small arms. I share the dismay expressed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) that the American delegation will scupper any decision on that trade—mainly owing to the influence and pressure exerted by the National Rifle Association in the US in upholding the principle of the right to bear arms and so on. That casts a dark shadow over that important conference.
  Understandably, much of our debate has been about small arms. However, after the Dunblane massacre, when we in this place rightly and swiftly brought in strict controls, it is distasteful that the UK remains happy to be a major manufacturer and exporter of those items that were so urgently and correctly banned.
  I welcome the Bill. It will tighten the UK's export control system, although perhaps not enough. In that respect, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) made a thoughtful and thought-provoking speech from the standpoint of considerable experience. We all know the consequences of the indiscriminate use of weapons: we see refugees displaced by civil war and genocide, and we see the peril that our relief personnel experience daily. In today's wars, most of the people killed are civilians and almost half of those casualties are children. Directly or indirectly, conflict causes and aggravates poverty.
  Given the importance of the Bill, it is surprising that it has taken more than five years, since the publication of the Scott inquiry into the arms to Iraq scandal, for the measure to come before the House. I am pleased that the Bill has been introduced, but it has taken a long time. As other speakers have noted, primary legislation on the subject has not been introduced since 1939, and the Scott inquiry amply showed the shortcomings of current legislation.
  In the meantime, the Government have—to their credit—introduced more stringent controls. The export of land mines and torture equipment has been banned. We talk about end-use certificates—was there ever a moral justification for the production and export of torture equipment? Could there ever he such a justification? The answer is no. That is only common sense. It is disgusting to think that the UK was involved in such trade. However, the Government have introduced a ban on such exports and also on the granting of export licences when there is patent evidence of human rights abuses. Of course that, too, is welcome—as is the fact that the UK has signed up to the European Union code of conduct.
  602
  However, we have seen many disgraceful examples of the misuse of the arms control system in the UK since Labour came to power. That shows that much more must be done, not only by strengthening the system through this Bill but by further intervention. In the first eight months of the Labour Government, 31 per cent. of UK arms export licences were issued to conflict-vulnerable societies. In January 2000, it was revealed that spare parts for Hawk fighter jets were being sold to Zimbabwe. Those planes were being used by that country in the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In her opening remarks, the Secretary of State referred to the injuries of people in the Congo. The Zimbabwean presence there is playing a major part in keeping the conflict alive—and, of course, Zimbabwe is not known for its human rights record, even within its own borders. At about the same time, the premature lifting of the arms embargo on Indonesia led to Hawk aircraft being sold to Indonesia when armed militias were still hounding the East Timorese. All that took place while a purported ethical foreign policy was being followed. Those examples show that the current system of scrutiny is not adequate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the need for pre-scrutiny by Parliament, and I add my voice to theirs.
  It was reported in the Official Report of 23 January 1997, that an export licence granted for six water cannon to Indonesia included "associated equipment". Parliamentary questioning eventually revealed that the "associated equipment" was 310 armoured personnel carriers. That is rather disturbing, and those answers would obviously not have been given if those questions had not been asked, so there is a need for better scrutiny and far better transparency.
  Plaid Cymru has long sought to draw attention to the ethnic cleansing of Tamils and the many stories of extra-judicial killings by the police and armed forces in Sri Lanka. During 1997 alone, 67 export licences were granted for the sale of military equipment to Sri Lanka, rendering it the fourth most popular destination for UK arms that year. Yes, Britain is one of the top exporters of military equipment in the world. That gives me no pleasure, any more than it does the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). Britain has between 20 and 25 per cent. of the world market. That trade contributes £203 million a year to the United Kingdom economy. However, the industry receives Government subsidies worth £431 million. According to my mathematical interpretation, it makes no economic or ethical sense to pursue such an agenda.
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department guarantees that moneys are paid in respect of such exports. The aim is to break even, but any shortfall comes from taxpayers' pockets. The arms companies need export credit guarantees—without them, many arms deals would be too risky for the companies concerned and would not happen. In 1999, the then Foreign Secretary instigated a review of the ECGD to find out how it could better contribute to sustainable development. The review concluded that cover for military projects in the 63 poorest countries would not be extended. That was a step in the right direction but it did not go far enough. I should like the ECGD to withdraw its support from all military exports, as Liberal Democrat Members have suggested. It is also something about which some Labour Members are concerned.

  603
  The problem is that those exports are often to the very poorest of countries, which can least afford them and which, in effect, least need them. No one would argue with the right to bear arms in self-defence, nor with the right to provide arms where they are strictly necessary to defend countries that come under seige. Only an idiot would say that that is not right, but far too many of those arms are being supplied to countries in which civil wars are being fought. That is unjustified. Arms are going in by the back door as well, and Britain is contributing by producing those arms.
  Early-day motion 191 was tabled during the 1999–2000 Session, and I am proud to say that a Plaid Cymru Member and Scottish National party Member were two of the six sponsors. It was signed by 120 Members, some of whom are in the Chamber this evening. That shows that the view it expressed had considerable support.
  The sale of arms often diverts money from much-needed civil projects, which takes money away from funds that could contribute to sustainable development. The schedule to the draft Bill detailed the purposes for which export controls can be imposed and included a section referring to sustainable development. That provision has been removed, seemingly without explanation. That is surprising, bearing in mind the fact that the Secretary of State referred to sustainable development when she opened the debate. It is unfortunate that those words have disappeared from the schedule, and I hope that, in winding-up the debate, the Minister will explain why that very important principle disappeared from the Bill. I also hope that those important words will be reintroduced in Committee.
  I should also like to refer briefly to tied aid. I welcome the fact that the Government have committed themselves to getting rid of that practice. Many of the recommendations of the Scott inquiry have been incorporated into the Bill, but several hon. Members have voiced the genuine concern that too much is being left to secondary legislation. The Quadripartite Committee has called this a mainly enabling Bill, as much of the substance will be in the secondary legislation. Of course, the devil will be in the detail, making it hard to judge the real impact that the Bill will have. No doubt things will become a little clearer in Committee, but it is difficult to have as full a debate as we would like on Second Reading. I am very disappointed that the Government's response to the Quadripartite Committee report was not published until today. Surely parliamentary business should not be conducted in that way on such an important issue.
  One of the loopholes in the Bill is that it does not seem as though end-use controls will be tightened. I know that there is a substantial problem, but if we do not attempt to solve it, we shall do nothing at all. That is patently obvious. It is also obvious that the current system of end-use certificates is easily abused. To get a licence to export from the United Kingdom, a company must give the Government an end-use certificate, naming the importer of the weapons and the uses to which they will be put. In theory, that sounds good; in practice, it has proved utterly worthless. Apparently, it is easy to get an end-use certificate, and no one checks how the arms are
  604
  used when they leave the United Kingdom. We need a follow-up monitoring and inspection system. I hope that that important issue will be tackled in Committee.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Will he share with the House his thoughts on what sort of sanctions he would recommend if such an abuse occurs? Revoking licences has been mentioned, but could penalties be imposed that would continue when the company wanted a future application to be approved?
  Mr. Llwyd: Indeed; I am sure that that is right, and both those points are valid. We are currently talking about developing the international courts, and I wonder whether they will be able to impose sanctions—I know not, but I hope that the important points that the hon. Gentleman makes will be discussed in Committee.
  I welcome moves to regulate arms traffickers. In September 1998, Kofi Annan spoke about making arms brokering to embargoed countries a punishable crime and said:
  "Possibly no other single initiative would do more to help combat the flow of illicit arms to Africa."
  That important principle should be considered very carefully. The Bill will impose trade controls on goods passing through the United Kingdom, or if the transaction involves a UK national. Again, it is worth noting that that will be done through secondary legislation. The Bill simply states that the Secretary of State may make provisions by order, and so on. We need to extend regulation to British nationals based abroad, not just to those operating in this country. Without that safeguard, it will be all too easy for brokers or for traffickers simply to move their operations to another country. The Bill refers to that problem, but it says only that the Secretary of State "may" do something about it. Again, many important provisions in the Bill will be left to secondary or subordinate legislation.
  I also seek clarification of how British companies can license foreign arms manufacturers. There is another potential loophole, because the growth of such licensed production effectively allows companies to circumvent regulations. In the United States, if a company producing arms overseas under a US licence wants to export goods, it must obtain a further licence from the US Government before that export can take place. I hope that this issue will also be discussed in Committee and that the Government will consider an equally stringent system.
  One advance in the Bill is the extension of parliamentary scrutiny, but I and many other Members have argued that that might not have gone far enough. I have no doubt that this issue will be discussed in Committee.
  The Government have published three annual reports on strategic export controls, and I am pleased that the publication of the annual report on this subject has now been given a statutory basis. In the past, Plaid Cymru has been concerned that this report has not included full information on the number and type of weapons exported. In its report of 2 February 2001, the Quadripartite Committee made several recommendations on expanding the level of detail in the annual reports to include the quantities of equipment supplied and end-user information. The Government promised more detail but, so far as I know, it has not yet appeared.

  605
  The Bill does not allow for prior parliamentary scrutiny of applications for licences. The issue has been debated today, so I shall not go over that ground again but I believe that parliamentary Committees are made up of responsible people who are there to do a job and I see no reason why prior parliamentary scrutiny should not occur even though issues such as commercial confidentiality mean that it is not a simple matter. I hope that before we dismiss the possibility of such scrutiny out of hand, we will consider it further in Committee.
  Such scrutiny takes place in the United States and Sweden, and the Quadripartite Committee suggested a wholly workable two-stage process whereby only the licences that could cause concern need be examined in detail. The Government refused the Committee's first suggestion, but I believe that the Committee has come back with a modified model, which the Government are still considering. I hope that this important issue will be considered in Committee and that the Bill will be amended accordingly.
  The problem of misuse of the arms exports systems is a global one, but the Bill is a very welcome step forward. We in Plaid Cymru—I also speak for the Scottish National party—argue that, once the UK has put its own house in order in relation to arms controls, it will be in a better position to influence the development of arms controls elsewhere. The ultimate goal should and must be the development of truly international safe- and-sound controls.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Eric Joyce: Although the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) is no longer in the Chamber, I congratulate him on his excellent speech. I have been sitting here rubbing my neck—very stupidly, I once agreed to play a season as tight-head in the front row and he has brought all those memories flooding back. I have had a sore neck ever since.
  I was also refreshed to heat the speech of—I shall try to pronounce this correctly—the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). It was refreshing to hear a nationalist speak about foreign affairs. However, saying that one has obtained the agreement of the Scottish National party does not necessarily commend one's policies. The SNP policies that I have seen often form the weakest foreign policy that I can imagine.
  I welcome the Bill, which follows a number of improvements made to the arms control export regime since 1997 that have not required legislation, including the introduction of tough new arms export licensing criteria and a unilateral ban on the export of equipment used for torture. Other improvements have been this country's role in securing a European Union code of conduct on arms exports and the Government's widely welcomed ban on the import, export, manufacture and transfer of anti-personnel land mines.
  Peace and security across the world require sovereign states to be able to ensure the security of their citizens. Ultimately, from time to time that will require that those states have the ability to use, or threaten to use, force on actual or potential aggressors. That, of course, requires weaponry. However, as all states are not capable of manufacturing their own weaponry, it is important that they should be able to import such equipment as can reasonably be demonstrated as a necessity for legitimate
  606
  security and defence purposes. A legitimate arms trade therefore has a role to play in intelligent world governance. However, there is a flip-side to the arms trade and it takes the form of a dangerous underbelly where immoral trafficking can blight the lives of many of the world's most vulnerable people.
  The defence industry in this country is an essential part of our manufacturing base, and exports are a fundamental part of that industry's future. That is why it is important that the UK maintains the most transparent and accountable arms export system in the world. I understand that the Defence Manufacturers Association has said that it fully supports the Government's efforts to replace the existing legislation and welcomes the Bill's aims to introduce controls on the activities of brokers and traffickers.
  Non-governmental organisations with interests in this subject have welcomed the Bill. They include the Red Cross, which believes that the Bill will contribute to the reduction in global levels of armed conflict and the attendant human suffering. Oxfam, too, has noted that the Bill is an important step towards closing the loopholes in existing legislation.
  I welcome the Bill's emphasis on controlling the brokering of weapons and related equipment. I also suspect that many unscrupulous people at the margins will seek to exploit any loopholes that it might inadvertently leave. I hope that there will be none, but it is worth raising two or three potential hazards.
  The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) asked for specific examples. Although he is not here at the moment, I hope that he will appreciate that I have attempted to respond to his request. In April this year, The Guardian uncovered evidence revealing that British pilots and air cargo companies had been involved in supplying weapons on both sides of the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A British pilot, Brian Martin, told Oxfam that he had flown planes registered in Swaziland for two Congolese carriers from Entebbe in Uganda and Kigali in Rwanda. Meanwhile, the UK company Air Charter Services was found to have leased a Boeing 707 to a Dutch company that flew arms from Bulgaria to Slovakia to Harare for transit to the Zimbabwean forces in the Congo. In both cases, it seems that the Government were powerless to intervene.
  The Guardian today points out that such unscrupulous arms dealers are past masters at creating confusing paper trails that go across the world and into areas that are the responsibility of different sovereign states so that they avoid proper oversight of their work. That is why it is so important that the Bill covers UK dealers who operate overseas. A private company called Avient Aviation is a good example of that practice. It is based in Harare and run by a British citizen, Andrew Smith. The Financial Times has obtained a contract signed in December 1999 by Mr. Smith and the Congolese Government. It says that Avient would provide a crew of Ukrainian pilots to fly Antinov 12 aircraft to operate along and behind enemy lines to support ground troops and to work against invading forces in the Congo. Avient is understood to have received about £20,000 a month for that. It is highly desirable that the activities of companies like Avient be brought within the influence of the UK Government.

  607
  It is important to mention the significance of end-user controls, which was most notably referred to by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke). The Bill will improve the checks and risk assessment at the licensing stage, which is welcome, but unless a system exists to monitor the end use of weapons that are sold from the UK, there is a significant risk that British arms might continue to be used in unacceptable conflicts and repression, which is always unacceptable. However, I appreciate that that is difficult to do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said.
  In 1994, the UK company Miltec supplied more than £5 million of small arms and ammunition to the then Rwandan army from Albania and Israel. The end-use certificate said that the cargo was destined for the Ministry of Defence in Goma in the former Zaire. However, on arrival in Goma, the merchandise was loaded on to trucks and moved into neighbouring Rwanda. In 1997, the Ugandan Government bought four helicopter gunships supplied by the UK-based Consolidated Sales Corporation, registered in the Virgin Islands. Later reports in a Kampala newspaper quoted a Rwandan official as saying that two of the gunships ended up in Rwanda. He said:
  "This country has to turn to its friends in neighbouring countries as it is difficult for us to acquire items directly on the international arms market."
  Rwanda might find it difficult, but the examples that I have given of people circumventing the rules hardly sit at the apex of logistical sophistication.
  The Bill represents a significant step forward and will make a considerable contribution to peace and security in troubled parts of the world. However, there remains cause for concern on some issues, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure us about UK traders who are based abroad, shipping agents and end-user controls.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) has obviously studied the subject and feels keenly about it. The House listened to his speech with interest.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) is closely associated with arms control. She regretted the absence of the Leader of the House who took a keen interest in arms control when he was shadow Foreign Secretary and Foreign Secretary. May I echo her concern at his absence? Of all the ways in which the Government have treated the House with contempt, the one which I regret the most and which would be the most easily remedied is in relation to the presence of senior Ministers during important debates. The right hon. Gentleman was very concerned about arms control and argued vociferously in discussions on the Scott report that the then Conservative Government were to blame for their lack of legislation. The fact that he has made only one transit through the House in this debate is regrettable. I shall never fail to notice the absence of senior Ministers.
  608
  It would be easy for them to encourage their supporters and the House by being present. Their absence is unfortunate.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member. Did he give my right hon. Friend notice that he was going to refer to him?
  Mr. Viggers: I did not. I have regretted only his absence, not his conduct, which I have not criticised. I may be reprimanded by Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would not normally regard an expression of regret at a Minister's absence as requiring the courtesy of a letter. Of course, I respect the fact that, as the right hon. Gentleman points out, if one is to make a personal attack, one usually makes it known to the Member concerned.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: In support of my hon. Friend, I must point out that it would surely have been difficult for him to give notice of that reference because he did not know, before today, whether the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) would be present.
  Mr. Viggers: During another debate, a Cabinet Minister was present on the Front Bench for a few moments. I saw him later in the day, and expressed my regret at his absence from the Chamber, and he replied, "I can't sit in there. I've got a country to run." That is regrettable. The House deserves the presence of senior Ministers.
  The right hon. Member for Livingston was very vociferous during the discussions of the Scott report in 1996. He demanded legislation of the Conservative Government, who set up an inquiry to consider that. This Government came to power in 1997 and were greatly criticised for their inactivity in that respect. In the previous Parliament, the Quadripartite Committee—the meeting of the Defence Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Trade and Industry Committee and the International Development Committee—of which I am a member, criticised the Government for failing to introduce legislation as they had said they would. In February this year, the Committee said that it was dismayed by the lack of movement.
  Finally, in March, a draft Bill was published, and then there was a reference to legislation in the Queen's Speech. Now the Bill is being introduced quickly but without much detail. That presents a conundrum—why inactivity, then sudden activity but little detail in the Bill? I have become very cynical in the past four years, and I suspect that there is a broader reason behind the timing and the strategy, because the Government are masters of timing and strategy.
  Let us consider the broad political framework within which we must set the Bill. I will stay in order, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the background is very relevant. Let us look at the Government's position: the railways will stay privatised; air traffic control will be privatised despite everything; there has been no move on proportional representation; private medicine will contribute to the national health service; there are no concessions to the trade union movement; there has been a crackdown on habitual offenders rather than

  609
  the adoption of liberal attitudes towards them; the Government are forcing single mothers to work; they are taking incapacity benefit away from many people.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some licence, but he is now wandering rather wide of the subject under discussion.
  Mr. Viggers: I have finished sketching the background, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Looking at the glum faces behind the Prime Minister when incapacity benefit was being discussed, I realised that something needed to be done. How on earth could the Government cheer up this large influx of Labour Members? What could they do to make them feel that it was all worth while? What could they do that would cost nothing? The answer was to legislate on arms control, which will damage the defence industry, cost the Treasury nothing and cheer up Members such as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. This is a framework Bill with no detail but it has cheered hon. Members up, and we have heard them saying how pleased they are to see it. The Government thought, "Let's throw the left wing a bone—one without much meat on it, of course."
  Mr. Berry: If this Bill is only a bone being thrown to Members, why did every Conservative member of the Quadripartite Committee urge the Government to act on the matter even more quickly than they did?
  Mr. Viggers: We were very happy to encourage the left wing in their hunt.
  I welcome the Bill because the Scott report recommended a review of the primary legislation on weapons exports. It was unsatisfactory for that matter to be dealt with by an Act that was passed by the House of Commons in one day in 1939, in the run-up to war. That Act obviously had defects, but there are two major defects in the present Bill. The first is that we have had no sight of the proposed related orders and secondary legislation, so it is impossible for the House to judge the impact of the Bill. Secondly, the Bill is clearly defective because it continues the power of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 to control imports. Surely, after four years, the Government should be capable of remedying, updating and modernising that Act; they should deal not just with exports, but with imports as well. The Bill is defective in those two major areas.
  The Government's handling of existing legislation is certainly defective and is failing exporters; we should not play down the importance of exports of defence equipment. The defence industry employs 350,000 people in this country; it has been calculated that 90,000 of those jobs relate directly to the export of arms equipment. The Government are letting down those people because they are failing to meet their 20-day target for consent for an arms export licence. They aim to give such consent within 20 days in 70 per cent. of cases, but they have done so for only 57 per cent. of applications. Their handling of appeals is worse; the Quadripartite Committee was told by members of the Defence Manufacturers Association that some applications for arms exports are so old, fusty and dusty that they think of sending them birthday cards every year; year after year, the Government have not done anything to deal with them.
  610
  The Leader of the House of Commons said:
  "I have limited sympathy with complaints we are not moving fast enough."
  The House should not be satisfied with a Foreign Secretary—as the Leader of the House then was—saying that he has limited sympathy for a major British industry; the Government should do better.
  There is no doubt that the Bill, which will be imposed on the industry, will put a heavy burden on business. Looking at it clause by clause—which, of course, will be done not here but in Committee—one can see that sweeping powers are taken for the Secretary of State to control the transfer of any kind of technology and technical assistance, of which a wide definition is given. Clause 2 governs the provision of information inside the United Kingdom, if it is transferred
  "by a person or from a place outside the United Kingdom to … a place … also outside the United Kingdom (but only where the transfer is by, or within the control of, a United Kingdom person)".
  That seems like a legal nightmare. Of course, it would make sense if we had secondary legislation and orders. However, we do not; the Bill is effectively a framework measure and I am not surprised that defence manufacturers have expressed serious concern about its effect on their industry.
  I shall give another example of the imposition of control. Although details are not yet available, controls will be imposed on transfers between subsidiaries of companies and transfers of the control of technology by intangible means, including telephone and e-mail. That would mean that an employee using an e-mail or a telephone to talk to another employee of another subsidiary could be transferring technology and committing an offence under the Bill. There is therefore a sweeping power, which is worrying.
  Finally, as I have said, control over extra-territorial activity may be impracticable. If it is followed through in all possible severity, it sounds like a job creation scheme for MI6. My conclusions to my brief contribution are: I am suspicious of the timing of the Bill; I am not reassured by the absence of detail; I am worried about the burdens on business; I am concerned that the Government are seeking to impose sanctions on citizens working outside UK territory; and I am worried about whether the measure is practicable. Is there a better way ahead? I think that our defence manufacturers and arms exporters are extremely responsible; almost without exception, those companies take their public responsibilities and world responsibilities very seriously indeed. Looking around the world, we see that it is not the United Kingdom that is responsible for the vast proliferation of arms in third-world countries, but other nations. The United States is a very large arms exporter and I believe that it is a responsible one, but I cannot say the same of Russia, China, India, South Africa and Israel, which are less responsible in this field.
  The best route ahead is for us to work with our European Union and American allies, as well as our allies around the world. I think that we have leverage with countries such as Russia and India that will enable us to exert pressure on them, but I accept that the 1939 legislation needs upgrading and uprating. I therefore support the Bill, which will improve the moral climate and the stance with which the United Kingdom Government can negotiate further improvements from other countries, where the main blame for arms exports lies.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. John Smith: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate, which has been absolutely fascinating. I have tried to sit through most of it—unfortunately, I had to leave briefly—and the contributions that I have heard were sincere and covered a range of issues. Indeed, this has been one of the better debates that I have heard in the House. I should like to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), on his appointment; I am delighted to see him back on the Front Bench. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on her well-deserved promotion.
  I do not want to repeat the arguments that have already been advanced. Instead, I should like to develop a slightly different theme and approach the Bill from a different perspective. I do not claim to be an arms control or arms reduction expert, but I take an interest in defence matters and have the honour and privilege, as you once did, Madam Deputy Speaker, of representing this Parliament on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Hon. Members from all parties might be surprised to hear that issues such as arms control and reduction probably play a greater part in debate in such international arenas than ever before, certainly since the second world war. I also want to comment briefly on the contribution made by the Bill to a much wider debate in international defence forums, and to explain my conclusion that, far from damaging British defence interests, the Bill enhances them.
  Defence manufacturers have welcomed this well-balanced Bill. We must remember that they are commercial organisations that exist not out of worldwide altruistic concern but to make money. They recognise that the Bill provides an opportunity to do just that, as it allows them to operate in a framework that will help them to continue as world leaders not only in the production and distribution of arms, but in anticipating the changes that are occurring in the defence world and in being ahead of the game.
  Before I develop those arguments, I should comment on some of the spurious criticisms that have been made of the Government's record on arms control. It is outrageous for the Government to be criticised for delay by a party that had almost 20 years to do something about the control of arms exports. Not only did the Conservatives fail to act, but in 1990, they strengthened the powers under the 1939 Act, an emergency measure that was introduced under the immediate threat of war to conceal arms production and exports. That was right at the time. However, it is outrageous that all Governments let that position continue for so long. It is especially outrageous that the last Government allowed it to go on for 18 years and strengthened the legislation by ensuring that it could not be challenged by the European courts.
  Mike Gapes: My hon. Friend mentioned 1990. In the 1980s, the Conservative Government breached the regulations on aid and arms sales. We should also remind hon. Members of the Pergau dam scandal.
  Mr. Smith: Exactly. It does not stop there. Great play has been made of the Conservative Government's White Paper. Why did they produce it? Because of the scandal
  612
  of the sale of arms to Iraq. They were caught conniving with business and trying to persecute business people when they were found out. They were therefore obliged to make it appear as if they were doing something. I shall not develop that argument too far, but it is a damn cheek for Conservative Members to criticise the Government's record, which is a good record and one of which we can be proud.
  It has already been said that, immediately after taking office in 1997, the Government took steps to strengthen our control over arms exports. They signed the European code on arms sales without hesitation, and played an important part in abolishing land mines—a leading role in the Ottawa summit, which has effectively removed land mines from the major arenas of war. It would be inconceivable for NATO to consider using land mines in an operation, especially one that involved European forces, even though the Americans have not signed the relevant treaty.
  The Bill is ground-breaking because it will set standards for defence manufacturers and for exporting weapons that will be recognised throughout the world. It will put our defence manufacturers in a stronger position. I envisage that they will expect to support regimes and controls that do not allow them to abuse arms exports and that prevent arms from getting into the hands of children—something that has led to so much slaughter, particularly in third-world countries.
  The security environment has changed fundamentally, and it continues to change. The threat is not from the former Soviet bloc or a clearly identifiable enemy. The current fear and great insecurity is caused by rogue, destabilised nations, which can threaten the first world with weapons of mass destruction. The great fear is of weapons delivered not on the end of a ballistic missile, but in suitcases or through the actions of terrorists and extremists. Where do they come from? Not from the obvious candidates of the past but from some of those smaller nations that are fundamentally destabilised by civil war and internal warfare, supported by the sale of illegal arms, and especially small arms.
  There is a defence interest in this country, and throughout NATO and the United Nations, in removing that destabilising factor. That means that the future of the arms industry will change dramatically and fundamentally. The Bill will help us lead that change. The defence industry plays a role as vital as our military forces—and I need not tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I hope I need not tell other hon. Members, that although our military forces may be among the smaller forces in the world, they are undoubtedly the best, leading standards of military practice and military conduct throughout the world. In almost every recent conflict, including those in the Balkans, our forces have played a tremendous role. Our defence industries are right behind them, and I believe that they will be the industries of Europe tomorrow. This Bill will facilitate that development by introducing standards now that may seem by some to put us at a disadvantage, but which will undoubtedly put us in the forefront in years to come.
  8.46 pm
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I hope that I shall be forgiven if, in congratulating all those on both sides of the House who have made their maiden speeches today, I single out that of my hon. Friend the Member for

  613
  Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), who spoke with great commitment, conviction and clarity. He was a credit to the people who selected him to be the Conservative candidate, and to the people who elected him to be their Conservative Member of Parliament, and I am sure that he will go on to be a great credit to all those he serves in his constituency.
  I can make that prediction with some authority, because I first met my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, as he now is, in 1982 when he was an undergraduate student at Reading university, where he had set up a society—a multilateral society—that was campaigning to keep Britain's strategic defences strong at a time when my good friend the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), whom I really do greatly admire, was proudly proclaiming her conscience at Greenham Common with her sisterly friends. I believe that my hon. Friend has been vindicated by time and I know that, in future, he will go on to show that he still possesses the good judgment that he showed in abundance in those fraught and controversial debates.
  I also give the warmest possible welcome to the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths). He may not be as senior a Minister as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) would have liked to be present, but I am particularly glad to see that the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that there is, in new Labour politics, such a thing as life after ministerial death. I congratulate him on his return to the Front Bench. I thought that he was a jolly chap, with a cheerful disposition, and a good Minister, and I was at a loss to know why he lost his job in the first place.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: That has finished him off.
  Dr. Lewis: I certainly hope that I have not finished the Minister's prospects for the future. I would point out that he is not the first person to make a return from the living dead. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) did that once before, but I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are particularly anxious that he should not do so again.
  The problem that we must deal with in addressing the Bill is that the questions that we would like to ask are not really susceptible to being answered at this stage. We would like to ask how practical it is. We would like to ask whether the measures that it proposes can be monitored and enforced abroad. We would like to ask whether it will be an effective measure or merely a unilateral gesture.
  As has been pointed out time and again, all that depends on the specific secondary legislation, which we have not yet had a chance to read. Much has been made of the work of the Quadripartite Committee, and the first recommendation in the summary of conclusions and recommendations in its 1 May report states:
  "The Bill itself is largely an enabling Bill. The meat of the proposals being made will be in the secondary legislation to be made under the Bill. We recommend that every effort is made to ensure that a draft consultative version of the relevant secondary legislation is published before the House is asked to give the Bill a Second Reading."
  I am sure that the Committee had good grounds for making that recommendation. Sadly, it has not been heeded.
  614
  Similarly, in an intervention on the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who opened for the Conservatives, I quoted the view of Saferworld, which is remarkably similar to the points that were made from the Conservative Front Bench. Saferworld said:
  "The key challenge ahead is to ensure that the controls introduced are as comprehensive as possible; the devil will be in the detail of the secondary legislation proposed in the DTI consultation paper which accompanied the draft Bill. In the absence of detailed mechanisms for putting the principles set out in the primary legislation into operation, parliamentarians, and also NGOs and the defence industry, will find it impossible to judge the overall impact of the new legislation."
  Indeed. I shall say more about non-governmental organisations later, but our problem is that, because we are unable to have much of a debate about what is in the Bill, we are reduced to debating what is not in it and what may appear in the secondary legislation.
  I want to discuss contributions from NGOs which, greatly to their credit, have taken a close interest in the subject over many years. I can sum up their concerns as five, which I have drawn from a compilation of what Oxfam and Amnesty International in particular have described in briefings to parliamentarians on both sides of the House.
  The NGOs want licensed production controls that can be applied when goods of strategic and potentially lethal significance are made under licence overseas. We would therefore be unable to ban a product from being exported from this country to a certain destination while allowing the very same product to be made overseas and sent to the very same destination. They also want reference to be made to the effect on sustainable development. That point has been mentioned a number of times in the debate, but I must take issue with it.
  Mr. Berry: It would help the House if the hon. Gentleman gave his personal opinion on each issue. Does he endorse the views of the NGOs or is he simply reading out their brief?
  Dr. Lewis: I am happy to give my view; that is precisely my intention. I urge the hon. Gentleman to contain his impatience. He may be pleasantly surprised to find that I have more sympathy with some proposals than he would perhaps expect, having heard the reference to me by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley.
  The NGOs say that they are concerned about the effect on sustainable development, but I have less sympathy with that than with the first point to which I referred. If a country has a fundamentally democratic regime, it should have the right to make what decisions it thinks best regarding its own priorities. If a fundamentally democratic regime in a poor country fears that it is in danger of being overthrown and that the regime that will replace it will be massively detrimental to the country's future, I would argue that that Government should have the right to decide whether to spend a proportion of the national wealth on importing weapons to defend itself against subversion or incursion. It is up to such a democratic Government to decide; it is not for us to make the decision for them, on the grounds that we know better than a democratic Government in a poor country what they should be doing to safeguard their country's future.
  That proposition is very different from the common ground that I suspect exists between the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and me on the question of not

  615
  allowing arms sales to undesirable regimes. Such regimes are covered by other aspects of what is proposed. I do not consider it right for a western Government such as ours to second-guess the priorities of a respectable Government in a struggling country that is trying to develop, but also trying to protect itself.
  Mike Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Lewis: I will, but then I must make some progress.
  Mike Gapes: Let us suppose that two countries have elected Governments, but are also engaged in a long-standing territorial dispute. Exporting weapons into the area could inflame the regional conflict and lead to its continuation, and that might fuel an arms race in the region.
  Dr. Lewis: I do not accept the premise. I was talking about countries with representative democratic Governments, albeit perhaps rudimentary ones. I believe that we learn this lesson from history: when two countries have Governments of that sort, such circumstances seldom arise in the first place.
  Mike Gapes rose—
  Dr. Lewis: I must make some progress. I realise that the hon. Gentleman does not accept my point, but we must leave it at that for the moment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make a speech of his own later.
  We do not usually find Governments who are broadly representative and broadly democratic racing to war with one another. That is certainly true of developed societies, and I would also argue that it is more likely than not to apply in developing countries as well.
  The NGOs' third concern is the one that I mentioned briefly in an intervention. It relates to end-use certificates, and whether they can be followed up through monitoring. On the whole, I agree with recommendations suggesting that more needs to be done. It will probably not be possible ever to follow up more than a tiny fraction of these abuses, but I do not accept the argument that just because the whole problem cannot be solved, a sanction should not be provided to make an example of those who can be caught abusing the system. I note that the hon. Member for Kingswood indicates assent. I am delighted to have reached across the divide in the House on this issue.
  The NGOs also have a strong case in regard to something that I have not heard mentioned in the parts of the debate that I have been privileged to attend. I am sorry that mine has not been a continuous presence. I refer to the question of whether British airlines that transport goods that we would ban, and that would be covered by the legislation, will have any responsibility for the transport of illicit goods and strategic weapon exports, or whether they will be able to say, "What goes into the packing cases in our cargo holds is not a matter for us." I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us whether those who transport the weapons will be affected by the secondary legislation.
  As for prior parliamentary scrutiny of specific licence applications, I must say that I am inclined to sympathise with the Government. They have stated at various stages
  616
  of the process that it would involve such difficult questions of commercial confidentiality and competitive disadvantage that it is probably impracticable—but I am happy to leave them to fight that out with their own Back Benchers.
  Are these measures enforceable? We have seen from what little legislation has been placed before the House that, if someone can be caught in breach of the law as it will be in the future, that person will now face a maximum of 10 rather than seven years in jail. However, I should like to know who will enforce the electronic interception provisions, for example. Indeed, who will address the oral communications issue, which is mentioned in the legislation itself?
  Although the controls provided in the Bill are massively lacking in detail and substance, they are enormously wide-ranging in scope. I shall briefly survey a few of them. Clause 1(1) deals with
  "export controls in relation to goods of any description."
  Clause 2(1) deals with
  "transfer controls in relation to technology of any description."
  Clause 2(5) states:
  "In this Act—
  'transfer', in relation to any technology, means a transfer by any means (or combination of means), including oral communication and the transfer of goods on which the technology is recorded or from which it can be derived".
  Although it is easy to conceive of such an offence being committed, it is enormously difficult to conceive of such an offence being prevented or detected and punished.
  Clause 4(1) deals with
  "controls prohibiting or regulating participation in the provision outside the United Kingdom of technical assistance of any description."
  Clause 5(1) deals with
  "trade controls in relation to controlled goods of any description."
  That is what we are talking about in relation to trafficking and brokering overseas.
  As I said, those are fascinating goals and worthy ideals. However, we want to know whether they will make good legislation. To make it good legislation, what precisely do the Government propose to do about all those matters that they wish to control? I ask the Minister what opportunities we shall have to examine in detail the specific provisions being proposed to make those mostly worthy aims into practicable realities.
  I believe that a few little nuggets in the legislation are sufficiently specific to be worth singling out for praise. Clause 6(1), on information, is well worth while in requiring anyone involved in activities potentially subject to control to keep records as specified in the order, to produce them when demanded, and to give such other information as required.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am becoming increasingly alarmed as my hon. Friend reads out the litany of draconian powers that the Bill confers on Ministers. What provisions does he think the secondary legislation might contain to flesh out some of those quite fearsome powers? They make me feel that I should he voting against the Bill.
  Dr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is making my point for me. It is possible for us to look at the Bill and for me to take

  617
  one interpretation that encourages me to support it and for him to take another that encourages him to oppose it. As I said, none of us will be in a position to know what to say about the legislation until we see what the Government are proposing to do.
  I doubt that it could be argued that many of the proposals are more draconian in principle than the 1939 legislation which they supersede. After all, that was emergency legislation introduced on the eve of war. The question is how the overarching new structure will be applied in practice. Will it be applied too tightly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) fears, or will it be applied so loosely that it will be subject to the very criticisms that the 1939 legislation attracted when the Scott report was published?
  There are essential problems of practicality and gaps in our knowledge. There is a bit of a hidden agenda among some Labour Back Benchers who seem more concerned with getting at the arms industry as a whole than with achieving anything very effective for the countries concerned. Sometimes the export of arms is a necessary development to allow countries to preserve their emerging democratic systems.
  With the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), I had the sobering experience of visiting Sierra Leone and seeing at first hand the effects of atrocities carried out not with high-tech weapons but with machetes. Only last week, I was reminded of that visit by a radio programme recorded in Sierra Leone that talked about the irony of the fact that in one part of the country large dumps of small arms that had been captured or handed in were being destroyed, while Britain was sending new small arms to the Sierra Leone army precisely in order to reinforce stability and underpin the democracy that we hope will be permanently restored.
  We need to think not only about arms but about the people who have them. Weapons are not in themselves bad: what matters is the use to which they are put. I do not believe that it is right for a poor, struggling democratic system to be denied the arms that it needs to defend itself against insurgents, just because it is poor.
  I was ashamed of my own party's conduct in the early 1990s, because when moderate Bosnian Muslims were suffering so greatly and the Governments of western Europe and NATO were not prepared to do anything about it, we also refused to allow arms to go to those people to allow them to protect themselves and their families. The then Conservative Foreign Secretary—to whom we are always supposed to genuflect and who is often quoted by Ministers as though every word that he ever says, especially on Europe, should be carved in stone—said that we did not want to arm or to allow to be armed the Bosnian Muslims because we did not want to create "a level killing field".
  If there is not a level killing field, there is an uneven killing field, where those who are doing the killing can do it with impunity. That is why, when making decisions about arms sales, it is not enough to say that arms going to a certain destination are automatically a bad thing. Sometimes, arms are necessary to deter, to defend or to liberate. We know a lot about that, because this country made mistakes in the past, disarming when we should not have done so.
  618
  I welcome the Bill's broad principles, but I do not want it to become a cudgel with which those who always hate anything to do with armaments, defence or force, even in the cause of democracy, can belabour those of us who believe in their necessity.
  9.9 pm
  Roger Casale: I wish to begin by welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths) back to the Front Bench. His return illustrates the sound principle, which should have wide application, that one cannot keep a good man down for long. Although I was unable to be in my place for some of the maiden speeches, which—as we have heard—were excellent, I congratulate my hon. Friends and other hon. Members who made their maiden speeches today on choosing this debate in which to do so.
  I am in favour of the Bill for three main reasons. The first is that there is an obvious, urgent and practical need for tighter arms control measures. Secondly, I want to see Britain leading the way on arms exports, as the Bill demonstrates that we are doing. Thirdly, the Bill is built on recommendations in the Scott report and, ever since that report was published, there has been a political imperative to introduce such measures.
  On the practical need for reform, we must recognise that the legitimate arms trade can ensure security and peace in certain areas, but we must also recognise that the unscrupulous trafficking of arms to conflict zones in areas of instability contributes to the terrible account of human suffering and the destruction of communities and lives that occurs especially when conflicts are fuelled by the presence of small arms. The Government recognise that and the Opposition seemed to recognise it during the debate. The non-governmental organisations recognise it and have pushed for reform. Even the Defence Manufacturers Association seems to recognise that, but it is only now that the Bill will introduce the practical measures of control that we need on the types of equipment, their destinations and modes of transfer. It will also introduce much stiffer penalties for export control offenders. Let us hope that the measures will see more of those offenders brought to book.
  The Bill is overdue in an increasingly unstable and dangerous world. It has taken time to act, but we have been engaged in detailed and comprehensive reviews of the existing system. In the meantime, we have introduced several other important measures, including the EU code of conduct on arms exports, in which we had a leading role.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I agree with my hon. Friend about the terrible toll from small arms. The United Nations' estimate is that some 4 million people—80 per cent. of them women and children—have died because of illegal small arms just since 1990. Does my hon. Friend agree that that requires not only our national action but international action, and is he concerned at reports that the Bush regime may block the UN agreement on small arms?
  Roger Casale: I am extremely concerned about what might happen to the initiative that Kofi Annan has taken and what may happen at the conference starting today in New York. The Secretary-General said that small arms

  619
  have been responsible for 4 million deaths in 46 different countries since 1990 and it is worrying that initiatives to control small arms may be blocked because of the US Government's threatened failure to co-operate. That is why it is so important that Britain is seen to be leading the way on arms exports.
  We have some remarkable NGOs in this country. Some were mentioned by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and I would mention organisations such as Oxfam and Amnesty International, which have campaigned for arms reduction. We can represent their views in the House and Members from both sides can say they agree with those views, but the Bill is proof that a Labour Government are able to act on those views and introduce new export control measures. The values that underpin the passion for change in those NGOs are deeply felt by many decent people who understand the case for arms reform and want that pressure for reform translated into practical action. That is why it is so important to have the commitment from the Government to make those reforms and to push to see them replicated by other countries.
  The Bill is also important because of the legacy of the Scott report. The former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), is not in his place, but I read the report of proceedings on the Scott report in preparation for my speech. After an investigation lasting three years, my right hon. Friend was given three hours to prepare what was a searing attack on the whole decrepit system. Although my right hon. Friend made attacks on individual Ministers—especially those who ordered civil servants not to blame them, so that they could blame the civil servants—he also made attacks that went to the heart of a system of government that was decrepit, failing and embedded in the culture of secrecy. That is what the Bill is seeking to tear away. No longer are we plagued with the central charges of the Scott report—that the Government of the day had changed the rules on arms exports and repeatedly failed to admit that to Parliament and to the courts. Let us hope that such behaviour will no longer be possible under the Bill.
  We ask why people feel disengaged from politics and do not trust their political leaders. Perhaps we should go back to the days of the Scott report and see what happened then.
  I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) that we need to set the debate in a wider context. Broad and important questions need to be answered—they are beginning to be addressed by measures such as this—about who should adjudicate between human rights considerations and matters of trade and foreign policy; who can best decide whether the nation's defence interests will be served or whether an unstable situation in a given conflict area will be made worse by allowing a particular export of arms to go ahead. It remains for the Government to decide on those important issues, but they must be held to account for their decisions. That is the purpose of the Bill.
  This measure, and others like it, must work to make the Government more accountable in the difficult balance that must be struck between competing considerations and concerns. Let us build on the principles of openness and transparency that are anchored in the Bill. Let us not hesitate in redoubling our resolve to see this measure
  620
  replicated in other countries around the world. Let us not be deterred for one moment by the lukewarm, rather grudging, acceptance by the Opposition, who seem to understand the practical need for the Bill without conceding the principle. Let us resolve to implement the measure quickly, because I want to see more convictions, and because to hesitate will cost lives and weaken international resolve.
  This is a good Bill which helps this country take a further step in seeking to tame, in part, the worst excesses of a world in which too many lives are still cut short needlessly by weapons made, brokered and/or trafficked by citizens of the United Kingdom. I commend the measure to the House.
  9.17 pm
  Ms Dari Taylor: I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), to the Front Bench and wish him success. I also warmly welcome the Bill, which I do not believe will place needless regulation on business. Indeed, I have been thoroughly disappointed and disheartened by the way in which Opposition Members have stressed how those in the defence industry object to the Bill or believe that it could undermine them. I have not received such a postbag, and have noticed in the press that the Defence Manufacturers Association fully supports the Government's efforts to replace the existing legislation. It warmly welcomes the fact that the Government are introducing controls to reduce, if not eliminate, the activities of brokers and traffickers. So I wish to start my remarks on that positive note.
  I see the Bill as an important step, as many right hon. and hon. Members have stated, towards closing the loopholes in the arms trade. I am delighted that Oxfam and the Red Cross have made similar statements. In fact, with other NGOs, they have stated that they are particularly pleased with the Government's determination to control the activities of brokers and traffickers.
  The detail of the Bill makes a commitment to overhaul and modernise the legislative framework governing strategic export controls. That is long overdue. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said in her impassioned speech, women and children throughout the world who have, spoken to her have asked for one thing only—for controls that will give them the opportunity to live in their lands in peace. The Bill is one small but significant step along that road.
  I am delighted that the Bill incorporates so many of the recommendations of the Scott report. Again and again, the report emphasised the need for increased transparency and accountability in export controls. That is clearly provided in the Bill.
  Furthermore, the Bill introduces new powers to control arms trafficking and brokering. Clause 5 is most important because it introduces powers to control intangible technology transfers and the provision of technical assistance overseas. We are beginning to take measures that will persuasively lead other Governments along the road that they should travel to achieve control over the illegal trafficking of guns.
  When we pick up our newspapers, we read again and again of the stark and unappetising results of gun trafficking. Today, a report in The Guardian described the

  621
  aplomb of Leonid Minin who is reputed to be a millionaire gunrunner and has, apparently, recently delivered 113 tonnes of small arms from his native Ukraine to west Africa. We know exactly what will result. Although everyone in the House would say, "But we're British, we wouldn't do that", we know that if there are profits to be made, there will always be someone unscrupulous enough to make them.
  Leonid Minin is being prosecuted by an Italian court and may be convicted. However, what is not reported is the straight fact that the trade in small arms is the scourge of sub-Saharan Africa. That trade entrenches unscrupulous regimes in power. It arms legions of child soldiers—at present, it is believed that there are 120,000 such young soldiers. The trade fuels insurrection and civil war. It is high time that we realised what those unscrupulous gunrunners are doing.
  Africa-watchers say that gun running could rank with the AIDS epidemic or debt as one of the most debilitating factors hampering Africa's development. This measure is one small step. It begins to give us the belief that we can ensure security and peace for some people—hopefully all people—across the world. A responsible and legitimate arms trade is the crucial key to ensuring security and peace.
  Many hon. Members have spoken about the current United Nations conference on the illicit trade in small arms. Many have referred to the fact that the President of the United States is evidently persuading his delegation to block the main proposal. It is extremely disheartening that the gun lobby in such a large country—one of our partners, which I cherish as part of NATO—should want to take that stand. It is an outrage and I hope that we are all prepared to make it clear to our American friends that it is wholly unacceptable. Of course, the reports may be wrong. Perhaps the conference will not end up with an empty statement of intent, but with something that is more legally binding.
  In this place, we shall end up with something that is legally binding. We shall take positive action because we shall ensure that the Bill receives its Second Reading and that it is successful. We shall start to establish a responsible, transparent and accountable system of export controls—a regime that the world will applaud. I hope that it will achieve the peace that many, many of us dearly seek. I warmly welcome the Bill.
  9.24 pm
  Mike Gapes: I agree with all the earlier remarks about the Bill being overdue but very welcome. The Select Committee on Defence and the Quadripartite Committee called for such a Bill, but clearly legislation has to be drafted carefully, and we look forward to finding out how it will develop beyond Second Reading. It is crucial to recognise that the Bill brings together various different aspects, some of which are complicated and many of which have been mentioned.
  Not only did the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and I go to Sierra Leone together, but we have a history of competitiveness in such issues that goes back 20 years or more. I agree with him about the right of countries to national defence. I also agree that it would not be helpful to state that no arms sales should take place anywhere and thus that every state, whatever its size, should be encouraged to develop its own indigenous
  622
  armaments industry. Small countries, those threatened by big neighbours and those outside alliances have a right to import weapons to preserve their territorial integrity and their national self-defence, but we cannot and should not have a policy of allowing arms sales to project power, or to try to change the nature of regimes or the balance of power in regions. That is why we need to be cautious.
  The terrible situation in Afghanistan today is a direct result of the misguided policies pursued by the Conservative party in this country and the Reagan Administration in the 1980s. Those policies have led to an absolute surfeit of armaments in that region and terrible death and destruction, as well as the imperialist policies pursued by—
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Brezhnev.
  Mike Gapes: I was getting there—just wait. Those policies were also pursued by the misguided, pre-Gorbachev regime in the Soviet Union.
  We need international measures, and clause 4 includes provisions that will take account of the joint action agreed by the European Union. That inestimable organisation has played an important role in co-ordinating European attitudes. Collective European action is important because we shall then perhaps have more weight in international councils when talking to the United States and in trying to persuade the US that it should also co-operate in such issues. It is a bit ironic that the Bush Administration talks about unilateral reductions in its nuclear weapons programme while not being in favour of entering into multilateral international agreements to limit weapons. That is a contradiction, and we must continue to pursue such matters with the American Administration.
  My final point is that it is important that the Bill will make provision for extra-territoriality. Without such provisions, we shall not be effective. Reference has been made to Ukrainian arms smuggling, and to the fact that those arms go to the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone through Burkina Faso, and there are similar examples in other parts of the world. If we do not have effective extra-territorial provisions that apply to European Union countries and others, we shall never get to the essence of the problem: the brokers, the dealers and their criminal activities. International action is needed, but we must start with what we can do in this country to strengthen that policy. That is why I very much welcome the Bill.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: I congratulate the Minister on his re-emergence. It is not often that an hon. Member comes from the Back Benches to the Dispatch Box, goes back to Back Benches and then returns to the Dispatch Box, and only time will prove whether that happened by luck or skill, or whether the hon. Gentleman's ability was recognised again. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) that the phrase "back from the dead" was a little unkind, and the parallel with the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is hardly one that I should wish to develop.
  I had better play safe by declaring an interest, even though I do not think that I have one. As I do not know what the secondary legislation will be, I should declare an interest because I know how paranoid the House is about the issue of interests.

  623
  We have heard a clutch of very good maiden speeches that augur well for the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) rightly warmly praised his predecessor, Tom King, for his long and distinguished service to the House. My hon. Friend also rightly spoke about the importance of local industry and touched on the dangers of building on flood plains. That problem is not exclusive to his constituency and it is one that we should adequately and urgently address.
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) took the high-risk strategy of praising his football club. That normally produces howls of derision, and it nearly did so in this case, but his remarks fell into place when he mentioned his predecessors, Enoch Powell and Nick Budgen. His speech bodes well for the future and I look forward to his carrying forward the Wolverhampton, South-West policy of individualism. That will regularly get him into hot water, but it will be entertaining for everyone else.
  The hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) is unfortunately not present, but I am glad that she was generous to her predecessor, Mo Mowlam. We all had affection for Mo when she was in the House and we still do. The hon. Lady made a positive speech. Although I did not sign up to everything in it, that is the privilege of an uninterrupted maiden speech. I am sure that there will be more to come from that source in the fullness of time.
  The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) spoke affectionately of Giles Radice—a Wykehamist, if I remember rightly—and his struggles to try to keep the Labour party away from extremism in the past. We welcome that contribution, too.
  I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) to the band of Conservative Members in Hertfordshire of whom I am a humble and insignificant member. I welcome his powerful speech and the tribute that he paid to his predecessor, Bowen Wells—a true friend of mine—and to the work that he did. My hon. Friend's speech led on to the importance of freedom, and that point should be stressed in Committee when the time comes.
  Like other Conservative Members, I offer the Bill a warm welcome. The Conservative Government established the Scott inquiry, which, almost five years ago, concluded that our system of controls over defence equipment exports was inefficient and, out of date and should be replaced by modern procedures appropriate to the post cold war era. We accepted that view in July 1996 and welcome the Government's decision to follow that advice. The Bill is necessary.
  As Ministers will appreciate, however, we have some specific concerns about the Bill, and I shall mention some today and some in Committee. It is serious and an abuse of parliamentary democracy that we do not have secondary legislation before us while the Bill is being discussed. It is amazing that we shall go into Committee in a mad rush a week tomorrow and the chances are that we shall not have the secondary legislation before us then.
  Secondary legislation will make up the teeth of the Bill. We will not know how it will work or what it will do until we see it. We are signing up blind and that is a serious error and a slap in the face for the Quadripartite
  624
  Committee, which strongly recommended that the details of the secondary legislation should be in place even before the Bill was debated on Second Reading.
  The Minister may argue that the rush to Second Reading and into Committee is the result of the Government's wish to show good intent to the United States Government in line with the memorandum of understanding that was signed by the Secretary of State for Defence. However, if that argument is used, I merely point out to the Government that the past four years would have been better spent working out the secondary legislation than worrying about other "vital" matters such as the future of hunting. I wish that we had the secondary legislation so that we could discuss it.
  The Secretary of State came to the House with many warm words, but it was a lot of spin and not much substance. She produced distressing examples of what weaponry can do, and the House sympathises with those cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) agreed that they were serious and sad, but when he asked about British involvement, an answer was not forthcoming. The right hon. Lady made a virtue of the fact that the response to the Quadripartite Committee's report was announced this morning, but it is not good enough to produce it just before a Second Reading debate on the subject. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) made that point effectively and forcefully.
  The Secretary of State told us how clause 5 will bring controls to brokering and trafficking. I hope that it does, but she was a tad short of the details on how it will work. No doubt it would be embarrassing to give those without referring to the secondary legislation. The right hon. Lady mentioned that the Defence Manufacturers Association welcomes the Bill, but she omitted to follow up its concerns and those of other organisations about the bureaucracy, increased costs and practical operation of the Bill. I hate to support the Liberal Democrats, but the Secretary of State definitely dodged the question that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) asked about how brokers with a UK passport who operate abroad might be tackled. We heard nothing on that. The right hon. Lady also said that clauses 2 and 4 will stop electronic transmissions, but again she was short on the detail of how they will do so.
  I am not able to address all the points that were made—they were, in the main, pertinent and relevant—but if I had to sum up the debate I would say that it was sincere. There was not too much political posturing and the views were genuinely held. I pay tribute to the House for that.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) referred to the importance of industry. That has even wider implications because we might be facing a manufacturing recession. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing made the broader point that, unless we are careful, our actions could have an impact on university research programmes, on whose intellectual information we rely to drive the nation forward. He also gave a powerful example to drive home the difficulties of forcing aspects of the Bill on overseas companies. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) raised Oxfam's concerns, which I hope the Minister will address.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot rightly said that the 1939 Act has not done too badly for the past 61 or 62 years, but that it is in need of modernisation. He

  625
  also spoke of the importance of defence in creating a country that is secure from external attack. If one accepts that that is the first duty of any Administration in any country, then it is a powerful argument in defence of our defence industry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) correctly emphasised the delay in the delivery of the Bill. The remark,
  "If you prick us, do we not bleed?"
  was apposite at that time with regard to Labour Members. I support what he said about enforcement. I hope that the Committee will have a short time to discuss that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East rightly drew attention to the lack of secondary legislation to guide our affairs and reinforced the Oxfam and NGO arguments that were introduced by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston.
  It is difficult in a short time accurately to set out the Opposition's view and our concerns. We share the Secretary of State's view that the existing controls on the physical export of defence equipment are no longer appropriate, but I do not subscribe to the view that the Government have a good record of operating those controls. They have failed to meet their targets for processing 70 per cent. of standard individual export licence applications within 20 days: last year, the figure was only 57 per cent. Their record on appeals has been described in the Chamber as even worse.
  Defence manufacturers have expressed their concerns, and they told me last week that some applications have taken between two and a half and three years to be processed: that is unacceptable by any standards. The costs have had to be absorbed by manufacturers. Other organisations that sell equipment overseas have been subject to such delays. I declare an interest in the machine tool industry, in which companies that make equipment have suffered from delays in the handling of licences.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. Friend comment on Sir Richard Scott's recommendation that there should be a default system whereby, if a licence is not issued within a certain period, the application should be deemed to have been successful?
  Mr. Page: That idea should be adequately investigated in Committee. Unfortunately, I am concerned that the draconian time reduction in the Government's programming means that there will not be enough time to develop that argument, which is perfectly legitimate and should be available to our manufacturers as a form of recompense.
  We seem to be envisaging the Bill as a catch-all—a considerable extension of bureaucratic controls. The Government are confident that the measures will have only a modest bureaucratic impact, but that view is not shared by the Defence Manufacturers Association or the Society of British Aerospace Companies, both of which believe that there will be a significant rise in the number of inquiries made of the Department of Trade and Industry. We recognise that the Department is only a postbox for inquiries, which go on to be dealt with by the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office.
  There will also be a rise in the number of export licence applications. Last week, the SBAC estimated that there could be a fourfold increase in licensing activity.
  626
  The measures will represent a significant additional burden for large firms. For small and medium-sized businesses, it could be too much to bear. The CBI has made known its concerns about the difficulties that the extra work could cause. I am afraid that the cost to our companies will be high. We can see that the red tape machine inside the Government is alive and well, and producing.
  I must take issue with the costs in the explanatory notes. The estimate that implementation of the measures will cost £800,000 in the first year, and £500,000 in subsequent years, is not only low but absolutely ridiculous.
  Time has beaten me, and I am prevented from tackling all the issues that I wanted to mention, including the enforcement difficulties posed by electronic transmission, the question of what records have to be kept by companies to protect themselves and what will happen to employees working overseas. No doubt, some of that will come out in Committee. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bill is necessary: whether it is sufficient or goes too far is another matter. No doubt time, and the Committee stage, will tell.
  9.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): The Export Control Bill is the product of four years' work and is the culmination of a series of great improvements that will ensure that the United Kingdom has one of the most effective, comprehensive, open and transparent export control regimes in the world. Today, we heard a number of quality contributions from right hon. and hon. Members; there were five exceptional maiden speeches and several embarrassing references to myself—it is not so much "The Mummy Returns" as "The Minister returns".
  We want to create a world climate of non-proliferation. We have demonstrated our commitment to non-proliferation by greatly reducing our holdings of nuclear weapons. We have signed and ratified the comprehensive test ban treaty and, clearly, we have made significant changes to the export control regime since coming to power in 1997. Five memorable maiden speeches were given in the House today, the first by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who spoke eloquently and warmly of our colleague Mo Mowlam and the fact that the constituency had produced two successive women MPs. We hope and trust that Redcar has produced two exceptional MPs.
  The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) paid a fitting tribute to his predecessor, Tom King, and his towering role in the House. The hon. Gentleman listed manufacturing success stories and spoke about tourism, farming and flooding; he will be a doughty fighter, I am sure, for his constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris)— or perhaps I should say my hon. Friend the Member for the city of Wolverhampton, South-West—showed an immediate and impressive grasp of Second Readings in the House. He, too, praised the much admired work of his predecessor, Jenny Jones—especially her work on abolishing the death penalty. His mention of his local paper, the Express and Star, will, I am sure, mean that he will be given a long honeymoon.

  627
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) demonstrated his keen knowledge of his constituency and made a relevant contribution to the debate. He also demonstrated his detailed knowledge of the many companies involved in defence projects, and brings to the House a wealth of experience from the manufacturing sector. Last, but certainly not least, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), paid tribute to Bowen Wells, a much respected Member of Parliament who chaired the Select Committee on International Development. In a wide-ranging maiden speech, which covered the defence and aviation sectors, the hon. Gentleman's remarks on the need to challenge Government are well timed; I hope that he devotes his parliamentary career to that cause.
  It was a pleasure to listen to all those speeches and many others. Several thoughtful comments have been made by colleagues, and I should like to deal with them as they arise in the Bill. Before doing so, however, I shall take up several points made by members of the Quadripartite Committee and others. Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), asked about prior parliamentary scrutiny. As she will acknowledge, we have introduced more scrutiny in the past four years than there has been in the past 50 years of the operation of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939.
  The Bill ensures that, for the first time, annual reports are required to be published by statute. For the past three years, each report has been more informative than the last, mainly in response to comments from the Quadripartite Committee and organisations like Saferworld, Amnesty and Oxfam. The reports themselves now allow much more effective scrutiny after decisions have been taken. We shall soon report our conclusions on prior parliamentary scrutiny to the House in our detailed response to the Quadripartite Committee report.
  The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) alleged that the Government had done nothing on export control for four years. I have to ask him what he calls the weighty documents that have been published. There are 668 pages, many of which detail the firm action that we have taken. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that we have banned the import, export, transfer and manufacture of all forms of anti-personnel land mines, as has been mentioned, as well as the export and trans-shipment through the UK of torture equipment? We have also published national criteria against which UK export licence applications are judged, and have worked with our EU colleagues to develop an EU code of conduct on arms exports, which we consolidated into our national criteria in October 2000.
  We have taken many other measures, and it was uncharacteristic of the right hon. Member for Wells not to give credit to the Government and my right hon. Friend the new Leader of the House of Commons, the original architect of so much of the drive to modernise. We published the White Paper on the legislation in 1998. In the light of the many comments that were made, we have gone significantly further than its proposals on trafficking and brokering, which have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The right hon. Member for Wells suggested that the Bill might place an excessive burden on British industry. We are working closely with industry and others to ensure
  628
  that we achieve targeted and effective controls without overburdening legitimate business. Let us consider the industry's constructive and positive attitude to the Bill. A recent CBI press release states:
  "The CBI welcomes this legislation. Business supports the need for strategic export controls, including improved accountability."
  We are sure that that will prove possible.
  The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the time taken to provide the response to the Quadripartite Committee and was concerned that it was published only this morning. The response to the Committee's line, which was set out in the report published on 9 April, has been published within the two-month period that is conventional for a Government response to such reports. We will respond to the Committee's other report as soon as possible.
  The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) spoke about the performance of the Department of Trade and Industry on licensing. I assure the House that all applications are processed expeditiously and with care. The whole House will realise that some cases cause particular concern and raise especially difficult issues, and therefore take longer to process.
  Many hon. Members asked for proper and even better checks to be made by our overseas staff in embassies and consulates abroad. All that takes time. Concern was expressed about the fact that in 2000, 57 per cent. of processed standard individual export licence applications were within target. The figure has so far risen to 62 per cent. this year and we are working to improve it still further.
  The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) asked why the Bill did not deal with licensed production overseas and said that its absence would leave a gaping hole in UK legislation. Following consultation on the Bill, the Government have concluded that specific measures in primary legislation are not the best way of dealing with licensed production. We set out in the consultation document a range of options, of which primary legislation was only one.
  It is simply not true to say that there is a gaping hole in our export control legislation. The Government already control the export of technology needed to set up such production overseas, as well as the export of production equipment and components especially designed for military use. We continue to believe that the surest way to prevent diversion is not to let the technology or other equipment out of the UK in the first place. We must certainly not let it get to any place where we fear that products may be diverted for illegal purposes.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
  Nigel Griffiths: I hope to come to the hon. Gentleman in a minute. I am keen to respond to as many points as possible.
  The hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) mentioned the Export Credits Guarantee Department. The hon. Member for Twickenham also mentioned a recent Saferworld report

  629
  and allegations of subsidies. I am aware of allegations about the amount of the subsidy. A forthcoming Ministry of Defence study will tackle them, and we do not expect it to justify the claims in the report. The ECGD charges a premium for the business that it supports; it is required to run its credit insurance operations as a business and to generate sufficient reserves to break even. It has contributed money to the Exchequer in the past few years. It also puts United Kingdom exporters on an equal footing with overseas competitors, who receive similar support from their Governments.
  ECGD support for exports to the poorest countries is limited to those that back economic and social recovery. It does not support exports of defence equipment to other countries unless a valid export licence is obtained.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) asked about end-use monitoring. Sadly, that is the best example of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. End-use or follow-up monitoring can confirm misuse or illegal diversion only after they have taken place, when it offers minimal opportunity of effective action. Several examples have been cited this evening.
  The most effective way to ensure that products and technologies do not get into the hands of unscrupulous end users is to refuse an export licence when there is a risk of such an outcome. The Government therefore set our overseas posts the task of considering proposed end users when we have ground for anxiety.
  We monitor reports from human rights activists, international organisations, non-governmental organisations, journalists and even, I suspect, my hon. Friends. The end user's track record is taken into account. Our latest annual report on strategic export controls shows that the reason for the second highest number of export licence refusals is the risk of diversion or re-export to undesirable end users. That shows that we share the aims of the Quadripartite Committee, Amnesty and Oxfam. Our latest report covers the matter, but the powers that the Bill proposes do not limit the introduction of further improvement to the rules on end-user certification.
  The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) asked whether the powers were too broad. We need to be able to adapt controls to fulfil our obligations under the international export control regimes. However, we have made changes to deal with the anxieties of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in another place about the extent of specific measures in the draft Bill.
  The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) suggested that the Bill is defective because it does not repeal the import section of the 1939 Act. The Committee recommended that we consulted about the clauses to repeal those import powers. We have considered the recommendation carefully. We believe that the controls effect import control regimes under specific United Nations Security Council resolutions. Those regimes are subject to full parliamentary scrutiny procedures and the import powers do not give rise to the sort of issues raised by export control provisions.
  If hon. Members wish me to respond to other matters, I shall be happy to do so.
  We led the world in halting the manufacture and export of anti-personnel land mines. We banned UK dealers from trading in torture equipment such as electric shock batons. The Bill enshrines our policy to deny export licences to any regime for any product or technology intended for internal repression. It ensures that the UK has one of the
  630
  most effective, comprehensive, open and transparent export control regimes in the world, and that even the latest technology cannot be used to evade our tough export controls. The Bill puts Britain at the forefront of international efforts to control an explosion of illegal weapons, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  EXPORT CONTROL BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Export Control Bill:

  EXPORT CONTROL BILL (PROGRAMME)
    Committal
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
    Programming of proceedings
    2. Proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further message from the Lords) shall be programmed.

    Standing Committee
    3.—(1) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 23rd October 2001.
    (2) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    4.—(1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
    (2) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
    The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 62.

    Division No. 16]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Berry, Roger

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Best, Harold

    Ainger, Nick

    Betts, Clive

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Alexander, Douglas

    Blizzard, Bob

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Borrow, David

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Austin, John

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Bailey, Adrian

    Brennan, Kevin

    Baird, Vera

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Banks, Tony

    Barnes, Harry

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Barron, Kevin

    Browne, Desmond

    Battle, John

    Bryant, Chris

    Bayley, Hugh

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Beard, Nigel

    Burden, Richard

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Burgon, Colin

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Burnham, Andy

    Benn, Hilary

    Cairns, David

    Bennett, Andrew

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Benton, Joe

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    631

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Havard, Dai

    Cann, Jamie

    Healey, John

    Caplin, Ivor

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Casale, Roger

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Caton, Martin

    Hendrick, Mark

    Cawsey, Ian

    Heppell, John

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Chaytor, David

    Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hill, Keith

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clelland, David

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hope, Phil

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Coleman, Iain

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Colman, Tony

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Connarty, Michael

    Hutton, John

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Illsley, Eric

    Corston, Jean

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Cousins, Jim

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Jamieson, David

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    David, Wayne

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Joyce, Eric

    Dismore, Andrew

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dobbin, Jim

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Doran, Frank

    Kemp, Fraser

    Dowd, Jim

    Khabra, Piara S

    Drew, David

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Efford, Clive

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Ennis, Jeff

    Lammy, David

    Etherington, Bill

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Farrelly, Paul

    Laxton, Bob

    Reid, Mark (Cities of London)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Fisher, Mark

    Lepper, David

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Leslie, Christopher

    Flint, Caroline

    Levitt, Tom

    Flynn, Paul

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Follett, Barbara

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Linton, Martin

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Lloyd, Tony

    Foulkes, George

    Love, Andrew

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    Lucas, Ian

    Gapes, Mike

    Luke, Iain

    Gardiner, Barry

    Lyons, John

    Gerrard, Neil

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    McCabe, Stephen

    Gilroy, Linda

    McCafferty, Chris

    Godsiff, Roger

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Goggins, Paul

    McDonnell, John

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McFall, John

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Grogan, John

    McKechin, Ann

    Hain, Peter

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McNulty, Tony

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    MacShane, Denis

    Hanson, David

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    McWalter, Tony

    632

    McWilliam, John

    Ryan, Joan

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Salter, Martin

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Mallaber, Judy

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Sawfond, Phil

    Mann, John

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Marris, Rob

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Simon, Siôn

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Martlew, Eric

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Meale, Alan

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Merron, Gillian

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Soley, Clive

    Miliband, David

    Southworth, Helen

    Miller, Andrew

    Squire, Rachel

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Moffatt, Laura

    Stevenson, George

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Moran, Margaret

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Morgan, Julie

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Morley, Elliot

    Stringer, Graham

    Mountford, Kali

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Mullin, Chris

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Tami, Mark

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Timms, Stephen

    O'Neill, Martin

    Tipping, Paddy

    Organ, Diana

    Todd, Mark

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Touhig, Don

    Owen Albert

    Trickett, Jon

    Palmer Dr Nick

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Pearson, Ian

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Perham, Linda

    Tynan, Bill

    Picking, Anne

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Plaskitt, James

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Pond, Chris

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Pope, Greg

    Wareing, Robert N

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Watts, David

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    White Brian

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Purchase, Ken

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Wills, Michael

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Winnick, David

    Rapson, Syd

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    Woolas, Phil

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Worthington, Tony

    Wray, James

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Rooney, Terry

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Ross, Ernie

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Roy, Frank

    Ruane, Chris

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Ruddock, Joan

    Jim Fitzpatrick and

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Dan Norris.

    NOES

    Barker, Greg

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Barrett, John

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Berth, Rt Hon A J

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Chidgey, David

    Brake, Tom

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Brooke, Annette

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Doughty, Sue

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Evans, Nigel

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Rook, Adrian

    Francois, Mark

    633

    Gibb, Nick

    Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

    Goodman, Paul

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Gray, James

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Grayling, Chris

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

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

    Hermon, Lady

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Swayne, Desmond

    Lamb, Norman

    Swire, Hugo

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Trend, Michael

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Tyler, Paul

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    Viggers, Peter

    Öpik, Lembit

    Whittingdale, John

    Page, Richard

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Paterson, Owen

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Price, Adam

    Prisk, Mark

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Pugh, Dr John

    Mr. Douglas Hogg and

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Mr. Eric Forth.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  EXPORT CONTROL BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Export Control Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses of a government department incurred in consequence of the Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act.—[Mr. Caplin.]

  Question agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 June],
  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.—[Mr. Caplin.]
  Hon. Members Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.—[Mr. Caplin.]

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

  Elections (Belarus)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Michael Trend: As this is my first opportunity to do so, may I welcome the Minister to his new position? He will know that I am raising the issue of Belarus as a governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which is ably led by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). It continues to make good progress in countries newly arrived at democracy and civic society around the world. Indeed, sitting in at European Union summits such as that held in Gothenburg a few weeks ago are a number of aspirant countries which only a few years ago were bound fast into a system wholly opposed to the democratic process.
  The Westminster Foundation for Democracy's earlier work in countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary has played a significant part in bringing nations through the often painful and difficult transition from tyranny to democracy. However, there remains much for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to do. Recently, it has been busy in Bosnia and Kosovo. Currently, we are all thinking about the position in Macedonia.
  Much work also goes on in other parts of the world, especially in Africa, and I am thinking particularly of Nigeria, Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone. We should commend the work of the professional staff who work for the WFD and also that of the non-party governors. The House should also recognise that the co-operation of our political parties in the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is a testimony to what we as Members of Parliament can achieve together in the important work of representing our country's basic values overseas.
  This is the third time in 12 months that I have brought before the House the current situation in Belarus, and I make no apologies for doing so. The people of Belarus have severe difficulty in getting their voice heard in the world, and it is surely our duty to help give them a voice. Belarus has the worst human rights record of any European country; with the fall of Milosevic in Yugoslavia, Belarus's President Lukashenko holds the unenviable title of our continent's most despotic and tyrannical leader. Belarus is in crisis again at this very moment.
  I visited Minsk last year. In a subsequent debate in Westminster Hall, I described the atmosphere of oppression and fear that exists in Belarus—whose ruling elite is proud still to run its own KGB and quite aggressively to call it that. Last year we also had a powerful report from Amnesty International, which, sadly, often reminded one of its earlier excellent work in the former Soviet Union. Belarus is a country where prominent public figures still all too often flee into exile or are disappeared or murdered.
  All is not gloom in Belarus, however. The country has developed a remarkably cohesive democratic opposition, which approached last year's elections to Lukashenko's puppet parliament in a united spirit of defiance. I asked the Government for their reaction and was told that they endorsed the assessment of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe mission, that the elections did

  635
  not meet international standards for democratic process. A parliamentary troika drawn from the European Parliament, the OSCE and the Council of Europe reached a similar conclusion.
  Last December, I returned to the subject in the Chamber, in particular to criticise the withdrawal of the British Council from Minsk. We should not lose sight of that mistaken and shameful act. I was pleased to see that the Foreign Affairs Committee followed up the cause and gave the British Council a hard time in January at one of its evidence sessions.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who has a distinguished record on Belarus matters, did well to attack the view, shared by the British Council and the Foreign Office, that Belarus had a "relative lack of importance"—a direct quotation from the British Council's statement. Dr. Baker of the British Council told the Committee that the matter was
  "certainly discussed with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and we both concluded that Belarus was not a high priority."
  What a sorry state of affairs. Much has changed for the better in the British Council in recent years, but I am very sorry that the generation that regarded part of its responsibility as working with the oppressed against their oppressors seems to have been superseded.
  In sending the wrong signal to Belarus, we betray all those brave men and women in its political parties, trade unions and non-governmental organisations, across the political spectrum, who are struggling to establish the most basic human rights in their country. I ask the Government urgently to review the decision and restore the British Council's presence in Belarus.
  Belarus faces a presidential election, set for 9 September. The four basic conditions laid down for last year's elections, which were not met then, have still not even been addressed. First, Belarus still needs a fully powered, properly functioned parliament, as part of a proper division of powers, for President Lukashenko still rules by decree. Secondly, Belarus's electoral legislation still needs thoroughgoing reform. Thirdly, there is still no guaranteed real and regular access to the state-run electronic media. Fourthly, and in many ways most important, there has been no effective or visible change in the political atmosphere.
  In other words, there has been no end to political repression. Indeed, in many ways it has got worse. This March, the president issued a decree banning any outside help for the democrats and enabling the authorities to block the activities of political parties and NGOs directly involved in the process of preparation for the presidential elections, including such simple matters—simple to us, at least—as collecting signatures, distributing leaflets and direct campaigning.
  The decree was followed by demonstrations in Minsk on 25 March, during which Mr. Vintsuk Viachorka and Mr. Ales Belyatsky, respectively chairman and deputy chairman of the Belarus Popular Front, were arrested and imprisoned. Again, I tabled questions to the Foreign Office to discover the Government's view of the matter and was told eventually that the Government, together with EU partners, had delivered a dèmarche to the Belarus authorities about the cases, for which we are grateful.
  636
  Meanwhile, however, it is left to the OSCE to make the running in Minsk. In April, the Belarus authorities ludicrously accused the OSCE of training spies rather than election observers. The OSCE robustly denied that, insisting that the observers' work was both legitimate and necessary. Later the same month, Freimut Duve, the OSCE representative on freedom and media, publicly cancelled his scheduled visit to Belarus, stating that he could not accept what he called
  "severe interference in the independence of his OSCE institution by a participating state".
  There is here a clear pattern of persecution by the Belarus authorities of the OSCE. We should admire the OSCE's stand and further regret the fact that the British Government were not so robust over the British Council presence in Minsk.
  Persecution in the run-up to Belarus's presidential elections spreads much wider. The bigger picture was well summarised by the deputy chief of the US OSCE mission, Josiah B. Rosenblatt, a few days ago. His view closely reflects the tougher thinking of the US Government. Mr. Rosenblatt points out that the presidential elections present Belarus with an opportunity to end its self-imposed isolation. He says that Belarus needs in particular to release political prisoners Andrei Klimov and Valery Shchukin and account for the missing, among whom are the former Minister of Internal Affairs, Yury Zakharenko, the Deputy Chairman of the legitimate Representative Assembly, Viktor Gonchar, and his associate, Anatoly Krasovsky, as well as the television cameraman, Dmitri Zavadsky.
  Mr. Rosenblatt added that Belarus must allow all candidates equal access to the state media; cease the arbitrary disqualification of candidates; and enable the electoral commission to ensure that the votes are counted accurately. But the problems are starting even earlier in the process in Belarus. At the moment, evidence is mounting from all over the country that opposition parties are deliberately being excluded from the local territorial electoral commissions. It appears that none of the 600 applications nationwide made by the opposition or the presidential candidates to the commissions have been accepted by the state authorities. Lukashenko is forming the electoral commission for his own presidential election on his own. The Belarus Helsinki Committee states that it has been formed in violation of the law.
  In the past few weeks, further worrying developments have taken place. While it has always been difficult to get the western media to take an interest in Belarus, a story of the sort our media understands has broken into news reports. Among others, the BBC has reported on the allegations that a death squad working for the country's senior leadership has assassinated key political opponents of President Lukashenko. That is not a new claim, but for the first time it has been made by insiders—two former staff members of the state prosecutor's office, one of whom was formerly one of the investigating officers in the Zavadsky case. In particular, they allege the complicity of the country's leadership in the murders of Mr. Zakharenko, Mr. Gonchar and Mr. Zavadsky, all of whom I mentioned earlier in a context in which it was hoped they might still be alive. In all, it is claimed that there have been more than 30 murders.
  The stakes are already high and will, no doubt, rise yet higher in the run-up to the Belarus presidential election. I have every confidence in our diplomatic presence in

  637
  Minsk, but I urge Ministers to follow events closely. I also have every confidence that the united opposition forces will agree on one joint significant candidate for president—it will have to be a very brave person—to represent them all. That individual will need all possible practical help as well as maximum moral support.
  What else can we do to help? The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly is meeting in Paris and I very much hope that progress will be made there to extend its tough line against Lukashenko. I believe the British Government should also speak out and strongly condemn tyranny in Belarus. In particular, I would urge the Government to bring what pressure they can to bear on the Belarus authorities to form their electoral commissions in a proper and acceptable way. It is also vital to send a clear message to Lukashenko that all contenders in the presidential election must have equal access to the mass media.
  Moreover, every effort should be made to insist that both domestic and international observers are allowed to scrutinise the election. We need to be sure that the registration of the presidential candidates and a most curious and suspect procedure for early voting in Belarus will be watched with as much care as the main polling process. We must also tell Lukashenko in the clearest terms that threatening political opponents and opposition parties, and creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, will not be tolerated.
  Some might say that we have little power to influence a country such as Belarus, but I do not agree. The work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy became necessary because, in the not-too-distant past, we bore down heavily on countries where oppression was the order of the day. We did that in many ways, but especially by refusing to accept the legion of lies that support the totalitarian structures of such states. Each little lie is a vital part of the great lie that sustains tyranny, and each blow we make chips away at its foundations. In this case, we must make it quite clear to Lukashenko that if he does not observe the basic minimum standards we expect, we shall refuse to recognise the validity, the legitimacy, of the election, and we should make that clear in advance.
  In today's Belarus, an event the like of which we thought—we hoped—had disappeared into European history is going on. I believe that our Government should take a lead in condemning the corrupt processes of the Belarusian presidential election. This policy could and should be a centrepiece of a new approach by the Foreign Office ministerial team. Here is a country where the police are far more efficient at harassing their own citizens than in combating the ever-growing flood of drug trafficking and organised crime. This is a country that we very much hope will soon share a border with the European Union. A former Home Secretary, now at the Foreign Office, will surely understand the importance of that.
  Here is a country which, in one way or another, understands its need for western investment and economic assistance. Britain and the European Union have clear self-interest in the condition of Belarus and real leverage on the situation there. Here also is a cause—the cause of liberty—that we in Britain should champion, as we did those of other central and eastern European countries not so many years ago. I ask the Government to speak with a clear and urgent voice on this matter.
  10.31 am
  The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): I thank the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) for initiating this debate on Belarus. He is an experienced observer of Belarus politics, and his interest, energy and expertise are very welcome, as is his work for the admirable Westminster Foundation for Democracy. Like him, I think it long overdue that the torch of liberty should be lit in Belarus. I congratulate him on keeping that flame alive and for drawing the House's attention to that need.
  The hon. Gentleman has developed close links with the centre right United Civic party and the Belarusian Popular Front. I know that he has gained the trust of the leaders of those two parties, Mr. Anatoly Lebedko and Mr. Vintsuk Viachorka. As he knows, the Government have a great deal of respect for these and other democrats in Belarus, as was shown last November when they visited London and called on my predecessor.
  The hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate last July came at a time when Belarus was preparing for parliamentary elections in October. The international community hoped that Belarus would use that opportunity to take a tangible step towards democracy. Unfortunately, those hopes were not fulfilled. Belarus has now entered another crucial pre-election stage, with presidential elections to be held on 9 September.
  Let me turn to the British Council closure, about which the hon. Gentleman, to his credit, has kept badgering the Foreign Office. The decision to close the British Council operation in Minsk followed a strategic review by the council designed to maximise effectiveness world wide. This focuses resources on countries where the Council can achieve greatest impact in support of British interests. It is important to stress, however, that council activity has not ceased. Through its offices in neighbouring countries, the council continues to co-ordinate Foreign Office Chevening scholarships for Belarusian students, youth exchange visits, Department for International Development regional academic partnerships with Belarusian universities and examinations work. The council enabled 92 Belarusians to sit British examinations in June this year alone.
  It is also important to stress that the closure of the British Council does not affect our support for civil society, human rights and democracy-building projects. That support is not dependent on the presence of a British Council office. The Government have recently funded projects such as a domestic election observation network; a human rights conference and workshop organised by the British East-West Centre; a freedom of the media workshop organised by the OSCE's media freedom expert, Freimut Duve; a United Nations Development Programme project to improve the legal framework under which Belarusian non-governmental organisations operate, and funding for four Belarusian journalists and two NGO representatives on a United Kingdom study tour of the British election.
  Belarus occupies a strategic position in Europe, as the hon. Gentleman said. It is set to be a neighbour of an enlarged European Union and it borders NATO. Given the country's strategic location in the east of the continent, it is extremely regrettable that Belarus, which promised so much at independence in 1991, cannot be regarded in any sense as a member of the family of democratic European states.

  639
  From the hon. Gentleman's contacts and visits, he will be familiar with the nature of Mr. Lukashenko's regime. The flawed Belarus referendum in November 1996 significantly increased Mr. Lukashenko's powers; undemocratically and unconstitutionally extended his term of office until 2001; and undermined the democratically elected Parliament of the 13th Supreme Soviet. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Lukashenko continues to rule in an autocratic and increasingly idiosyncratic manner, preventing the development of civil society. He has ensured that no significant legislative powers have been granted to the National Assembly—a body that we and our partners do not recognise as legitimate. Crucially, the Assembly is unable to exert control over Government or president.
  The judiciary lacks independence. The judicial process is inconsistent and prone to abuse for political ends. The recent trial of eminent professor Yuri Bandazhevsky is an example of that. The professor had criticised the Government for suppressing information on the harmful effects of even small doses of the radiation resulting from the Chernobyl disaster. The British Government and the European Union are appalled at the harshness of the treatment received by the professor. The sentence of eight years hard labour for allegedly taking a bribe is vindictive; it was based on the testimony of one person and no material evidence was offered by the prosecution.
  In the face of that oppressive regime, our Government have a good track record of supporting projects—some of which I mentioned—which promote democracy and civil society, raise awareness of human rights issues and encourage objective, independent media in Belarus. We shall continue to look for such opportunities, and we hope that the Government of Belarus will not stand in our way. If the hon. Gentleman has any other suggestions, I shall be happy to receive them.
  In that regard, we are concerned about another negative development—the issue in March of presidential decree No. 8. The decree, which has brought condemnation from the British Government, in concert with the United States and our EU partners, regulates and limits the use of foreign financial assistance in Belarus. It has the potential to restrict the legitimate activities that we, the EU and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe choose to support in Belarus as a means of promoting democracy and civil society there.
  The OSCE's advisory and monitoring group is doing an excellent job carrying out its mandate under increasing pressure from the Belarus authorities. It is running good projects, some of which are directly funded by the UK. The head of the OSCE advisory and monitoring group has recently come under intense criticism for his activities and has even been threatened with expulsion by the Belarusian authorities. I deplore those attacks and, needless to say, we and the EU will continue to support the tireless efforts of Ambassador Wieck and his team. We hope that the recent criticisms from Mr. Lukashenko and some of those close to him in the Government will cease.
  Belarus had an opportunity to demonstrate to the international community that it was committed to taking a democratic path at last October's parliamentary elections. Regrettably, it did not seize that opportunity. The OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, which carried out limited observation of the elections,
  640
  concluded that they had failed to meet international democratic standards. As a result of that assessment, the EU does not recognise the legitimacy of the Belarus National Assembly.
  Like the hon. Gentleman, I was also alarmed at recent newspaper reports of the existence of so-called death squads in Belarus. Our embassy in Minsk is monitoring that situation closely, and will inform us of any evidence that substantiates reports of the alleged existence and operation of such death squads.
  On disappearances, Britain, together with our European Union partners, has, as the hon. Gentleman said, repeatedly called for the Belarusian authorities to investigate the disappearances of Viktor Gonchar, Deputy Chairman of the 13th Supreme Soviet; Mr. Gonchar's business associate, Anatoly Krasovsky; former Interior Minister, Yury Zakharenko; and television journalist for Russian ORT, Dmitri Zavadsky. The latest European Union declaration issued on 7 May—the second anniversary of Zakharenka's disappearance—urges the Belarusian authorities to do more to ascertain the fate of the disappeared, and it is part of the pressure that we are putting on them.
  As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, current European Union policy towards Belarus is based on the General Affairs Council conclusions of September 1997, which were adopted in response to Belarus's poor record on constitutional matters and human rights. Those conclusions include a restriction on bilateral ministerial contact; the suspension of aid to Belarus, except for projects that directly support humanitarian causes or the democratisation process; the suspension of the ratification of the EU-Belarus partnership and co-operation agreement; and an agreement by the EU member states to oppose Belarus's accession to the Council of Europe.
  The United States has a similarly restrictive policy towards Belarus. Of course, Britain and our European Union partners have no desire to isolate Belarus, but we remain very concerned about the continued dreadful human rights record, the harassment of opposition politicians and the failure of the Belarusian authorities to investigate the disappearance of several opposition sympathisers. We continue to receive reports of harassment of the independent media, with publishing houses being burgled or their printing presses impounded. We stand ready to review the General Affairs Council conclusions and to engage further with the Belarusian Administration when we see signs of steps towards democracy and respect for human rights.
  In a statement made on 11 June, the European Union made it clear that the holding of free and fair elections could be the step towards modernising relations with Belarus. I underline that message in the House this evening. Full, mutual beneficial relations would be to the advantage of all the citizens of Belarus and the EU, but policy has to change for that to be possible. EU Commissioner Chris Patten's tough statement on Belarus, delivered to the European Parliament on 5 July, shows that European Commission thinking at the highest level is very much in line with ours.
  The presidential elections of 9 September represent yet another opportunity for Mr. Lukashenko. It appears that he is a popular politician in his country, so I call on him to rise to the challenge of allowing democratically accountable presidential elections to take place in an environment free of intimidation, but I fear that that will

  641
  not happen. Following its visit to Minsk from 30 June to 2 July, the OSCE parliamentary working group to Minsk reported no improvement in political conditions in Belarus at all. In fact, it seems that the reverse is true.
  What does the international community want of Belarus? What do we mean by free and fair elections in that country? We want opposition candidates to have better access to the state-controlled media, coupled with objective political reporting in regular current affairs and news programming. We want the political campaign to be free of harassment, starting with the registration and signature-collecting phase that is under way at the moment. We want the electoral code to be implemented in such a way that those who have complaints against the system can seek and obtain redress. We want the voting and counting process to be transparent and reliable, and preferably to be observed by a full international observation mission under the authority of the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. It is not who wins but how that person wins that concerns us. We are concerned only with the fairness and transparency of the process, not with the individuals.
  642
  We should not overlook the pivotal role of Russia, either. As Belarus's closest ally and largest trading partner, Russia has more potential than any other country for exerting a positive influence on Belarus. I hope that Russia will seek to convince her neighbour of the need to conform with democratic norms appropriate to a member of the OSCE and to a Council of Europe aspirant. I hope, too, that the other neighbours of Belarus, including the Baltic states and Ukraine, will use their special relationship with Minsk to convey that message.
  We want to deepen our bilateral relationship with Belarus. The country is too important for us to neglect. The holding of free and fair democratic presidential elections will be a first important step in allowing us to realise our aim. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman and to receiving his representations to achieve the objective that we share.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Commonwealth Games 2002
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the Government's financial support for the 2002 Commonwealth Games. [94]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]The Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002 will be the biggest multi-sport event ever held in the United Kingdom. They will leave a lasting sporting, economic and social legacy.
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office explained, in evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee on 20 March 2001, that Manchester City Council, with the Government, had arranged a review of the finances and organisation of the Commonwealth Games in Manchester next year as a build up to the Games moves from the planning to the implementation phase.
  Following the review, conscious of the benefits the Games will bring to the nation as a whole, the Government have agreed to provide from existing resources up to £30 million to support the Games. Sport England has agreed to provide up to £30 million to support the Games' costs in addition to its existing contribution to capital facilities, and Manchester City Council will make available a further £45 million. £25 million of these funds will be held jointly by the three parties as a contingency fund. This support is additional to the £10.5 million which the Government have already made available towards the costs of the opening and closing ceremonies for the Commonwealth Games, and marks the full extent of the financial support that the Government are prepared to make available.

  The Government consider that this package should give the Games' organisation sufficient certainty to deliver the Games. Manchester City Council continues to retain ultimate financial responsibility for the Games.

  Discussions continue about the make up and timing of the package of financial support. The Government, Manchester City Council and Sport England will be working with the Games' organisers to strengthen the management arrangements for the control of expenditure.

  Culture Online
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the cost to public funds to date of developing Culture Online [91]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 tune 2001]The cost of public funds to date of developing Culture Online is £1,196,543. This has been spent on: producing illustrative materials outlining how Culture Online will operate;320W
  producing the Vision for Culture Online; providing a website to host these materials and the Vision; extensive consultation with the cultural and education sectors; market research; employing consultants to develop the business case for Culture Online; and employing lawyers to advise on Intellectual Property Rights issues for Culture Online.

  National Stadium
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the proposals for(a) Pickett's Lock athletics stadium and (b) Wembley Stadium. [1427]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) on 25 June 2001,Official Report, column 37W and to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on 2 July 2001, Official Report, column 80W.

  Community Sports Stadiums
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to expand community sports stadiums throughout the country. [2328]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government support the expansion of sport and leisure facilities through various means including direct funding from the Sports Lottery Fund, Space for Sports and Arts and the New Opportunities Fund. Our Plan for Sport sets out how we aim to encourage local authorities to carry out research into the existing sport and leisure facilities in their areas and recommends that each local authority should develop a sports strategy over the next five years which, through consultation with the relevant agencies, ensures that new and enhanced indoor and outdoor facilities provide equal opportunity for participation.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Government Finance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to publish his timetable for the review of local government finance; and if he will make a statement. [1084]

  Dr. Whitehead
  September's local government finance Green Paper set out our plans for reform of the local government finance system. An analysis of the responses we received on this and other issues was published on our website in March. A White Paper setting out our decisions on the way forward will be published later this year.

  Railways
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what moneys have been allocated to Scotland from the Railway Development Fund. [1397]
  321W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA's plans and priorities for development of the Rail Modernisation Fund will be set out in the Authority's Strategic Plan in the autumn. Funds will be allocated on the basis of value for money and affordability.

  Electoral Law
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to bring section 141 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 into force; how many persons who are(a) eligible and (b) registered to vote he estimates will be disfranchised as a result; and if he will make a statement. [1290]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Section 141 will be brought into force shortly, when the second Commencement Order for the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000 is laid.

  11,496 overseas electors were registered as of 15 February 2001. But there is no requirement on electoral administrators to provide information about how long overseas electors have been resident outside the UK. Hence the figures requested are not available.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what responsibilities his Department has for the sale of the Millennium Dome and the regeneration of the Greenwich site; and if he will make a statement. [1323]

  Ms Keeble
  My noble and learned Friend Lord Falconer is responsible in my Department for all issues relating to the future use of the Millennium Dome, including the sponsorship of English Partnerships, the Government's urban regeneration agency, which owns part of the Greenwich Peninsula, including the Dome site and the structure itself.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what responsibilities Lord Falconer has for the sale of the Millennium Dome and the regeneration of the Greenwich site; and if he will make a statement. [1322]

  Ms Keeble
  My noble and learned Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton is Minister for Housing and Planning. Among other duties he is responsible for urban policy and regeneration issues, which includes sponsorship of English Partnerships, the Government's urban regeneration agency. English Partnerships own the Dome site and other land. He is responsible for the Dome sale process.

  Public-Private Performance Comparisons
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what methods his Department uses to make direct comparisons of improved performance in the public and private sectors; and what have been the findings of this analysis since it was introduced. [2165]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department makes no direct comparisons between the private and public sectors. But the Government have introduced a comprehensive 322W
  framework for local government to enable it to improve service delivery through best value. All authorities are required to report their performance annually against key indicators, whether the service is delivered directly by the authority, or by private to sector providers. This information is published in authorities' Best Value Performance Plans by the end of March each year.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the outcome was of the Transport Council meeting held in Luxembourg on 27 to 28 June. [1746]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Transport Council met in Luxembourg on 28 June. I represented the United Kingdom, together with Sarah Boyack MSP, Minister for Transport in the Scottish Executive.

  The Council opened with debates on a number of maritime issues.

  A common position was adopted on the draft regulation putting into Community law the recent agreement reached in the International Maritime Organization (IMO) on the accelerated phasing in of double hull oil tankers.

  The Council reached a common orientation on a draft directive which seeks to improve controls on shipping movements, notably for vessels with hazardous cargoes. Two outstanding issues were debated. Firstly, the Commission introduced a new proposal giving a precise timetable for the retrofitting of Voyage Data Recorders (VDRs) to cargo vessels if no agreement was reached in the IMO. I was among Ministers unable to accept such a precise text. On the second issue, that of restrictions on ships leaving port in exceptionally bad weather or sea conditions, I joined others in expressing concern that legal uncertainties could arise. I also sought to clarify that a member state could only enforce reporting requirements on vessels in areas where it had jurisdiction in international law. A revised text was produced on which Ministers were able to reach common orientation, although I maintained a reserve on the VDR text.

  Common approaches were agreed for member states to negotiate in the IMO on the retrofitting of VDRs to cargo vessels, and in the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPCF) on an increase in the limits for compensation to be paid in cases of major oil spills.

  A common orientation was also agreed on a draft directive on the harmonisation of reporting formalities for ships. The aim of the proposal is to simplify procedures for ships arriving at and departing from Community ports, through the acceptance of a common set of IMO forms.

  The French Minister, Jean-Claude Gayssot, and I presented a joint proposal urging the Community to bring into force a number of International Conventions relating to marine liability and compensation and pollution from ships. We had, prior to the Council, jointly signed a letter on this issue to our EU counterparts.

  The Commissioner reported on the principal elements of the forthcoming White Paper on a strategy for the Common Transport Policy. She hoped that the White Paper would be adopted soon. It is expected to outline

  323W
  some 60 separate measures to address traffic congestion, increased mobility and demand, and sustainable development.

  Council Conclusions were adopted on the Galileo satellite navigation project. I joined other Ministers in noting that more work was needed on the selection of services, the cost-benefit analysis and the securing of private sector finance. The Commission on also presented a draft regulation on management of the development phase of Galileo by a joint undertaking.

  Over lunch, there was a discussion of the Commission's Single European Sky proposals, aimed at improving air traffic management in Europe and reducing delays.

  The Council discussed aircraft noise issues. The Commission reported on ongoing discussions with the US on hushkits, and said that, subject to developments at the General Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) in September, a proposal would be brought forward to replace the Hushkits Regulation.

  The Presidency presented a progress report on the proposed regulation to establish a European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). It sought agreement on two of the outstanding questions: coverage of third country aircraft, and the mechanism to appoint the Executive Director. The Council agreed that the Commission should bring forward proposals on application to third country aircraft, where justified, as part of future work on essential requirements for airline operations. The Council accepted that the executive Director of the EASA should be appointed by four-fifths majority of the Management Board, on the basis of a proposal by the Commission. There will be further discussion under the Belgian Presidency, notably on institutional aspects.

  The Council discussed an amendment to Regulation 2027/97 on air carrier liability, and political agreement was reached on a common position. The amendment will have the effect of increasing the levels of carriers' liability to passengers. The Council has already signed the Montreal Convention, with a view to ratification, and the two measures together significantly strengthen the protection afforded to air passengers in the Community.

  The Council agreed Conclusions affirming the voluntary agreements reached with airlines on air passenger rights.

  There was a progress report from the Commission on proposals to update the state aid rules and procurement procedures for public transport services by rail, road and inland waterway. The Commission indicated that there were difficulties in agreeing the proposal. Sarah Boyack noted the United Kingdom's support for the general principle of the regulation, but pointed out that its application to traditional and complex underground railway systems needed careful reflection.

  There was also a progress report on a draft directive on training of professional drivers for the carriage of goods or passengers.

  The Commission presented its proposals on three issues in the "road package": an amendment to Directive 91/439 on driving licences; an amendment to Regulation 3820/85 on drivers' hours; and an amendment to Directive 92/6 on
  324W
  the use of speed limitation devices, extending compulsory fitting of them to vehicles above 3.5 tonnes. No decisions were taken.

  Under other business, the Commission presented a new proposal on airport slot allocation. It also reported on the implementation of the package of rail transport measures adopted by the Council last year, noting its intention to propose a second package of measures, including a directive on rail safety regulation and the establishment of a European Rail Agency. Also under other business, the Commission reported on progress in aviation negotiations with Central and Eastern European countries and with Cyprus; co-operation with Euro-Mediterranean partners on transport and energy; and discussions with Russia on the issue of charges imposed for Siberian overflights.

  Bus Deregulation
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of deregulation on securing a comprehensive network of public bus services. [1730]

  Ms Keeble
  The historical impacts of bus deregulation in 1986 were studied closely in the policy review which preceded the 1998 Transport White Paper. In the decade after 1986, operated bus mileage outside London increased overall by 25 per cent. The position necessarily varies from place to place. It is primarily for local authorities, in developing their bus strategies within local transport plans, to assess the adequacy of the bus network and to take appropriate action within the framework of their new powers in the Transport Act 2000. We are making additional funding available through the rural bus grant and the rural and urban bus challenge schemes.

  A3
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the traffic figures for the A3 between Robin Hood roundabout and Roehampton Lane for each of the last 10 years. [1749]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The estimated annual average daily traffic flows for all motor vehicles on the A3 at Roehampton Vale from 1990 to 2000 are:

  Year

  Estimated annual average daily flow

  1991

  86,200

  1992

  87,400

  1993

  85,300

  1994

  79,900

  1995

  79,900

  1996

  80,800

  1997

  93,200

  1998

  92,500

  1999

  81,600

  2000

  76,400

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the accident figures for the A3 between Robin Hood roundabout and Roehampton Lane for each of the last 10 years. [1750]
  325W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Accidents on the A3 between the Robin Hood roundabout and Roehampton Lane: 1991–2000

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  All

  1991

  1

  5

  17

  23

  1992

  0

  3

  19

  22

  1993

  0

  2

  12

  14

  1994

  0

  1

  10

  11

  1995

  0

  1

  17

  18

  1996

  0

  4

  10

  14

  1997

  0

  2

  16

  18

  1998

  0

  0

  14

  14

  1999

  0

  0

  16

  16

  2000

  0

  0

  9

  9

  Kemble/Swindon Rail Track
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions his Department has had with Railtrack on the re-doubling of the track between Kemble and Swindon. [1656]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]None.

  East-West Rail Route
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to take forward the proposals in the Strategic Rail Authority's London East/West Study. [2211]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As my predecessor announced on 3 May 2001,Official Report, column 739W, under the guidance of the High-Level Group the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London are jointly taking forward work on project definition, including alternative service patterns, and design development of a central, cross-London, rail link, and a feasibility study of a south-west to north-east London rail link.

  The SRA continues to assess the other potential schemes identified in the London East-West Study.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when guidance will be issued to local planning authorities on new consultations on the siting of mobile phone masts. [2337]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 17W.

  Fire Brigade Training
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what methods are used by fire brigades to train those involved in decision making on arrival at an incident. [2314]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Training for incident command is undertaken at local, regional and national centres using live situations, simulations and virtual reality systems.
  326W
  Guidance has also been issued to the Fire Service on Incident Command. In 1999 Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate produced "The Fire Service Manual on Incident Command" to ensure national consistency in the command systems used by all the UK Fire Brigades.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what advice his Department has given to fire brigades about using virtual reality in training. [2313]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Although the Home Office did not issue formal guidance to the Fire Service on virtual reality training systems the importance of a national incident command system for the Fire Service is recognised. Fire Brigades were encouraged by the Home Office and will be encouraged by this Department to improve emergency incident management techniques by undertaking virtual reality training.

  Concessionary Travel
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what consideration was given to bus and rail travel concessions for the disabled in Scotland and Wales when guidance on this subject was last issued. [2663]

  Ms Keeble
  Under the provisions of the Transport Act 2000, elderly and disabled people in England and Wales are entitled to half fare—or better—on local bus services, and the necessary travel pass must be issued free of charge. Local authorities may offer greater concessions—for example less than half fare, and cheap travel on train or ferry services—if they wish, and many do.

  The Transport Act 2000 also requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to local authorities advising on how the eligibility criteria for disabled people should be applied when applications for travel passes are considered. My Department issued such guidance to local authority associations, the bus industry and disability interests on 31 May. It is available on my Department's website at www.dtlr.gov.uk/itwp/consult/cf/disabled/index.htm.

  Concessionary travel in Scotland and Wales is a devolved matter.

  Housing (Slough)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many permanent dwellings were completed in Slough by(a) private companies, (b) registered social landlords and (c) the local authority in each of the last five years. [2518]

  Ms Keeble
  Figures for the estimated number of new permanent dwellings completed in Slough, for private enterprise, registered social landlords and local authorities, for the last five financial years, are given in the table.

  Year

  Private enterprise

  Registered social landlords

  Local authority

  All dwellings

  1996–97

  287

  64

  0

  351

  1997–98

  316

  33

  0

  349

  1998–99

  341

  0

  0

  341

  1999–2000

  449

  0

  0

  449

  2000–01

  660

  41

  0

  701

  Positive Discrimination
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 22W, on positive discrimination, if he will publish the agenda and minutes of the recent seminar on women's representation in politics, indicating which officials attended the seminar; which other countries were represented; where the seminar was held and on what date; and what the total cost was of UK attendance at the seminar. [2839]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The seminar on Women's Representation in politics was organised by the Constitution Unit of University College, London.

  The seminar was held at 7 Millbank, London, on 26 June 2001. A small team of Government Officials from the Women's Unit of the Cabinet Office lead by my noble Friend Baroness Morgan, at no cost, were present at the seminar along with representatives from all sides of the House.

  There were speakers from France, Norway, Sweden and Germany and representatives from England and Scotland.

  The minutes from the seminar have not yet been made available by the University College, London.

  Al2 Bypass
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much of the Al2 bypass from Margaretting to Boreham has a concrete surface; and what plans there are to replace road surfaces on this road with a noise-reducing surface. [2820]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The whole of the Al2 bypass from Margaretting to Boreham has a concrete surface, apart from some isolated areas on bridge decks.

  In the Government's "Transport 2010—The Ten Year Plan" published in July 2000, we set a target of installing quieter surfacing on all concrete stretches of motorway arid trunk road by 2011.

  The timing of the work will be influenced by criteria which have been the subject of consultation with local authorities. The criteria have yet to be finalised but an announcement is anticipated this summer.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many staff were employed by the Strategic Rail Authority at the latest date for which figures available. [2868]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport on 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 13W.

  DVLA
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what appeal process is available to those who disagree with decisions by the DVLA to refuse driving licences. [2419]
  328W
  Mr. Jamieson
  A statutory right of appeal to a magistrates court in England and Wales and to a sheriff court in Scotland is available to those who disagree with DVLA's decision to revoke, restrict or to refuse to grant a driving licence.

  Driving Licences (Drugs)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on which date it was decided that persistent misuse of drugs was a relevant disability in respect of revocation of driving licences under section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1998. [2417]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Parliament decided that persistent misuse of drugs should be included in section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as a relevant disability when the draft legislation was approved by the House of Lords on 12 July 1996 and the House of Commons on 17 July 1996. The change took effect from 1 January 1997.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what research the DVLA based its decision to revoke driving licences on the grounds of persistent drug misuse in respect of(a) alcohol, (b) heroin, (c) medicinal drugs, (d) cannabis and (e) ecstasy. [2597]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In relation to alcohol and drug misuse, the medical standards for fitness to drive are based on the minimum health standards laid down in the Second EC Directive on driving licences and the expert advice of the Honorary Medical Advisory Panel on Alcohol, Drugs and Substance Misuse and Driving. The Panel keeps abreast of medical and pharmacological research at a domestic and international level.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many driving licence applications were(a) refused and (b) withdrawn, on the grounds of misuse of drugs in each of the past 10 years broken down by each drug involved. [2418]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Statistics specifically relating to these circumstances are available only for the last three financial years. Separate figures for refusals and revocations are not available, but total figures are as follows:

  Number

  1998–99

  285

  1999–2000

  354

  2000–01

  464

  No separate figures for each drug type are available.

  Home Zone Challenge Fund
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what arrangements have been made for local authorities to apply for funding from the home zone challenge fund. [3072]

  Ms Keeble
  My right hon. Friend has announced details of the arrangements for the Home Zone Challenge fund. All local traffic authorities in England are invited to apply for funding. Bids should be submitted by 3 October 2001. A copy of the guidance for the Home Zone
  329W
  Challenge has been sent to all eligible local authorities. A copy of the guidance has also been placed in the House Library.

  Local Authority Spending Formula
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the spending formula for local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [2589]

  Dr. Whitehead
  As part of our review of the grant distribution formulae for England, the Department published 'Modernising Local Government Finance: A Green Paper' in September 2000. The Green Paper includes an assessment of the existing formulae against our aims for a good local government finance system. In particular, the Green Paper argues that the formulae:Have become increasingly difficult to explain and understand;
  Rely too much on statistical analysis of spending, and do not recognise the extent to which past spending patterns are limited as indicators of patterns of future need;
  Have not always given authorities much certainty from year to year about the level of grant they might expect, hampering forward planning; and
  Do not allow for any fine-tuning to take account of the particular circumstances of individual authorities.
  The Green Paper consulted on a number of options which could address these concerns. We will publish our conclusions on the way forward in a White Paper later this year.

  Local government finance in Scotland and Wales is a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.

  Urban Capacity Studies
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will conduct a review of urban capacity studies completed by local authorities to ensure that they comply with the guidelines set out by his Department; and if he will place a freeze on MDA approvals pending the outcome of this review. [2586]

  Ms Keeble
  Local planning authorities are responsible for undertaking the urban housing capacity studies required by our planning guidance for housing (PPG3). We expect these studies to lead to updated development plans that give priority to reusing brownfields before developing greenfields. All proposals for housing development should be tested against the policies set out in PPG3 and local authorities are directed to consult the Secretary of State before giving planning permission for major housing developments on greenfield land allocated in their plans.

  Local Authority Debt
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average level of debt of local authorities in England and Wales is. [2949]
  330W
  Dr. Whitehead
  The average total debt (long and short term) for English local authorities, at 31 March 2000, was about £94 million. This figure covers London boroughs, Metropolitan districts, Unitary authorities, Shire counties and Shire districts.

  Total debt for each of these authorities, at 31 March 2000, is available at: http://www.local.dtlr.gov.uk/finance/stats

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if she will list the local authorities in England and Wales which are debt-free. [2948]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The 103 English local authorities listed have reported that they had debt-free status as at 1 April 2001.

  Barking and Dagenham

  Basingstoke and Deane

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Bedford

  Bracknell Forest Unitary Authority

  Breckland

  Broadland

  Bromley

  Bromsgrove

  Broxbourne

  Chichester

  Chiltern

  Christchurch

  City of London

  Congleton

  Corby

  Cotswold

  Crawley

  Dacorum

  Dartford

  Daventry

  Dorset

  East Cambridgeshire

  East Devon

  East Dorset

  East Hampshire

  Eden

  Elmbridge

  Epsom and Ewell

  Forest Heath

  Fylde

  Hambleton

  Harlow

  Hart

  Havant

  Hertsmere

  Horsham

  Huntingdonshire

  Rennet

  Lichfield

  Malvern Hills

  Mid Bedfordshire

  Mid Sussex

  Mole Valley

  North Devon

  331W

  North Dorset

  North Wiltshire

  Penwith

  Reigate and Banstead

  Runnymede

  Rushmoor

  Ryedale

  Salisbury

  Sevenoaks

  South Bucks

  South Cambridgeshire

  South Hams

  South Northamptonshire

  South Oxfordshire

  South Ribble

  South Shropshire

  South Somerset

  South Staffordshire

  Spelthorne

  St. Edmundsbury

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  Stevenage

  Stratford-on-Avon

  Suffolk Coastal

  Surrey Heath

  Swale

  Tandridge

  Tewkesbury

  Three Rivers

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  Tunbridge Wells

  Tynedale

  Uttlesford

  Vale of White Horse

  Watford

  WaverleyWelwyn Hatfield

  West Berkshire UA

  Windsor and Maidenhead Unitary Authority

  Annexe 1: List of the principal DFID supported bilateral projects1 over the past four years that contribute to animal conservation.

  Name of Project

  Country

  Period of support

  Amount (£)

  Mbomipa Community Wildlife

  Tanzania

  1997–2001

  1,973,000

  Wildlife Intensification for Livelihood Development (WILD)

  Namibia

  1999–2002

  1,040,000

  Madikwe Community Wildlife Management

  South Africa

  1997–99

  621,795

  Amboro Rural Development

  Bolivia

  1996–2000

  3,200,000

  Mount Cameroon Project

  Cameroon

  1995–2002

  10.602,000

  Indonesian Multi-Stakeholder Forestry Programme

  Indonesia

  1998–2005

  25,150,000

  Cross River State Community Forestry Project

  Nigeria

  1996–2001

  2,000,000

  Forest Sector Development Project Phase II

  Ghana

  2000–04

  11,963,000

  1 Includes projects of value £0.5 million or more. Excludes support through the Joint Funding Scheme (which are mostly under £0.5 million) and excludes DFID-funded research projects. Projects primarily concerned with freshwater and marine resources have also been excluded.

  332W

  Worthing

  Wychavon

  Wyre

  Wyre Forest

  Cambridgeshire Police Authority

  Dorset Police Authority

  Kent Police Authority

  Suffolk Police Authority

  Sussex Police Authority

  Wiltshire Police Authority

  Dartmoor National Park Authority

  Exmoor National Park Authority

  Lake District National Park

  North York Moors National Park Authority

  Northumberland National Park Authority

  Peak National Park

  The Broads Authority

  Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority

  North London Waste Authority

  Note

  Definition: An authority is 'debt-free' if:

  (a) at 31 March 2001, the authority's credit ceiling was nil or a negative amount; and

  (b) at 1 April 2001, the authority had no money outstanding by way of external borrowing other than short-term borrowing or hard to redeem debt, as defined in Regulation 154 of the Local Authorities (Capital Finance) Regulations 1997.

  Source

  Capital Estimates Return

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Animal Conservation Schemes
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the support given by her Department to animal conservation schemes in each of the past four years. [1931]

  Clare Short
  DFID's purpose is poverty eradication, not conservation. DFID supports the sustainable management of wild animal populations where it is key to improving poor peoples' livelihood opportunities, for example through improved forest management and community wildlife initiatives.

  The principal bilateral projects that DFID has supported over the past four years that contribute in this way to animal conservation are listed in Annexe 1.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Recycling
  John Austin
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what arrangements exist for(a) recycling and (b) re-using waste generated within the parliamentary estate; what facilities exist for the separation of waste generated within the parliamentary estate; and what proportion of such waste is recycled. [2488]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms; I have asked him to write to the hon. Gentleman.

HEALTH

  Health Authority Borders (West Midlands)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria he will use when deciding the borders of new health authorities in the West Midlands; and if he will make a statement. [799]

  Average daily bed occupancy rate, wards open overnight, mental illness sector, NHS Trusts in London, 1998–99 and 1999–2001

  Occupancy rate percentage (at midnight)

  Trust name

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  London

  93.7

  92.2

  Barnet Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  91.9

  80.5

  Bethlem and Maudsley

  —

  82.3

  BHB Community Health NHS Trust

  89.8

  93.5

  Brent, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Mental Health NHS Trust

  94.6

  —

  Camden and Islington Community Health Service NHS Trust

  99.1

  96.5

  City and Hackney Community Services NHS Trust

  94.0

  94.9

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham Mental Health NHS Trust

  97.3

  —

  Enfield Community Care NHS Trust

  97.9

  91.3

  Forest Healthcare NHS Trust

  93.1

  95.0

  Great Ormond Street Hospital For Sick Children NHS Trust

  74.8

  77.9

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  94.2

  100.0

  Haringey Health Care NHS Trust

  97.3

  98.9

  Harrow and Hillingdon Healthcare NHS Trust

  97.2

  98.5

  Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

  95.6

  96.8

  Hounslow and Spelthorne Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  97.2

  94.5

  Kingston and District Community NHS Trust

  98.6

  94.0

  Lewisham and Guys Mental Health

  —

  98.2

  Newham Community Health Services NHS Trust

  82.8

  79.8

  North West London Mental Health

  —

  98.0

  Oxleas NHS Trust

  94.5

  91.8

  Parkside Health

  —

  82.6

  Redbridge Health Care NHS Trust

  77.6

  84.0

  Riverside Mental Health

  —

  91.3

  Royal Free NHS Trust

  94.7

  91.5

  South London and Maudsley NHS Trust

  96.2

  —

  South West London and St. Georges MH NHS Trust

  88.5

  96.0

  St. Helier

  —

  95.0

  Tower Hamlets Healthcare NHS Trust

  87.1

  93.2

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  70.5

  83.1

  West Lambeth Community Care

  —

  97.1

  West London Healthcare

  —

  98.3

  Source

  DH form KHO3

  Care Home Standards
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received in connection with the implementation of standards 21.3 and 22.2 of the "National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People"; and if he will place them in the Library; [922]
  334W
  Mr. Hutton
  Final decisions on the boundaries for the new strategic health authorities will be taken following a full public consultation exercise. Proposals for consultation are being drawn up based on two criteria:

  i. The new strategic health authorities should be coterminous with an aggregate of local authority boundaries.

  ii. The new strategic health authorities should be aligned with the local clinical networks.

  Mental Health Services (London)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of occupancy of all acute mental health units in London(a) in the last month for which figures are available and (b) in the same month in each of the previous five years. [413]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information available is not collected in the format requested. Figures for London can be identified for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 when the National Health Service Executive, London regional office was in existence. Prior to this 'London' cannot be identified. The table shows bed occupancy for wards classified as mental illness in London NHS Trusts for 1998–99 and 1999–2000.

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of standards 21.3 and 22.2 of the "National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People" on the availability of beds in residential care and nursing homes; and if he will place it in the Library; [923]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the impact on the number of care homes of the requirement of complying

  335W
  with the "National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People"; [924]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the average amount that each care home will have to spend in order to comply with the "National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People". [925]

  Jacqui Smith
  National minimum standards will ensure that care provision is fit for the purpose and meets the assessed needs of residents.

  The need for provision of particular facilities such as passenger lifts and the costs associated with their installation will vary from home to home.

  In setting these standards we listened to the concerns of providers and produced a sensible set of standards which give providers a reasonable time to adapt, and achieved the support of national organisations representing consumers and providers. We made a number of specific changes to the proposed standards in response to the concerns raised in the comments we received. I am confident that these decisions will ensure that any improvements in the quality of care homes necessary will be achieved smoothly, and that stability in the care homes sector and sufficient capacity is maintained while changes are made.

  Leigh NHS Walk-in Centre
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have presented to the NHS walk-in Centre at Leigh Infirmary since it opened; and of these how many had to be referred on to a local casualty department for treatment. [1329]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Leigh National Health Service Walk-In Centre opened on 1 June 2000 and in its first year 32,365 patients attended. 1,225 patients were referred to the local accident and emergency department from the centre.

  Foot and Mouth (Milk Products)
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the safety of milk and milk products, with particular regard to the foot and mouth outbreak. [588]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 28 June 2001]The Food Standards Agency (FSA) advise that the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in the United Kingdom does not pose a threat to the safety of milk and milk products from animals infected with the disease. In addition, the FSA advise that the current evidence indicates no increased public health risk from dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls released from foot and mouth pyres for the vast majority of people who consume milk or dairy products produced on land within two kilometres of the pyres. Farmers and their customers who consume milk exclusively from such a source have been advised that there may be a slightly higher, although still very small, additional risk. This advice is precautionary until the results of the FSA's testing programme are available.

  Mental Health Care
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the proportion of total NHS spend used to provide mental health services in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [1463]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information comes from health authorities and trusts and their accounts for 1999–2000, 2000–01, and 2001–02 have not yet been collated.

  Heart Disease
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to enable it to develop a clinical guideline on the investigation and management of heart failure. [1413]

  Mr. Hutton
  The development of a guideline for heart failure was referred to National Institute for Clinical Excellence in September 2000 with the following remit:Appropriate means of diagnosis (including consideration of possible role of new developments in diagnosis e.g. brain naturetic peptide).
  Optimum symptom control using established treatments but also including relatively new evidence around drugs such as spironolactone, angiotensin-II receptor antagonists (e.g. losartan), beta blockers (and if appropriate how and where to manage treatment with beta blockers).
  Appropriate make-up of medical team treating (evidence for multi-disciplinary approach).
  Evidence on exercise tolerance and the possible beneficial effects of exercise on quality of life (limited evidence available but traditional advice to rest may not be appropriate in all cases).
  Role of supportive care—the potential of the 'palliative care approach', when to consider supportive care (not just an end of life/terminal phase issue) and when the use of specialist palliative care services may be appropriate.
  The role of primary care and community services—may these have an effect on frequent acute re-admissions?
  Role of lifestyle advice.
  Role of surgical interventions to treat or relieve symptoms.

  Complementary Medicine
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to extend the provision of complementary and alternative medicine, with particular reference to acupuncture, chiropractice, homeopathy, herbal medicine, osteopathy and therapeutic touch, in the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement. [1423]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have produced an information pack for primary care trusts and primary care groups on commissioning alternative medicine, which is available in the Library and at www.doh.gov.uk/cam/index.htm.

  The pack makes it clear that the provision of complementary medicine must be decided at a local level taking account of evidence of its suitability and efficacy and its effective regulation.

  National Cancer Plan
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to monitor the delivery of the national cancer plan. [1688]
  337W
  Yvette Cooper
  Cancer services have received an additional £280 million in 2001–02 towards implementation of the NHS Cancer Plan.

  Monitoring will be undertaken to ensure that investment and reform is seen across all cancer networks. This will include the high level review of spending undertaken through the services and financial framework process; the development by cancer networks of service delivery plans which will set out implementation plans for cancer services locally; and the continued central monitoring of the two week waiting time target. In addition the peer review process of cancer services will help trusts assess their progress in implementing evidence-based guidance for individual tumour groups.

  NHS Consultants
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to(a) compile and (b) publish performance statistics for each consultant employed in NHS hospitals. [1745]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have no plans at the present time to compile and publish performance statistics on individual consultants.

  Health Services (Dudley)
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of acute beds in the Dudley group of hospitals which are unavailable to incoming patients as a result of being occupied by patients needing accommodation in a nursing home. [1805]

  Yvette Cooper
  At 3 July 2001, the number of acute beds being occupied by patients awaiting nursing home accommodation is 331.

  Dudley health authority have recently identified £100,000 of non recurrent funds to alleviate immediate pressures in the short term. The local health and social services agencies are involved in discussions to seek solutions for medium to long-term.

  Source

  1 Dudley Group Hospitals National Health Service Trust

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the care of medical patients on surgical wards in the Dudley group of hospitals. [1997]

  Yvette Cooper
  At 3 July 2001, the Dudley Group Hospitals National Health Service Trust has 31 medical patients on surgical wards, as a result of difficulties in discharging them to long-term care. The trust has confirmed that the patients selected to be cared for on surgical wards are those whose acute problems have been addressed. These patients require basic nursing care in terms of attention, medication, etc., which the trust's nurses are well equipped to provide.

  MMR Inoculations
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide assistance to the recent study by the World Health Organisation into the effects of vaccines containing mercury used for MMR inoculations. [1763]
  338W
  Yvette Cooper
  There is no, and never has been, thiomersal in any measles, mumps and rubella vaccine used in the United Kingdom.

  The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) has been asked by the World Health Organisation to set up a study to look into the relationship between thiomersal and possible neurological outcomes using UK data.

  Herbal Products
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in defining conditions for the safe use of traditional herbal products; and if he will make a statement. [1994]

  Yvette Cooper
  We understand that the European Commission is actively continuing development work on the draft directive to regulate those traditional herbal products which are classified as medicines. In particular, we are aware that the EC has recently been considering written comments made by European Union member states following a meeting of the European Pharmaceutical Committee in April 2001. The detailed terms of various possible provisions to safeguard public health are likely to feature prominently in the ongoing discussions on the draft directive. The Medicines Control Agency will continue to consult the United Kingdom natural health sector as work on this initiative progresses.

  PFI Schemes
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his policy that all NHS private finance initiative schemes should include transferring responsibility for the management of NHS ancillary staff to the private sector. [2212]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]Pilot schemes, whereby ancillary services staff could retain their National Health Service employment terms but be managed by the private sector, are being conducted at three private finance initiative (PFI) projects currently in procurement.

  The pilots will be evaluated with reference to their ability to deliver workable, value for money arrangements and will be used to inform policy on NHS ancillary staff in future PFI schemes.

  Health Authority Restructuring (Essex)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the potential benefits of the proposed health authority restructuring for Essex. [1844]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]The introduction of strategic health authorities is an important element in our proposals to decentralise power in the National Health Services. We will shift the balance of power in the NHS so that primary care trusts take the responsibility and resources for developing health services and improving health. Front-line staff are best placed to understand patients' needs and have the skills and experience to improve services. Empowering front-line staff and organisations to use these skills will help deliver faster and more responsive services and improve the patient experience.
  339W
  The proposals for restructuring in Essex, as elsewhere, will be subject to formal consultation.

  Hospices
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further staffing support he plans to provide to hospices. [2481]

  Yvette Cooper
  The NHS Cancer Plan set out our commitment to increase National Health Service investment in specialist palliative care by £50 million by 2004 to ensure that the inequalities in access to specialist palliative care ends. Health authority allocations in 2001–02 included a total of £255 million to support the first year of local implementation of the NHS Cancer Plan. Priorities for this year include the development of costed strategic plans for palliative c are. Cancer networks are expected to demonstrate how the additional funding will be invested over the next three years.

  Cancer networks are currently developing detailed service delivery plans, which will identify the current position, future demands and gaps in services and set out action plans for further development across all areas, including staffing of teams, whether in the voluntary sector or in the NHS. We are funding the National Council for Hospices and specialist palliative care services to support cancer networks to ensure an inclusive approach to develop the palliative care element in the service delivery plans.

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the(a) total level of investment and (b) source of funding for the recent expansion of the Christie Hospital NHS Trust. [2281]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]The revenue income for the Christie Hospital National Health Service Trust is provided in the table.

  £ million

  Actual 1999–2000

  Actual 2000–01

  Forecast 2001–02

  Total income from activities (health authorities)

  39.0

  43.4

  49.1

  Other operating income

  30.2

  24.9

  24.1

  Total overall income

  69.2

  68.4

  73.2

  Notes

  1. Information extracted from Final Accounts for 1999–2000, pre-audit draft accounts for 2000–01 and the trust's plans for 2001–02.

  2. The high level of other operating income in 1999–2000 relates to technical accounting adjustments.

  3. The trust has received a significant recent growth in revenue funds from NHS sources. Specific areas include: funding for the implications of National Institute for Clinical Excellence drugs; revenue consequences of capital investments in capital equipment and four new consultant posts.

  4. The trust's other operating income includes a substantial proportion of income from charitable sources.

  The facilities at the trust will continue to be redeveloped and these will be provided from a variety of sources which will include exchequer funding, private finance initiative funding and charitable donations.
  340W
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to visit the Christie Hospital NHS Trust in Manchester; and if he will make a statement. [2280]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]Either I or one of my ministerial colleagues will visit the Christie Hospital later in the year.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department's research programme into the effects on health of mobile phone technology has been established. [2400]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Stewart report on mobile phones and health made a recommendation that a substantial research programme should be set up under the aegis of a demonstrably independent panel and financed by the mobile phone companies and the public sector. This programme, jointly funded by Government and industry, has now been set up under the direction of an independent programme management committee. The first call for proposals was issued at a scientific workshop held in February. The committee is currently assessing a range of research proposals, the first group of which is expected to start in October this year. Details can be found on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/mobilephones.

  Disabled People (Essex)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are registered as disabled in the(a) Colchester, (b) North Essex, (c) Harwich and (d) Braintree constituencies. [2396]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the number of people registered with Essex council as deaf or hard of hearing and blind or partially sighted are shown in the tables. Separate information is not available by constituency. Information is not available centrally on the number of people with other forms of disability.

  Table 1: Number of people registered as deaf or hard of hearing at 31 March 1998, within the former county of Essex

  Number

  Deaf

  1,553

  Hard of hearing

  1.697

  Total

  3,250

  Source

  SSDA 910 return

  Table 2: Number of people registered as blind or partially sighted at 31 March 2000 within the former county of Essex

  Area

  Blind

  Partially sighted

  Total

  Essex1

  5,018

  5,018

  10,036

  Southend

  880

  1,262

  2,142

  Thurrock

  224

  319

  543

  Former county of Essex

  6,122

  6,599

  12,721

  1 On 1 April 1998, local government re-organisation took place and the former county of Essex was split into the unitary authorities of Southend and Thurrock and the reduced area of Essex.

  Source

  SSDA 902 return

  Student Nurses
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the amount of money available to student nurses in receipt of a full bursary. [2684]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 13 March that there would be a substantial increase in bursary support for all national health service-funded students, including nurses.

  With effect from 1 September this year the basic rate of bursary will be increased by 10.4 per cent. This is the biggest increase in bursaries since their introduction in the late 1980s and provides diploma level students (who make up the majority of the student nurse population) with an extra £500 per year.

  Further bursary changes will come into effect in September providing extra help with accommodation and travel expenses for students attending practice placements.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the bursary system on the recruitment and retention of student nurses. [2685]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service bursaries provide a level of support which compares favourably with that available to other students in higher education. They will increase by 10.4 per cent. from September 2001. However the level of bursary support is only one factor influencing the recruitment and retention of student nurses.

  Applicants to pre-registration nursing and midwifery training course increased by 87 per cent. over the last three years, to 34,953 in 1999–2000, the latest year for which complete data are available.

  The National Audit Office earlier this year reported that attrition form training was currently 17 per cent., lower than in previous years and in line with attrition from higher education generally. 'Academic failure' was the most common reason for nurses dropping out. The Department has commissioned further research on factors influencing drop out. This will report later in the summer.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received to extend the availability of loans to student nurses in receipt of a full bursary. [2683]

  Mr. Hutton
  The current national health service support package available to degree level students comprises 50 per cent. means-tested grant and 50 per cent. student loan. In addition the student's tuition fee contribution is paid in full. This support is more favourable than that available to other United Kingdom students studying at degree level.

  Students studying at diploma level receive a non-means-tested bursary and have their contribution to tuition fees paid in full. However, because diploma students receive a higher level of non-repayable, non-means-tested support for maintenance than degree students, they are not eligible for assistance through student loans.

  Student loans are a matter for the Department for Education and Skills and the Student Loans Company. The overall level of support provided to national health service-funded students is kept under review by my
  342W
  Department, taking into account the views of, among others, students themselves, for instance through the NHS Student Forum.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many student nurses were in receipt of a bursary in the(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2000–01 academic years; and how many of those have dropped out of training in each year. [2681]

  Mr. Hutton
  The bursary figures for the full academic year 2000–01 will not be known until 31 August 2001, the end of the academic year. As at 6 July 2001, the National Health Service Student Grants Unit (SGU) had authorised 4,117 NHS Bursary awards for degree level nursing students and 29,067 for those studying at diploma level.

  Diploma students who started their training prior to September 1999 are paid a bursary by their university rather than the SGU.

  The number of student nurses in receipt of a bursary for the full academic year 2001–02 will not be available until 31 August 2002, the end of that academic year.

  Data on the number of student nurses who discontinued their training during 2000–01 will be published by the English National Board for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting later in the summer. Data for 2001–02 will not be available until next year.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on increasing the value of bursaries for student nurses. [2682]

  Mr. Hutton
  Departmental officials undertook a review of support arrangements for National Health Service funded students last year. Representations were received from students is and student bodies, professional bodies and others.

  As a result Ministers considered a range of options for changes to bursaries. The 10.4 per cent. across-the-board increase in the basic rate of bursary, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced shortly after the 2001 Budget, was in response to the representations made.

  Nursing Vacancies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each NHS region and trust the number of three month vacancy rates for nurses and expenditure on agency nurses, indicating both the original estimate of costs and the outturn figures. [2973]

  Mr. Hutton
  Figures from the Department of Health Vacancies Survey March 2000 on the number of three month vacancy rates for nurses per region and trust, and the expenditure on agency nurses in 1999–2000 are available in the Library. Information on the original estimate of costs and the outturn figures are not available centrally but may be available from individual National Health Service employers.

  Carers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will set out the timetable for considering the
  343W
  establishment of a fund to support the development of carers services under the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000; [2809]

  (2) if he will set out the criteria against which progress in implementing the National Carers Strategy is monitored; by what means progress is reported to the House; and when progress was last reported; [2970]

  (3) when he plans to publish the performance framework indicator for the number of carer assessments; if he will ensure that the assessments evaluate the proportion of carers assessed at the point of hospital discharge; and if he will make a statement; [2810]

  (4) if he will undertake an evaluation of the appropriateness of support offered to carers as part of strategies to reduce the number of delayed discharges from hospital; [2813]

  (5) when his Department last reviewed guidance on hospital discharge with respect to carers' needs; and what arrangements are in place to monitor compliance with the guidance; [2811]

  (6) if he will make a statement on progress towards implementing the National Carers Strategy requirement that general practitioners should have procedures in place to identify carers by April 2002. [2808]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Hospital Discharge Workbook, issued in 1994, gives guidance to the national health service, social services and other agencies on hospital discharge procedures. The workbook emphasises that the patient and carer should be made fully aware of arrangements for discharge and understand fully what is going to happen. Before an individual is discharged, checks should be made by the discharge nurse to ensure that discharge arrangements take place as planned. The chief executive of the hospital trust is responsible for ensuring that discharges take place appropriately. Work will begin soon on revising the hospital discharge workbook.

  The NHS Plan acknowledged that health and social services need to do more to shape services around the needs and preferences of individual patients, their families and their carers. During 2002, old T people, and where appropriate their carers, will be involved in agreeing a personal care plan, which they will hold. The personal care plan will document their current package of health and social care, their care co-ordinator, monitoring arrangements, and a list of key contacts for rapid response at home and in emergencies.

  We are continuing to provide additional resources to local authorities specifically to improve the working arrangements between local authorities and the NHS. The new Promoting Independence Grant is specifically aimed at fostering partnership between health and social services in promoting the independence of adults needing community care services. The grant will encourage these partnerships to improve their arrangements for multidisciplinary assessment and hospital discharge (including rehabilitation and recuperation services).

  In addition, we have pledged to consider the establishment of a fund to support the development of carers services under the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000. We have already begun preliminary discussions with key stakeholders.
  344W
  The performance indicator for the number of informal carers receiving an assessment as a proportion of the total number of clients and carers receiving assessments will be published for the first time in autumn 2001. The indicator is based on information provided by local councils with social services responsibilities. Details of where the assessment took place are not available; therefore, the proportion of carers assessed at the point of hospital discharge can not be separately calculated.

  Requirements for Accreditation (RFA99) issued in October 1999 included the requirements for general practitioner computer systems to include a field where the details of carers could be entered. This, aligned with all GPs having access to a desktop computer as part of project connect programme by the end of March 2002, will mean that GPs will be prompted to ask for carer details as part of the registration details of patients. When entered this information will form part of the patient record.

  Progress in implementing the national carers strategy is measured against the criteria set out in the National Carers Strategy and summarised on pages 5–7 of the Strategy. Specific initiatives which take forward the strategy, such as the increases to the Carers Grant, are announced to the House at the appropriate time, and information about the implementation of the measures published as appropriate. For example the analysis which we commissioned from the Kings Fund of local authorities' carers plans for 1999–2000 was published in February 2001. The social services inspectorate's monitoring of local authorities includes questions regarding the implementation of the national carers strategy. The results will be published in the autumn.

  HSC 2000/28
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to assess the level of compliance with his guidance HSC 2000/28. [2812]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) to pay particular attention to resuscitation decision-making processes as part of its rolling programme of reviews of the clinical governance arrangements put in place by national health service organisations. CHI's programme of reviews is being conducted over a four-year cycle. All trusts will have been reviewed by October 2004. CHI will work with the organisation to produce an action plan to address identified deficiencies, the implementation of which will be monitored by the NHS regional office who will ensure that any necessary action is taken to ensure compliance.

  Care Services (Older People)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the work programme of the National Workforce Development Board and its associated care group workforce teams; and if he will make a statement on the establishment of the care group workforce team dealing with services for older people. [2972]

  Jacqui Smith
  The broad terms of reference for the National Workforce Development Board and the care group workforce teams are set out in "Investment and Reform for National Health Service Staff—Taking
  345W
  Forward the NHS Plan", copies of which are available in the Library. We are currently considering in more detail how these bodies, including the care group workforce team for services for older people, will take forward their role, and will make an announcement shortly.

  Intensive Care
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive care beds there are in England in(a) the NHS and (b) the private sector. [2984]

  Mr. Hutton
  The latest figures for 15 January 2001 are given in the table. The number of available adult intensive care and high dependency beds in England are published in the bi-annual publication "Available adult intensive care and high dependency provision, England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Available adult intensive care and high dependency provision at 15 January 2001—England

  Intensive care beds

  Number

  Total

  1,677

  General

  1,333

  Specialist

  344

  Source

  Annual census of "Available adult intensive care and high dependency provision, England". Data for 15 January 2001.

  Information about the private sector is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients from private hospitals transferred to NHS intensive care beds in the last year for which figures are available. [2985]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Drugs
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he plans to introduce to reduce deaths caused by the mis-use of(a) painkillers and (b) anti-depressants. [2368]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department introduced specific measures in September 1998 reducing pack sizes of paracetamol and aspirin aimed at reducing the toxicity from impulsive overdose. New warnings on the packaging emphasised the risks and action to take in the event of overdose. Recent published studies on the impact of these measures have provided evidence that they are having a significant beneficial effect.

  The majority of deaths in association with antidepressants are as a result of suicide. We take the issue of suicide very seriously. We are currently developing, under the direction of the National Director for Mental Health, Professor Louis Appleby, a coherent, national suicide prevention strategy to ensure that we are doing all we can to prevent suicide.

  Advice is given to health professionals in British National Formulary, which advises that patients treated for depression should be assessed frequently for suicidal tendencies and that limited quantities of antidepressant drugs should be prescribed at any one time to reduce the
  346W
  risk of overdose. The summaries of product characteristics for antidepressants warn that patients at risk of suicide should be monitored closely.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in(a) identifying and (b) reducing the levels of (i) mis-use and (ii) over-use of neuroleptic drugs in residential homes for the elderly. [2369]

  Jacqui Smith
  Data on the misuse or overuse of neuroleptic drugs are not available centrally. However, we are well aware of concerns about the use of these drugs in older people. Several current initiatives will help to address this issue.

  The National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People, published in March 2001 under section 23(1) of the Care Standards Act 2000, contains a standard for the administration of medicines. This includes requirements to take advice from pharmacists, consult general practitioners and regularly review medication. These standards come into force in April 2002.

  The National Service Framework for Older People was also published in March, together with 'Medicines and Older People', covering the implementation of medicines related aspects of the NSF. One of its aims is to ensure that older people gain maximum benefit from their medication and do not suffer unnecessarily from illness caused by excessive or inappropriate consumption of medicines. One of the milestones set in the NSF is that, by April 2002, people over 75 will have their medicines reviewed at least annually, and those taking four or more medicines will have a review six-monthly. And, by 2004, every primary care trust (PCT) will have schemes in place so that older people get more help from pharmacists in using their medicines.

  Finally, the NHS Plan contains a target that repeat dispensing schemes will be in place nationally by 2004. Together with management of repeat prescribing commissioned locally by PCTs, these schemes will provide further help in avoiding medication problems in older people.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the percentage of those who use(a) heroin and (b) methadone under medical prescription who have died in each of the past five years. [2373]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not available centrally in the form requested.

  The Departments collects information relating to the number of dispensed in the community in England (which includes prescriptions for diamorphine and methadone) but there is no means of identifying whether the recipient of the prescription subsequently dies.

  Information about all deaths in England and Wales in 1995 to 1999 where the underlying cause of death is regarded as resulting from drug-related poisoning is included in the Health Statistics Quarterly report, published by the Office for National Statistics in spring 2001. The report also contains information about the number of deaths where selected substances, including heroin and/or morphine and methadone, were mentioned on the death certificate.
  347W
  The table shows the numbers of deaths where heroin and/or morphine and methadone were mentioned on any death certificate and are regarded as resulting from drug-related poisoning from 1995 to 1999. The figure is given for heroin and morphine combined because heroin breaks down in the body into morphine, and the latter may be detected at post mortem and recorded on the death certificate.

  Number of deaths where heroin and/or morphine and methadone were mentioned on the death certificate for England and Wales

  Drug mentioned

  Year

  All mentioned of heroin and morphine

  Methadone

  1995

  357

  310

  1996

  466

  368

  1997

  445

  421

  1998

  645

  363

  1999

  754

  298

  Note

  These figures do not include deaths where heroin, morphine and methadone were not mentioned on the death certificate, but were a causal factor; or where these substances were prescribed, but were not a causal factor in the death and so are not mentioned in the death certificate.

  Allocation of Resources
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what mechanism the formula for the allocation of resources between health authorities takes account of(a) transient populations and (b) numbers of tourists. [2694]

  Mr. Hutton
  The formula for setting health authority resource allocation targets is based primarily on resident population. The resident populations are then adjusted to take account of patients registered with general practitioners outside their health authority of residence. These adjusted resident populations are referred to as health authority relevant populations. These exclude transient populations and tourists.

  The prescribing component of the formula takes account of temporary residents who register with GPs in addition to relevant populations.

  Funding for secondary healthcare for tourists and transient populations that falls outside service agreements is transferred between health authorities through the out-of-area treatment arrangements.

  Parking Charges
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much revenue was raised by NHS trusts for car parking charges in financial years(a) 1999 and (b) 2000. [2596]

  Mr. Hutton
  There is no prescriptive model for the provision and financing of car parking facilities at national health service trusts and not all trusts will raise revenue from car parking charges. Where trusts do raise income from car park charges there is no requirement for it to be separately identified in their annual accounts.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were blocked in each NHS trust, in each 348W
  of the last three years, by elderly patients waiting to be transferred to residential care; and if he will make a statement. [2581]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the delayed discharges of patients aged over 75 years is collected from each health authority on a quarterly basis. That information has been collected on a consistent basis for the last two years and has been placed in the Library. The information collected includes the number of patients delayed due to awaiting nursing or residential home placement. In some cases patients will be exercising their right to await a place in a home of their choice.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Human Rights
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he proposes to extend observance of human rights in(a) the Commonwealth and (b) elsewhere. [1835]

  Peter Hain
  The Government will continue to promote human rights in bilateral and multilateral forums. Among other things, this will include continuing to campaign worldwide for the elimination of torture and the abolition of the death penalty and taking an active part in the forthcoming World Conference Against Racism. At the next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Brisbane in October, the Government will try to ensure that the Commonwealth takes an even more active role in promoting human rights. A key element will be trying to expand the remit of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) so that it can recommend action where a Commonwealth member seriously or persistently violates human rights. Currently, CMAG comes into play only when an elected Commonwealth Government have been overthrown.

  The hon. Member for Neath
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department received from the South African Government about the hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain), during his period as a Minister with responsibility for Africa. [1820]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The South African Government welcomed my hon. Friend as Minister with responsibility for Africa and granted him access at the highest level. In an exchange of messages with the South Africans earlier this year, the then Foreign Secretary confirmed our appreciation of the candid and collaborative approach between the UK and South Africa, with which my hon. Friend was closely associated, and looked forward to it continuing.

  UK Tourists (Assistance)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the average number of requests for assistance per year from UK tourists to local consular offices and their equivalents was in(a) Florida, (b) Ibiza, (c) Corfu, (d) Barcelona, (e) Benidorm, (f) Majorca, (g) Rhodes, (h) Rome, (i) Paris, (j) Venice, (k) Milan, (l) Dublin, (m) Capri, (n) Tenerife, (o) Cyprus, (p) Nice, (q) Cannes, (r) Boston, (s) Las Vegas,

  349W
  (t) New York, (u) Jerusalem, (v) Los Angeles, (w) Moscow, (x) St. Petersburg, (y) Berlin, (z) Dubai and (aa) Sri Lanka; and what category of assistance was requested in each case. [2108]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our records do not currently allow tourists to be isolated from the total numbers of British citizens seeking assistance at UK missions overseas. However, in the period 1998–2000, the average annual number of requests for assistance (not including simple requests for information) from British citizens to local consular offices and their equivalents was as follows:

  (a) Florida: 570 cases per year (cases are referred to Orlando)

  (b) Ibiza: 2,000 cases per year

  (c) Corfu: 450 cases per year

  (d) Barcelona: 300 cases per year

  (e) Benidorm: 550 cases per year (cases are referred to Malaga)

  (f) Majorca: Total included in (e) above (cases are referred to Malaga)

  (g) Rhodes: 250 cases per year

  (h) Rome: 900 cases per year

  (i) Paris: 300 cases per year

  (j) Venice: 50 cases per year

  (k) Milan: 70 cases

  (l) Dublin: 250 cases per year

  (m) Capri: 100 cases per year (cases are referred to Naples)

  (n) Tenerife: 4,000 cases per year

  (o) Cyprus: 300 cases per year (Nicosia)

  (p) Nice: 70 cases per year (cases are referred to Marseille)

  (q) Cannes: Total included in (p) above (cases are referred to Marseille)

  (r) Boston: 30 cases per year

  (s) Las Vegas: 90 cases per year

  (t) New York: 150 cases per year

  (u) Jerusalem: 30 cases per year

  (v) Los Angeles: 70 cases per year (cases are referred to San Francisco)

  (w) Moscow: 45 cases per year

  (x) St. Petersburg: 15 cases per year

  (y) Berlin: 120 cases per year

  (z) Dubai: 500 cases per year

  (aa) Sri Lanka: 30 cases per year (Colombo).

  Similarly, our records do not currently allow us accurately to break down these numbers into all types of assistance sought. But the types of request we receive can range from assistance with major disasters involving ferries, aircraft, trains, buses and cars; assistance with hospitalisations, deaths, skiing accidents and welfare cases in general; helping the victims of crime including rape, child custody and abduction disputes and kidnapping incidents. We are also asked to help with repatriations and deportations, to help with searches for missing persons, to visit people detained by local authorities, to visit long-term prisoners and to arrange the deposit of funds (e.g. for prison comforts). These cases are the ones which get recorded. However, much of our work involves providing all kinds of information to help British nationals, and this is not recorded. In addition we provide notarial services where required; register marriages, births and deaths; and provide passport issuing facilities.
  350W
  We are currently developing a new centralised consular database, based on one that already has a well-established track record. We hope that, in the future, this will provide a more accurate picture of the full range of tasks we undertake to assist British nationals overseas.

  Embassies (Costs)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the cost of running each of Her Majesty's embassies, broken down by(a) staff cost, (b) transport costs, (c) premises costs, (d) equipment costs and (e) entertainment and other costs in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [2101]

  Mr. MacShane
  Estimates are made at FCO level and the ensuing budgets are as yet only partly devolved to embassies and other missions. However, the FCO carries out an annual accounting exercise which provides detailed information on the costs of individual embassies. This forms part of the resource accounts preparation, and for the year 2000–01 will be available this autumn.

  "Rogue States"
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of(a) the definition of "rogue state", (b) the states that can be so defined and (c) the threat they present to the UK. [2302]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  "Rogue state" is generally not a term we would choose to use.

  We are concerned by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery in several regions including the middle east, South Asia and the Korean Peninsula.

  We judge that there is currently no significant threat to the UK from weapons of mass destruction. We continue to monitor developments closely.

  Lord Levy
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of Lord Levy on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, including to whom he is accountable, and on the facilities, expenses and remuneration he receives at public expense. [3200]

  Mr. Straw
  From time to time, Lord Levy will travel as the Prime Minister's envoy. He will report to the Prime Minister and to me.

  Lord Levy receives no remuneration and travels at his own expense. The FCO provides him with logistics and administrative support, including use of an office in London and official accommodation overseas, and briefing as necessary.

  United Nations Reform
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the Government have for reforming the structure of the UN. [2971]
  351W
  Peter Hain
  We would like to see the United Nations Security Council reformed to make it more representative of the world today. We are one of a number of countries which support enlarging Council membership from 15 to 24, including expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent membership.

  We are also working closely with EU and UN partners to follow up implementation of the report on UN Peace Operations drawn up by the Panel chaired by Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi in 2000. In particular, we are pressing for improved early warning and analysis and for more effective rapid deployment mechanisms.

  We have strongly supported the UN Secretary-General's wider efforts to streamline UN activities through a results-based approach to programme, financial and human resource management.

  Plan Colombia
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the progress of Plan Colombia and of the United Kingdom's involvement. [2379]

  Mr. MacShane
  It is too early to assess the impact of Plan Colombia as it is designed to produce results over a number of years. One specific goal, for example, is to reduce the cultivation, processing and distribution of illegal drugs by 50 per cent. over a six-year period (2000–06).

  There is no UK Government financial involvement in Plan Colombia, either bilaterally or through the EU. No expenditure is planned by the UK Government to support the Plan. Instead, the UK is contributing to and fully supports assistance to Colombia through the European Union of 105 million euro over the next five years. The EU package will focus on measures to support human rights, long-term economic and social development, including alternative development, and an end to violence.

  Burma
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on the implementation of sanctions against Burma. [2817]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  This Government have been at the forefront of international efforts to bring about good governance, respect for human rights and a return to democracy in Burma. Sanctions have been a significant aspect of this effort. We believe multilateral sanctions are the most effective and we were instrumental last year in securing a strengthening of the EU Common Position on Burma that includes an asset freeze and visa ban for members of the Burmese regime, an arms ban and a ban on non-humanitarian aid. In the UK, this has been implemented through the Burma (Sale, Supply and Export of Goods) (Penalties) Regulation (SI 2000/1408) and Burma (Freezing of Funds) Regulation 2000 (SI 2000/1472) and the Immigration Designation of Travel Bans) (Amendment) Order 2000. We have given a cautious welcome to recent positive developments in Burma, such as the release of some political prisoner s and the lessening of the restrictions on pressure on the National League for Democracy. But we will not soften or position until there is evidence of real change in Burma.
  352W
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Burmese Government about continuing violations of human rights being committed against the Karen, Karenni and Shan people by the Burmese army. [2816]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Contacts between British and Burmese officials are necessarily limited but we make representations to the Burmese authorities on their treatment of ethnic minorities whenever suitable opportunities arise. In January, a visit by EU Troika representatives to Burma raised with the regime this issue among other human rights concerns.

  We also fully support the efforts of the UN Special Envoy to Burma, Tan Sri Razali Ismail, who is encouraging the regime to move towards national reconciliation and a return to democracy. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Razali on 26 June to discuss these issues.

  Multilaterally, we have ensured that violations of human rights in ethnic minority areas are properly covered in UNCHR and UNGA, and by the ILO in its examination of forced labour in Burma.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has discussed Burma with his predecessor. [2818]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I am aware of the keen interest my right hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) took in Burma. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I look forward to carrying on the very important task of encouraging national reconciliation, respect for human rights and a return to democracy in Burma.

  India
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings he has had since his appointment with representatives of the Indian Government; and if he will make a statement. [2587]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Brajesh Mishra, Principal Secretary to Indian Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee, and Nareshwar Dayal, Indian High Commissioner in London, on 26 June. They discussed a range of regional and bilateral issues, including the consular cases of Peter Bleach and Ian Stillman. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has also spoken on the telephone with Jaswant Singh, the Indian Foreign Minister, about regional issues.

  Malaysia
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the detention without trial in Malaysia under the Internal Security Act of 10 members of the opposition party. [2590]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  On 10 April 2001, seven members of the opposition party were detained under the International Security Act. Since then a further three were detained under the same legislation. Two of the detainees have been released without charge and two have been released by order of the High Court. EU Heads of Mission raised
  353W
  the issue with the Malaysian Minister of Foreign Affairs on 17 May 2001. We have raised the matter with the Malaysian High Commission in London and hope that the situation will be resolved quickly. We and our EU partners are following the situation closely.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  James Alfred Cornhill
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the outcome was of the investigation into the shooting of James Alfred Cornhill on 19 April 2000; and what views were expressed by the Police Ombudsman. [1133]

  Jane Kennedy
  The investigation into the shooting of James Alfred Cornhill has been completed, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has returned the file to the Police Ombudsman who is now considering the disciplinary aspects of the case. Until that process is complete the Police Ombudsman's views will not be available.

  RUC (Complaints)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the outcome was of the investigation into complaints against the RUC made by David McCombe and Padraig McCracken. [1091]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Police Ombudsman's investigation into the complaints has not yet been completed.

  Police Weaponry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police officers have attended overseas conferences and training events on use of less-than-lethal arms and weaponry in the past 12 months; and at what cost. [1231]

  Jane Kennedy
  Two Royal Ulster Constabulary officers attended a Less Lethal Seminar at Pennsylvania University in April 2001 at a cost of £3,216.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many claims have been submitted by police officers for injuries allegedly caused by faulty equipment associated with the discharge of plastic baton rounds in each of the last 10 years; how many of these claims have been settled; and at what cost. [1226]

  Jane Kennedy
  There have been no such claims.

  Shoot-to-kill Incidents
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response he has made to rulings of the European Court of Human Rights on alleged shoot-to-kill incidents in Northern Ireland on 1 June. [1119]

  Jane Kennedy
  As a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Kingdom takes very seriously the findings of the European Court. The 354W
  Government have three months from the date of the judgments to decide their response (ie by 4 August) and are considering this very carefully.

  I should point out that none of the judgments found the UK to have breached Article 2 of the Convention (the right to life) in respect of the actual deaths, but found against the Government in respect of a number of procedural issues relating to post-death investigatory procedures in place at the time.

  Robert Hamill
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Royal Ulster Constabulary officers who were present at the scene of the death of Robert Hamill on 27 April 1997(a) have since left and (b) continue to serve in the RUC. [1055]

  Jane Kennedy
  Of the four officers in the vehicle near the scene of the assault on Robert Hamill on 27 April 1997 two officers have left the RUC, one officer is suspended and the other is still serving in the RUC.

  Patten Reforms
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by what means non-governmental organisations and victims' support groups may assist in monitoring implementation of the Patten reforms on policing. [1144]

  Jane Kennedy
  As recommended in the report of the Independent Commission on Policing, the Government have appointed a Commissioner to oversee the implementation of the policing reforms. Other groups and organisations may, of course, choose to follow implementation in areas of interest to them and many have been, and will continue to be, consulted on the introduction of changes.

  Criminal Justice
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish a draft Criminal Justice Bill for Northern Ireland; and what steps he is taking to improve the record of the police service in promoting parity of esteem. [1075]

  Mr. Browne
  It is our intention to publish in draft soon the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill. Detailed preparation of the legislation and an implementation plan is well advanced. Subject to the outcome of consultations, we expect to bring forward the actual Bill in the autumn.

  The police provide a service to the whole community in Northern Ireland.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Auld Report
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Auld report will be published. [2584]

  Mr. Wills
  Lord Justice Auld will complete his review of the criminal courts shortly. The Government will make arrangements for publication once his report is received.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  ATM Machines (Sub-post Offices)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations have been made by the Government to the Post Office about its proposal to charge a levy for the use of ATM machines in sub-post offices. [2362]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 5 July 2001]Decisions about making transaction charges for use of ATM machines at sub-post offices are a commercial matter for Post Office Network. The Government do not welcome the imposition of charges for access to cash but where such charges apply this should be made clear to the user. Wherever possible, Post Office Network seek arrangements for ATM machines at sub-post offices to be free of transaction charges but in some locations it would not be financially viable to install ATMs without a transaction charge being made.

  People on pensions and benefits have the option of collecting their cash free of charge over the post office counter and have no need to use a cash machine for which a transaction charge is made unless they choose to do so.

  Employees Directive
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the compatibility of the EU directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees with the protocol on the application of subsidiarity and proportionality of the treaty of Amsterdam; and if she will make a statement. [2514]

  Alan Johnson
  Our view of the Commission's original proposal was that it was too prescriptive and paid insufficient regard to subsidiarity. By contrast, the text agreed by member states at the Employment and Social Affairs Council on 11 June avoids a rigid "one size fits all approach" which would be inappropriate for the UK given our diverse practices in this area. In particular the draft provides that the practical arrangements for information and consultation shall be defined and implemented in accordance with national law and industrial relations practices in individual member states.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the cost to industry of implementing the EU directive establishing a framework for informing and consulting employees. [2513]

  Alan Johnson
  My Department prepared a regulatory impact assessment on the Commission's original proposal. A copy was attached to Explanatory Memorandum 3099/98 submitted by my Department on 15 January 1999. This estimated that the recurring costs to rile economy would be between £219 million-£257 million, and the non-recurring costs (of setting up arrangements) would be between £84 million-£88 million. The directive has yet to be finally agreed as it now goes to the European Parliament for Second Reading. A revised regulatory impact assessment will be prepared when the Government consult on the implementation of the directive in the UK.

  Office of Science and Technology
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the review of the Office of Science and Technology carried out in her Department includes an examination of the research councils. [1696]

  Ms Hewitt
  There is no separate review being carried out of the Office of Science and Technology (OST).

  The quinquennial review of the six grant-awarding Research Councils (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)) was announced on 13 February 2001 by my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury, Under-Secretary of State for Science and Innovation. Regular reviews are a key component of the Government's commitment to improving the quality and effectiveness of public services. Government agencies and non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are required to be subject to quinquennial reviews which consider the alternative options for the provision of the service, the way that the service fits into wider governmental objectives, and the extent of any synergies with other service providers.

  The review of the seventh council, the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), a non-grant awarding body, was announced on 13 June 2000. The report of stage one was published in the autumn and stage two is underway.

  The cross-departmental science and research review, announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26 June 2001, Official Report, column 39W, will examine the funding of the UK science base and the effectiveness of all Departments' science and research programmes to ensure that they deliver maximum long-term benefits to the economy and quality of life. This covers Government-financed research across all Government Departments, including OST.

  In addition, on 27 June 2001, Official Report, column 94W, I announced a wide-ranging review of DTI priorities and structure. This will consider the broad priorities of the whole Department, including OST, and how it directs its resources to make the Department more unified, modern and effective in framing policy and delivering services to customers.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the special advisers in her Department together with their date of appointment and their responsibilities; which of them are authorised to speak to the media; and if she will make a statement. [2160]

  Ms Hewitt
  To date, I have appointed one special adviser, Jim Godfrey. He was appointed on 11 June. He has a range of duties including the political aspects of media handling. I have no plans to make a statement.

  Productivity
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of the impact of regulation on UK productivity. [2162]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government keep the regulatory environment under constant review. Where it is shown that a regulation is unnecessary or ineffective, we will act to improve or abolish it. The Regulatory Reform Act 2001 provides us with a powerful and flexible tool to do this.

  Strong competitive pressures across our economy are a key driver for productivity. The Government have announced that they wish the OFT and other competition authorities to advise where laws and regulations affect competition. This role applies to both existing and proposed legislation.

  The International Institute of Management Development "World Competitiveness Yearbook" Indicators for 2000 show that UK labour market regulation is perceived to be significantly less restrictive than that of other major European countries and on a par with that in the United States. The OECD found in 1999 that in terms of product market regulation, the UK had the least restrictive overall regulatory environment of any member country.

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to implement paid parental leave for parents with children aged five years or under. [2136]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government have recently extended parental leave to all parents with children who were under five at 15 December 1999, when the right was first introduced.

  Experience since then suggests that parental leave has created fewer practical problems for business than may first have been anticipated, and the time is now right to increase the number of parents who are able to exercise the right.

  The Green Paper "Work and Parents: Competitiveness and Choice" was published in December 2000, laid out a series of options to help parents balance their work and family lives and included the option to pay parental leave.

  Responses to the consultation revealed that paid parental leave was not a high priority for employees or employers in comparison to other options and accordingly the Government have decided not to take this option forward.

  Rural Recovery Fund
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire of 7 May concerning the Rural Recovery Fund. [2704]

  Ms Hewitt
  The issues raised by the hon. Member in his letter of 7 May fall within the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The letter has therefore been transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for a reply.

  Mirlees Blackstone
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what instructions she has given to the Export Credits Guarantee Department in support of Mirlees Blackstone of Hazel Grove in their bid to obtain credit for their contract with the Batman power station project in Turkey; and what action she will take to ensure UK exporters are treated no less favourably than other EU companies in securing export credit guarantees. [1713]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD has considered this application for cover against its normal risk underwriting criteria and has concluded that the financial risk is at present too great for an offer of cover to be made.

  The Government's objective is that ECGD cover should be broadly competitive with that available from other export credit agencies. This does not, though, mean that in order to match foreign competition, it can accept risks which fall below the minimum quality consistent with achieving its financial break-even objective.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what average compensation payment has been paid to former miners suffering from(a) vibration white finger and (b) respiratory diseases. [2011]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 5 July 2001]With regard to vibration white finger the average compensation payment is currently £6,572. This mainly reflects cases of low disability where there is no claim for special damages. We expect the average to increase as more claims for special damages are processed.

  In relation to respiratory disease, the average expedited payment, which is offered on the basis of initial spirometry testing, is £5,412. The average offer so far in full and final settlement following the full medical assessment process is £9,847.

WALES

  St. David's Day
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly concerning declaring St. David's day a bank holiday in Wales. [2374]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet regularly with the First Minister to discuss a range of issues affecting Wales.

  Last year, the National Assembly asked the Government to consider declaring St. David's day a public holiday in Wales. This raises significant issues for business, industry and the public sector. I am discussing these matters both with colleagues in Government and with the First Minister.

  Regeneration Funds
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the distribution of regeneration funds in Wales. [1775]
  359W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Several funding programmes contribute towards regeneration in Wales. Significant among these are:

  European Structural Funds
  During the period 2000–06. Wales will be eligible for:

  €1.85 billion (approximately £1.2 billion) for Objective 1 areas—which cover two-thirds of the Welsh population;

  €81.39 million (approximately £51 million) for Objective 2 areas;

  €39.73 million (approximately £25 million) of transitional support in areas formerly covered by Objectives 2 or 5b; and

  €127 million (approximately £81 million) of Objective 3 funding—which is payable in those areas not covered by Objective 1.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Paid in support of industrial investment in the Assisted Areas, which cover more than 2 million people in Wales.

  Communities First
  A community-centred regeneration strategy targeted at improving the living conditions and prospects of people living in the most deprived parts of Wales. A total of 88 communities—covering 119 electoral wards—will benefit from funding of £82.7 million over three years.

  Distribution of funds from these and other programmes is a matter for the National Assembly.

DEFENCE

  National Missile Defence
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of RAF Fylingdales in the missile defence system. [1202]

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of RAF Fylingdales in missile defence systems. [1205]

  Mr. Hoon
  The US Administration are considering a range of options for missile defence both in the short and long-term. These include airborne and sea-based options, as well as options similar to those considered by the previous US Administration. They have not yet decided which of these options they will seek to deploy. It therefore remains too early to say whether or not a role for RAF Fylingdales will be proposed as part of any system.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the benefits to the United Kingdom of the missile defence system proposed by President Bush. [1219]

  Mr. Hoon
  President Bush has not yet decided what sort of missile defence system the United States will deploy. It is therefore premature to carry out any such assessment.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his United States counterparts concerning national missile defence. [1196]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have discussed missile defence with the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. I also discussed the subject regularly with his predecessor. I have consistently made it clear that we share US concerns about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 360W
  and their means of delivery, and that we will continue to work together to tackle the potential threat with a comprehensive strategy. But it remains the case that the US has not decided how it wishes to proceed with missile defence and has made no request for the use of facilities in the UK.

  Aircraft Procurement
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new aircraft his Department plans to procure for the RAF; and if he will make a statement. [1203]

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new aircraft his Department plans to procure for the RAF; and if he will make a statement. [1221]

  Dr. Moonie
  Including aircraft on order, we currently plan to acquire 232 Eurofighter multi-role aircraft; 25 A400M transport aircraft; 25 C130J transport aircraft; 21 Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft; eight Chinook Mark 3 support helicopters; 22 Merlin Mark 3 support helicopters, and five modified Global Express jets to carry Airborne Stand-Off Radar. We will also lease four C-17 transport aircraft.

  In addition, there are several projects where the exact number of aircraft which the RAF will use has still to be determined. These include: the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft; the Future Joint Combat Aircraft; the Future Offensive Air System; the Support, Amphibious and Battlefield Rotorcraft; and the UK Military Flying Training System programmes. Some of these programmes are planned to involve PFI solutions where the aircraft will not be owned by the Ministry of Defence.

  BAE Systems
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which Governments he has made representations in the last six months on matters relating to future defence business in which BAE Systems has an interest. [1204]

  Dr. Moonie
  In accordance with the Government's commitment to a strong defence industry, ministers and officials in the Ministry of Defence have an on-going dialogue with many overseas Governments in support of the UK defence industry.

  Bowman Communications System
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the award of the Bowman contract. [1206]

  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make a decision on the new supplier of the Bowman communications system; and if he will make a statement. [1201]

  Dr. Moonie
  A new competition for the Bowman communications system was announced on 25 July 2000. The competition has progressed ahead of schedule, with bids being received from Thales, General Dynamics company CDC, and TRW in February this year. All three bidders briefed Ministers recently and the Department is now in the final stages of a complex bid assessment process. We will announce a preferred supplier once we
  361W
  have fully assessed all the issues. On current plans we expect this to be by the end of July, ahead of our original timetable.

  Suez (Medals)
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about awarding a service medal to those who guarded the Suez Canal Zone in the 1950s. [1207]

  Dr. Moonie
  I continue to receive representations from hon. Members and members of the public on the award of a medal for service in the Canal Zone during the 1950s.

  European Defence Force
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the European Defence Force will have a planning capability separate from NATO. [1208]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no standing European Defence Force.

  The EU has a very small military staff to support its ability to take decisions which have military implications. This staff will undertake the high level consideration of options to support political/military decision making.

  Heads of State and Government agreed at Nice that the EU military staff will not have an operational planning function. They also agreed that NATO will carry out operational planning for EU-led operations that have recourse to NATO assets and capabilities. Operational planning for other operations may be carried out in existing national and multinational headquarters, such as the UK's permanent joint headquarters at Northwood.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice he has received from his senior military advisers about the likely effectiveness of the proposed European defence force. [1211]

  Mr. Hoon
  The EU is not creating a standing European Defence Force.

  The EU Headline Goal required the identification of a pool of forces potentially available for EU-led operations. Nations nominated their contributions to this pool at a Capability Commitments Conference in November 2000. Further improvements are to be identified at a second Conference later this year.

  The purpose of the Headline Goal is to encourage EU member states to make improvements in military capability. It is mutually reinforcing with NATO's Defence Capabilities Initiative.

  These arrangements are being developed on the basis of the best professional military advice.

  A400M
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the A400M. [1209]

  Dr. Moonie
  A significant step forward has recently been achieved on the A400M programme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence joined several European colleagues at the Paris Airshow on 19 June in signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for this programme. This MoU commits the UK to buying 362W
  25 A400M aircraft in order to satisfy the UK's Future Transport Aircraft requirement, alongside commitments from other partners. Signature of the A400M MoU paves the way for placement of the contract with Airbus Military Company. Signature of the contract is conditional on satisfactory completion of contractual negotiations, on which some important issues remain to be resolved but we are striving with our partners to ensure contract placement as soon as possible.

  Service Strengths
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects each of the three services to reach their full manning strength. [1210]

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects each of the three services to reach their full manning strength. [1212]

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects each of the three services to reach their full manning strength. [1214]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell),Official Report, column 535.

  Defence a Medical Services
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he is making in recruiting medical and nursing staff into the defence medical services. [1213]

  Dr. Moonie
  Recruitment into training is generally satisfactory. We have increased the targets for medical cadets and trainee nurses and I am happy to say we have attracted a good response. Recruiting fully or partially trained personnel, particularly doctors and nurses, is more difficult. A new initiative has commenced with the aim of improving recruitment of fully trained personnel and will continue over the next year. We are, of course, continuing to work closely with the NHS on the issue of recruitment, as well as on many other matters.

  Discrimination (Compensation)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by his Department in setting compensation claims for those service men and women discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality following the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. [1215]

  Dr. Moonie
  Excluding the four cases determined by the European Court of Human Rights, 11 claims have now been settled, by negotiation, at a total cost of £139,250.

  Negotiations are still ongoing between the Ministry of Defence's legal advisers and legal representatives acting for the remaining claimants with a view to reaching speedy conclusions to their cases.

  Type 45 Destroyer
  Dr. Julian Levis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the type 45 programme. [1216]
  363W
  Dr. Moonie
  The analysis of BAE Systems Marine's unsolicited bid continues and we intend to announce our decision as soon as is practicable. At our request RAND are studying a range of alternative procurement strategies for our future warship programmes, with particular focus on options for the type 45 destroyers. This study will help inform our decisions. Wider economic impacts of the way ahead, and value for money, will be taken into account when the Government reach their conclusions on the way ahead and all interested Government Departments are being consulted.

  Ship Procurement
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ships his Department plans to procure for the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement. [1217]

  Dr. Moonie
  Our forward shipbuilding programme for the Royal Navy is the largest for many years. We plan to introduce over 30 new ships into service in the next 15–20 years. This includes two large, more capable carriers due to enter service in 2012 and 2015 respectively, up to 12 new type 45 destroyers due to enter into service from 2007 onwards, and the new future surface combatant class. In addition there are three new astute class nuclear-powered attack submarines due to enter service from 2005 and we will be considering placing an order for further astute submarines next year.

  Our procurement programme also involves major enhancements to our naval support and amphibious capabilities. Two new auxiliary oilers are expected to enter service in 2002 when we will also begin leasing three new offshore patrol vessels. In 2003, we will have two new multi-role survey vessels in service and two new landing platform docks. By 2006, we expect to have four new alternative landing ship logistics in-service.

  All these vessels will be built in UK yards and this programme provides an excellent opportunity for the British shipbuilding industry. In addition, we will have all six ro-ro vessels, comprising the strategic sealift service, available for the Ministry of Defence under PFI arrangement from 2003 onwards.

  This is only part of a wider modernisation programme that we are taking forward to enhance our maritime capability.

  Macedonia
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts on Macedonia. [1218]

  Mr. Hoon
  I was unable to attend the North Atlantic Council Defence Ministers meeting on 7 June, but I am in regular contact with the Secretary General of NATO, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and have discussed events in Macedonia with him.

  Army Training Facilities
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to provide more UK-based training facilities for the Army. [1220]
  364W
  Dr. Moonie
  My Department evaluates its training facilities constantly in order to ensure that we have sufficient and appropriate facilities to allow our troops to meet their training objectives. Work is in progress in a number of areas which will help maximise the utility of our existing facilities.

  Army Deployments
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the five largest deployments of British forces abroad. [1222]

  Mr. Ingram
  As of 28 June 2001, the five largest operational deployments of UK service personnel overseas are: the UK contribution to NATO operations in Kosovo; the UK contribution to NATO operations in Bosnia; the UK contribution to coalition operations in the Gulf; the UK's training, advisory and assistance team in Sierra Leone and the UK contribution to UN operations in Cyprus.

  Personnel Shortfalls
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the shortfall of service men in(a) the Army, (b) the Marines, (c) the Royal Navy and (d) the RAF; and to what extent the shortfall is supplemented by the Territorial Army. [2140]

  Mr. Ingram
  The shortfalls in the trained strength of the armed forces as at 1 May 2001 are shown in the table. Column 3 shows the extent to which the shortfalls were being ameliorated by the use of Volunteer Reservists (e.g. the Territorial Army) and Regular Reservists:

  Shortfall

  FTRS1

  Remaining shortfall

  Royal Navy

  1,042

  476

  566

  Royal Marines

  375

  51

  342

  Army

  8,746

  674

  8,072

  RAF

  1,795

  136

  1,759

  1 This includes Limited Commitment (LC) and Home Commitments (HC) Full Time Reservists serving in the RAF.

  Full Time Reserve Service (FTRS) is a new form of reserve service introduced by the Reserve Forces Act 1996. This legislation enables reservists to be employed on a wider variety of tasks than previously. This change has been particularly well received by personnel of the Reserve Forces and is being well used. It should be noted that both members of the Volunteer Reserve Forces, such as the Territorial Army (TA), and members of the Ex-Regular Reserve Forces (i.e. ex-Regulars who have left full-time service) can undertake FTRS.

  Reservists also contribute to enduring operations such as the Balkans and Sierra Leone by volunteering to be called out for permanent (i.e. mobilised) service, normally six-month tours. At present some 500 reservists are called out into permanent service. Although this further contribution by the Reserve Forces helps to relieve the Regular Forces shortfalls, it is short-term and does not count against the manpower strengths and requirements of the Regular Forces.

  HMS Sheffield
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what instructions were given to the official stenographer relating to amending evidence given by witnesses at the inquiry into the sinking of HMS Sheffield; and if he will make a statement; [R] [2339]

  (2) if he will publish the papers relating to the Board of Inquiry into the sinking of HMS Sheffield; if he will make copies available at no charge to the then crew of HMS Sheffield and their families; and if he will make a statement; [R] [2341]

  (3) if he will establish a public inquiry into the sinking of HMS Sheffield; and if he will make a statement; [2340]

  (4) what (a) court martial proceedings and (b) disciplinary action against crew of HMS Sheffield were recommended following the inquiry into her sinking; who made the decision on prosecution; and if he will make a statement. [R] [2342]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 4 May 1982, HMS Sheffield was lost in action in the Falklands with the loss of 20 lives; 26 other members of the crew were injured. Our sympathies of course lie with the survivors from HMS Sheffield and with the families of those who lost their lives or suffered injury. In accordance with normal naval procedures a Board of Inquiry fully investigated the incident. I am confident that the original Board of Inquiry was conducted to the highest professional standards and there would be no useful purpose in reopening this tragic incident.

  Following the Board of Inquiry and after giving due consideration to the findings, in September 1982, the then Commander in Chief Fleet concluded that it was not appropriate to take disciplinary action against any member of the crew of HMS Sheffield.

  Much of the information put before the Board of Inquiry was, and remains, highly classified and I am withholding it under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Assess to Government Information which relates to defence, security and international relations.

  Instructions to the official stenographer would have been recorded in the Transcript of Evidence of the Board of Inquiry, but unfortunately, in the time available, I regret it has not been possible to trace the file containing the Transcript of Evidence. I will write to the hon. Member on that point when I have further information and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Stun Grenades
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the international code is for identification of the country of origin on munitions, with particular reference to stun grenades. [1120]

  Mr. Ingram
  NATO uses the fifth and sixth digit of the NATO Stock Number (NSN) as an identifier of the country of origin (or manufacturer) of munitions. The NSN appears on the packaging of munitions and not necessarily on the munitions themselves.

  Fertility Treatment
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to extend fertility treatment to service personnel and their families. [2401]

  Dr. Moonie
  Fertility treatment is not provided by the defence medical services, although contributory causes would be investigated and treated in accordance with normal medical practice. Service personnel seeking fertility treatment would need to obtain it through the national health service (NHS), or privately if they were prepared to meet the cost.

  The policy on the provision of fertility treatment in the NHS is under review. When new guidelines are issued to health authorities, the Ministry of Defence will consider what changes, if any are necessary to our current policy on the provision of fertility treatment for Service personnel.

  Bullying
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of his Department's report on bullying published in 1973–74 and on infantry bullying of young recruits published in 1990–91. [2790]

  Mr. Ingram
  Officials are in the process of retrieving the relevant reports. Once this has been completed I will write to my right hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Menwith Hill
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance has been(a) asked for and (b) given to the US Government in transferring US personnel from Bad Aibling to Menwith Hill; and if he will make a statement. [2789]

  Mr. Ingram
  My officials have discussed with the US authorities the transfer of some US personnel to RAF Menwith Hill following the closure of Bad Aibling in Bavaria. Current plans are that this will result in a temporary small net increase in staff numbers at RAF Menwith Hill over the next year. The personnel transferred in will be absorbed in existing operations, and do not represent any new mission being established in the UK.

  Tanker Replacement
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the engines which will power the rival bids on the tanker replacement programme. [2582]

  Dr. Moonie
  Two consortia submitted bids for this PFI project on 3 July, so our evaluation of their proposals is at an early stage. Many details of the solutions offered are commercially sensitive and will remain so at least until we make a final investment decision around mid-2002. However, both bidders are content for it to be known that the aircraft currently specified in their bids are powered by Rolls-Royce engines.

  Defence Aviation Repair. Agency
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) civilian and (b) military personnel were employed by DA RA at RAF St. Athan on 1 July. [3090]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 1 July 2001 DARA employed 523 service personnel and 2,344 civilian at RAF St. Athan.

  MOD Housing (Gosport)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) acquisitions and (b) disposals of MOD housing are (i) in hand and (ii) planned in the Gosport constituency. [2828]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has no current plans to provide new service family accommodation in the Gosport constituency. Fifty-one officers' quarters are to be provided at Seafield Park, Fareham as part of a joint Bath, Bristol, Seafield Park Private Finance Initiative (PFI). A decision has also been taken n to begin a second Portsmouth PFI to provide 126 officers' and 35 other ranks' quarters. The precise location of this second PFI provision, ie whether it will be in the Gosport constituency or elsewhere in the Portsmouth/Gosport area, has yet to be determined.

  In the current financial year 29 properties in Old Rowner are to be returned to their owner, Annington Homes. Decisions have not yet been taken regarding any possible disposals for 2002–03 and beyond.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many additional claims for the Minimum Income Guarantee(a) have been received, (b) have been processed and (c) were successful as a result of the national take-up campaign; and what his latest estimate is of the number of pensioners entitled I to Income Support and not receiving it. [2390]

  Mr. McCartney
  Up to the end of May 2001, 227,333 additional claims for Minimum Income Guarantee have been received and processed since the beginning of the MIG take-up campaign in May 2000. Of those claims 110,744 have been successful.

  The latest estimates of pensioner s entitled to Income Support and not receiving it are set out in the publication "Income Related Benefits—Estimates of Take Up in 1998–99". A copy is available in the Library.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the timetable is for publishing the results of the quantative tracking research on pensioners' awareness of the Minimum Income; Guarantee; and on what date the report on the use of the MIG claimline will be published. [2273]

  Mr. McCartney
  Copies of the Management Summaries of the research to track pensioners' awareness of the Minimum Income Guarantee have been placed in the Library.
  368W
  We expect to publish the report on the evaluation of the Minimum Income Guarantee claim line later this year.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners have become newly entitled to the Minimum Income Guarantee in each year since 1997 as a result of(a) benefit increases, (b) reduced capital and (c) reduced income. [2256]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reasons people who have responded to the Minimum Income Guarantee take-up campaign have had their claims refused, indicating the number affected by each reason. [2253]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is in the table.

  Reasons for refused claims and numbers affected from May 2000 to May 2001

  Reason

  Percentage

  Number

  Income

  54

  62,958

  Capital

  41

  47,801

  Other

  5

  5,830

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) single and (b) married pensioners who have made a successful claim to the Minimum Income Guarantee as a result of the take-up campaign have received an additional weekly income of (i) less than £5, (ii)between £5 and £10, (iii) between £10 and £20, (iv) between £20 and £30, (v) between £30 and £40, (vi) between £40 and £50 and (vii) over £50. [2252]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) letters have been sent out, (b) telephone calls have been made to the MIG claim line, (c) postal packs have been sent out, (d) additional claims have been made and (e) additional successful claims there have been as a result of the MIG take-up campaign to the end of May. [2255]

  Mr. McCartney
  As at the end of May 2001, 227,333 additional claims have been made since the beginning of the MIG take-up campaign. Of these, 110,744 have been successful.

  Between 30 May 2000 and mid-November 2000, 2.4 million Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) mailshot letters were issued and a further 102,000 were issued between 5 March 2001 and 9 March 2001.

  As at the end of June 2001, the MIG claim line answered 579,260 telephone calls and 571,900 postal packs were sent out.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the number of elderly people entitled to the Minimum Income Guarantee but not claiming it; and if he will make a statement. [2132]

  Mr. McCartney
  The latest estimates of the numbers of elderly people entitled to Income Support (Minimum Income Guarantee since April 1999) but not claiming it
  369W
  are set out in the publication "Income Related Benefits—Estimates of Take Up in 1998–99", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Statistics and Reports
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the publication dates of statistics and reports due to be released by his Department and the agencies under his Department in the next 12 months. [374]

  Mr. McCartney
  Information on the release dates of statistics published by the Department under the National Statistics banner is notified in the National Statistics Update issued by the Office for National Statistics. Release dates four months ahead are given and the information is rolled forward one month at the end of each month.

  International Labour Organisation
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the effect on his Department's policies of the creation of a new world commission on the social dimension of globalisation by the International Labour Organisation. [1766]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Director General of the ILO has proposed a world commission to carry out a comprehensive analysis of the social dimensions of globalisation. This proposal, which has the broad support of the EU, will be discussed in more detail at the Governing Body of the ILO in November. Any implications for the UK should then be clear.

  Child Support
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if a non-resident parent's responsibility to support a child will end if that child is adopted under the child support system to be introduced in April 2002. [2145]

  Malcolm Wicks
  A maintenance assessment can be cancelled when the non-resident parent ceases to be a parent of the child to whom the assessment applies. The provisions for the new scheme have the same effect. When a child is adopted, the non-resident parent will normally no longer be treated as a parent of that child.

  Retirement Pension (Payday Regulations)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what estimate has been made of the savings to public funds from the retirement pension payday regulations contained in section 5 of the Social Security Act 1982; [2310]

  (2) if he will review the retirement pension payday regulations contained in section 5 of the Social Security Act 1982. [2311]

  Mr. McCartney
  The current regulations provide for the payment of retirement pension in whole weeks.

  If payment were made for part-weeks, and the recovery of overpaid benefit at the end of the claim was abandoned, we estimate the costs would be up to £20 million.

  There are no plans to change the present self-balancing arrangements.

  Benefit Entitlement
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to require people to have their name on the electoral register as a requirement for receipt of benefit. [2254]

  Malcolm Wicks
  It is not practical to require people to have their name on the electoral register as a requirement of receipt of benefit Some people who are entitled to benefit are not entitled to vote.

  Departmental Website (Search Facility)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to offer a search facility on the Department for Work and Pensions website in addition to the link to UK Online. [2262]

  Malcolm Wicks
  A search facility was introduced to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) site on 4 July. As well as searching the DWP site it also allows users to search the former DSS website, which continues to provide accurate and up-to-date information. The link to UK Online will remain.

  Pension Credit
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will I provide tables similar to those in the Annex to the consultation paper on the Pension Credit (Cm 4900), showing how the scheme would operate in 2013–14 and 2023–24, assuming that the Minimum Income Guarantee rises in line with earnings and the basic pension in line with prices from 2003 on. [2388]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Pension Credit forms a key part of the Government's overall strategy for tackling pensioner poverty.

  We are completing the design of the Pension Credit and will publish details of our proposals, including their long-term implications when the Bill is introduced.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he proposes to take to achieve the aim, set out on page 24 of the consultation paper on the Pension Credit (Cm 4900), that pensioners receiving full Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit should continue to do so after the introduction of the Pension Credit. [2389]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Pension Credit forms a key part of the Government's overall strategy for tackling pensioner poverty.

  We are completing the design of the Credit and will publish details of our proposals when the Bill is introduced.

  New Deal for Lone Parents
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the progress of the New Deal for Lone Parents in Coventry. [2974]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  By the end of April this year, 1,562 lone parents in the Coventry district had participated in the New Deal for Lone Parents. Of these, 49 had taken up education or training to improve their skills and 578 had found and work.
  371W
  Across the country we are offering lone parents new choices. We are inviting lone parents into Jobcentres to give them the chance to find out about all of the measures that we have introduced. We are offering lone parents more opportunities than ever before to move off benefit and into work, providing a better future for themselves and their children.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents will be published. [2271]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The evaluation of the prototype of NDLP was published on 3 March 2000. Follow up reports and research on the national phase of the programme have been published since then and new items of research are published as they are completed. We expect to publish a report, bringing together findings from all strands of the evaluation, in 2003.

  SERPS
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have contracted back into SERPS from contracted-out mone3 purchase pension schemes and approved personal pensions in each of the last three years. [2267]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not yet available. We are currently analysing output from the NIRS2 computer system for accuracy and compatibility; this will take a number of months to complete.

  Interpreting Services
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is on the provision of interpreting services at Jobcentres and social security offices. [1127]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  If a job seeker whose first language is not English requires an interpreter, Employment Service (ES) policy states that the Jobcentre must provide this service to ensure our obligations to equal opportunities are met. ES star f have access to a range of interpreter provision which includes: using colleagues within the Jobcentre, local authority or community who speak the relevant language; asking if the jobseeker would like to bring a friend or relative along to translate; and, through a contract with the Benefits Agency, access to the telephone interpreting service 'Language Line'.

  The Benefits Agency also have a responsibility to make appropriate provision to communicate with customers who do not speak English, who use British Sign Language, or who require the services of a lipspeaker or deafblind interpreter. The policy for the delivery of interpreting services is: where it is necessary to interview a customer who does not speak English or Welsh, arrangements must be made within one working day to provide an interpreter1.

  1 The arrangements should be made within one working day, the interview does not have to take place within one working day.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if life insurance cover may be included in 372W
  the minimum contribution level needed for a group personal pension to be accepted as an alternative to a stakeholder pension. [367]

  Mr. McCartney
  Yes, but the proportion of the minimum 3 per cent. contribution level that can be used for insurance premiums to provide death benefits depends on when the arrangement was set up.

  If the arrangement for paying premiums via the personal pension was set up before 6 April 2001, a maximum of 5 per cent, of the employee's net relevant earnings can still be used towards the term assurance contract.

  But where the arrangements commenced on or after 6 April 2001, the maximum that can be paid as a premium is 10 per cent. of the pension contribution. Thus if the only pension contribution is the employer's 3 per cent., the maximum that can be used as a premium is 10 per cent. of the 3 per cent.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research his Department is undertaking to assess the income levels of people who invest in stakeholder pensions. [375]

  Mr. McCartney
  As part of a wide-ranging evaluation of the impact of stakeholder pensions the Department is undertaking a programme of dedicated research and analyses of administrative and statistical information. Details of individuals' incomes have been, or will be, collected in all research among individuals undertaken by, or on behalf of, the Department in connection with the evaluation of stakeholder pensions. Questions on stakeholder pensions will, for example, be included in the Office for National Statistics (ONS's) General Household Survey and in the Department's Family Resources Survey.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions are taking place between the Government and Opra to ensure there is a clear set of guidelines by which to determine which companies are fined for breaking the new stakeholder rules; and if small firms will be offered more leeway than larger firms when the rules have been broken. [365]

  Mr. McCartney
  From 8 October employers who are not exempt will be required to provide their employees with access to a stakeholder pension. The new requirements on employers are not onerous; but for many this will be their first involvement with pensions.

  The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra) is an independent regulator. Their priority is to get employers to comply with the new arrangements. A key part of this process is to continue to educate employers about the requirements of the new arrangements.

  Where an employer is reported to Opra for a breach of the rules, a warning letter will be sent by Opra to the employer. The letter will explain the new requirements and the obligations that employers now have. The employer will be asked to submit evidence of compliance. Cases where the employer continues to fail to comply

  373W
  with the new arrangements will be considered by Opra on an individual basis according to the circumstances of each case. The level of any fine will depend upon the circumstances surrounding a breach, including how the employer has responded on being contacted about the breach.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the number of arable farms which benefit from income from car boot sales; and if she will make a statement. [2112]

  Alun Michael
  There are no figures available on the number of arable farms which benefit from income from car boot sales.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the impact on energy use of providing home buyers with tailored energy efficiency advice on properties. [1813]

  Mr. Meacher
  It is very difficult to provide an accurate quantification of the energy savings expected from the provision of energy efficiency advice. However, figures from the Energy Saving Trust's Energy Efficiency Advice Centres suggest that 60 per cent. of their customers act in some way to advice given. They estimate that this has resulted in energy savings per home of £26 per year, or around 1,600 kilo Watt hours.

  As my hon. Friend may know, as part of our proposals to improve the home buying and selling process, the Government propose to require sellers to include an energy efficiency report, prepared by an approved home inspector, in a new seller's pack. The purpose is to put information in the hands of the buyer at the time they are most likely to be taking decisions about expenditure on a property.

  Assuming that savings are similar to those resulting from advice given by the Advice Centres, we estimate that energy efficiency advice in the seller's pack could save around two TeraWatt hours per year. This is based on around 1.3 million home transactions per year in England and Wales.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what is the average interval between application and granting of moneys for the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme(a) in total, (b) in Gloucestershire and (c) the Forest of Dean. [1800]

  Mr. Meacher
  The average time taken from initial application to payment to installers is set out in the table. The figures identified include the time taken by HEES surveyors to identify measures to be installed and installers submitting and receiving payment of their invoices following completion of works, typically 6–8 weeks:
  374W

  Days

  Insulation

  Heating

  England

  96

  168

  Gloucestershire

  91

  143

  Forest of Dean

  93

  134

  Plutonium MOX Fuel
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the text of the letter sent to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, dated 11 May, concerning the remit of consultants Arthur D. Little in the independent appraisal of the revised BNFL economic and market assessment for plutonium MOX fuel; and if she will place in the Library a copy of the completed ADL study. [1758]

  Mr. Meacher
  My letter to my hon. Friend was dated 30 May; the answer I gave on 11 May 2001,Official Report, column 386W, said that I would write to him. I have placed a copy of my 30 May letter in the Library of the House.

  We intend to publish the Arthur D. Little report as soon as possible, excluding only that material—such as contract prices—whose publication would cause unreasonable commercial damage to BNFL's commercial operations or to the economic case for the MOX plant itself. A copy of this, too, will be placed in the Library. We propose to allow people four weeks for comment.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions her Department has had with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport regarding help for businesses that have suffered losses due to the foot and mouth crisis. [2146]

  Alun Michael
  My predecessor as chairman of the Rural Task Force, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), and officials in former DETR and DEFRA, have held frequent discussions with DCMS Ministers and officials as I have done since taking on this role. The Minister for Tourism, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), is a member of the Rural Task Force, and he and I have met twice since the general election. The Government have provided significant assistance for businesses indirectly affected by foot and mouth disease, including interest-free deferal of tax payments, extra central subsidy where local authorities grant hardship relief from rates, and the £50 million Business Recovery Fund administered by Regional Development Agencies.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria she has published for the re-opening of public footpaths following the foot and mouth outbreak. [1735]

  Alun Michael
  On 23 May we issued revised guidance to local authorities, based on the latest veterinary risk assessment published at the same time, that it was safe to re-open all public rights of way outside 3 km protection zones around infected premises. The veterinary risk assessment concluded that the likelihood of footpath users transmitting the foot and mouth disease virus was extremely small. Nevertheless, as part of our drive to
  375W
  eradicate foot and mouth disease all path users are urged to observe the precautions published in the codes of conduct issued with the guidance.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the advice her Department is offering to local authorities on the re-opening of footpaths after the foot and mouth outbreak. [1675]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]Guidance was issued by the Government on 23 May, based on veterinary risk assessment, that footpaths outside 3 km protection zones around Infected Premises may be safely re-opened. That guidance remains in place.

  As part of our strategy for rural recovery we want to see footpaths and other rights of way re-opened wherever it is safe to do so. This is essential in order to enable rural businesses to return to normal working and is fully consistent with our priority of doing everything possible to eradicate foot and mouth disease In addition I have announced my intention to lift the power of local authorities to impose a blanket ban on use of footpaths in an area except where a local authority can show it is needed to maintain the effectiveness of efforts to eradicate foot and mouth disease. I hope to make a further announcement shortly following the current consultation with local authorities.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when and by what means the Government announced its intention to hold an inquiry into foot and mouth disease; if she will ensure that the inquiry considers(a) the merits of greater use of vaccination, (b) the role of the Environment Agency in specifying farms and other sites suitable for burial of carcases and (c) the implication for local communities of mass burial sites; and if she will make a statement. [841]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 June 2001]There will be an inquiry, when the disease is finally over. We have always said we are keen to learn the lessons from this outbreak. The precise nature and scope of the inquiry will be a matter for the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's plans to hold an independent public inquiry into the foot and mouth crisis. [269]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]It is right that we consider very carefully the full range of issues connected with the foot and mouth outbreak. The question of whether there should be a public inquiry is one for the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to allow an independent audit of the official foot and mouth statistics. [273]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]There is no current plan to conduct an independent audit of the official foot and mouth statistics but the compilation and presentation of statistics will no doubt be among the areas to be considered when reviewing the issues arising from the outbreak.
  376W
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes there have been for official statistical purposes to the definition of foot and mouth carcase disposal since 20 February. [209]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]Carcase disposal has and continues to be defined for official statistics purposes by reference to the date on which disposal was completed. This is reflected in the statistical data published on the DEFRA website http://www.defra.gov.uk/. The only change has been in terms of the time taken to make information available; previously the time lag tended to make the situation appear worse than it was. Systems have been improved so that statistics are now entered much more quickly and give a more accurate picture.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what date the Government defined the foot and mouth outbreak as an epidemic. [284]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]The Government have not set a date from which the outbreak should be considered an epidemic.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information the Government have received from studies of the genetic fingerprint of the virus responsible for the current foot and mouth epidemic in the United Kingdom; and what understanding further to the type O PanAsia strain identification of the virus. [285]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]We have looked at the genetic fingerprint of 27 isolates of foot and mouth disease virus during the current outbreak in the UK. These included representative samples from different areas of the country and from different time-points since February 2001. All were very closely related to the PanAsia strain of FMDV type O. Sequences studied in the Republic of Ireland, France and the Netherlands were essentially identical to the UK isolations.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what scientific advice the Government have received on the type and the overseas geographical source of the viruses responsible for the current foot and mouth epidemic in the United Kingdom. [283]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]The PanAsia strain of FMDV type O (the virus identified in the UK outbreak) is distributed over much of southern Asia. Pinpointing an exact origin has not been possible.

  Work is continuing at the Institute of Animal Health to determine the complete genome sequence of the UK outbreak strain and to compare it with the genome sequences of viruses from South Africa, China and South Korea to obtain additional data about the extent of the relationships between those strains.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the duties of EU member state Governments in respect of information and instructions received from the EU concerning restrictions on imports from non-EU countries affected by animal disease outbreaks. [282]
  377W
  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]It is the duty of each EU member state Government to transpose into national law all Community legal instruments adopted by the European Commission in relation to outbreaks of animal disease in non-EU countries and to enforce them accordingly.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the number of(a) calves, (b) lambs and (c) piglets that have been included in the foot and mouth cull but not recorded in official figures for the number of animals culled. [270]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]Young animals culled as a result of foot and mouth disease are included in the total slaughter figure. This figure, including calves, lambs and piglets, is updated daily on the DEFR A foot and mouth disease website http://www.defra.gov.uk/.

  Farm Animal Welfare
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the terms of reference for the proposed independent commission on farming and food will include improvements in farm animal welfare; and if she will make a statement. [2471]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on 28 June 2001,Official Report, column 178W.

  Potato Harvest
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations(a) she and (b) her predecessor received about extending the date limit on harvesting potatoes on set-aside land in Northumberland following exceptionally wet weather; and if extensions have been granted. [1173]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 28 June 2001]The date limit for harvesting potatoes, or other crops, from set-aside land is designed to ensure that farmers cannot receive both an EU payment for taking land out of production and revenue from agricultural operations during the set-aside period. In a normal year any previously planted crops must be harvested by 15 January at the latest in order to comply with this condition, which is laid down in implementing legislation for the EU's Arable Area Payments Scheme. In view of a number of representations from the industry at the time, the UK twice successfully applied to the European Commission to have the date postponed, initially to 31 March and subsequently to 30 April, in order to allow sufficient time for harvesting to be completed where field conditions resulting from exceptionally wet weather had earlier made this impossible. We also secured a derogation allowing failed crops to be ploughed in at any time before the 15 May claim deadline, without prejudicing eligibility for set-aside payment.

  Notwithstanding these changes, my predecessor did receive some subsequent representations asking for a further postponement of the harvesting date limit beyond 30 April. The European Commission were not prepared to agree to this, pointing both to the practical difficulties of ensuring that crops harvested so late had genuinely
  378W
  been planted with a view to harvest by 15 January, as normally required, and to the likely condition of such crops after so long in unworkable ground.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many submissions were nude to the consultation on the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy; how many of these responses recommended that the definition of fuel poverty should use a form of disposable income; and if she will make a statement on the Government's plans for assessing and responding to the consultation. [1319]

  Mr. Meacher
  Over 240 responses have been received on the draft UK Fuel Poverty Strategy. Since the consultation only ended every recently these are now being analysed before decisions are taken on the best way forward.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when preparations began (1) for the transfer of responsibility for environmental sustainability to the new Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; [276]

  (2) for the reorganisation of Whitehall responsibilities involved in the creation of the new Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; [199]

  (3) for the transfer of responsibility for the Environment Agency to the new Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. [197]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]In keeping with normal practice, contingency work was undertaken within the civil service during the election campaign, on the basis of proposals published in party manifestos.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the role of rural advocate will change because of the creation of her Department. [267]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]No. The role of the rural advocate, as the Government's statutory adviser on the countryside, is to argue the case on countryside issues and for rural people at the highest levels across Government and outside. That task will be assisted by bringing together rural policy responsibilities in my Department but many other Departments have responsibility for policy areas with a major impact on rural communities.

  Quangos
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the number of quangos previously overseen by the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will reduce following the establishment of her Department. [291]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]There are no current plans to do so, but the need for each non-departmental public body is regularly reviewed.

  Tractors
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what limit was agreed by the EU Employment and Social Policy Council on tractor use and the length of the transition period. [738]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]The EU Employment and Social Policy Council is not seeking to impose a specific limit on tractor use. However, it has been discussing the proposed Physical Agents (Vibration) Directive which would, among other provisions, set a mandatory limit for exposure to whole body vibration. Limiting whole body vibration would affect tractor driving time but the impact will depend on the magnitude of the vibration in individual cases. The Council agreed on a maximum dose of 1.15 metres per second squared (a measure of acceleration) averaged over an 8-hour period for whole body vibration exposure. In the case of tractor use, the impact would vary, depending on factors such as seating and cab design. Under the transition arrangements proposed agriculture would not be required to comply with the whole body vibration limits until 2013.

  The Directive has not been agreed and is due to be considered by the European Parliament in September.

  Tourism
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the division of responsibility for tourism between her Department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. [277]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]Tourism is an increasingly important industry for many rural communities and my Department will be keen to work closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, our regional and local partners, and the Countryside Agency and other stakeholders in promoting the contribution it can make to the rural economy.

  There has been no change to the responsibilities of DCMS in relation to rural tourism.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the division of responsibility for food and food safety between her Department other Government Departments and the Food Standards Agency. [278]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]This Department retains the responsibilities for food of the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which embrace all elements of the food chain from primary agricultural production to retailing and the protection of public health in relation to farm produce and to animal diseases transmissible to humans. The Department will work closely with other Departments to promote sustainable and diverse farming and food industries that work together to meet the needs of consumers. Food safety remains the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs which Minister in her Department will in normal circumstances attend meetings of the Agriculture Council. [204]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]I will

  Fishmeal
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the restrictions in the use of fishmeal in animal feed. [210]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]A proposal to extend the restriction on the use of fishmeal in ruminant feed failed to secure a qualified majority in the Agriculture Council of 19 June. In the absence of a qualified majority against the proposal, the Commission are now free to extend the ban under their own competence, and they have expressed their intention to do so. However, they have undertaken to review the ban once a diagnostic test to differentiate between animal and fish protein is validated.

  South African Meat Exports
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) value and (b) volume of meat products exported from South Africa to the United Kingdom was in each (i) year and (ii) month since 1997. [397]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]Official Overseas Trade statistics show that the value and volume of meat products exported from South Africa to the United Kingdom since 1997 was as follows:

  UK imports of beef from South Africa: January 1997 to April 2001

  Carcase meat

  Meat and offal preparations

  Total

  Year

  Tonnes

  £000

  Tonnes

  £000

  Tonnes

  £000

  1997

  May

  13

  40

  —

  —

  13

  40

  September

  —

  —

  52

  97

  52

  97

  December

  59

  217

  35

  70

  93

  287

  1998

  March

  —

  —

  17

  32

  17

  32

  April

  —

  —

  52

  94

  52

  94

  July

  89

  236

  —

  —

  89

  236

  September

  15

  39

  —

  —

  15

  39

  October

  166

  455

  —

  —

  166

  455

  1999

  May

  209

  557

  67

  165

  276

  722

  June

  15

  37

  —

  —

  15

  37

  2000

  January

  —

  —

  17

  23

  17

  23

  February

  15

  12

  —

  —

  15

  12

  April

  58

  161

  —

  —

  58

  161

  May

  4

  16

  —

  —

  4

  16

  June

  —

  —

  17

  49

  17

  49

  October

  56

  143

  17

  59

  72

  203

  December

  —

  —

  34

  51

  34

  51

  2001

  January

  —

  —

  34

  51

  34

  51

  February

  —

  —

  34

  51

  34

  51

  March

  15

  29

  34

  51

  49

  80

  April

  —

  —

  51

  76

  51

  76

  381W

  UK imports of pigmeat from South Africa: January 1997 to April 2001

  Pork

  Tonnes

  £000

  1997

  February

  9

  13

  1998

  March

  20

  10

  No imports were recorded for other meat products.

  Only months for which trade was reported are shown in the tables.

  Fox Numbers
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what effect the cessation of fox hunting with dogs as the result of foot and mouth disease has had on the total number of foxes. [2367]

  Alun Michael
  There is no information collected centrally which could provide the basis for an answer to this question. The pressure on the Department's staff—and indeed on all organisations involved—has been enormous and collation of data at this time is focused on information relevant to eradication of foot and mouth disease.

  Petrol Safety
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received calling for the introduction of third party monitoring of wetstock at petrol retailers. [1577]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  HSE does not collect statistics on the number of field visits and inspections made by environmental health officers to petrol retail outlets using underground storage tanks. Local authority petroleum officers issue licences under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 to petrol retail outlets to ensure the safe storage of petrol.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what initiatives are being undertaken to ensure that petrol retail site managers are fully trained to assess wetstock risks. [1582]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  A recent circular, jointly issued by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and local authority interests (PETEL 65/34 "leak detection in tanks and pipework"), gives relevant advice to petroleum officers on this topic. Petroleum officers will use this advice when carrying out inspections. The circular is available on the HSE website.

  Mobile Telephone Masts
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice she gives to local authorities in relation to planning applications for mobile telephone masts; what research her Department is sponsoring into the health risks involved; and what proposals she has to review such advice. [2118]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.
  382W
  Government planning policy for telecommunications is set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 8 (revised): Telecommunications and the Department's Circular 4–99 "Planning for Telecommunications".

  In June 2000, my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Housing, Plan ling and Construction wrote to Council Leaders in England to explain the action the Government had in hand to take forward the planning recommendations of the Stewart report ("Mobile Phones and Health") published in May 2000, and to give guidance on how local planning authorities should take into account health aspects when considering planning applications.

  On 16 March 2001, Official Report, columns 748–51W, my right hon. Friend announced a series of important changes to the planning, system for telecommunications masts which will significantly strengthen the current arrangements. On that day, he wrote to the Leaders of all Councils in England and to all hon. Members for constituencies in England to advise them of the proposed changes. Copies of the letter were sent to chief planning officers.

  We shall introduce the rules and publish the revised Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG8) on Telecommunications Development to implement the changes at the earliest opportunity.

  In December 2000, the Department of Health announced a new research programme, costing around £7 million and funded jointly by Government and industry, which will be directed and overseen by a task force led by Sir William Stewart. It will carry out research into the effects of mobile phone technology on health and the process will ensure that Government and the public are kept up to date with new research findings.

  The Government are keeping the whole area of mobile phone technologies under review in the light of further research.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to clean the roof of the dome; and if she will make a statement. [2092]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  None, although English Partnerships, as owners of the dome, will of course keep under review all matters relating to management and maintenance of their assets.

  Vitamins and Minerals
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the work of the ad hoc expert advisory group on vitamins and minerals. [1993]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals was established to review the safety of high-dose vitamin and mineral supplements to ensure that the public are not put at risk.

  The group expect to complete the reviews of the relevant scientific information on the safety of individual vitamins and minerals shortly. Following this, the group

  383W
  will complete risk assessments for the vitamins and minerals reviewed. Its conclusions will be issued by the Food Standards Agency for public consultation with a view to publishing its final report in 2002. A copy of the final report will be sent to the Scientific Committee on Food to inform deliberations by that committee on a draft proposal for an EU Council Directive relating to the addition of nutrients to foods.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will provide a detailed list of the responsibilities of the Ministers in her Department. [214]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]The responsibilities of Ministers in my Department are as follows:

  Secretary of State: right hon. Margaret Beckett MP
  Overall responsibility for all departmental issues. Will represent the UK at the EU Agriculture Council.

  Minister of State (Environment): right hon. Michael Meacher MP
  Sustainable development. Climate change. Environmental protection and water issues. Wildlife and conservation. SSSIs and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Energy efficiency. Will represent the UK in the EU Environment Council.

  Minister of State (Rural Affairs): right hon. Alun Michael MP
  Rural affairs and countryside issues. Oversight of delivery of Rural White Paper. Chairs Rural Task Force. Partnership with voluntary and community groups in rural areas. Hunting with hounds. Regional issues. Overall lead on ERDP. Department's e-business strategy.

  Parliamentary Secretary (Commons): Ellio Morley MP
  Animal Health, including TSEs and follow-up to Phillips Inquiry Report. Animal welfare. Fisheries (will represent the UK in EU Fisheries Council). Whaling. Forestry. Agri-environment schemes. Floods and coastal defence. Departmental administrative issues.

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Lords): The Lord Whitty
  Food and farming. Horticulture. Plant health. General oversight of departmental science and R&D. Rural Payments Agency. Inland Waterways.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Trainee Teachers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what is the drop out rate for teacher training courses for(a) PGCE and (b) BEd courses (i) for each institution and (ii) for each year since 1997. [3116]

  Mr. Timms
  Information for 1997–98 is not available. Information on final year trainees for 1998–99 is available in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. Information for 1999–2000 will be released on 12 July.

  Students
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students dropped out of university courses in(a) 1997, (b) 1993, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001. [25]
  384W
  Margaret Hodge
  The latest "Performance Indicators in Higher Education" published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England give an overall non-completion rate for students starting full-time first degree courses in the UK in 1997–98 of 17 per cent., a figure which has stayed roughly constant since 1991–92. Figures for students starting courses in 1998–99 will be published by HEFCE in September.

  In 2000, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published a table comparing estimates of drop-out rates in member countries. They showed an average of around a third of university students dropping out of their courses in OECD countries. The UK had the second lowest drop-out rate among the 30 OECD countries.

  SSAs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average annual standard spending assessment is for each(a) primary school and (b) secondary school pupil in England; what the comparable figures for pupils in Somerset are for the latest available year; what her estimate is of the additional expenditure which would be necessary to bring the per pupil SSA in Somerset up to the average for England; and if she will make a statement. [1380]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]The table shows for 2001–02 the education SSA per primary and secondary pupil for England and Somerset.

  £

  SSA

  England

  Somerset

  Primary per pupil

  2,588

  2,405

  Secondary per pupil

  3,313

  3,098

  These differences amount to £12.6 million in 2001–02. Since 1997–98 Somerset's recurrent funding, including specific and special grants, has been estimated to have increased in real terms (2000–01 prices) by £570 per 5 to 15-year-old pupil. Total funding for pupils aged 5 to 15 in Somerset LEA has been provisionally estimated to amount to £198.4 million in 2001–02.

  Vice-chancellors
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to scrutinise the effectiveness of vice-chancellors. [1687]

  Margaret Hodge
  Vice-chancellors are appointed by and are accountable to the governing body of their individual university and my right hon. Friend has no plans to alter current arrangements.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the anticipated revenue is from tuition fees in England and Wales for each of the years 2002–03 to 2006–07; and if she will make a statement. [1865]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]The projected income to higher education institutions in England and Wales from tuition fees governed by the
  385W
  student support regulations, the mandatory award regulations and for those post-graduate students funded by the research councils is shown in tables 1 and 2:

  Table 1: Estimated tuition fee income to English institutions

  £million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Public contributions to fees

  498

  493

  500

  Student contributions to fees1

  350

  376

  400

  Total

  848

  869

  900

  1 The student contributions are net of an estimated 5 per cent. cost for collection and any default.

  Table 2: Estimated tuition fee income to Welsh institutions

  £ million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Public contributions to fees

  33.5

  33.4

  33.8

  Student contributions to fees1

  25.0

  27.2

  28.7

  Total

  58.5

  60.6

  62.5

  1 The student contributions are net of an estimated 5 per cent. cost for collection and any default.

  Note

  Estimates are not available beyond 2003–04.

  School Provision
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment has been made of the need to build(a) new primary and (b) new secondary schools in the West Chelmsford parliamentary constituency and Great Baddow as a result of anticipated house building in the area until 2011. [2330]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government believe that decisions concerning the organisation and supply of school places are best taken locally—by the main partners in the provision of education who have knowledge of local needs. It is the responsibility of Local Education Authorities (LEAs) to ensure that there are sufficient school places within their area.

  Should a borough council propose new housing developments as part of its local plan, we would expect the LEA's School Organisation Plan (SOP) to reflect any projected increases in the pupil population. All LEAs are required to produce a SOP, which sets out how they propose to deal with deficits and surpluses of school provision over a rolling five year period. The SOP sets the context for proposals to change school organisation in the area, and may include proposals to establish new schools or enlarge existing ones.

  If, as a result of housing developments, the LEA identifies a need for additional primary and secondary school places, we would consider any future capital bids from Essex that meet the published criteria for support.

  Equal Opportunities
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the effectiveness of equal opportunities policies for all staff in higher education institutions. [2333]
  386W
  Margaret Hodge
  Higher education institutions have submitted their human resource strategies to the Higher Education Funding Council for England so that it can allocate the extra £330 million the Government are providing over three years to support increases in academic and non-academic pay. To gain their share of this funding institutions need to demonstrate that their strategies include clear and practicable equal opportunities policies. The Equality Challenge Unit set up by the higher education funding councils and representative bodies will work directly with institutions to help them deliver the improvements in me monitoring and performance they have promised in their equal opportunities policy statements.

  Further Education
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the notional national pay scales for(a) lecturers and (b) administrative and support staff in the further education sector. [2357]

  Margaret Hodge
  I understand that the Association of Colleges (AoC), as the colleges' employer' group, issues notional national pay scales but these are a matter for the AoC and the relevant unions.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many colleges have not implemented the full awards of the notional national scale; and if she will make a statement. [2358]

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of further education colleges failed to award the nationally recommended pay rise in each year since 1992. [2990]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department does not collect this information. I understand that data obtained by the Association of Colleges on the extent of pay implementation for 2000–01 indicate that (from an 80 per cent. response rate) 73 per cent. of colleges that responded had made an award either equal to or in excess of the national recommended level, and that a further 12 per cent. intended to do so at a later date.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many unfilled vacancies there are in the further education sector for lecturer posts; and how many there were in(a) 2000, (b) 1997 and (c) 1993. [2403]

  John Healey
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Information on staff numbers in FE sector colleges is collected via SIR (Staff Individualised Record). SIR does not include details on vacancies, leavers, salary or grade.

  The Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) collected and published information on staff numbers in the FE sector on an annual basis. The responsibilities of the FEFC have now been taken over by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC).

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time (i) lecturers and (ii) administrative and support staff were employed in the further education sector in (A) 1993, (B) 1997, (C) 2000 and (D) 2001. [2408]
  387W
  John Healey
  The estimated number of staff employed in the FE sector are shown in the following table:

  Numbers of staff employed in the FE sector by mode and primary role

  Thousand

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Teaching staff

  49.1

  92.7

  48.1

  96.6

  Support staff

  11.9

  13.0

  12.3

  11.5

  Other staff

  35.4

  29.4

  35.3

  30.2

  Total staff

  96.4

  135.1

  95.7

  138.3

  The Further Education Funding Council (FEFC), collected and published information on staff in the FE sector on an annual basis. The responsibilities of the FEFC have now been taken over by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). Information on staff is taken from the Staff Individualised Record (SIR). The SIR covers English FE sector colleges only.

  SIR data for the whole year were collected from all colleges for the first time in July 1995, relating to the 1994–95 college year. This collection was repeated for 1995–96, for 1996–97, for 1997–93 and for 1998–99. Data for 1999–2000 and 2000–2001 are not yet available. Data for 1993–94 were not collected on a comparable basis.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the further education colleges that have(a) implemented and (b) failed to implement the nationally recommended pay increase for college staff in the last five years, ranking those in each category according to the level of pay increase awarded. [2997]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department does not collect this information. I refer my hon. Friend to my reply given earlier today to his related question on the implementation of pay awards. [2990]

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans the Government have to restore college lecturers' pay levels to parity with the teaching profession. [2675]

  Margaret Hodge
  We are aware of the historic funding gap between schools and FE created by the last Administration and have pledged to ensure upwards convergence over time and as resources allow. We have already made an unprecedented investment in the sector, which should allow colleges greater flexibility to meet the genuine aspirations of their staff. An additional £300 million is available to colleges over the next three years specifically to reward high quality teaching, as part of the Teaching Pay Initiative (TPI). This is separate to any general pay rise a teacher may receive.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many unfilled further education lecturer posts there were in each of the last 10 years. [2989]

  John Healey
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Information on staff numbers in FE sector colleges is collected via SIR (Staff Individualised Record). SIR does not include de ails on vacancies, leavers, salary or grade.
  388W
  The Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) collected and published information on staff numbers in the FE sector on an annual basis. The responsibilities of the FEFC have now been taken over by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC).

  School Drinking Water
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the availability and accessibility of drinking water for pupils in schools; what plans she has to introduce regulations to ensure availability and accessibility of drinking water for pupils in schools; and what steps she proposes to take in respect of schools where drinking water is(a) not readily available to pupils and (b) only available in toilets. [2489]

  Mr. Timms
  It is for local education authorities and schools to decide how the provision of drinking water should be made, along with their general duty to ensure the health and safety of pupils. However, schools have a statutory requirement to provide a wholesome supply of water for domestic purposes, including a supply of drinking water.

  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the impact of dehydration on pupils' concentration, learning behaviour and educational performance; and if she will make a statement. [2490]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department for Education and Skills has not made any assessment of the effect dehydration would have on the educational achievements or behaviour of children in schools.

  Contract Lecturers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if Silver Book contract lecturers in further education are eligible for payments under the Teachers' Pay Initiative. [2503]

  Margaret Hodge
  Yes, they are eligible.

  Teacher Training Agency
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of the Teacher Training Agency budget was spent in(a) the northern region and (b) Stockton in the last financial year. [2515]

  Mr. Timms
  This information is not available. The Teacher Training Agency does not account for its budget on a regional basis.

  Blenheim High School
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the impact of the withdrawal of capital funds for the completion of Blenheim high school in Epsom and Ewell as a consequence of the Government's abolition of grant maintained status. [2533]

  Mr. Timms
  Following the decision to end grant maintained status, and after consultation with external partners, transitional regulations were put in place to fund capital work at grant maintained schools where obligations had been entered into or decisions taken by the Funding Agency for Schools or the Secretary of State
  389W
  before 1 September 1999. These transitional regulations enabled the Department to meet outstanding commitments for capital funding approved before this date.

  I understand that Blenheim high school has already received sufficient capital funding to meet the commitments covered by the transitional regulations. However, I have asked officials to meet with the school and Surrey local education authority to confirm the position.

  Sixth Forms
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the future of funding for school sixth forms following the introduction of learning and skills councils. [2534]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  From 1 April 2002 school sixth forms will be funded by the learning and skills council. To assist this change, all school sixth forms have a guarantee that their funding will not fall below the funding level of 2000–01 in real terms, provided their sixth form numbers do not fall. For new sixth forms, a proxy real terms guarantee will be calculated based on local spending levels.

  Supply Teachers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of national spending on teachers' remuneration was spent on supply teachers in the last year for which figures are available. [2535]

  Mr. Timms
  This information is not collected centrally.

  "Schools—Building on Success"
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what meetings have been held with outside bodies to discuss the Green Paper 'Schools—Building on Success'. [2594]

  Mr. Timms
  Officials at my Department invited a cross-section of the main stakeholders to discuss the proposals in the Green Paper, "Schools—Building on Success". Meetings were held with representatives from all the teacher unions and associations, school governor associations, faith groups, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the Local Government Association, and the Association of Chief Education Officers/Society of Education Officers.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to allow private sector companies to recruit and manage teaching staff in schools which are deemed to be(a) successful and (b) failing. [3112]

  Mr. Timms
  We proposed in the Green Paper "Schools—Building on Success" that new models would be developed to allow private or other sponsors to take responsibility for either weak, failing or successful schools. Where the private sector, or anyone else, has expertise that can help schools to improve we should use it. The forthcoming White Paper will set out the arrangements for doing so.
  390W
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the meetings(a) she and (b) other ministers in her Department have had with representative bodies and others to discuss the Green Paper, 'Schools—Building on Success'. [3123]

  Mr. Timms
  Officials arranged and held meetings with organisations. My right hon. Friend was made aware of the issues raised. Meetings took place with a cross-section of the main stakeholders, including teacher unions and associations.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations she has received in respect of the Green Paper, 'Schools—Building on Success' [3124]

  Mr. Timms
  Officials have held meetings to discuss the proposals in the Green Paper with representatives from all the teacher unions and associations, school governor associations, faith groups, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the Local Government Association, and the Association of Chief Education Officers/Society of Education Officers.

  Written responses to the Green Paper consultation exercise have also been sent by a number of individuals and organisations, including those who attended the meetings.

  Teachers (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers were employed in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Stoke-on-Trent in each year since 1997. [2667]

  Mr. Timms
  The full-time equivalents of regular teachers (excluding short-term supply) employed in the maintained school sector in Stoke-on-Trent local authority were as follows:

  January

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Total

  1998

  990

  820

  1,810

  1999

  980

  830

  1,800

  2000

  970

  840

  1,810

  20011

  950

  870

  1,820

  1 Provisional—subject to validation

  Note

  Totals may not be the sum of the component parts because of rounding

  Stoke-on-Trent local authority was created on 1 April 1997.

  Infant School Places
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many appeals were made to local education authorities in respect of infant places in schools for children in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000; and if she NA ill make a statement. [2867]
  391W
  Mr. Timms
  The available information is shown as follows.

  Appeals lodged by parents against non-admission of their children in maintained private schools

  Academic year

  Number

  1999–2000

  28,728

  1998–99

  32,194

  1997–98

  30,868

  1996–97

  32,643

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the budget is in their first year of operation for teachers' threshold payments; and how much has been spent on the preparation and implementation of and training for the scheme(a) from her Department's budget and (b) from other public education budgets. [2928]

  Mr. Timms
  To the end of June 2001, the Department has paid about £350 million to local authorities to cover the additional salary costs of teachers passing the threshold. The Department has a contract with Cambridge Education Associates (CEA) for the provision and deployment of threshold assessors and external advisers to governing bodies on heads' performance. It also has a contract with the Centre for British Teachers (CfBT) for training in threshold assessment and performance management. The value of these contracts depends on the volume and quality of activity. To June 2001 we estimate that total CEA contract costs have been about £22 million-£24 million and CfBT contract costs about £12 million-£14 million.

  The Standards Fund for 2000–01 provided £40 million to help schools introduce performance management and threshold assessment. £32 million of this came from the Department and the rest from local education authorities. £28 million is available through the Standards Fund for 2001–02 to help schools operate performance management and threshold assessment. This is 100 per cent. funded by the Department.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations she has received in respect of the legality of departmental regulations allowing school governors to use teacher appraisal results to establish pay levels. [3109]

  Mr. Timms
  The National Union of Teachers has suggested in response to consultation that the proposed regulations contain provisions in relation to appraisal results and pay determination which are outside the Secretary of State's powers in relation to these regulations.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she will take to make regulations allowing governors to use teacher appraisal results to set pay levels. [3110]

  Mr. Timms
  The Secretary of State is satisfied that the provision permitting appraisal results to be taken into account in the exercise of pay discretions, which has been in regulations governing teachers' appraisal since 1991, is within the law.

  Vulnerable Young People
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures(a) have been and (b) will be introduced to make the mapping and tracking of vulnerable young people not in education, training or employment easier. [2963]

  Margaret Hodge
  A comprehensive, national approach to tracking young people is being developed as part of the Connexions Service.

  The system will enable Connexions partnerships to identify those not in learning more readily and support a more comprehensive approach to advice and guidance for those with multiple problems. It will also enable partnerships to support those who move between partnership areas more easily.

  School Achievement Awards
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the scheme for school achievement awards was devised; and what consultation took place before its introduction. [3004]

  Mr. Timms
  Details of the scheme were first published in the Green Paper "Teachers, meeting the challenge of change" in December 1999.

  We consulted relevant national bodies about the design of the School Achievement Awards Scheme in May—June 2000. We confirmed the scheme design in September.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the criteria for the allocation of school achievement awards were announced; and if he will publish them. [3005]

  Mr. Timms
  Details of the scheme were first published in the Green Paper "Teachers, meeting the challenge of change" in December 1999. Details of the scheme were published in a DfES leaflet (DfEE/0159/2000) issued September 2000 and can also be found on the scheme website at www.dfes.gov.uk/teachingreforms/rewards/schoolachieve. The criteria are now being reviewed for the next round.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which schools received school achievement awards; and for what reasons schools received two separate allocations under the school achievement awards scheme. [3006]

  Mr. Timms
  The names of the award-winning schools were announced on 15 March. About 7,000 schools have won awards, equivalent to 30 per cent. of maintained schools in England. A full list of the award winning schools was posted to the House of Commons Library at the time of the announcement.

  The Department had always planned to check the value of every award before paying the money to schools. In some cases we found that schools would be getting less than they should, so we topped up their awards to the correct level. This means that every award-winning school will either receive the amount it was initially told it would receive or a larger amount. The figures placed in the House of Commons Library reflect these recalculations.

  Vocational A-Levels
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer of 27 April 2001.Official Report, column 442W, how units in the vocational A-Level course are graded; and what are the results of the unit examinations or assessment for 2001. [3103]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Vocational A-level units are not graded. Unit results are reported to students on a scale of zero to one hundred. From these, students can work out their grade equivalents. However, vocational A-level qualifications are graded A to E.

  The Joint Council for General Qualifications did not publish the January unit results.

  General Teaching Council
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer of 26 April 2001,Official Report, column 364W, what is the value of the standard rate which is paid by the General Teaching Council to schools to facilitate the release of teachers for GTC work. [3104]

  Mr. Timms
  The value of the standard rate is a matter for the GTC to set in accordance with a scheme approved by the Secretary of State. I have asked the chief executive of the GTC to write to the hon. Member with details of the rate that is paid. A copy of her response will be placed in the Library.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers had not paid the General Teaching Council fee by 15 June 2001. [3108]

  Mr. Timms
  The General Teaching Council (GTC) is funded by the Government until October. No teachers have been asked to pay a fee by 15 June. The arrangements for collecting the fee are a matter for the GTC and I have asked the chief executive of the GTC to write to the hon. Member with details of the arrangements. A copy of her response will be placed in the Library.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what nominations the General Teaching Council has received for the election to the position of chairman. [3113]

  Mr. Timms
  The election of the chairman of the General Teaching Council (GTC) is entirely a matter for the Council. I have asked the Chief Executive of the GTC to write to the hon. Member with details of any nominations. A copy of her response will be placed in the Library.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skins, pursuant to the answer on 26 April 2001,Official Report, column 364W, when the chief executive of the General Teaching Council will write to the hon. Member for Maidenhead about details of payments made to members since the GTC was established and the members' support scheme. [3125]
  394W
  Mr. Timms
  The chief executive of the General Teaching Council wrote to the hon. Member on 11 May with information about both items. I have asked the chief executive to send a copy of the letter and enclosures that were issued to the hon. Member.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer of 26 April 2001,Official Report, column 363W, what financial penalties are levied on schools for non-compliance with the Department's exclusion reduction target. [3105]

  Mr. Timms
  The latest permanent exclusion figures for 1999–2000 indicate that exclusions have fallen to around 8,600, nearly a third less than the peak of 12,700 in 1996–97. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is satisfied that the level of exclusions we have reached is sustainable and, therefore, she does not intend to set fresh exclusion targets for reducing permanent exclusions further. My right hon. Friend has also announced new measures to: change the law on exclusions to reflect the interests of the school community; consult on extending Parenting Orders and maximising support to schools in dealing with disruptive children and violent parents; produce a positive package of preventive action to promote good behaviour; make Admissions Forums, whose role will include the re-integration of excluded pupils, mandatory.

  We have significantly increased the resources available to schools and local education authorities to tackle poor behaviour and provide education to excluded pupils, from £17 million in 1996–97 to £131 million in 2000–01 and again to £174 million this year—a tenfold increase. Before April 2000 most of this money was held centrally by local authorities to support authority-wide initiatives to tackle poor behaviour and provide education to excluded pupils. For the first time in April 2000 the majority of this funding was devolved directly to schools so that they could decide how best to tackle poor behaviour. Schools have, therefore, benefited by an additional £100 million in 2000–01 and £126 million this year. Where a child has to be excluded some of the money previously held by local authorities which is now in schools reverts back to the local authority. This money can be used by the authority to provide education outside school or to support a re-integration package at a new school. This procedure follows the principle introduced by the last Conservative Government of money following the excluded pupil. By September 2002 all permanently excluded pupils must be offered full-time education and not the 2–3 hours per week all too typical in the past.

  Adult Literacy
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the findings of the OECD report, "Education at a Glance", in respect of UK adult literacy rates. [3106]

  John Healey
  The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development report, "Education at a Glance", published in June 2001 and based on fieldwork
  395W
  undertaken between 1994 and 1998, notes the relationship between differences in literacy levels and income inequality. The United Kingdom performs better than some of our international competitors, including the United States, but has ground to make up to achieve the higher levels of literacy skills in countries such as Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands.

  The Government have recognised the vital importance to individuals and the economy of improving adult literacy and numeracy. Research suggests that improved literacy and numeracy skills can help people earn up to £50,000 more over their working life. The benefit to society of better skills has been valued at £10 billion a year. Our strategy, "Skills for Life", launched by the Prime Minister in March, will improve the basic skills of 750,000 adults by 2004. Many of these will come from groups we have prioritised for our support, including the unemployed, those in low-skilled jobs and those living in disadvantaged areas. By helping them improve their literacy and numeracy skills, we aim to create a more prosperous and more equal society. As we set out in the Labour manifesto, this is the first of our 25 steps to a better Britain.

  School Teachers Review Body
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list(a) each review that the STRB has been asked to conduct in the last year and (b) each matter that STRB has been asked to look into. [3111]

  TTA: Funding and Allocations

  Postgraduate

  Undergraduate

  1999–2000 total registrations

  Primary

  Secondary

  PG total

  Primary

  Secondary

  UG total

  Grand total

  Institution

  Anglia Polytechnic University

  46

  85

  131

  269

  54

  323

  454

  Association of Muslim Schools

  0

  4

  4

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Bath Spa University College

  168

  204

  372

  282

  0

  282

  654

  Bexley Primary SCITT

  20

  0

  20

  0

  0

  0

  20

  Billericay Education Consortium

  19

  0

  19

  0

  0

  0

  19

  Bishop Grosseteste College

  24

  0

  24

  632

  0

  632

  656

  Borough of Poole

  25

  0

  25

  0

  0

  0

  25

  Bournemouth and East Dorset Consortium

  24

  0

  24

  0

  0

  0

  24

  Bradford and Ilkley Community College

  55

  46

  101

  355

  0

  355

  456

  Bretton Hall

  28

  105

  133

  306

  0

  306

  439

  Bromley Schools Collegiate

  0

  22

  22

  0

  0

  0

  22

  Brunel University

  58

  156

  214

  158

  138

  296

  510

  Canterbury Christ Church University College

  170

  312

  482

  631

  0

  631

  1,113

  Central School of Speech and Drama

  0

  55

  55

  0

  0

  0

  55

  Centre for British Teachers

  0

  49

  0

  0

  0

  0

  49

  Cheltenham and Gloucester CHE

  92

  123

  215

  396

  0

  396

  611

  Chester College of HE

  23

  51

  74

  397

  0

  397

  471

  Chiltern Training Group

  0

  32

  32

  0

  0

  0

  32

  Coastal Confederation

  0

  22

  22

  0

  0

  0

  22

  College of Ripon and York St. John

  177

  31

  208

  485

  92

  577

  785

  College of St. Mark and St. John

  85

  139

  224

  381

  370

  751

  975

  Cumbria Primary Teacher Training

  22

  0

  22

  0

  0

  0

  22

  De Montfort University

  71

  159

  230

  449

  516

  965

  1,195

  Devon Secondary TT Group

  0

  16

  16

  0

  0

  0

  16

  Dorset TT & Devon Partnership

  25

  0

  25

  0

  0

  0

  25

  Edge Hill College of HE

  60

  279

  339

  690

  215

  905

  1,244

  Essex Primary School Training Group

  16

  0

  16

  0

  0

  0

  16

  Gloucestershire ITE Partnership

  0

  12

  12

  0

  0

  0

  12

  Goldsmiths College

  63

  241

  304

  273

  32

  305

  609

  Grand Union Partnership

  0

  16

  16

  0

  0

  0

  16

  396W
  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Education and Employment gave the School Teachers Review Body (STRB) its remit for the main 2001–02 pay round on 3 August 2000, and has given the STRB two additional special remits in the last year. On 28 July 2000 he gave them a remit to examine and report on the performance threshold standards and assessment procedures for classroom teachers. He gave the STRB a further remit on 23 March 2001 to examine and report on the Government's proposal to offer a 'welcome back' bonus to qualified teachers who return to the maintained school sector in England in the period to 31 December 2001, having been out of service for at least a year.

  Initial Teacher Training
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list each institution which offers an ITT course, indicating for each(a) how many students are on an ITT course and (b) how many students have passed (i) the literary skills test and (ii) the numeracy skills test for each year since their introduction. [3114]

  Mr. Timms
  The table contains information on the numbers of trainees registered on initial teacher training (ITT) courses for 1999–2000 and 2000–01. Information on the numbers of trainees on each ITT course who have passed the literacy and numeracy skills tests is not available. Of those trainees who took the paper-based numeracy tests last year, 93 per cent. passed. The Teacher Training Agency will publish information on the pass-rates for the computerised literacy and numeracy tests in 2000–01 this autumn.
  397W 398W

  TTA: Funding and Allocations

  Postgraduate

  Undergraduate

  1999–2000 total registrations

  Primary

  Secondary

  PG total

  Primary

  Secondary

  UG total

  Grand total

  Homerton College, Cambridge

  142

  294

  436

  205

  146

  351

  787

  Institute of Education

  239

  665

  904

  0

  0

  0

  904

  Keele University

  27

  267

  294

  49

  0

  49

  343

  Kent Training Group

  0

  14

  14

  0

  0

  0

  14

  King Alfred's College, Winchester

  42

  0

  42

  772

  5

  777

  819

  King's College London

  0

  188

  188

  0

  46

  46

  234

  Kingston University

  36

  67

  103

  333

  0

  333

  436

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  27

  22

  49

  235

  367

  602

  651

  Lindisfarne SCITT

  27

  0

  27

  0

  0

  0

  27

  Liverpool Hope

  160

  159

  319

  762

  0

  762

  1,081

  Liverpool John Moores University

  0

  124

  124

  264

  625

  889

  1,013

  London Diocesan Board

  27

  0

  27

  0

  0

  0

  27

  Loughborough University

  41

  144

  185

  0

  37

  37

  222

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  212

  773

  985

  1,248

  319

  1,567

  2,552

  Marches Consortium

  0

  37

  37

  0

  0

  0

  37

  Maryvale Institute

  0

  22

  22

  0

  0

  0

  22

  Middlesex University

  25

  144

  169

  223

  23

  246

  415

  Mid-Essex Consortium

  0

  24

  24

  0

  0

  0

  24

  Newman Catholic Partnership

  0

  17

  17

  0

  0

  0

  17

  Newman College

  27

  15

  42

  390

  217

  607

  649

  North Bedfordshire Consortium

  0

  17

  17

  0

  0

  0

  17

  North Riding College

  56

  0

  56

  146

  0

  146

  202

  North West Kent Teacher Trainers

  0

  20

  20

  0

  0

  0

  20

  Nottingham Trent University

  46

  48

  94

  363

  118

  481

  575

  Open University

  0

  444

  444

  0

  0

  0

  444

  Outstanding Schools SCITT

  90

  0

  90

  0

  0

  0

  90

  Oxford Brookes University

  75

  62

  137

  212

  0

  212

  349

  Sheffield Hallam University

  195

  249

  444

  358

  331

  689

  1,133

  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

  0

  36

  36

  0

  0

  0

  36

  Somerset SCITT Consortium

  22

  0

  22

  0

  0

  0

  22

  South Bank University

  92

  0

  92

  2

  0

  2

  94

  South East Essex

  24

  0

  24

  0

  0

  0

  24

  South West Teacher Training

  0

  19

  19

  0

  0

  0

  19

  St. Martin's College

  289

  342

  631

  1,367

  43

  1,410

  2,041

  St. Mary's College

  87

  93

  180

  409

  155

  564

  744

  Staffordshire University

  0

  18

  18

  0

  0

  0

  18

  The North London Consortium

  0

  24

  24

  0

  0

  0

  24

  The Oxfordshire Consortium

  21

  0

  21

  0

  0

  0

  21

  The Shire Foundation

  18

  0

  18

  0

  0

  0

  18

  Titan Partnership

  0

  13

  13

  0

  0

  0

  13

  Trinity and All Saints

  0

  109

  109

  418

  63

  481

  590

  University College Chichester

  51

  78

  129

  474

  310

  784

  913

  University College Northampton

  63

  0

  63

  395

  0

  395

  458

  University College Worcester

  79

  158

  237

  382

  45

  427

  664

  University of Bath

  0

  160

  160

  0

  0

  0

  160

  University of Birmingham

  95

  258

  353

  0

  0

  0

  353

  University of Brighton

  49

  202

  251

  385

  611

  996

  1,247

  University of Bristol

  0

  197

  197

  0

  0

  0

  197

  University of Cambridge

  0

  185

  185

  0

  0

  0

  185

  University of Central England

  52

  146

  198

  379

  30

  409

  607

  University of Derby

  27

  0

  27

  291

  0

  291

  318

  University of Durham

  55

  219

  274

  332

  0

  332

  606

  University of East Anglia

  148

  149

  297

  0

  0

  0

  297

  University of East London

  143

  0

  143

  0

  0

  0

  143

  University of Exeter

  123

  312

  435

  249

  124

  373

  808

  University of Greenwich

  50

  26

  76

  379

  203

  582

  658

  University of Hertfordshire

  97

  69

  166

  428

  0

  428

  594

  University of Huddersfield

  0

  157

  157

  0

  36

  36

  193

  University of Hull

  46

  133

  179

  0

  12

  12

  191

  University of Leeds

  71

  367

  438

  0

  0

  0

  438

  University of Leicester

  119

  178

  294

  0

  0

  0

  297

  University of Liverpool

  20

  113

  133

  0

  0

  0

  133

  University of Manchester

  64

  200

  264

  0

  0

  0

  264

  University of Newcastle upon Tyne

  67

  199

  266

  0

  0

  0

  266

  University of North London

  52

  81

  133

  241

  11

  252

  385

  University of Northumbria at Newcastle

  75

  90

  165

  255

  24

  279

  444

  University of Nottingham

  0

  301

  301

  0

  0

  0

  301

  University of Oxford

  0

  148

  148

  0

  0

  0

  148

  University of Plymouth

  65

  47

  112

  610

  0

  610

  722

  University of Portsmouth

  0

  85

  85

  0

  0

  0

  85

  399W 400W

  TTA: Funding and Allocations

  Postgraduate

  Undergraduate

  1999–2000 total registrations

  Primary

  Secondary

  PG total

  Primary

  Secondary

  UG total

  Grand total

  University of Reading

  23

  195

  218

  438

  0

  438

  656

  University of Sheffield

  0

  165

  165

  0

  0

  0

  165

  University of Southampton

  74

  190

  264

  0

  0

  0

  264

  University of Sunderland

  27

  93

  120

  311

  382

  693

  813

  University of Surrey Roehampton

  195

  194

  389

  904

  0

  904

  1,293

  University of Sussex

  0

  128

  128

  0

  0

  0

  128

  University of Warwick

  45

  194

  239

  478

  0

  478

  717

  University of West of England, Bristol

  121

  183

  304

  514

  90

  604

  908

  University of Wolverhampton

  64

  104

  168

  259

  82

  341

  509

  University of York

  0

  126

  126

  0

  0

  0

  126

  Urban Learning Foundation

  22

  10

  32

  0

  0

  0

  32

  Wandsworth Primary Schools' Consortium

  18

  0

  18

  0

  0

  0

  18

  West Midlands Consortium

  0

  31

  31

  0

  0

  0

  31

  Westminster College, Oxford

  53

  74

  127

  323

  14

  337

  464

  Woodrow First School

  12

  0

  12

  0

  0

  0

  12

  Grand total

  5,583

  12,574

  18,157

  21,487

  5,886

  27,373

  45,530

  Data source

  1999–2000 TTA ITT Recruitment Survey

  1999–2000 HEFCE Recruitment Survey

  TTA: Funding and Allocations

  Postgraduate1

  Undergraduate

  2000–01 total registrations

  Primary

  Secondary

  PG total

  Primary

  Secondary

  UG total

  Grand total

  Institution

  Agency for Jewish Education

  16

  0

  16

  0

  0

  0

  16

  Anglia Polytechnic University

  46

  77

  123

  250

  44

  294

  417

  Association of Muslim Schools

  0

  7

  7

  0

  0

  0

  7

  Bath Spa University College

  189

  244

  433

  159

  0

  159

  592

  Bexley Primary Consortium

  18

  0

  18

  0

  0

  0

  18

  Billericay Educational Consortium

  20

  0

  20

  0

  0

  0

  20

  Bishop Grossteste College

  61

  0

  61

  653

  0

  653

  714

  Borough of Poole SCITT

  25

  0

  25

  0

  0

  0

  25

  Bournemouth and East Dorset SCITT

  18

  0

  18

  0

  0

  0

  18

  Bradford College

  83

  52

  135

  353

  0

  353

  488

  Bretton Hall

  32

  104

  136

  296

  0

  296

  432

  Bristol and Bath Catholic Partnership

  0

  12

  12

  0

  0

  0

  12

  Bromley Schools' Collegiate

  0

  23

  23

  0

  0

  0

  23

  Brunel University

  84

  215

  299

  168

  123

  291

  590

  Canterbury Bhrist Church University College

  301

  369

  670

  754

  0

  754

  1,424

  Central School of Speech and Drama

  0

  61

  61

  0

  0

  0

  61

  Centre for British Teachers

  0

  35

  35

  0

  0

  0

  35

  Cheltenham and Gloucester College

  138

  205

  343

  373

  0

  373

  716

  Chester College

  38

  84

  122

  371

  0

  371

  493

  Chiltern Training Group

  0

  38

  38

  0

  0

  0

  38

  College of Ripon and York St. John

  193

  26

  219

  495

  70

  565

  748

  College of St. Mark and St. John

  98

  164

  262

  364

  334

  698

  960

  Cornwall SCITT

  0

  46

  46

  0

  0

  0

  46

  Cumbria Primary Teacher Training

  19

  0

  19

  0

  0

  0

  19

  De Montfort University

  74

  147

  221

  444

  443

  887

  1,108

  Devon Secondary Teacher Training Group

  0

  18

  18

  0

  0

  0

  18

  Dorset Teacher Training Partnership

  24

  0

  24

  0

  0

  0

  24

  Edge Hill

  60

  405

  465

  671

  303

  974

  1,439

  Essex Primary Collegiate

  18

  0

  18

  0

  0

  0

  18

  Essex Primary Schools Training Group

  12

  0

  12

  0

  0

  0

  12

  Gatsby SCITT

  0

  10

  10

  0

  0

  0

  10

  Gloucester SCITT Consortium

  0

  20

  20

  0

  0

  0

  20

  Goldsmiths College

  92

  271

  363

  242

  39

  281

  644

  Grand Union Training Partnership

  0

  13

  13

  0

  0

  0

  13

  Homerton College

  165

  289

  454

  168

  97

  265

  719

  Institute of Education

  241

  686

  927

  0

  0

  0

  927

  Keele University

  0

  280

  280

  36

  0

  36

  316

  Kent Training Group

  0

  14

  14

  0

  0

  0

  14

  401W 402W

  TTA: Funding and Allocations

  Postgraduate1

  Undergraduate

  2000–01 total registrations

  Primary

  Secondary

  PG total

  Primary

  Secondary

  UG total

  Grand total

  King Alfred's College

  68

  0

  68

  797

  0

  797

  865

  King's College

  0

  195

  195

  0

  17

  17

  212

  Kingston University

  40

  80

  120

  283

  0

  283

  403

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  20

  16

  36

  256

  285

  541

  577

  Lindisfarne SCITT

  26

  0

  26

  0

  0

  0

  26

  Liverpool Hope

  237

  262

  499

  799

  0

  799

  1,298

  Liverpool John Moores University

  0

  169

  169

  248

  498

  746

  915

  London Diocesan Board for Schools

  26

  0

  26

  0

  0

  0

  26

  Loughborough University

  37

  165

  202

  0

  0

  0

  202

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  304

  794

  1,098

  1,188

  301

  1,589

  2,687

  Marches Consortium

  0

  51

  51

  0

  0

  0

  51

  Maryvale Institute

  0

  22

  22

  0

  0

  0

  22

  Mid Essex SCITT Consortium

  0

  22

  22

  0

  0

  0

  22

  Middlesex University

  30

  175

  205

  194

  16

  210

  415

  National Secondary Music SCITT

  0

  14

  14

  0

  0

  0

  14

  Newman College

  25

  13

  38

  404

  202

  606

  644

  Newman Partnership

  0

  20

  20

  0

  0

  0

  20

  North Bedfordshire Consortium

  0

  20

  20

  0

  0

  0

  20

  North East Essex Coastal Confederation

  0

  24

  24

  0

  0

  0

  24

  North London Consortium

  0

  21

  21

  0

  0

  0

  21

  North West Kent Teacher Trainers

  0

  18

  18

  0

  0

  0

  18

  Northampton Teacher Training Partnership

  0

  16

  16

  0

  0

  0

  16

  Nottingham Trent University

  59

  88

  147

  428

  115

  543

  690

  Outstanding Primary School SCITT

  88

  0

  88

  0

  0

  0

  88

  Oxford Brookes University

  189

  136

  325

  453

  0

  453

  778

  Oxfordshire Consortium

  21

  0

  21

  0

  0

  0

  21

  Portsmouth Primary SCITT

  21

  0

  21

  0

  0

  0

  21

  Primary Catholic Partnership

  24

  0

  24

  0

  0

  0

  24

  Sheffield Hallam University

  219

  269

  488

  396

  299

  695

  1,183

  Shire Foundation

  14

  0

  14

  0

  0

  0

  14

  Solihull Secondary SCITT

  0

  35

  35

  0

  0

  0

  35

  Somerset SCITT Consortium

  23

  0

  23

  0

  0

  0

  23

  South Bank University

  159

  0

  159

  0

  0

  0

  159

  South London Teacher Training

  0

  21

  21

  0

  0

  0

  21

  South Suffolk Primary SCITT

  32

  0

  32

  0

  0

  0

  32

  South West Teacher Training

  0

  18

  18

  0

  0

  0

  18

  St. Martin's College

  377

  400

  777

  1,414

  50

  1,454

  2,231

  St. Mary's College

  128

  94

  222

  421

  133

  554

  776

  Staffordshire University

  0

  23

  23

  0

  0

  0

  23

  Thames Primary Consortium

  24

  0

  24

  0

  0

  0

  24

  Titan Partnership

  0

  18

  18

  0

  0

  0

  18

  Trinity and All Saints College

  0

  158

  158

  402

  25

  487

  645

  University College Chichester

  82

  104

  186

  302

  312

  704

  890

  University College Northampton

  73

  0

  73

  3'78

  0

  378

  451

  University College Worcester

  84

  182

  266

  378

  44

  422

  688

  University of Bath

  0

  159

  159

  0

  0

  0

  159

  University of Birmingham

  100

  277

  377

  0

  0

  0

  377

  University of Brighton

  72

  247

  319

  359

  596

  955

  1,274

  University of Bristol

  0

  219

  219

  0

  0

  0

  219

  University of Cambridge

  0

  178

  178

  0

  0

  0

  178

  University of Central England

  76

  154

  230

  402

  27

  429

  659

  University of Derby

  66

  0

  66

  283

  0

  283

  349

  University of Durham

  53

  259

  312

  363

  0

  363

  675

  University of East Anglia

  179

  158

  337

  0

  0

  0

  337

  University of East London

  141

  0

  141

  0

  0

  0

  141

  University of Exeter

  155

  322

  477

  156

  98

  254

  731

  University of Greenwich

  55

  83

  138

  342

  157

  499

  637

  University of Hertfordshire

  117

  76

  193

  397

  0

  397

  590

  University of Huddersfield

  0

  180

  180

  0

  27

  27

  207

  University of Hull

  103

  150

  253

  154

  5

  159

  412

  University of Leeds

  80

  432

  512

  0

  0

  0

  512

  University of Leicester

  132

  189

  321

  0

  0

  0

  321

  University of Manchester

  70

  228

  298

  0

  0

  0

  298

  University of Newcastle upon Tyne

  83

  206

  289

  0

  0

  0

  289

  University of North London

  90

  89

  179

  200

  12

  212

  391

  University of Northumbria at Newcastle

  125

  62

  187

  257

  5

  262

  449

  University of Nottingham

  0

  313

  319

  0

  0

  0

  319

  University of Oxford

  0

  149

  149

  0

  0

  0

  149

  University of Plymouth

  70

  51

  121

  565

  0

  565

  686

  University of Portsmouth

  0

  97

  97

  0

  0

  0

  97

  403W

  TTA: Funding and Allocations

  Postgraduate1

  Undergraduate

  2000–01 total registrations

  Primary

  Secondary

  PG total

  Primary

  Secondary

  UG total

  Grand total

  University of Reading

  41

  207

  248

  374

  0

  374

  622

  University of Sheffield

  0

  158

  158

  0

  0

  0

  158

  University of Southampton

  78

  190

  268

  0

  0

  0

  268

  University of Sunderland

  47

  152

  199

  296

  271

  567

  766

  University of Surrey Roehampton

  238

  172

  410

  911

  0

  911

  1,321

  University of Sussex

  0

  140

  140

  0

  0

  0

  140

  University of the West of England

  158

  214

  372

  513

  33

  546

  918

  University of Warwick

  56

  211

  267

  462

  0

  462

  729

  University of Wolverhampton

  38

  102

  140

  198

  71

  269

  409

  University of York

  0

  125

  125

  0

  0

  0

  125

  Urban Learning Foundation

  25

  0

  25

  0

  0

  0

  25

  Wandsworth Schools' Consortium

  18

  0

  18

  0

  0

  0

  18

  West Midlands Consortium

  0

  31

  31

  0

  0

  0

  31

  Grant total

  6,961

  13,544

  20,505

  21,010

  5,052

  26.062

  46,567

  1 Includes modular trainees

  Data source

  2000–01 TTA ITT Recruitment Survey

  Trainee Teachers (Tests)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost is of introducing the teacher trainee tests. [3115]

  Mr. Timms
  The cost of the introduction of the ITT skills tests up to April 2001 was £4.7 million. This included the development and delivery of the paper-based numeracy skills tests in summer 2000; the development and delivery of the computerised ITT skills tests in numeracy and literacy introduced in February 2001; and the development of the skills tests in ICT, which will be introduced in September 2001.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers who completed their trainee skills tests last year and are now in their induction year in schools have(a) not passed the skills tests and (b) applied for an extension to their induction period in order to retake the tests. [3117]

  Mr. Timms
  The requirement to take a numeracy skills test during the induction period was only introduced for teachers awarded qualified teacher status last summer. These newly qualified teachers have not yet completed their induction periods.

  GCSEs
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations she has received on the modularisation of GCSEs. [3118]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have not received any representations about the modularisation of GCSEs. Modular specifications represent approximately 8 per cent. of the total of new GCSE specifications to be taught in schools from September 2001.

  School Inspections
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to introduce 10-yearly inspections for successful schools. [3121]
  404W
  Mr. Timms
  We have no plans to amend the present arrangements in which the interval between school inspections varies between two and six years, consistent with the principle that intervention should be in inverse proportion to success.

TREASURY

  Construction Industry Training Board
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce a tax through the Construction Industry Training Board; and if he will make a statement. [1852]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]The Government keep all taxes under review, and changes to the tax system are considered as part of the normal Budget process.

  Crime Prevention Devices (VAT)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the fiscal impact of lifting VAT on security and crime prevention devices and equipment. [2025]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]In Budget 2000, the Government reduced the rate of VAT to 5 per cent. on the grant-funded supply and installation of window and door locks, bolts and security chains, spy holes and smoke alarms in homes of those aged over 60 who are in receipt of specified benefits. The reduced rate was targeted at these grant-funded supplies to ensure that extra help goes where it is most needed.

  VAT relief for security and crime prevention goods purchased for DIY installation would be incompatible with EU VAT law.

  Economic Stability
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what forecast he has made of future economic
  405W
  stability; and what contingency plans he has made for changes to his economic policy in the event of a serious slowdown in world activity. [2999]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government will continue to steer a course of economic stability by maintaining fiscal discipline, consistent with the fiscal rules, and by supporting the decisions of the Monetary Policy Committee in continuing to meet the inflation target. Budget 2001 (HC 279) included latest forecasts for the economy and the public finances.

  VAT
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy not to increase VAT rates during this Parliament. [2294]

  Mr. Boateng
  Decisions on individual areas of taxation are considered on an annual basis as part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's overall Budget judgment. The Government have renewed their pledge not to extend VAT to food, children's clothes, books, newspapers and public transport fares for the duration of this Parliament.

  National Insurance
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to compensate the National Insurance Fund for the loss of contribution income from employers resulting from the introduction of(a) the Landfill Tax, (b) the Climate Change Levy and (c) the Aggregates Levy. [2386]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  None. The reductions in employers' National Insurance contributions were and are to be recycled through the proceeds of the Landfill Tax, the Climate Change Levy and the Aggregates Levy, thereby protecting UK competitiveness and employment while helping the UK to achieve its environmental objectives.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the National Insurance Fund balance at the end of the year 2000–01 exceeded the minimum level recommended by the Government Actuary. [2387]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The estimated balance of the National Insurance Fund at the end of 2000–01 is likely to have exceeded the minimum level recommended by the Government Actuary by around £10.6 billion.

  Drug Deaths
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths were attributable to the use of(a) paracetamol, (b) dothiepin, (c) co-proxamol, (d) all antidepressants and (e) ecstasy in each of the past five years. [2376]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Paul Flynn, dated 9 July 2001 The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on how many deaths were attributable to the use of paracetamol, dothiepin, co-proxamol, all anti-depressants and ecstasy in each of the past five years (2376). I am replying in his absence.
  406W
  The information requested is provided in the attached table. The data has been extracted from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) database of deaths related to drug poisoning. This database contains deaths in England and Wales where the underlying cause is drug-related poisoning.

  Number of deaths from drug-related poisoning1 for selected substances England and Wales, 1995–99

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Paracetamol

  526

  480

  562

  523

  473

  Dothiepin

  235

  279

  262

  244

  219

  Co-proxamol

  189

  188

  214

  208

  200

  Antidepressants

  489

  540

  539

  502

  491

  Ecstasy

  10

  16

  11

  15

  26

  1 Deaths are coded according to the WHO International Classification of Disease, Ninth Edition (ICD9). Deaths are regarded as resulting from drug-re lated poisoning if the underlying cause is classified to ICD9 codes, 292, 304, 305.2–9, E950.0–5, E980.0–5 and E962.0

  Telecoms Companies
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of revenues telecoms companies in the UK paid in tax and licence fees in 1997; and what proportion they pay in the current year. [1615]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In 1997–98 annual licensing payments and the corporation tax liability of telecommunication companies represented 0.28 per cent. of UK central Government receipts. The corresponding figure for 1999–2000, which is the latest available on a comparable basis, but which pre-dates the auction of the third generation mobile telephone licences, was 0.23 per cent.

  Child Care Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent on the child care tax credit during 2000–01; how many families received it; what the average amount was per family; and what his forecasts are for each category for(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [2269]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is provisionally estimated that the net extra expenditure in 2000–01 due to the child care tax credit element of Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) was about £200 million.

  The number of families in receipt of the child care tax credit within WFTC at May, August and November 2000, and the average extra weekly amounts received per family at those dates, are shown in Table 1.3 of the November 2000 WFTC Quarterly Enquiry, a copy of which is in the Library. Figures for February 2001 are due to be published on 10 July.

  Projected figures for other years are not available.

  Corporate Bribes
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department has taken to ensure that British companies spending money on corrupt practices overseas are not able to claim such expenditure as legitimate business expenses for tax purposes. [2710]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are committed to their responsibilities under the OECD Convention of the Bribery of Foreign Officials in International Business transactions. Section 577A of the Income and Corporation
  407W
  Taxes Acts 1988 denies tax relief for any payment, the making of which constitutes the commission of a criminal offence. This effectively denies relief for any bribery which is contrary to the Prevention of Corruption Acts.

  Transparency International Corruption Index
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the change in ranking of the UK in the Transparency International Corruption Index; and if he will(a) make a statement on his plans to tackle money laundering and (b) introduce legislation to make bribery of foreign officials a crime. [2275]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Although the United Kingdom has shifted from 10th to 13th out of 91 countries in the Transparency International Corruption Index, it remains better placed than most other countries, including all but one of its G8 partners.

  Legislation to amend the law on money laundering and corruption was announced in the Queen's Speech on 20 June 2001. The legislation on corruption will cover the bribery of foreign officials.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Public Opinion Research
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much revenue has been raised by projects undertaken by the People's Panel for clients other than his own Department for each financial year for which the figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [2679]

  Mr. Leslie
  The People's Panel is not intended to raise revenue for the Government. For clients other than the Cabinet Office, the costs of research undertaken using the People's Panel were none in 1998–99; £126,150 in 1999–2000; and £187,515 in 2000–01. These costs are essentially composed of fees to MORI, which conducts research through the Panel on behalf of the Government.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister by what process he ensures that other Departments follow Cabinet Office guidelines on publication of research into public opinion and attitudes; and if he will make a statement. [2680]

  Mr. Leslie
  Guidance on Government Research into Public Attitudes and Opinion was published in May 2000 and is available on the Cabinet Office website at http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/centra1/2000/guidance_on_government_research_attitudes.htm. This guidance was developed following extensive consultation with Departments, reflects existing best practice and reminds Departments that public expenditure must not be used for party political purposes. Departments are encouraged in the guidance to pass it to others carrying out research of this sort such as non-departmental public bodies and to publish the results of research, for example, by placing them in the House of Commons Library and making them publicly available on request and on the internet. Results 408W
  must be made publicly available unless they are exempt under the terms of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information or, when the Freedom of Information Act 2000 comes into force, they are covered by an exemption in the Act.

  Departmental Responsibility (Regions)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the recent division of regional responsibilities between different Departments. [1473]

  The Prime Minister
  I am replying to this question as it relates to ministerial responsibilities.

  My right hon. friend the Deputy Prime Minister is leading the preparation of a White Paper on elected regional government in England, working in close liaison with the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and in co-operation with other Cabinet colleagues. The Deputy Prime Minister is also responsible for the Regional Co-ordination Unit and has overall responsibility for the Government Office network.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is responsible for regional policy as a whole and for implementation of the proposals to be included in the White paper.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is responsible for the Regional Development Agencies.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent assessment his Department has made of the scale of rough sleeping and homelessness among older people; and if he will make a statement. [2975]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  An analysis of statistical returns provided to the Housing Services Agency over the past six months indicates that around 20 per cent. of rough sleepers are over 50 years old.

  Across the country older rough sleepers are able to access the majority of services funded by the Rough Sleepers Unit.

  In central London specific contact and assessment team workers provide support to vulnerable older rough sleepers. The unit has also funded "Night Centres" to enable older rough sleepers who have been out on the streets for a number of years to accept gradually help to come inside permanently. "Night Centres" have opened in London, Bristol and Manchester over the last year.

  There are a number of hostels specifically for older residents including St. Mungo's, Harrow Road and Bondway, Robertson Street. However, all hostels, day centres and emergency shelters that do not specifically cater for younger rough sleepers will work with a broad range of clients.

  Under homelessness legislation, older people are also included in the groups that are treated as being in priority need of housing.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the average cost of obtaining an antisocial behaviour order is; [1255]

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

  Police force area

  Number of applications to 31 March 20011,2

  1 April 1999 to 31 May 20001

  Number made from: 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

  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

  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 magistrates courts committees as from 1 June 2000 onwards

  3 Includes City of London

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent report from the Metropolitan Police Public Order Unit about the difficulties of obtaining antisocial behaviour orders; and what response he has made. [1247]
  410W
  (2) what the cost of unsuccessful antisocial behaviour order applications has been to date for each (a) police force and (b) local authority area in England and Wales. [1253]

  Mr. Denham
  The average cost of an antisocial behaviour order, based on a recent survey of 20 cases, was £5,480. Less dun one in 20 applications has been refused so far. Figures for the cost of the eight applications which have been refused (listed in the table) are not available centrally.

  Mr. Denham
  We have noted the references in the report to some of the problems faced in considering and applying for Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBOs). It is to be expected that a new provision will take some time to bed down. We are, nevertheless, conducting a review
  411W
  of these orders to evaluate their effectiveness and to identify best practice. The review should be completed later this year.

  In the meantime we note from the report that 32 antisocial behaviour orders have been made in the Metropolitan police area between April 1999 and June this year and the very positive message about the benefits of the police working in partnership with local authorities and other agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour. Paragraph 12 of the report states:
  "One of the major achievements of the work on ASBOs has been the obligation and need to work in partnership. […] We are aware of no instances of Metropolitan police service officers failing to co-operate with local authority partners in applying for an ASBO. Quite the contrary, there is considerable evidence of excellent partnership working. Tentative early partnerships are maturing into collaborations with trust and understanding."

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) antisocial behaviour orders and (b) antisocial behaviour contracts have been issued. [2349]

  Mr. Denham
  As at 31 March 2001 there have been 215 antisocial behaviours orders (ASBOs) issued within England and Wales.

  An acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) is a voluntary written agreement between a person, whose behaviour is causing a problem, and the police or local authority. It will normally contain a list of antisocial actions which the person undertakes not to do and may also specify certain areas which he or she undertakes not to enter. The ABC is not enforceable in itself but a breach could lead to an ASBO.

  We have no plans at present to ask local partnerships to collect statistics on these.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been successfully applied for in each of the local authorities in Greater Manchester. [2336]

  Mr. Denham
  We understand that at least 10 antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) were, issued in Greater Manchester between 1 April 1999 and 31 May 2000. From 1 June 2000 the number of such orders applied for and issued have been collected centrally. Between 1 June 2000 and 31 March 2001, three ASBOs were applied for and granted in Greater Manchester, two were issued within the North and West Greater Manchester Magistrates Courts Committee (MCC) area and one within the Trafford MCC. Figures by local authority area for the numbers of orders applied for are not held centrally.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evaluation has been made of the effectiveness and ease of implementation of antisocial 412W
  behaviour (a) contracts and (b) orders; and what advice he is giving to local councils and the police on the merits and demerits of each. [2355]

  Mr. Denham
  As my predecessor confirmed in a written answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 5 February 2001,Official Report, column 424W, we are also researching the operation and effectiveness of the antisocial behaviour order. We will also ensure the effectiveness of the acceptable behaviour scheme in Islington.

  Guidance on antisocial behaviour orders was issued to the police and local authorities in March 1999 and June 2000. The previous Home Secretary made speeches and published a number of articles on the benefits of antisocial behaviour orders. Some of these also mentioned acceptable behaviour contracts. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will do the same as the opportunity arises.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often antisocial behaviour orders have been used; and what assessment has been made of their effectiveness. [1421]

  Mr. Denham
  Based on figures for up to 31 March this year, 215 antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in England and Wales since 1 April 1999. The evidence so far shows that they have been used successfully in a variety of circumstances and to good effect.

  We are currently conducting a comprehensive review of these orders to evaluate their effectiveness in dealing with antisocial behaviour and to identify best practice. We expect this review to be completed later this year and we will consider the report carefully.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued since the relevant provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into effect in each local authority area, broken down by(a) reason for the order, (b) average age of the subject of the order and (c) source of the order; and if he will make a statement. [2115]

  Mr. Denham
  Available information given in the table shows the number of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOS) made by age group of subject and police force area. Information on local authority area, the reasons for the orders and the source of the orders is not collected centrally.

  The evidence so far shows that they (ASBOs) have been used successfully in a variety of circumstances and to good effect.

  We are currently conducting a comprehensive review of these orders to evaluate their effectiveness in dealing with antisocial behaviour and to identify best practice. We expect this review to be completed later this year and we will consider the report carefully.
  413W

  Antisocial behaviour orders made between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2001 by age group and police force area within England and Wales

  Number made from 1 June 2000 to 31 March 20012

  Police force area

  Number made from 1 April 1999 to 31 May 20001

  Age 10–17

  Age 18+

  Age unknown

  Total

  Total made from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2001

  Avon and Somerset

  9

  2

  2

  —

  4

  13

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  1

  3

  —

  —

  3

  4

  Cumbria

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Derbyshire

  3

  1

  7

  —

  8

  11

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  3

  Dorset

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Durham

  —

  3

  2

  —

  6

  6

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Greater Manchester

  10

  1

  2

  —

  3

  13

  Hampshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Hertfordshire

  1

  —

  4

  —

  4

  5

  Humberside

  —

  2

  7

  1

  10

  10

  Kent

  —

  9

  1

  —

  10

  10

  Lancashire

  5

  2

  5

  —

  7

  12

  Leicestershire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  Metropolitan police service3

  9

  4

  7

  1

  12

  21

  Norfolk

  6

  3

  1

  —

  4

  10

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  8

  2

  2

  —

  4

  12

  North Yorkshire

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  3

  1

  —

  4

  5

  South Yorkshire

  3

  —

  1

  —

  1

  4

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  2

  Suffolk

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Surrey

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Sussex

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Thames Valley

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  West Mercia

  5

  2

  5

  —

  7

  12

  West Midlands

  11

  6

  1

  —

  7

  18

  West Yorkshire

  4

  4

  1

  —

  5

  9

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England

  104

  52

  54

  3

  109

  213

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Wales

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  2

  England and Wales

  104

  53

  55

  3

  111

  215

  1 Based on data collected from ACPO and GLA trawls covering period 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 Information on the age of recipients not available

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

  3 Includes City of London

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in respect of(a) juveniles and (b) adults; and if he will make a statement. [2962]

  Mr. Denham
  A total of 104 antisocial behaviour orders were issued in England and Wales between 1 April 1999 and 31 May 2000. A breakdown by age for the orders issued in this period is not held centrally. However data collected centrally from June 2000 to 31 March 2001 show a further 111 antisocial behaviour orders being 414W
  made of which 53 were given to persons aged 10 to 17 years, 55 to persons aged 18 and over and three where the age is unknown.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he is making into the investigation concerning the(a) Landmark and (b) Inn on the Park in Liverpool in respect of asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [2316]
  415W
  Angela Eagle
  The investigation by National Asylum Support Service into the Landmark and the Inn on the Park is complex. The investigation is continuing.

  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers, broken down by nationality, are being held in prison. [2966]

  Angela Eagle
  The most recent information relates to persons detained under Immigration Act powers as at 31 May 2001. At that date 1,144 persons were detained in Prison Service establishments. This includes 428 persons detained in the dedicated detention facilities run by the Prison Service at Haslar, Rochester and Lindholme.

  It is not possible to say how many of these had claimed asylum or identify their nationality except by examining individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers held in prisons have applied for bail; and how many such bail applications have been successful. [2965]

  Angela Eagle
  The requested information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been held in prison since the policy was introduced; how many asylum seekers have been deported from prison; how many asylum seekers have put forward appeals since being put in prison; and how many of those appeals have been successful. [2967]

  Angela Eagle
  The requested information is not available and could be obtained only by examining individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the average time taken between the receipt of(a) an asylum appeal and (b) an immigration appeal to the Independent Appellate Authority and an appeal decision, for the most recent period for which figures are available. [178]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]I am assuming the hon. Member is referring to the average time from receipt in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) to determination.

  The average time taken by the Immigration Appellate Authority (for both the adjudicator and the tribunal tier), from receipt to determination in the period 1 April 2001 to 31 May 2001, is 22.3 weeks for an asylum appeal and 22.1 weeks for an immigration appeal.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of occasions on which action has been taken against NASS-contracted landlords in respect of the provision of sub-standard accommodation; and if he will make a statement. [167]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]The information is not available in the format requested.

  As a result of its inspection programme National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has required its accommodation providers to remove approximately 350 bedspaces from use due to failure to meet the requirements of the NASS contract specification. In addition providers have
  416W
  voluntarily removed approximately 1,000 bedspaces. In addition there have been a number of properties where remedial work has been required.

  James Ashley
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Police Complaints Authority to produce its report into the fatal shooting of James Ashley; and to whom the report will be made available. [2318]

  Mr. Denham
  The Police Complaints Authority do not normally produce reports of investigations. Instead they provide a statement of satisfaction about the conduct of an investigation. The Police Complaints Authority (PCA) issued statements of satisfaction on the investigations into this incident which were made available to the Chief Constable and the Police Authority.

  Oldham
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the principal recommendations were of the 1993 report of the Commission for Racial Equality on the housing policies and practice pursued by Oldham council; and what provisions were made for the monitoring of the five-year plan agreed between Oldham council and the CRE. [2276]

  Angela Eagle
  The Commission for Racial Equality entered into a three-year agreement with Oldham council, in which the council undertook to implement the following recommendations: to make sure that the council's policies, procedures and practices (written and unwritten) used to assess housing applications and for allocating properties were appropriate for meeting housing need, and were consistently applied; to monitor all offers and allocations of housing, classified by ethnic origin of applicant, the estate and quality of property; and to keep the Commission for Racial equality fully informed.

  The council also undertook to develop and carry out a training programme for councillors and housing department staff on the Race Relations Act 1976.

  Oldham metropolitan borough council submitted six monthly progress reports to the Commission for Racial Equality. The Commission received the final ethnic monitoring report, required as part of the agreement, in December 1996 and was content.

  Avon and Somerset Police
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in the Avon and Somerset police force for each reporting period since 1980; what forecasts he has made for the years 2001 to 2004; and if he will make a statement. [1373]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]Information on police numbers for each year since March 1980 is in the table.

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary had 2,960 officers on 31 March 2001, 26 more than on 31 March 2000.

  The Chief Constable informs me that on the basis of its current projections up to March 2003, the force expects to have 3,098 officers by the end of March 2002 and 3,175 by March 2003. About 60 per cent. of the total increase will be

  417W
  a result of the force's Crime Fighting Fund allocation of resources for 51 new recruits for 2001–02 and 77 for 2002–03. The force has made no projections as yet for 2003–04.

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary—police numbers since 1980

  Year1

  Police numbers

  1980

  2,892

  1981

  2,953

  1982

  3,011

  1983

  2,970

  1984

  2,997

  1985

  2,982

  1986

  2,958

  1987

  3,009

  1988

  3,013

  1989

  3,014

  1990

  3,094

  1991

  3,092

  1992

  3,081

  1993

  3,068

  1994

  3,033

  1995

  3,000

  1996

  2,981

  1997

  2,989

  1998

  2,976

  1999

  2,999

  2000

  2,934

  2001

  2,960

  1 As at 31 March

  Drunkenness
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list in descending order the greatest percentage change in the number of offences of drunkenness from 1990 to 1999 in each police authority in England and Wales; [1934]

  (2) how many prosecutions for drunkenness there were per thousand head of population in each police authority in the last year in which figures are available. [1936]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]Information on the number of offenders prosecuted in 1999 for offences of drunkenness per thousand head of population for each police force authority is given in table 1. Information showing, in descending order, the percentage change in the number of offenders prosecuted in 1999 compared with 1990 for offences of drunkenness in each police force authority is given in table 2. It is not possible to say what proportion of those prosecuted live in the area. Prosecutions of people from outside the area are likely to be much higher in some areas than others. This is most obvious for the City of London which has a low resident population and large numbers of visitors.

  Number of prosecutions for drunkenness per thousand head of population, by police force authority, England and Wales 1999

  Police force area

  Prosecutions

  City of London

  11.73

  Northumbria

  2.90

  Cumbria

  1.92

  Merseyside

  1.80

  West Yorkshire

  1.75

  North Wales

  1.70

  Lancashire

  1.65

  Cleveland

  1.52

  South Wales

  1.37

  Lincolnshire

  1.12

  418W

  Number of prosecutions for drunkenness per thousand head of population, by police force authority, England and Wales 1999

  Police force area

  Prosecutions

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  1.08

  South Yorkshire

  1.06

  Durham

  1.00

  Gwent

  0.92

  Cheshire

  0.82

  North Yorkshire

  0.77

  Devon and Cornwall

  0.76

  Thames Valley

  0.76

  Kent

  0.76

  Bedfordshire

  0.68

  Dyfed-Powys

  0.68

  Warwickshire

  0.68

  West Mercia

  0.65

  Wiltshire

  0.64

  Nottinghamshire

  0.64

  Hertfordshire

  0.61

  Dorset

  0.60

  Surrey

  0.57

  Greater Manchester

  0.56

  Essex

  0.55

  Suffolk

  0.55

  Gloucestershire

  0.44

  Sussex

  0.40

  Avon and Somerset

  0.37

  Humberside

  0.36

  Derbyshire

  0.33

  Cambridgeshire

  0.33

  Staffordshire

  0.31

  Norfolk

  0.28

  Metropolitan Police District

  0.28

  West Midlands

  0.27

  Leicestershire

  0.06

  Northamptonshire

  0.05

  Percentage change in the number of prosecutions for drunkenness between 1990 and 1999 listed in descending order by police force area

  Police force area

  Percentage change

  Cambridgeshire

  390.48

  Lincolnshire

  340.00

  Warwickshire

  322.22

  Essex

  262.38

  Gloucestershire

  152.94

  Surrey

  151.61

  Kent

  144.94

  Norfolk

  122.47

  Bedfordshire

  89.60

  Suffolk

  86.55

  Hertfordshire

  67.64

  Hampshire

  52.64

  Derbyshire

  40.59

  Devon and Cornwall

  40.13

  Lancashire

  38.47

  North Wales

  33.88

  Cumbria

  31.39

  Durham

  25.06

  Wiltshire

  21.15

  North Yorkshire

  18.27

  Leicestershire

  15.38

  Sussex

  11.92

  Cheshire

  9.10

  Thames Valley

  7.90

  Nottinghamshire

  6.64

  West Yorkshire

  6.12

  West Mercia

  5.24

  Dyfed-Powys

  -2.68

  Northumbria

  -3.54

  Dorset

  -4.88

  Avon and Somerset

  -6.35

  419W

  Percentage change in the number of prosecutions for drunkenness between 1990 and 1999 listed in descending order by police force area

  Police force area

  Percentage change

  Cleveland

  -12.31

  South Wales

  -13.43

  Humberside

  -13.48

  Northamptonshire

  -38.30

  Merseyside

  -47.59

  Gwent

  -55.59

  Greater Manchester

  -56.13

  London, City of

  -59.56

  South Yorkshire

  -62.04

  Staffordshire

  -67.52

  West Midlands

  -69.58

  Metropolitan Police

  -73.29

  Rural Police Grant
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recruits to the North Yorkshire police will be made possible by the Rural Police Grant; how long the Rural Police Grant will be in force; and how police salaries will be financed once the Rural Police Grant expires. [2348]

  Mr. Denham
  Police Authorities and Chief Constables may use their rural policing fund allocations as they judge best to improve policing in sparsely populated areas. The Chief Constable of North York s[ire plans to recruit 60 officers.

  £15 million was made available to forces for rural policing in 2000–01. The allocation will be £30 million this year and in each of the next two years. Provision thereafter is one of the matters which will be considered during the next spending review.

  Mentor Financial Consultants
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a r Tort from the Chief Constable of Northumberland on the progress of the investigation into Mentor Financial consultants; and if he will make a statement.[2472]

  Mr. Denham
  I am informed by the Chief Constable that the investigation by Northumbria Police into Mentor Financial Consultants is a continuing criminal investigation. It would not be right to disclose details of the investigation.

  Young Offenders
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles aged 15 and 16 years have been remanded(a) in adult prisons and (b) in total in each of the last 10 years; and what has been the average period of their detention. [1681]

  Beverley Hughes
  Data are available only for the years shown in the tables. Table 1 shows provisional information on how many juveniles there were remanded in custody on 30 June from 1995 to 1999 inclusive.
  420W

  Table 1

  Year

  Total

  Aged 15

  Aged 16

  1995

  42

  11

  31

  1996

  36

  9

  27

  1997

  6

  2

  4

  1998

  1

  1

  1999

  2

  1

  1

  2000

  0

  0

  0

  20011

  0

  0

  0

  1 Data for 31 May

  Table 2 shows provisional information on how many juveniles in total have been remanded in prison service custody on 30 June in each of those years.

  Table 2

  Year

  Total

  Aged 15

  Aged 16

  1995

  209

  54

  155

  1996

  254

  71

  183

  1997

  264

  75

  189

  1998

  248

  79

  169

  1999

  184

  43

  141

  2000

  161

  50

  111

  20011

  148

  39

  109

  1 Data for 31 May

  A further 66 15 and 16-year-olds were being held on remand in Local Authority Secure Units at the end of June 2000. At the end of June 2001 this figure had fallen to 50.

  Table 3 shows provisional information on the average length of detention in days that juvenile offenders have spent remanded in custody in prison for the last two years.

  Table 3

  Year

  Average days spent remanded Year in custody

  1999

  79

  2000

  65

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many secure unit places for juvenile offenders there are in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [2114]

  Beverley Hughes
  Currently there are 128 places in Secure Training Centres and 2,706 in juvenile Young Offender Institutions, and 268 juvenile offenders are placed in Local Authority Secure Units. The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales commissions and purchases places. Over the next four years it plans to provide an additional 400 independent sector Secure Training Centre (STC) places to replace Prison Service accommodation.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what private sector criminal justice initiatives his Department supports for(a) juvenile offenders and (b) young offenders; and if he will make a statement [2117]
  421W
  Beverley Hughes
  We support the appropriate use of private sector skills and expertise in delivering the public sector youth justice objectives. The private sector main contributions are the management of the three Secure Training Centres, and the electronic monitoring of offenders (including juveniles) sentenced to curfew orders with an electronic monitoring requirement.

  The voluntary sector also play an important role, providing services and helping with the delivery of a wide range of programmes for juveniles and young offenders.

  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on preparations for Holocaust Memorial Day 2002. [2702]

  Angela Eagle
  A Home Office-led Strategic Group has been developing guidance and plans for next year's commemoration, building on the successful foundations of the first United Kingdom Holocaust Memorial Day last January. The Strategic Group includes representatives from a wide range of Government Departments and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs).

  A working group chaired by the Home Office is taking forward the planning and delivery of the 2002 national event, liaising with the BBC who produced and televised the first national ceremony last January.

  Updated guidance for local authorities and a wide range of voluntary and community groups on ways they can mark the day is being produced by a working group chaired by the Holocaust Adviser to the Local Government Association and involving a number of representatives of NGOs with experience and expertise in Holocaust remembrance and wider diversity issues.

  The Holocaust education resource pack launched last November and intended for use by schools and others is currently being reviewed by a Department for Education and Skills led working group, consisting of NGOs with experience and expertise in Holocaust education and research. Around 30,000 of these well received packs have already been issued to about 23,000 schools.

  The Strategic Group is devising a communication strategy for the promotion and delivery of the 2002 commemoration. It is envisaged that there will be a single launch date in September for all Holocaust Memorial Day promotional material. Details of relevant activities and supporting guidance will be placed onto the dedicated website www.holocaustmemorialday.gov.uk.

  I would like to encourage all hon. Members to support and encourage activities in their constituencies to mark the 2nd United Kingdom Holocaust Memorial Day. The day is relevant to all of us. Its focus is on learning the lessons of the Holocaust and other more recent atrocities that raise similar issues.

  A key aim of the day is to convey the commemoration's relevance to contemporary issues of racism and victimisation and promote a democratic and tolerant society that respects and celebrates diversity and is free of the evils of prejudice. This will be reflected in all of the related guidance and plans to mark Holocaust Memorial Day next January.

  Oakington Reception Centre
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of new asylum seekers, by nationality, were sent to Oakington Reception Centre in the last three months for which figures are available; and if hit will make a statement. [1508]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 5 July 2001]The information requested is as follows:

  Proportions of applications for asylum in the UK sent to Oakington Reception centre. March-May 2001, by nationality1,2,3

  Nationality

  Total applications

  Sent to Oakington

  Proportion of applicants sent to Oakington (percentage)

  Albania

  260

  110

  43

  Bangladesh

  105

  45

  43

  Bolivia

  10

  5

  56

  Brazil

  5

  5

  43

  Cameroon

  65

  30

  48

  China

  505

  325

  65

  Cote D'Ivoire

  75

  5

  4

  Czech Republic

  345

  235

  68

  Estonia

  10

  5

  33

  Ghana

  35

  25

  68

  Hungary

  5

  *

  67

  India

  450

  205

  45

  Iraq

  1,060

  210

  20

  Kenya

  80

  30

  37

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  905

  105

  12

  Latvia

  20

  15

  62

  Lithuania

  65

  35

  54

  Nigeria

  155

  80

  53

  Pakistan

  580

  155

  26

  Poland

  190

  100

  53

  Romania

  480

  90

  18

  Slovakia

  20

  15

  94

  Tanzania

  15

  5

  35

  Uganda

  110

  50

  45

  Ukraine

  120

  50

  44

  Zimbabwe

  380

  250

  66

  Total

  6,050

  2,185

  36

  1 All data except percentages have been rounded, where * is 1 or 2. Percentages may not reflect rounded data exactly, but are correct

  2 Data on applicants sent to Oakington do not necessarily relate exactly to total applications received within the period.

  3 All data exclude dependants.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of asylum seekers sent to Oakington Reception Centre have had their case dismissed, broken down by nationality; and if he will make a statement. [1509]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 5 July 2001]Of those applicants whose appeal has been decided, the proportion dismissed, up to 22 June, is as follows.
  423W

  Country

  Percentage of dismissed appeals

  Albania

  75

  Bangladesh

  93

  Cameroon

  50

  China

  93

  Cote d'Ivoire

  75

  Czech Republic

  75

  Estonia

  85

  Ghana

  97

  India

  84

  Iraq

  83

  Kenya

  100

  Kosovo

  78

  Lithuania

  69

  Latvia

  82

  Nigeria

  83

  Pakistan

  80

  Poland

  68

  Romania

  78

  Slovakia

  81

  Tanzania

  75

  Uganda

  64

  Ukraine

  30

  Yugoslavia

  67

  Zimbabwe

  78

  Total

  80

  Immigration Legislation
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to reform immigration legislation. [1505]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 5 July 2001]The Government are committed to having immigration rules which are clear, firm and fair. We have no immediate plans for legislation but will keep the possible need for further change under review. We want to ensure that those who come and work here continue to make a major contribution to our economic and social life. We have transferred responsibility for the work permit system to the Home Office and will be looking further at the legal entry routes for people seeking to work in Britain. Officials are currently reviewing the Immigration Rules with the aim of producing a consolidated version which incorporates all changes made since HC395, the last main Statement of Changes. These revised Rules are likely to include a number of additions and amendments.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate (Country Assessments)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what updates to Immigration and Nationality Directorate country assessments have been made in the last six months; and if he will make a statement. [1507]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 5 July 2001]Updates to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's (IND) country assessments were made by IND's Country Information and Policy Unit in April 2001. These have been placed on the Home Office website. Country assessments are revised every six months. An assessment on Zimbabwe has been included on the website for the first time, as asylum applications from Zimbabwe have increased significantly during the Fast year.
  424W
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Immigration and Nationality Directorate has published a country assessment of Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [1506]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 5 July 2001]A country assessment for Zimbabwe was issued in April 2001 and has been published with other country assessments for the top 35 asylum producing countries issued in April 2001. The country assessments may be accessed on the Home Office website.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost is of supporting Neighbourhood Watch schemes in(a) Lancashire and (b) the South Ribble constituency. [1743]

  Mr. Denham
  In addition to the commitment of large numbers of volunteers, Neighbourhood Watch in Lancashire is actively supported by 11 police crime prevention and community safety officers. Because these officers do not devote all their time to neighbourhood watch it is not possible to estimate the cost of supporting neighbourhood watch schemes in Lancashire.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions exist on making the name and address of Neighbourhood Watch co-ordinators available to hon. Members. [1742]

  Mr. Denham
  The details of Neighbourhood Watch co-ordinators are held by police. The police may only disclose information to the extent that they have the common-law or statutory power to do so and do not thereby breach any other relevant law, such as the common law duty of confidence. Any disclosures must also then comply with the good practice laid down in the Data Protection Act 1998, except to the extent that any relevant exemption applies.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Neighbourhood Watch schemes exist in(a) Lancashire and (b) the South Ribble constituency. [1744]

  Mr. Denham
  I understand that there are 1,876 Neighbourhood Watch schemes in Lancashire, of which 180 are in the South Ribble constituency.

  Police Numbers (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average number of police officers per 10,000 population was in(a) England and (b) Essex on (i) 1 May 1997 and (ii) the latest date for which figures are available. [2331]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is:

  31 March 19971

  31 March 2001

  Essex police

  Number of police officers per 10,000 population

  19.5

  17.8

  England

  Number of police officers per 10,000 population

  24.1

  23.4

  1 Police numbers are collected twice a year (March and September) therefore March figures have been used for 1997.

  425W
  The Crime Fighting Fund is improving the position in Essex. The force increased its number by 81 between March 2000 and March 2001 to 2,887 and should have more officers by March 2002 than the 2,961 it had in March 1997.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) funded and (b) actual police officers there were in the Essex constabulary on (i) 1 May 1997 and (ii) the latest date for which figures are available. [2332]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is set out in the table. The funded police numbers have been provided by the chief constable of the Essex police. With our approval Essex police deferred their Crime Fighting Fund allocation of 70 recruits for 2000–01 to 2001–02. The Crime Fighting Fund will pay for up to 132 recruits in 2001–02 and 65 in 2002–03.

  Essex police

  Year

  Number of funded police posts1

  Actual number of Year police officers1

  31 March 1997

  2,944

  2,961

  31 March 2001

  2,955

  2,887

  1 Full-time equivalent

  Note

  The funded officer posts reflect officers funded from the budget approved by the Police Authority.

  Doctors (Heroin Prescriptions)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions his Department has given to police forces in the past four years concerning approaches to doctors licensed to prescribe heroin. [2372]

  Mr. Denham
  None.

  Drug Use
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the percentage of the population who have used(a) cannabis, (b) cocaine,(c) amphetamines, (d) ecstasy and (e) heroin broken down by (i) lifetime use, (ii) last year use and (iii) last month use. [2380]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The British Crime Survey provides data on the levels of self-reported drug use among a representative sample of the general population in England and Wales. The data in the table have been extracted from the 1998 report which is available on the Home Office website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ pdfs/hors197.pdf

  Percentages of respondents reporting use of cannabis, cocaine amphetamine, ecstasy, and heroin, 16 to 59-year-olds in England and Wales

  Lifetime

  Last year

  Last month

  Cannabis

  25

  9

  5

  Cocaine

  3

  1

  1—

  Amphetamine

  10

  3

  1

  Ecstasy

  4

  1

  1—

  Heroin

  1

  1—

  1—

  1 Less than 0.5 per cent.

  Source

  Drug Misuse Declared in 1998: results from the British Crime Survey, Home Office Research Study 197

  Police
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to abolish the criteria of fitness for operational duty as a condition of serving in the police force. [2079]

  Mr. Denham
  There are no plans to abolish the criteria of fitness for operational duty for applicants to the police service. Police officers need to be physically fit for the range of duties they are expected to perform.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will implement Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary's recommendation to combine the recruitment and retention functions of the Metropolitan police force. [2126]

  Mr. Denham
  In his report in October 2000, Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary provided a suggested action checklist which identified a need for a single, integrated and cohesive recruitment strategy incorporating short, medium and long-term targets for the recruitment and retention of staff.

  The Metropolitan police service (MPS) inform me that a cohesive recruitment and retention plan is being constructed and many elements are already in place.

  Building on the success of the Recruitment Task Force, a new Retention Task Force commenced work on 2 July.

  As well as aiding the development of a retention strategy the task force will identify and progress more immediate actions to improve retention.

  Targets covering recruitment and retention have been set in conjunction with the Metropolitan police authority (MPA). The MPS works closely with the MPA on all recruitment and retention issues, and a joint retention workshop is to be held on 26 July.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to promote redeployment into civilian roles within the police force, for those no longer fit for operational duty.[2080]

  Mr. Denham
  I will be considering a range of issues relating to police pension arrangements—including the provisions applying to officers no longer fit for the full range of operational duties—in the coming months.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people retired from the police force in 2000(a) in total, (b) on medical grounds and (c) on medical grounds with an injury award. [2081]

  Mr. Denham
  Statistics collected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for 1999–2000 show a total of 3,964 retirements from the police service in England and Wales1. Of those retirements 1,232 (31 per cent.) were on medical grounds. Statistics showing the number of retirements on medical grounds attracting an injury award are not available.

  1Statistics on the number of retirements from the police service are also collected by the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office for the National Statistics series. However the RDSD statistics do not include a breakdown between ordinary and medical retirements. The RDSD and HMIC figures are not strictly comparable as they come from different sources. In 1999–2000 the RDSD figure for total retirements was 3,929.
  427W
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to tighten the criteria for injury awards for those taping early retirement from the police force on medical grounds. [2082]

  Mr. Denham
  I will be considering a range of issues relating to police pension arrangements in the coming months.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces apply the criterion that recruits may not have more than a three millimetre gap between their front teeth; and what plans he has to change this. [2125]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office issues no specific guidance on periodontal conditions. Home Office medical guidelines include a section that recommends forces should carefully consider candidates where there is "evidence of poor dental hygiene". The current guidelines are being reviewed as part of a project to develop national job-related standards for police recruitment.

  We do not know whether any forces apply such a criterion. However, it is known that the Metropolitan Police Service formerly applied this criterion but abolished it in January 2001.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary e of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the practice of senior policemen being suspended on full pay pending investigation for misdemeanour. [2076]

  Mr. Denham
  The Secretary of State has no plans to review the arrangements. They are set out in the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999 for officers up to Superintendent and in the Police (Conduct) (Senior Officers) Regulations 1999 for Assistant Chief Constables and upwards.

  The decision to suspend an officer rests with the Chief Constable for officers up to Superintendent and with the Policy Authority for Assistant Chief Constables and above and the Secretary of State accepts that they are best placed to decide when it is appropriate to suspend an officer.

  Quantum Project
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department has spent so far on the Quantum project; and what benefits it has produced in terms of providing(a) updated technology, (b) increased efficiency and (c) better quality of information; and if he will make a statement. [2121]

  Beverley Hughes
  The cost of the Quantum project to July 1998 (when it was suspended) was £8.3 million. The procurement recommenced in February 1999 and led to award of contract to Electronic Data Systems (EDS) 12 months later. Initially, EDS took responsibility for all existing Prison Service information technology and telecommunications services. From the recommendations to date, some £44 million has been spent by the Prison Service on Quantum. This includes payments to EDS for the provision of information technology and telecommunications services.
  428W
  Under the terms of the Quantum agreement, EDS is responsible for updating the information technology and telecommunications infrastructure technology and telecommunications infrastructure of the Prison Service. This involves, among other things, installation of standard office computer software and equipment. The new infrastructure will be the technological platform for future business change projects and for delivering the benefits associated with improving efficiency and the quality of information.

  Cricket Match Safety
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will introduce legislation to make it an offence for members of the crowd at(a) international cricket matches and (b) other sporting events to enter the field of play without good reason while the match is in progress; and if he will make a statement;[759]

  (2) what action the Government are taking to improve public safety at international cricket matches; and if he will make a statement; [758]

  (3) if he will introduce legislation to make it an offence for members of the crowd at (a) international cricket matches and (b) other major sporting events to set off fireworks; and if he will make a statement. [761]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]The Minister of Sport and I met representatives of the English Cricket Board (ECB) on 27 June to discuss the incidents at Headingly, Trent Bridge and Lords. A joint review group, comprising representatives of the ECB, Home Office, Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Association of Chief Police Officers, was asked to examine all aspects of crowd management, existing legislation and ground regulations to identify how the cricketing authorities could minimise the potential for further incidents.

  Rape
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recourse is available to men who have been(a) acquitted of rape charges and (b) charged with rape but the charges were later withdrawn, with particular reference to those whose names have been published. [1816]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  If the individual believed that an acquittal or withdrawal was insufficient to clear his name and there were grounds for claiming that the prosecution was malicious and brought without reasonable cause, it would be open to him to bring a civil claim against the person or authority responsible. If there was evidence to suggest that a malicious complaint had been made, it would be open to the police and Crown Prosecution Service to consider whether a criminal offence had been committed. If there had been improper or unreasonable behaviour on the part of the police, a complaint could be made to the Chief Officer of the force concerned.
  429W
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men charged with rape were subsequently(a) acquitted and (b) had charges withdrawn in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available [1815]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The number of men charged with rape is not recorded centrally.

  Available information held centrally showing the number of men proceeded against at all courts for rape together with the numbers acquitted or who had the proceedings against them withdrawn is given in the table.

  The numbers of men proceeded against for rape together with the numbers subsequently acquitted or who had the charge withdrawn, England and Wales 1990–99

  Number proceeded against

  Number acquitted or withdrawn

  1990

  1,463

  552

  1991

  1,702

  614

  1992

  1,647

  630

  1993

  1,701

  622

  1994

  1,780

  698

  1995

  1,622

  718

  1996

  1,751

  790

  1997

  1,948

  856

  1998

  2,174

  1,088

  1999

  2,153

  1,103

  Parenting Classes
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the projects that his Department is funding in the current financial year that(a) provide parenting classes for adults and (b) otherwise include a parenting skills element. [1722]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Family Policy Unit at the Home Office under Family Support Grant (FSG) funds voluntary sector projects aimed at providing support for parents in their parenting role. Not all projects funded provide parenting classes as it is accepted that some parents prefer other methods, though all the funded work aims at supporting parents in their parenting role. Additionally not all the funded projects provide direct face-to-face services to adults as some like the National Family and Parenting Institute and Parentline Plus have a national role, such as the provision of information or a freephone telephone helpline, while some produce support materials to be used across the voluntary sector.

  Following the last Spending Review the current total available to voluntary organisations through the Family Support Grant is £5.6 million per year for a three year period beginning 1 April 2001. The emphasis of the grant is on evaluated practice, developing new or existing models of practice in new ways and on dissemination or replication of good practice and effective work rather than routinely supporting locally delivered programmes.

  Following is a list of the organisations that currently receive funding under Family Support Grant. However, in addition to the list, there are other projects, funded through the Department for Education and Skills, local
  430W
  government and carry-over from previous Home Office programmes Such programmes will be a key priority for the development of the Childrens Fund.

  National Family and Parenting Institute

  Parentline Plus (three projects)

  National Council for One Parent Families (two projects)

  Parenting Education Support Forum (five projects)

  Contact a Family (two projects)

  National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations (two projects)

  Trust for the Study of Adolescence (five projects)

  After Adoption (two projects)

  Fathers Direct (three projects)

  YMCA (three projects)

  PIPPIN (two projects)

  Ormiston Trust

  Divert Trust (three projects)

  Working with Men

  National Association of Child Contact Centres (two projects)

  Black Development Agency

  The Warren

  Coram Families

  National Newpin

  Child Psychotherapy Trust (two projects)

  Race Equality Unit (two projects)

  Family Rights Group

  Peers Early Education Partnerships

  Newham Bengali Community Trust

  Family Welfare Association

  Disability Pregnancy Parenthood International/Disabled Parents Network (two projects)

  Positive Parenting Publications

  Family Planning Association

  Health Advocacy for Turkish and Kurdish Speaking Communities

  Crime Conecern

  Norwood Ravenswood

  RPS Rainer

  Young Voice (two projects)

  Barnardos Byker Sands

  SCOPE (two projects)

  Family Matters Institute

  National Children's Centre

  East Lancashire Deaf Society

  PACE

  Community Education Development Centre (two projects)

  Ealing MENCAP

  Family Links

  Asian Women's Project

  National Childbirth Trust

  YWCA

  One Plus one

  431W

  SENSE

  Ann Craft Trust

  KJ Academy

  Federation of Prisoners Family Support Groups

  Young Minds

  Care for the Family

  Drugline

  St. Anne's

  Leeds Animation Workshop

  Kidscape

  Refugee Lifeline

  Kimia Clinic Trust

  Change North

  Oxfordshire Council for Voluntary Action

  Drugscope

  Relate South Essex

  Markfield Project

  Brent Irish Advisory Service

  North Derbyshire Child Clubs Network.

  Life Sentences
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions took place for offences carrying a potential life sentence in each year since 1974; how many resulted in conviction; and how many of those convictions were reversed at appeal. [1973]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information requested is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mediation Services
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support has been given by his Department to Mediation UK in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement about Government support for local mediation services [2134]

  Angela Eagle
  In 1999, the Home Office awarded a one-off grant of –30,000 towards Mediation UK's core costs. In both 2000–01 and 2001–02 the Home Office has granted –15,000 to Mediation UK as part of a joint funding exercise to provide con!, funding that also includes the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Department of Health and the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  The Government acknowledge the valuable work done by local mediation services but funding of this work is of course at the discretion of local authorities.

  Charity and Voluntary Sector
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the review of charity and voluntary sector policy. [2941]
  432W
  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked the Performance and Innovation Unit to undertake a broad-ranging review of the legal and regulatory framework for charities and the wider voluntary and community sector and to bring forward proposals for reform. The project is expected to finish in the winter of 2001–02.

  Air Weapons
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences were recorded involving the use of an air weapon in each year from 1997. [2169]

  Mr. Denham
  The available information has been published in "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1999". The details are as follows:

  Year

  Number of recorded crimes involving an air weapon

  1997

  7,506

  1997–98

  7,902

  1998–99

  8,665

  1999–2000

  10,103

  1997 is the calendar year, with the others being financial years. There was a change in the counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, and hence figures before and after that date are not directly comparable.

  Electoral Law
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has received since 1997 in favour of permitting citizens of other EU member states to vote in general elections. [1974]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since May 1997 there have been 28 letters from Members of Parliament seeking information about extending the parliamentary franchise to EU citizens. The Government's view is that extending the franchise in this way would need to be by reciprocal agreement with all other EU member states. There are no current proposals by the European Commission for action in this area.

  Royal Travel
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was of royal travel by(a) the Royal Flight, (b) the Royal Train and (c) commercial airlines in the last year before the grant-in-aid to the Palace for royal travel was introduced. [2085]

  Mr. Byers
  I have been asked to reply.
  433W
  Precise information for the year in question—1996–97— is not readily available. The initial budget of £19.385 million for the grant-in-aid for royal travel by rail and air was based on the estimated costs of royal travel in 1996–97. The resource budget for air travel by 32 (The Royal) Squadron was £16.57 million after adjusting for depreciation and interest charges on the capital values, airframe and engineering costs, the expected number of royal flying hours in 1997–98, overhead and administration charges, inflation and VAT. The budget for flying by other operators was £711,000. The budget for rail travel (which included both fixed and variable costs of the Royal Train) was £18.9 million. £331,000 was allocated for administration costs.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  People's Peers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council when the House of Lords Appointments Commission intends to launch its regional road shows to attract applications from aspiring people's peers [1976]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The House of Lords Appointments Commission launched its programme of regional visits in September 2000. I understand that it has already visited Edinburgh, Cardiff, Manchester and Belfast.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Lord Bhatia
Amirali Alibhai Bhatia, Esquire, OBE, having been created Baron Bhatia, of Hampton in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Prashar and the Lord Joffe.

Lord Moser
Sir Claus Adolf Moser, KCB, CBE, having been created Baron Moser, of Regents Park in the London Borough of Camden, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Gibson and the Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

Sudan
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Coxasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to recent developments in Sudan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, we remain focused on the situation in Sudan and are committed to helping to find a peaceful solution to the conflict. What really matters to the people of Sudan is an end to the enormous suffering caused by war. We were concerned, therefore, at the recent rebel offensive in Bahr El Ghazal and by the Government of Sudan's response. Last month we prompted an EU statement calling on both parties immediately to stop hostilities in order to create an environment conducive to negotiations and have reiterated that message bilaterally.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. As this is the first time the Sudan has been discussed in your Lordships' House since the sad loss of Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, this may be an appropriate time to say how much we all miss him and his always valued contributions on this subject.
Can the Minister say what the Government have to show for their policy of dialogue with the Government of Sudan, who continue to bomb innocent civilians and to perpetuate a war in which over 2 million have died and 5. million have been displaced? Has not the time come to follow the example of the United States
926
and adopt a more robust approach to that undemocratic regime which took and holds power purely by military force?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in her tribute to Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. We will sadly miss him.
The US Administration are reviewing their policy on Sudan. In fact, only this morning I had a meeting with Assistant Secretary Kansteiner. As the noble Baroness is aware, we take a balanced view on Sudan. Our central objective is to secure a just and lasting peace. The EU-Sudan dialogue focuses on five areas—I shall not go into them in view of the short time available. We believe that the Sudan has made progress in relations with its neighbours; for example, it signed an agreement with Uganda. The Sudan is adopting an acceptable approach to counterterrorism. We have noticed some progress on human rights and democratisation and there has been some moderation of police and security activity, although I agree that abuses undoubtedly occur. So there has been some progress, but there is still a long way to go.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the removal of civilian populations, the food shortages and the mass murders arise to a substantial degree from the exploitation of oil? If the oil companies chose to use their economic muscle to exact more ethical standards from the government, they might save thousands of lives. Has anyone discussed that possibility with them?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble and learned friend will be aware that through our own ethical trading initiative we have pressed organisations to ensure that they adopt ethical standards in their work in a variety of development countries. We have pressed for oil revenues to be used for development projects and for transparency in the oil accounts. The Government of Sudan gave public assurances to that effect. We shall be looking to them to honour those assurances. We shall remain focused on that issue as more evidence becomes available.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, among the five issues that are being discussed in the Sudan, the noble Baroness did not mention the abolition of slave-like practices. Does she agree that, although the committee established by the Government of Sudan to eradicate the abduction of women and children has made some useful progress, the practices continue up to the present day? No serious investigation has been made of the root causes and nobody has been prosecuted for the crime of abduction, contrary to Article 25 of the Convention Against Forced Labour which was signed by the Government of Sudan as long ago as 1957. Will the Government use their good offices, both bilaterally and through the ILO, to persuade the Government of Sudan to comply with the recommendations made recently by the Anti-Slavery International to eradicate those practices once and for all?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, may find it helpful to know that we have been looking to the Government of Sudan to ratify ILO Convention 182 on extreme forms of child labour. To bring an end to abusive child labour practices, including slavery and bonded labour, has been a priority not only of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but also of the Department for International Development. We will continue to press the Government of Sudan on those matters.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, has the Minister seen the recent reports from the Bishop of Rumbek about the killing of civilians in Raga as a direct result of the bombing of those civilian populations? Bearing in mind what she has already heard from those who spoke earlier, is it not time that we reviewed our policy about exploitation of oil in Sudan? The areas around oil fields have been ethnically cleansed of civilian populations. In the light of that, should not we review the advice given by the Department of Trade and Industry in its booklet, Doing Business In Sudan, a Guide for Exporters?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, the Department of Trade and Industry and the FCO do not promote trade with the Sudan. We are completely honest in the information we give to companies in relation to what we feel about the situation there. We were of course concerned to hear the reports of aerial bombings in southern Sudan. We raised that matter with the Sudanese Government at the highest level, making it absolutely clear that the bombing of civilian targets was unacceptable.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in view of the pertinent remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, can the Government say whether the time has come for our Government to call a conference, either bilaterally or through the United Nations, of the governments of all those countries in which companies exploiting oil in the Sudan are located, to agree minimum standards of human rights and to require those companies to make observance of those standards a prerequisite of their continued operation in the extraction of oil?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, in my reply to my noble and learned friend I made absolutely clear that through our work in the Department for International Development as well as that done in the FCO, we are trying to ensure that companies take their corporate responsibilities extremely seriously. We are pressing the Sudanese Government to try to ensure that oil revenues are spent in a developmental context. I shall take away the noble Lord's specific point of bringing the oil companies together and write to him.
Baroness Strange: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we are now into the ninth minute.

Company Directors: Remuneration
2. 58 p.m.
Lord Tebbitasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to legislate to give shareholders the right to fix the remuneration of company directors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the responsibility for fixing the remuneration of executive directors lies with the remuneration committees of listed companies and the Government have no intention of changing that aspect of corporate governance. However, it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the corporate governance framework promotes transparency and accountability to shareholders, and we will be taking steps to improve both of them.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister believe that the Government lived up to the standards they expect of companies in that, immediately after the voting on polling day, they awarded themselves substantial pay rises? Would it not have been better to announce that proposal before the shareholders voted?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, if the noble Lord had listened carefully to my Answer, he may have considered that a simple statement of thanks for giving him some accurate information was the right approach, rather than trying to introduce a totally different subject.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, will the Government honour the undertaking given by Mr Stephen Byers, when he was at the DTI, that he would produce a code of conduct regarding the remuneration packages of directors? Twice in the previous Parliament I asked that question and I was fobbed off with the answer, "Soon". The last time that I asked the Minister was over a year ago. Will the Government please have some care for the preservation of the English language or will they continue to procrastinate, bearing in mind the situation? It is a thorny issue but it is getting out of hand.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, consistently the Government have made it clear that they will produce their views on the matter of accountability as soon as the Company Law Review's wider recommendations on the issue have been made. That report is now with the Secretary of State and when she has had time to consider it, she will come forward with government proposals on this key area.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the concern about the salaries of senior executives in major companies extends to companies such as football companies and possibly to pop radio stations? Most footballers and popstars receive considerably more than many directors.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the same principle applies to those companies as to others. Essentially, how shareholders want to see their money used is a matter for them.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, would my noble friend care to distinguish between remuneration that comes out of the profits of companies and remuneration that has a significant input from taxpayers?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that shareholders should deal with remuneration resulting from company profits, but in a transparent manner and with accountability to shareholders.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, how does the Minister expect transparency to be increased? At the moment the transparency required for executive directors, as reported in the annual report and accounts of every company by the remuneration committee in the remuneration report, gives every detail possible. I just wonder what more will be imposed on companies.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I am sure that the noble Baroness knows, Stephen Byers made a clear statement on this subject. One major step forward would be clearer statements about the performance of a company, as happens in America, and to give effect to what the Greenbury report asked for, which was a clear statement on remuneration policy. As she knows from her careful scrutiny of many company accounts, that is very infrequently carried out.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, in applying their minds to this important matter, is it too much to hope that the Government may give some thought to the meaning of the word "bonus" that, of late, has got out of contra? Perhaps they could take the opportunity to make it clear that the word does not always have a big ingredient of merit.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord. The prime issue is that there should be a clear link between the performance of a company and an individual director and the remuneration that he or she receives; therefore, where performance is poor or mediocre large bonuses should not be given.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, given that there are, by any reckoning, hundreds of people earning packages of £1 million plus a year, how can the Government be indifferent to the impact of that on differentials, particularly as they affect the public services? As they pretend to be concerned about education and teachers, do they believe that such a state of affairs is gravely damaging to the recruitment of teachers and, for example, to the availability of affordable housing for public service workers in London?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government are not indifferent to any of these issues,
930
nor to the action that should be taken to deal with them. Ultimately, it is for the shareholders, whose money is involved, to make the judgments through the remuneration committees on what payment should be made.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, what view do the Government take of directors exercising share options at reduced levels to discount a falling share price?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords. if there is such an issue—if I understand it at all—any action that is in any way out of line with company law would be a matter for the Financial Services Authority.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister consider that the desirable relationship between remuneration and reward exists in the recent case of Railtrack?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, again that is a case for the shareholders of Railtrack. In this case, I am delighted that it will be on the agenda for the AGM, where no doubt the shareholders can express their views.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that, although we have had Greenbury, Hampel, Turnball and Cadbury, and while there may be codes of conduct, in recent times there have been too many instances, particularly regarding the renegotiating of stock options, that do not find favour with shareholders, with the public and with anybody other than those who benefit directly? If there is to be a review, perhaps that can be one of the first subjects to be examined.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is the point of the decision that we are to take on the accountability to shareholders. Clearly, on occasions when there is genuine concern by shareholders as to the remuneration practice of a company. the fact that they are not always given the opportunity to make their feelings known at the AGM is not satisfactory. That is exactly the issue that we shall consider when we bring forward the proposals on accountability.

Missile Defence Systems
3.6 p.m.
Lord Juddasked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements they are making to evaluate the relevance of a missile defence system to their national and international security priorities, with particular reference to the outcome of the last defence review.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, consistent with the Strategic Defence Review, we continue to assess the potential role of missile defence systems as

931
part of a broad ranging response to missile and weapons of mass destruction proliferation. Our position of monitoring developments, both in the threat and in defensive technologies, our involvement in NATO studies and our dialogue with allies all help us to make informed judgments on security priorities. But it would be premature to decide to acquire a ballistic missile defence capability.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that any missile defence system will have immense expenditure implications, with far-reaching consequences for our existing defence strategy introduced after the recent defence review? Therefore, does he also agree that it is absolutely essential that, before we drift into any commitment from which it may be increasingly difficult to extricate ourselves, there is a convincing threat analysis that demonstrates why such a system is necessary and could be effective? Does my noble friend agree that we must be clear about the consequences for arms control and disarmament, which must remain a cornerstone of global security? Is not terrorism, in its nuclear, biological and chemical dimensions, a much more immediate threat? Is that being addressed adequately?
Lord Bach: My Lords, there will be no drift at all into such a defence system. Perhaps I may quote from the SDR published some three years ago. It states that systems,
"may play a role within a balanced spectrum of capabilities to counter the risks posed by chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery. But technologies in this area are changing rapidly and it would, at this stage, be premature to decide on acquiring such a capability".
It went on to say:
"We will, however, monitor developments in the risks posed by ballistic missiles and in the technology available to counter them, participate in NATO studies, and work closely with our Allies to inform future decisions".
That was two or three years ago and it is exactly the policy that we have followed since then. What we said then applies now. Of course, my noble friend is right that any system would be very expensive. As far as disarmament is concerned, the goal of Her Majesty's Government is the global elimination of nuclear weapons. That remains our policy.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in the course of such monitoring, has the Minister come across the recently published internal US Defence Department study that indicates that the testing of missile defences is, first, long-delayed, secondly, subject to a high level of failure, and, thirdly, does not take into account the use of sophisticated decoys? Has he seen the article in the contemporary issue of Foreign Affairs by Mr John Newhouse, an outstanding expert, who argues that the single greatest threat to global security arises from the growing and dangerous disrepair of the Russian strategic forces?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I have not had the benefit of seeing either of the articles to which the noble Baroness
932
refers. However, she can be assured that I will have seen them by this time tomorrow afternoon. I take great note of what she says and I know that she understands our policy, which we have made clear, that in considering any future request from the United States implications for United Kingdom security will be a major consideration.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, has not the noble Lord, Lord Judd, put the cart before the horse? Is it not the policy of government that defence review and defence provision should take account of the reality of missile defence and is not that matter under continuous consideration?
Lord Bach: My Lords, of course it is under continuous review, and that is how I answered my noble friend Lord Judd. But there is no question of our drifting into a policy of ballistic missile defence. We will make a decision on the matter when we feel that it is right, in our interest, to do so. At the present time, we believe that it is premature.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his confirmation that none of these later developments affect the Government's commitment to the achievement of a nuclear-free world will receive world-wide support and acclaim?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, who has shown a huge interest in this subject throughout a long and distinguished career.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister gave me a complete brush-off when a few days ago I asked him about new construction at Menwith Hill. It is a matter of common knowledge that new radomes have appeared on the site and that pictures of them have appeared in national newspapers. Surely therefore it is a matter which we can discuss in this House.
The Minister says that there is no question of our drifting into a national missile defence policy. However, when we see those new constructions at Menwith Hill, and in the absence of any statement by the Minister or his colleagues, are we not entitled to draw a conclusion as to what they consist of?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord can draw whatever conclusions he likes. The fact remains—I said this last Thursday in the House—that it has never been the policy of governments of any colour to comment on specific security measures. Tempting as the noble Lord may be in the way he poses the question for the second time in four days, I shall not comment further.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to ballistic missile defence in the context of the Strategic Defence Review. When that review was put together three years ago, the BMD was not in consideration. Can the Government

933
assure us that if it is agreed to go ahead with BMD the money will be made available over and above the existing defence budget?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not in a position to give that assurance to the noble Lord today. Let us take things one stage at a time. At this stage no decision has been made and none is imminent. We do not yet know what the United States may or may not ask for. When we know that, I shall be in a position to answer the noble Lord better.

Waste Management: Incineration
3.14 p.m.
Lord Ezraasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the incineration of waste.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government set out their aims and objectives for sustainable waste management in Waste Strategy 2000, published in May last year. The choice of waste facilities is a matter for local councils in consultation with their local communities. The Government recognise that the recovery of energy from waste may have a role to play, alongside recycling and composing, in an integrated waste management plan, but they have no plan for any particular number of incinerators.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he not aware of a general feeling that there is some ambivalence in the Government's policy, as was stated in a recent Select Committee report from another place? Is it not apparently a contradiction that whereas energy recovery from waste counts towards the achievement of the Government's objective for renewables by 2010, it nevertheless does not rate for the benefits under the renewables obligation? I believe that we are justified in asking whether the Government are seeking to encourage or discourage the recovery of energy from waste.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the disposal of waste has as its prime consideration the issue of whether we can reduce the amount of waste we produce in the first instance, or recycle or compost it. Therefore, the use of waste for energy production is second or third down the list. Nevertheless, the production of energy from waste makes a contribution to the diversification of energy sources and is considered in that context. However, from the point of view of waste management, it is not necessarily the optimum solution.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the thousands of bonfires or pyres which burnt—indeed, some are still burning—millions of animals under the auspices of
934
MAFF or DEFRA complied in every way with the waste incineration directives and laws which we imported into this country?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the House will know that the impact of the temporary pyres, which regrettably we had to use during the foot and mouth out break, has been monitored by the Environment Agency and by the Food Standards Agency. A report was issued by the FSA last week and the indications are that no dangerous levels of dioxins are emanating from them. Clearly, the use of such pyres must be minimised and will continue to be so as we continue to fight the disease.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, given the need to maintain the balance between recycling and incineration, do the Government intend to give local authorities more money in order to make it possible for them to meet their targets on recycling and to encourage them to do so?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes; waste and recycling are being supported in the current spending review. During the next three years the amount available to spend on waste strategy will have risen by £ 1.1 billion. We have also provided significant funds—about £40 million—to the waste and resources action programme in order to overcome market and other barriers to the recycling of waste. Furthermore, we have provided support of £220 million through PFI projects, some of which have been announced. In addition, my colleagues in DCMS have announced that £159 million will be available for a programme of environmental renewal and that will include provision for recycling, composting and waste reuse.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I understand that the Government's waste disposal strategy will require many large incinerators to be built throughout the country—I have been given a figure of 165—and that there is strong public resistance to the building of incinerators in residential areas. How do the Government propose to strike a balance and do they intend to alter the planning regime in order to allow those incinerators to be built?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I said in my Answer, the Government do not have in mind any particular figure for the number of new incineration plants. If a local authority decides that new incineration facilities are required, they will go through the normal planning application and, if they are large enough, through DTI assessment. No particular figure, particularly one of 165, has any bearing on government policy. The Government would prefer to see waste minimisation in the first instance and then the recycling of waste, rather than an increase in incineration capacity. However, where it is needed, the new standards for incinerators will ensure that there is a minimum safety standard.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following the previous intervention, what is the Government's latest thinking

935
on the impact of emissions from incineration, on which there appears to be a diversity of reports, particularly in respect of dioxins?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the technology now required of incineration plants will reduce to minimal levels any form of dangerous emission. For example, the level of total incineration exposure will be substantially less (about 6 per cent) than that from major manufacturing sectors such as iron and steel. Incineration plants make only a very small contribution to the problem of emissions, and exposure from any particular plant has been reduced to a minimal level. Therefore, some of the public anxiety to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred earlier is misplaced. Where incineration is necessary, subject to all the caveats that I have spelt out, the danger to the public is minimal.

Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [H.L.]
3.22 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I hope not to detain your Lordships for too long this afternoon. This is a very straightforward Bill with a single, specific purpose; that is, to equalise the entitlement to concessionary travel for men and women at age 60. It will bring to 8 million the number of people who benefit from the Government's statutory requirements for travel concessions.
Concessionary fares schemes offer cheap travel on public transport for people who are economically disadvantaged and demonstrate our commitment to fighting social exclusion. We want to ensure that bus travel, in particular, remains within the means of those on limited incomes and those who have mobility difficulties. Just last month we brought into force legislation requiring local authorities to offer a minimum of 50 per cent reductions to elderly and disabled people. Those changes benefit some 5.5 million pensioners and 1.5 million disabled people across England and Wales. With this Bill, a further 1 million men aged between 60 and 65 will be able to share these benefits, bringing the total number of people who benefit from our statutory travel concessions provisions to around 8 million.
Provision for travel concessions is at present contained in the Transport Act 1985, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Transport Act 2000. Local authorities in England and Wales must arrange for elderly and disabled people living in their area to receive a half-fare concession, or better, on local bus services—that is, services within the local authority's area—subject to the person obtaining a bus permit, which must be given free of charge. Local authorities also have discretion to offer further concessions on bus and other public passenger transport services, as well as concessionary travel
936
outside their boundaries if they wish. Indeed, many local authorities offer concessions on other modes of public transport and fares cheaper than half-price—an obvious example is London—but they must not offer a scheme less than the statutory minimum.
Why are we legislating? Entitlement to travel concessions is linked to pensionable age as defined in the Pensions Act 1995. This means that women may take advantage of the concessionary travel schemes offered by their local authority at age 60, but men must wait until 65. There is no age barrier to entitlement for concessionary fares schemes for disabled people. Given strong opposition to current legislation because it discriminates on the ground of gender, we have decided to end the anomaly and are therefore legislating to equalise entitlement at age 60. As your Lordships may recall, this was raised during the passage of the Transport Act 2000 which introduced the statutory minimum requirement, and therefore I hope that the new legislation will be welcome.
Under the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995 pensionable age will start to equalise from 2010 so that by 2020 both men and women will receive their state pensions at 65. Your Lordships will notice that Clause 1(4) of the Bill provides for reserve powers for the Secretary of State, or National Assembly for Wales, to restore the link to entitlement to concessionary fares with that for state pensions. Should orders be made under this power, which could not be until 2010 at the earliest, the age entitlement to concessionary travel would similarly rise to 65 by 2020. Orders made under that subsection would treat a man as if he were a woman born on the same day. We may have some fun discussing this at a later stage of the Bill.
This Bill will not create new concessionary fares schemes, nor will it involve new bus operators entering the market. Local authorities will have to adjust all of their current concessionary fares schemes to broaden entitlement to men aged between 60 and 65, but we envisage that the additional burden on local authorities of issuing these extra passes will be minimal.
Reimbursement arrangements under existing legislative provisions mean that the financial impact on bus operators will be neutral. Bus operators are reimbursed for revenue forgone so that they are financially no better and no worse off than if they did not participate in the concessionary fares scheme. The calculation of the level of reimbursement by the local authorities may take into account increases in the number of passengers who travel—the "generation" factor. These reimbursement arrangements are well tried and tested, and I am pleased to be able to reassure your Lordships that neither local government nor the bus industry foresees any difficulty in administering or operating the increased entitlement.
There is no doubt that concessionary fares are expensive for governments. In England local authorities at present spend £440 million each year on their schemes. Extending eligibility to men aged 60 to 65 could involve an additional £50 million per year in England, and we will need to take this into account in the local government finance settlement.

937
I should perhaps say something about the territorial extent of this Bill. The Bill applies to England and Wales, and the National Assembly has its own commencement powers. Concessionary travel is devolved to Scotland and separate legislation is being progressed there. In Northern Ireland entitlement is already equalised at 65.
There was considerable debate in this House during the passage of the Transport Act 2000 that introduced the statutory minimum requirement for concessionary fares, and no doubt some of the same issues will be raised in the context of this Bill. I can see that several noble Lords are eager to join in this debate. I very much look forward to our consideration of these issues over the coming months, and I therefore commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
3.27 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his brief, concise and precise summary of the Bill and its provisions. I have no interest to declare in this Bill, having arrived at the age of discretion. Others who take part in the debate may be in a different situation. It is worth noting that the background to this Bill begins with yet another case before the courts. Concessionary fares were first provided by a number of local authorities, and their power to do so was challenged back in 1954. As a result, the introduction of the 1955 Act gave local authorities the power to grant concessionary schemes.
One of the reasons for the complexity of the provision of concessionary fares is that its origin was a local authority discretionary service. A series of Bills has been introduced since then. But it is perhaps no coincidence that this Bill arrives as a result of yet a different case before the European Court of Human Rights involving discrimination laws. In that case a man claimed, unusually, that he was being disadvantaged by the present situation. The fact that that court has admitted the case is the reason why this brief and easily understandable Bill is now before us.
That said, while the Bill itself is simple, the financing arrangements are not. There is a common thread. Transport operators should not be disadvantaged as a result of operating the scheme. That sounds quite simple. However, there are a number of problems in arriving at their actual costs. Those costs then fall with the local authorities concerned, which is where they arose. Local authorities have never found the revenue support grant to be an adequate and sufficiently precise means of distributing government revenues. Therefore, there may be a great deal to be said in the later stages of the Bill on that particular detailed front.
Behind the payment which local authorities make there are the annual negotiations of the costs to the operators. They are not straightforward. Although one is dealing with a 50 per cent concessionary fare, one asks, "50 per cent of what?" Every transport operator—bus companies or indeed railways, because on a local scale railways are involved, or London
938
Underground, and I shall turn to London in a moment—operates fare incentive schemes to try to persuade people to travel at times when the system is not under such great pressure. So one has annual negotiations at a local level with the transport operators and with local government, and, at a national level, with the Government. There is a great deal of opportunity for inaccuracy.
Unusually, too, as the Minister said, the Bill provides for something that is somewhat different. At present, concessionary fares are available to those drawing pensions or those who are disabled. That is straightforward. However, the Bill takes concessionary fares for the first time to a group of people who may be still at work. It is very easy—dare I say, facile—to describe the existing arrangements for calculating demand as rather erroneous, because if those people are at work they will be much greater users of the transport system than the people who at present are able to use it. To calculate the liability on the basis of existing practice, therefore, is potentially quite dangerous and would leave the local authorities with a shortfall of funds.
Perhaps one should think about that issue in a little detail. If concessionary fares are not available before 9 a.m. one might suppose that a good many people travelling to work would be excluded from a concessionary fares scheme. But those who have advised me tell me that that is probably not so. For a start, there are people in part-time work. That is a slightly reduced liability compared with that relating to those in a full-time occupation. However, there are people who work flexitime. If someone works flexitime he could probably travel using exclusively concessionary fares five days a week, week in and week out. Even if he could not use flexitime and get to work by travelling to work after 9 a.m. the matter is complicated because he could use a single fare for the outward journey and use the concessionary fare to return home. Therefore, there is a considerable problem with the calculation of funding.
One matter that we shall need to probe during the passage of the Bill is whether the arrangements for reviewing what actually happens are adequate so that if the Government's figure turns out to be greater than they are at present suggesting, there is some provision for recouping that sum.
I said that I would mention the situation in London. London is different because it has its own legislation on this. That requires not a 50 per cent but a 100 per cent concessionary fares scheme. Therefore, if the calculation is a miscalculation—I am first to admit that we need to prove that it is—the costs will be commensurately greater. The £50 million figure mentioned by the Minister suggests a London figure of about £15 million. The Association of London Government tells me that it thinks that the costs could rise as high as £28 million. That could ca use some difficulties.
There is yet another subject worth mentioning. I would welcome reassurance from the Minister on this matter. The judgment of the European Court of

939
Human Rights was that the arrangements made in this country to equalise the pension arrangements were not adequate. The original intention was that discretionary fares should be equalised between the sexes on the same basis as the pension arrangements are going to be equalised. If the European Court is admitting that at least there is a case to answer in relation to this particular point of concessionary fares, there must be a risk—I put the matter no higher than that—that someone might bring a case under the pensions arrangements. Is the Minister aware of any threat of any such action? If the noble and learned Lord is, that would concern me a great deal, as I am sure it would him.
My final point is that it is extremely tempting to go down a road which demands an hypothecated—if one wants to put it that way—specific grant from the Government precisely spread to local authorities on the basis of their actual expenditure; in effect, a national scheme. I return to the origins of this matter, which was local authority discretion. If we believe in local authorities and in local authority powers and independence, then I would regret a national scheme. I hope that the Government would regret one also. We must accept a certain amount of diversity in our community. Desirable though absolute equality might appear, communities should have a right to decide their own affairs. Therefore, although we need to make sure that what is done to aid this scheme and to help it forward is as precise as possible, I should regret any resulting suggestion that we should have a national scheme. I hope we shall not go down that path.
3.38 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, at the start of the passage of the Bill, I declare an interest as a county councillor in Suffolk and also as vice chair of the Local Government Association transport executive.
I would like to thank the Minister for his introduction and welcome him to the House of Lords transport Mafia. After the marathon Bills to which the noble and learned Lord is accustomed, I expect that this one must feel like a stroll around the park. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble and learned Lord enjoys it.
Despite its modest size, it is an important Bill. It has the support of these Benches. Indeed, it would be extraordinary if it did not, given that we tabled amendments to the Transport Act last year aimed at doing exactly what is proposed—equalising the age of eligibility for concessionary fares. It seems like only yesterday—in fact it practically was only yesterday—and it is a pity that in a crowded legislative programme we have had to find time for this extra piece of work when we could have got it right just a few months ago. Local government is now faced with altering within a matter of weeks a scheme only recently introduced. I hope that perhaps a lesson can be learned. Certainly, when from these Benches we table amendments, they are intended not only to be constructive but are also based quite often on a great deal of experience. My
940
noble friend Lord Bradshaw who cannot be here today has a lifetime of experience in the transport industry and his input is very valuable. I should like to think that our amendments might not be treated so cavalierly in the future, but then I am an eternal optimist. One has to be to sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
As I said, we support equalising the ages for men and women in this regard and see no good reason why inequality should have been brought into new legislation when we have been slowly phasing it out. However, there are still some unresolved issues in the area of the new concessionary fares, and the Bill provides an opportunity to explore some of them. First, I wonder whether the Minister has had time to become aware of some of the significant structural problems facing the bus industry. Right across the country we are seeing large numbers of de-registrations of less commercially viable services, often in rural areas but not exclusively so. That puts pressure on local authorities to provide subsidies, either directly or through the Government's rural bus grant. The operating costs of buses are increasing way ahead of general inflation and in some areas chronic employee shortages are leading to significantly higher wage bills. Fuel bills are rising in the bus industry, as elsewhere, and so too are insurance premiums. There is a limit to the amount by which fares can be increased to counter those costs. We know very well that bus patronage quickly declines whenever fares are increased beyond inflation. I mention all those points because it does not matter how good the concessionary fares scheme is or who is eligible if there are no buses on which to use it.
Secondly, I should like to raise the issue of the cost of the concessionary fares scheme. The Explanatory Notes estimate that the Bill will add £50 million to the cost of the scheme provided in the Transport Act. Understandably, that is only an estimate and will be subject to variation according to take-up, fare levels and so on. At this stage we are not sure whether the costs incurred by local authorities through the 2000 Act will be fully met by the grant made. Early indications are that, even with the increased figure made available, the costs were underestimated. The significance is that the funding is to be made available through the standard spending assessment and revenue support grant. Therefore, any shortfall will be made up by local council tax payers or through reductions in other services. In response to a question I asked during the Committee stage of the Transport Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, agreed to keep the matter under review. I should like to ask the Minister—I shall understand if he cannot give me a detailed reply today but I would appreciate a response in writing—whether mechanisms are in place to review those costs.
A further area is worthy of discussion. The provisions of the Transport Act have given us a nation-wide set of schemes with a minimum standard. That is a welcome advance on the patchwork of schemes previously available but falls short of being a national scheme. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I should like to see a national scheme and I shall

941
explain why. Currently, the administrative areas are set on district council boundaries. But travel needs are not set in such a tidy way; and the kind of people covered are even more likely than the rest of us to require services such as hospitals, which often lie across county borders, never mind district ones. In some rural areas, and in parts of the patch I represent, the nearest bus stop may be in another district council area and therefore outside the scheme. I should like to think that we could move towards a genuinely national scheme, which would not only cross those borders but could be extended to other forms of travel, notably rail, and which would be cheaper to administer centrally. I know that it is an ambitious aim, but perhaps the Government are prepared to make a modest start by including in the guidance to local authorities the need to include essential services which lie across administrative boundaries.
In a similar vein, I should like to mention that some local authorities have always offered up to 100 per cent concessionary fares to blind and partially sighted people. There is a danger that in the future conformity with the 50 per cent concessionary fare could severely disadvantage that group. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can comment on that aspect.
Finally, I return to another matter which was the subject of one of our amendments during proceedings on the Transport Bill. I refer to the extension of the scheme to children and young people up to the age of 19 while they remain in full-time education. Our estimates are that this would cost approximately £50 million each year, a relatively modest sum for the potential benefits available. Young people deserve to have access to the services they need and the facilities they want. It is the other side to the coin advocated by the hard-liners. It is about understanding that the majority of teenagers are decent young people who simply want to be able to get out and about independently. It is the group that, sadly, is most vulnerable to road accidents, yet we positively encourage them into cars by ending cheap fares at such an early young age. On the same note, we should also consider whether it is wise to encourage car use among those who are forming the travel habits which will stay with them for life. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was at least sympathetic when I raised the matter last year. I hope that we might progress from sympathy to action this year.
The role of the bus in developing a more sustainable transport network is just beginning to be recognised. If it is to fulfil its potential in this regard, there are wider issues which must be taken more seriously by the Government. I look forward to the Minister's response.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, although my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith has already referred to London, as a member of a London local authority—the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea—I should like to concentrate on some of the issues in the Bill that will affect the capital's scheme.
942
There has been some talk about when the scheme started. I am sure the House will be aware that London has had a mandatory scheme of concessionary fares, paid for by individual London boroughs, since the passing of the London Regional Transport Act of 1984. The scheme, which was amended by the Greater London Authority Act, includes not only those of pensionable age but also anyone above the age of five who is blind or suffers from a disability or injury which seriously impairs his or her ability to walk. There is a secondary discretionary entitlement which my borough, among others, has adopted so that those with hearing difficulties or learning disabilities and the seriously mentally ill receive passes as well. The Transport Act 2000 extended those eligibility criteria.
As we have already heard, the London scheme is more generous than the statutory minimum 50 per cent discounted fares on local buses which the Transport Act 2000 introduced for the rest of the country as it offers free fares for all the eligible categories. The scheme is currently run on behalf of all 33 London boroughs by the Association of London Government, and the freedom pass entitles its holders to free travel on London Transport buses, the London Underground, the Docklands Light Railway, national rail services and the Croydon tram link. It consequently conforms with, but far exceeds, the statutory minimum requirements, introduced in the Transport Act 2000, of 50 per cent entitlement on just local buses. The current cost for London as a whole is some £150 million.
The provisions in the Bill before us today, which would give the concessionary fare entitlements to men of 60—many of whom, as my noble friend indicated, will be in work as they will not have reached the official age of retirement—will severely increase these costs. It is estimated that there are 141,000 men aged 60 to 64 living in Greater London. About 10 of those will already hold a disabled person's pass or other concessionary freedom pass, so the additional numbers in the scheme could be as many as 127,000. Demographic trends are likely to make those numbers increase. We have heard that —50 million has been set aside by the Government to cover the additional costs for the whole of England. However, as my noble friend said, it has been calculated that, because of the complexity of the compensation arrangements between the boroughs and Transport for London, an additional —28 million will be required annually by London alone.
As I have already said, the London mandatory scheme is for free fares on a variety of transport run by Transport for London, but the country-wide scheme is based on half fares on local buses. I ask the Minister today how he proposes under those circumstances that London should be compensated for the additional costs which will now arise. If that compensation is to be based on half fares on buses only, then either the boroughs are going to be faced with the possibility that the London scheme will have to be reduced to maintain affordability, or they are going to have to make decisions about other priority services in order to continue to support the freedom passes as now.

943
It is clear that London cannot introduce the option of giving men between the ages of 60 and 64 passes for half fares only since, at the very least, it would make the scheme cumbersome and could raise further issues about discrimination if women and the other groups currently receiving concessions were to continue to do so on the full fare basis. Indeed, the Minister probably acknowledged this point when he suggested that we might encounter some fun on the question of eligibility for men and women.
It is clear that this provision seeks to pave the way for the ultimate harmonisation of benefits for those of pensionable age. In order to do that, it envisages reducing the age of eligibility for men at a time when, as my noble friend has already indicated, they will still be at the height of their earning capacity and when their need to travel frequently in respect of that work is still a part of their lives. Their use of the concession will, in all probability, far exceed all other users.
Once the age has been harmonised at 60 years in respect of concessionary fares, it is intended that, in due course, both men and women will have that entitlement gradually raised—in tandem—to the age of 65; namely, from where the men are starting now. This is what I would call the "inside out umbrella" effect—what goes down must come up. One can only presume that external forces are at work here since the rationality of what is being proposed does not seem clear. However, whatever the reasons which have brought this about, I believe that the question of proper compensation for the London scheme has not been addressed adequately. I hope that, before the Committee stage, the Government will provide the answers to some of the problems that I have raised.
Finally, from London's point of view, the date of implementation of any changes is crucial. In order to keep costs to a minimum, the freedom pass is issued every two years. The next date when this will be done is 2002. If London is to meet that timetable, it will need to hold discussions with the transport operators and advertise the extensions to the scheme by December this year. If, as has been suggested, implementation is to take place in 2003, then other arrangements will have to be made. Either implementation in London will have to be delayed until 2004 or London will need to incur the extra costs of issuing passes in 2002 for one year only. This is another matter which it would be helpful if the Minister could take on board and respond to with an answer in due course.
3.53 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I join with many organisations in the disability field in warmly welcoming this Bill, which will equalise the age at which men and women become eligible for concessionary bus travel. In particular, the Royal National Institute for the Blind believes that this will benefit many thousands of men in their early sixties who may be losing their sight but who have not yet been identified as being blind or partially sighted, or who are unwilling to define themselves as such.
944
I wish to concentrate on the points already raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Hanham. The RNIB is concerned that the legislation may lead inadvertently to a reduction in the travel concessions which are currently available to blind and partially sighted people and other disabled people of working age.
As a result of the Bill, an extra 1 million men will become entitled to half-price bus travel. The estimated cost to local authorities is £50 million, which will be reimbursed by the revenue support grant. What concerns the RNIB is whether this represents a realistic assessment of the level of subsidy which will be required. If the eligibility extension is not properly funded, it will jeopardise the more generous concessionary fare schemes for disabled and older people which are currently operated by some local authorities and which the Government have said that they wish to encourage. Local authorities will simply reduce their provision to the minimum required by law.
That is precisely what is happening in many authorities falling within CENTRO—the West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority. Before the Transport Act 2000, which established the national minimum half-price bus travel concession for disabled and older people, along with a £50 million subsidy, a number of these authorities provided blind people with free travel on public transport.
For example, visually impaired people in Birmingham have enjoyed free travel on public transport since 1913, but that is to end this August. Instead of a free off-peak travel pass, covering train, metro and all bus travel, or a pass costing £18.70 for free travel at all hours, they will be entitled to half-price bus travel only. If they want to continue to have the freedom to travel on the bus, rail and metro, they will have to buy extra tickets costing £232 per year for off-peak and £265 a year for 24-hour travel.
Not surprisingly, blind, deafblind and partially sighted people living in Birmingham have been extremely distressed by this move. Four out of five are unemployed and have a range of visual impairment-related costs which disability living allowance does not begin to meet. If they cannot afford to get out and about, this will have a damaging impact on their health, independence and well-being. Other disabled people, who currently pay £13 every four weeks for unlimited travel, will also be hit by a £146 a year increase. In total, around 6,000 blind and disabled travel pass holders will be affected.
Birmingham City Council argues that it has had to pare down its provision for disabled people to the minimum because the costs of funding the subsidised travel passes have increased dramatically as bus operators have more than doubled their charges. It should be remembered that local authorities must reimburse bus companies for revenue forgone so that they are neither any worse nor any better off as a result of participating in concessionary fare schemes.
What is the reaction of my noble friend on the Front Bench to the situation in Birmingham and its potential impact on the mobility and quality of life of disabled

945
people in that area? Can he say whether any further subsidies will be provided to protect the position of blind and other disabled people currently benefiting from more generous travel concessions in this and other areas? Furthermore, can he give the House an assurance that sufficient subsidy will be provided so that the extension of eligibility proposed in the Bill will be funded in such a way so as not to lead to cuts in the existing provision?
3.58 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should declare an interest in the provisions of this Bill. Although currently I am not old enough to benefit from the provision of the proposed age-related travel concessions, by the time the Bill has been enacted, I will be. I was going to speak about the blind, but the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, has already done so for the House. She has spoken far more eloquently than I would have done, so I shall shorten what I have to say, which I hope will be of benefit to the House as a whole.
I hope that the Bill will encourage more people to use public transport. But where is that to take place? It will be of very little benefit to those who live in rural areas. That is because of the paucity of public transport provision, in its volume, the range of its routes and the hours of operating. Furthermore, I wonder whether the change from having most shops situated in the centres of towns, where people used to shop, to large supermarkets and hypermarkets on the edge of our towns, very often served by little public transport, does not mean to say that many people must use a car out of necessity in order to do their shopping. If elderly people live, as I do, a mile and a half from the nearest available public transport, it is hard to imagine them—even with a travel concession—walking home on a dark evening, in foul weather, carrying all their shopping. They will not use it.
There will be a number of people, mainly men—all men, in fact—over the age of 60 and below the age of 65 who will be working and eligible for the concession. I wonder whether the tax authorities will consider this to be a benefit in kind and that such men will have to pay tax on it. Can the Minister assure the House that that will not be the case until such time as the pension age is equalised and men and women retire at the same time? The noble and learned Lord may feel that he cannot tie the hands of his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we should be given some assurance on that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, suggested that the scheme should be extended to young people to keep them away from private cars. But the noble Baroness lives in the country and she knows that young people need to get home after they have been out and that public transport does not run. So it will not work there. However, the suggestion is well worth looking at in greater detail because if we can get people into the culture of using public transport it will benefit the nation in the future.
Today, we all drive around in our own cars because it is so much more convenient. I know that I live way out in the country, but it is quicker to get to the House
946
by private car than it is by using public transport. It also means that I can leave the House when I am ready and not when the train wants me to board it, and I can remain in the House for a Division or to hear the contribution of a particular Member of the House.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith suggested that we should have local schemes and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, suggested that we should have a national scheme. I am sorry that my noble friend does not agree with me, but I believe that the noble Baroness is right, for the simple reason that many people making journeys of any considerable distance cross many local authority boundaries and county boundaries and move from one kind of transport to another.
The system seems to have become very complicated. It would be better if we were in a position where we could buy one ticket to take us straight from A to Z, rather than having to buy a ticket from A to B, B to C, C to D and so on, at possibly different concessionary rates all the way through. We should keep the system as simple as possible. The more complicated we make it, the more likely people are to use private vehicles rather than public transport.
4.4 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for giving me the opportunity to take part in the debate. I have been working abroad and my name was not on the list of speakers.
I welcome the Bill to equalise the age and eligibility for travel concessions. I have long campaigned for equality, especially on the ground of age but also on the ground of gender, which is what this particular inequality relates to primarily.
But there is still much work to do, for example, for British pensioners who retire overseas to be with family or friends and then find their pensions dwindling away; or for an older person who wants to take advantage of lifelong learning but cannot do so because he or she happens to be over 50. There are many such examples.
It is a shame that the Government have managed to bring the Bill forward only when forced to do so by court action. I have a lot of personal experience of the time and the money that has been wasted by the noble and learned Lord's predecessors and, more importantly, by their departments, which have obstructed this issue over the past decade. The legal costs alone have been enormous.
This points to the failure of governments, across all departments, to take action and to change a policy at the right time—that is, when it is the right thing to do—rather than when they are forced to do so. That is a shame because the credit has to be given to the quite small organisations which have raised the matter—in this case PARITY—outside Whitehall.
In the last Session, during the passage of the Transport Act 2000, we tried to persuade the Minister's predecessor that the Government should take action on this matter. It is a little frustrating that we were ignored then only to be proved right now.

947
The Bill has an enormous drawback for older women. In Clause 1(4), reference is made to the Pensions Act 1995, which will equalise the state pension age at 65 between 2010 and 2020. I am not opposed to this. I believe that much more flexibility has to be introduced because of the rise in longevity. Artificially-set state retirement ages are too rigid for the new society that we are entering. People may want to work longer—60 is not old—and one may have more adult life after the age of 60 than before. That is not unreasonable to suppose and I hope that more people will have a working life beyond the age of 60.
But I am concerned that the Bill is being presented as something more than it really is. It benefits men aged 60 to 64 only for seven or eight years, until 2010. The press release on 28th June makes no mention of this rather crucial fact, other than in the notes to editors at the end. That is a shame. The press release states that,
"current law means that reduced travel fares would not be equalised until 2010 at the earliest".
In fact, it will be 2020 before they are equalised at 65. The press release goes on to say that,
"The new bill is fairer ensuring that at least one million more men will enjoy reduced travel fares".
That is very welcome to the people who will benefit, but it does not say that between 2010 and 2020 all women who turn 60 to 64 will lose this benefit, and that men will have to wait until they are 65, as now.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a straight question. He may prefer to write to me as this is also the responsibility of many other Ministers. Do the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995 mean that the current eligible age of 60 for benefits such as free entry to museums, free prescriptions, free eye tests, the winter fuel repayment and a reduced TV licence fee in sheltered housing will also rise to 65 between 2010 and 2020? Crucially, also, is the same true of the minimum income guarantee, which now applies from age 60?
If the eligible age increases to 65, I am sure that there will be an uproar from older people. If it remains at 60 for these benefits and concessions, one has to ask why the travel concession is treated differently. If it rises to 65, the Government must give a clear statement of why. The demographic revolution and the unprecedented increase in longevity must inevitably lead to changes in public policy. These changes must be made clear, otherwise it will be a case of over-selling in the same way as the story about the travel concession was oversold.
As has been said, the travel concession applies only to local bus journeys. It is very welcome, but many older people want the concession to apply more extensively—for crossing boundaries and so on—and that is why we tried to amend the Transport Act last year.
I refer finally to a fundamental issue affecting women who will be aged 60 or under in 2010. I earnestly hope that the Government have learnt the lessons of the inherited SERPS disaster or scandal. I know that not enough women are aware that state
948
retirement age for them will increase from 60 to 65 between 2010 and 2020. If in addition they are to lose the benefits that I have mentioned, I hope that the relevant departments—mainly the Department for Work and Pensions, but also the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—will be honest enough to say so well in advance.
No one can hide from the implications of policy decisions. By the same token, the Government need to be absolutely clear in introducing these policies. Since 1997 the situation regarding travel concessions has not been clear; older people have become angry on finding out what is really the case. It is one of the reasons why people become disillusioned with politics altogether.
Despite my concerns about the process of delivering policy change, I strongly welcome the Bill to equalise travel concessions and congratulate the Minister on introducing it in this House. Discrimination on grounds of age or sex or any other basis is, after all, unacceptable.
4.11 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Scott said, we on these Benches welcome the Bill—although I echo the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross: it is a great pity that it took an application to the European Court to concentrate the Government's mind. I declare an interest as vice-president of PARITY, the organisation that supported the individual who made the application. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the doggedness of that organisation. As with so many voluntary bodies, it comes down the work of a tiny handful of people. I also pay tribute to the gentleman concerned. It takes a lot of bottle to go through such an application if you are not used to legal procedures—indeed, even if you are. I declare a further small and indirect interest as a member of the Greater London Assembly. I shall not set out the reasons why that might be an interest; it just might.
Because the Bill is so welcome, I ask the Minister immediately whether he can tell the House when he expects its provisions to commence in England. I appreciate that there will be a different arrangement in Wales. Not unnaturally, the campaigners hope that, as they put it, justice will not be delayed and that the Bill's provisions can come into effect within the next two or three months. Those of us who are familiar with parliamentary procedures realise that it will take at least until November or December for the Bill to complete its passage through both Houses of Parliament. However, it would be helpful to hear the Minister's response.
What consultation have the Government had with local authorities—in particular with the local authority associations? In the light of comments by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will the Minister meet the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government to discuss the difficulties if that is their wish? I suggest that such a discussion should take place before the Bill has completed its stages in

949
this House. It is a good deal easier in the calm atmosphere of this place to deal with alterations, either on the face of the Bill or in terms of any underlying scheme or regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that the cost could be £50 million and that we may have to disprove that figure. I take issue with him on the responsibility to disprove it. It must be kept under review and scrutinised by all involved. While referring to figures—merely so that Hansard gets it right—I should perhaps mention that the briefing I have received from the Association of London Government suggests that it is not "10 men" in London, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, who hold a disabled person's freedom pass; it is 10 per cent of men. There was some slight confusion. I am not trying to trip up the noble Baroness; I merely want to put the figure into context.
My noble friend Lady Scott talked about the problems with the current scheme. In London we have rather more provision than the Minister suggested; namely, we have a statutory provision for concessions to travel to places in the vicinity of greater London. During our debates on the previous Bill it was recognised that a journey does not stop naturally at the boundary of greater London. If statutory amendment is required for travel outside greater London, let us take the opportunity in this Bill to deal with such an alteration.
The London scheme, as has been said, extends to more than buses; there is a huge variety of modes of travel in London, which is a complex city. However, it is not the only place where buses are not the only method of travel. The other city that I know moderately well is Manchester, where the light-rail Metrolink is a very useful mode of transport. Encouraging the use of public transport by making changes between modes of transport easy is a point that we must always bear in mind.
Returning to the question of cost, we must be careful that the concessions do not lead either to a reduction in service or to a reduction in other local authority services as a result of local authorities carrying the cost. As my noble friend said, we need buses to be there for the scheme to work. As a member of the Greater London Assembly, perhaps I may briefly "plug" some recently published work highlighting the need for investment in the bus fleet. It points out the need to modernise bus stops, so that they have telephones attached 10 them, and so that they provide public information about when the bus is coming that is accurate and easily understood. They might even—if one dare mention such a thing—have toilets attached to them: if passengers have to wait, let it be made comfortable for them. We must also ensure that bus drivers, who are a part of making the city work, are retained in their jobs. That is a question of money too. It seems that a large number of bus drivers, having learnt their skills at the cost of the bus operators, then go off and drive white vans—which may be why they use bus lanes so often to park!
950
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, referred to an effect like an "inside-out umbrella". As the public begin to realise the implications in this and other areas as we move towards equalisation of the retirement age, this legislation will be a small piece in a very complicated jigsaw. However, I strongly agree with the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, about the context of the Bill. Its provisions are relatively limited but they are extremely important in setting us off on a road of equality which is at least as important as making sure that people move to public transport.
4.19 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, this is, indeed, a simple Bill: it is all about sex equality. I shall not detain the House for very long because other noble Lords have made excellent speeches, and I certainly cannot match their expertise. Before putting down my name to speak on any Bill or in any debate, I consider whether or not I have an interest to declare. On this occasion, it occurred to me that I shall be in a position to benefit from this Bill in about 15 years' time. That observation will obviously annoy many noble Lords: but it terrifies me when I think about my rapidly advancing years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, apparently made the substantive point of my noble friend Lord Swinfen for him; and he, in turn, made mine. My noble friend Lady Hanham spoke about the London perspective, while other noble Lords raised the issue of cost uncertainty. We know that a million men may benefit, and that they could be economically active. The Minister said that their inclusion could cost £50 million, but he did not sound certain in that respect. He does, however, always sound confident.
In conclusion, we generally welcome this Bill, while sympathising with the Minister's position vis-à-vis the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and her amendment to the Transport Act 2000. It must be very galling to introduce a Bill which will have the same effect as the noble Baroness's amendment; and, indeed, for the same reasons. We look forward to debating some interesting amendments to the Bill at a later stage.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate. A few days ago I introduced the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. On that occasion, the Liberals referred to me as joining the group of housing "nerds" in the House, whereas today they welcome me as having joined the "Transport mafia". So there is much to be said for this particular job.
Perhaps I may run through what I believe to be the important points in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and, to a lesser extent, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, raised the question of cost. The underlying questions were: how will this cost be calculated; what about the particular position of London; and will other services suffer? As regards the costs, local authorities will have to reimburse the bus operators for

951
any additional costs incurred. In turn, local authorities are entitled to be reimbursed by central government for the additional cost of complying with this change in the law. That reimbursement will come from the revenue support grant, which is reviewed each year when the standard spending assessment is considered and the settlement agreed. My department keeps a watching brief on the costs involved, but local authorities must bid for funds as part of the normal settlement process.
We have already consulted local government associations. I am very aware that the ALG has particular concerns in this respect, and that its estimate of the costs differs from that of the department. A meeting is to take place this week to discuss the issue. As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, another deeper issue is involved; namely, whether 100 per cent or 50 per cent will be reimbursed. In the circumstances, I believe that the less I say about that the better at this stage. I believe that such a conversation should take place between the ALG and officials. We can then see what progress can be made in that respect. I understand the importance of the costs issue; it is one that must be addressed. However, that should not detract from the fact that, in principle, the Bill before the House is a good one.
Save for the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I detected from what most speakers said that the Bill is broadly welcomed. The noble Lord speaks on behalf of the Conservatives, but it was impossible to tell from his remarks whether or not they welcome the Bill.
As regards the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord tempts me to rise to my feet. When the Government are operating under force majeure, it is rather difficult to make up one's mind whether one should welcome the Bill or sympathise with them in their predicament. I thought it better, therefore, to hold my peace.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that rather confirms what I said; indeed, we still do not know where the Conservatives stand in relation to the Bill. We shall no doubt find out during the course of the Bill's passage through the House.
If I may say so, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, displayed commendable self-restraint. At no stage in today's debate did she say, "But I introduced a similar amendment under a previous Bill", whereas the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, mentioned the fact that the provision was previously proposed.
I turn to the important issue of travel outside a local authority's area. The example that the noble Baroness gave of hospitals being located outside local authorities' boundaries is a good one. As the noble Baroness knows—indeed, she specifically pointed this out—under their discretionary powers local authorities can make arrangements with neighbouring
952
authorities and offer concessionary travel beyond their own boundaries if they so wish. This concession has already been made available in certain areas.
We believe that local discretion is important in relation to the issue of cross-boundary schemes, and where local authorities acting singly or jointly are best placed to meet the needs of their elderly and disabled citizens. The noble Baroness made the specific suggestion that we should give some thought to updating the guidance to deal with the situation, which I shall certainly consider.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, raised the question of free fares for the blind, and specifically drew my attention to the position in relation to Birmingham. The Transport Act 2000 guarantees half fares for the elderly and disabled on local bus services. As the noble Baroness acknowledged, that is an improvement on the previous, rather piecemeal, situation. It is important to remember that it is the minimum and that local authorities are free, if they so wish, to offer greater concessions to other categories of people; for example, blind people.
In practice, the extra cost of complying with the legislation will be met out of the revenue support grant. Therefore, this Bill should not endanger any existing concessions. As for the contention that this provision will bring into the costing equation a cohort of men who work, I can tell noble Lords that that is right in the sense that the retirement age for men is 65 and this provision will apply to men between 60 and 64 years of age. Although the retirement age for women is 60, it is true to say that many women over that age continue to work. Therefore, it is wrong to say that a person has to be retired at present in order to gain the benefit under the Bill. The "pensionable age" is simply the starting-point for gaining the benefit available under the Bill.
The points made about how many men in the cohort of a million would be likely to take advantage of the benefit are also important. It seems to me that that leads us to the conclusion that we need to be most careful in working out the best way to monitor the use of the benefit so as to ensure that local authorities and bus companies are properly reimbursed.
A number of other points were raised, with which it would not be appropriate for me to deal at this stage. It is obvious to me that the Bill has broad support. I hope, therefore, that we can work through it as quickly as possible. However, I should perhaps deal with the timing of this provision's introduction. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Scott, specifically asked when this benefit would be introduced. We trust that it will be introduced as soon as possible. We shall, of course, take into account the kind of points that have been raised during the course of today's debate. We very much hope that it will be introduced no later than April 2003. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Citizenship
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen Baroness Massey of Darwen rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will implement the recommendations of the Carnegie Trust report Taking the Initiative: promoting young people's involvement in public decision making in the UK to encourage more active citizenship.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am very happy that young people's participation in public life is being debated by a group of people who are so knowledgeable about, and sensitive to, the issues. The noble Lord, Lord Alton—who I see has just arrived in the Chamber—has even compiled a book about it; and a very good read it is, too. I should like to thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for their enthusiasm for the topic; many of whom have expressed interest, even though they are unable to be here to speak this evening.
I should like to welcome my noble friend Lord Rooker to what I believe is his first response to an Unstarred Question. From his earlier contributions in your Lordships' House, I know that we can look forward to a well informed and spirited reply.
The report under discussion, from the Carnegie Young People's Initiative, is timely and exciting. It points out that devolution in the UK has,
"unleashed a new focus on youth issues and new structures for involving young people, from youth forums and parliaments to Children's Commissioners".
Two challenges are pointed out: first, that of reaching a larger and more diverse set of young people and sustaining their commitment; and, secondly, the need,
"to move beyond tokenism and ensure that young people have a genuine influence over decision making".
Action is called for which makes the participation a right, lowers the voting age to 16 and allows people to stand as councillors and MPs at 18—of course, this is very controversial. A system of independent children's commissioners across the UK is advocated, as is action across schools, local authorities, central government, the health sector and the voluntary sector. The report calls on central government departments to produce a policy and action plan for young people based on common minimum standards and co-ordinated by the Children and Young People's Unit.
It is significant that other recent reports from the Gulbenkian Foundation, the Social Exclusion Unit and the Trust for the Study of Adolescence—I declare an interest as a trustee—all agree that including children and young people in decision-making in their communities contributes to active citizenship.
We do not have time today adequately to cover this vast and important agenda, so I shall make mainly general points. I know that other noble Lords will want to be more specific. Perhaps we should first look at what we mean by participation. UNICEF developed a model relating to young people's participation in health structures. Participation was
954
rated on a four-point scale from young people being consulted and informed to, ultimately, youth-initiated decision sharing with adults—a challenging vision.
Where do we begin to encourage participation in decision-making in society? As in most things, with parents and families. We must not forget to involve them in structures for participation. Very young children can learn about simple decision-making as a step to more complex forms as they mature. I remember when my children were small and I said, "We are having eggs for breakfast, how would you like them cooked—fried, boiled or scrambled?" Of course, to complicate things, they all decided to have them done in different ways. I tell this story not to reflect upon myself as a parent but to illustrate that it can be difficult and complicated to involve young people. How much easier it is to make the decisions ourselves.
We, as adults, often choose not to involve young people as a basis for action. Maybe we think they are not capable of decision-making and participation in public life. Maybe we think they will be too challenging. Maybe we fear the risk and the time involved. Maybe we feel that children need to be protected for as long as possible from the nasty adult world. Of course, they sometimes do need protection. I actually believe that they need to learn how to protect themselves and to be confident in influencing the world rather than be manipulated by it. The Carnegie report claims that society underestimates this ability with a,
"deep reluctance to share power".
Young people are often considered to be "citizens in waiting". They know this and resent it and either challenge it or switch off from the way in which they are being treated. The educationalist, Piaget, said as long ago as 1932:
"Young people need to find themselves in the presence not of a system of commands requiring ritualistic and external obedience, but a system of social relationships such that everyone does his best to obey the same obligations and does so out of mutual respect".
We cannot just advocate or teach about democracy, social justice and mutual respect, we have to demonstrate them across institutions and systems.
I applaud the fact that citizenship education has guidelines in the national curriculum, but, like personal, social and health education, it is not compulsory. All these areas should, of course, be coordinated across the curriculum and across school life generally, as well as having specific slots in the curriculum. The guidelines recommend that children should learn about political and social institutions and about their rights and duties as members of communities. They should learn,
"to respect our common humanity, diversity and differences so that they can go on to form the effective, fulfilling relationships that are part of life and learning".
It is all applaudable stuff with desirable messages. But without real participation and real involvement by young people in their communities, schools cannot be expected to glue together the scraps. Many schools, including primary schools, have school councils. In the primary school where I am a governor, that works

955
well. But what also works well in that school is children's participation in the life of the school as a whole. That is respected and encouraged. There is a deliberate philosophy of fostering children's self-esteem. It is no accident that that inner-city primary school, with all the problems that that entails, was rated last year one of the best schools in the country by Ofsted.
We have youth parliaments and youth networks. Some young people are actively involved in volunteer work for charities, in sport and in local communities, although volunteering by young people has sadly declined sharply over the past 10 years. As we know, there are also young people who are disaffected by our institutions. We need to ask why that is and to take action. What can government do? I believe that we pay a price for non-participation. It is not just about voting at elections; low turn-outs are only partly to do with young people and more to do with politicians and the media. The matter is more serious than that. Alienating our young people from systems in society may result in truancy or bad behaviour in school, hooliganism at sports events, and violence in communities, such as we have recently witnessed in northern England.
I do not believe that the negative outcomes of exclusion will be resolved by imposing more and harsher rules and penalties; nor do I think that the avoidance of negative outcomes should be the sole reason for involving young people in decision-making processes. Avoiding negative outcomes is a byproduct. The real issue is that by giving young people a voice and listening to it, we stand a better chance of getting things right in the structures of society, and that affects all of us. By encouraging young people to be involved in the present and the future, we tell them that they are valued members of society, and valued members of society are more likely to contribute positively to the well-being of that society. Can we be reassured that the Government will take note of the report?
4.37 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for introducing the Unstarred Question and for writing to me to draw my attention to the report which I read with great interest. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to his position on the Front Bench. I also welcome the fact that he will reply to the debate this afternoon.
In the time available it is not possible to do justice to the many issues raised in the report. I was particularly interested in its introduction which identified a real problem. Whatever any of us may think of the outcome of the recent general election, I think we all agree that the low turn-out is bad for democracy. The report refers to a wide age span of young people, from 10 to 25, and asks how they can be further involved in various decision-making processes.
During a debate on the constitution earlier this year, I said that it was a sad fact of life today that politics is a complete turn-off for young people. I do not simply
956
refer to disadvantaged young people. Much to my surprise I discover that it is a turn-off for university students. When I consider how much time young people spent in my day setting the world to rights, I find it extraordinary that politics does not interest young people today. During the election campaign I was surprised to hear a young girl say that she had decided not to vote. I asked her if she was aware that women had died for a woman's right to vote. She was unaware of that fact and disinterested in it. Those are sad facts, some of which the report addresses. There is not time this evening to discuss why the situation is as it is. However, I say in passing that a number of people have suggested to me that there should be compulsory voting. That is not something to which I subscribe, but I am surprised at the number of people who now think that that is the answer.
The intention underlying the report is to engage young people in local, voluntary, social and political issues, to increase the vote turn-out at elections and to recognise children's creativity, innovation, energy and enthusiasm at a time in their lives when learning is easiest. They can discover the fulfilment of participation and of making a difference to the projects in which they engage. The report recognises that today's children are tomorrow's voters. Those are important points.
We run into more difficulties on addressing the problems. I have been involved with many schools which have school councils. In my experience they are very successful. They involve the pupils in a number of decisions so that they learn about democracy and responsibility. However, I believe that the imposition of student councils in schools with imposed regulatory standards on frequency of meetings, elections and so on would prove unworkable. The suggestion would be unpopular with teachers who are already complaining, not surprisingly, of too much regulation and bureaucracy. It is something to be encouraged but not imposed.
I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, refer to parents. I can find only one mention of parents in the report. The report states on page 10 at line 4:
"Schools and local government are the two organisations which have the most direct influence on most young people's lives and they need to be the priorities for involvement on a daily basis"
Is that statement true? Surely parents and the family are most influential in most young people's lives. It seems unfortunate that the report makes only one mention of parents.
That leads me to a concern which I have already expressed. There is today a theory about what is known as the "autonomous child"; that families are likely to fail children and that the solution is to free children from their families and endow them with adult rights—freedom of expression, freedom of religion, the right of association, the right to privacy and so on. Those rights would be safeguarded largely, if not primarily, by the state. The implication in the report is that those rights would be safeguarded by children's commissioners. The report proposes a

957
situation whereby parents are excluded and the rights of children are supported not by the parents—they should surely be the first port of call—but by the state.
During debate on the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill which completed its passage just before the general election, I argued for the inclusion of parents for consultation purposes in the powers of the commissioner. I had support from noble Lords from all parts of the House. The Health and Social Services Committee of the National Assembly for Wales made the same point. It stated:
"We consider that the prime justification for the establishment of a Children's Commissioner is the absence of mechanism to allow children and young people directly to influence decisions which impact on their lives. Their voices are frequently not heard because they do not have the vote and are all dependent, to varying degrees on adults around them".
This is a new philosophy about which we should be cautious.
In conclusion, it is always important to talk to and communicate with young people. There is much to be said for lessons in citizenship and for school councils. I am impressed today by the numbers of young people I meet who take part in voluntary activities of one kind or another. Leaving aside the Duke of Edinburgh's award schemes, there is not a school I have visited which does not have a large proportion of its young people undertaking work in the community. That is the best way to learn. It is something we should encourage.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, on initiating the debate. It follows the debate on 24th January introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, whose responsibilities include citizenship and immigration. Citizenship is at the heart of this debate, although some find that an unwieldy word.
I declare my interest in the subject as president of the Citizenship Foundation, a body which I established in 1988. Like other charities of that ilk, its work relates closely to suggestions in the report. For example, we run a mock parliament competition and mock trial competitions for schools in Crown courts and magistrates' courts. We produce an annual young citizens passport which last year went into the pockets of 80,000 young citizens.
I congratulate the Carnegie Trust on undertaking the work which underlies the report. It is a valuable stimulus for all of us. Unless we can today engage young people in the affairs which concern us day by day all is lost. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the stupefying turnout of 59 per cent at the last election.
In the short time available I shall suggest two or three matters for consideration by the Government in implementing their programme. I congratulate David Blunkett. As Secretary of State for Education he brought citizenship into the curriculum. I am not sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, understands that it will be a compulsory part of every secondary
958
school curriculum from the autumn of next year. That will put us in the forefront of the world in citizenship education. I realise that there are some misgivings about that. However, it is a non-prescriptive programme of citizenship education setting goals rather than telling people what to do and how to do it. I believe that it will be crucially important in achieving what we all want.
I refer briefly to the Crick report published in September 1998. I urge Members of this House who have not read the report to do so. It presents perhaps the best survey yet produced of all issues on citizenship and citizenship education. In saying that, I mean no disparagement of the more practical report we are considering today.
After autumn next year we must allow the citizenship proposals to bed down. Many schools are trying frantically to enable the start of citizenship education to be a success. The initiative must be given time to show its paces and to allow already overburdened teachers to get to grips with a new subject and new proposals. Until that is done, many of the report's proposals should be dealt with delicately, if not left on the back burner.
The report has two main proposals: to enable young people to exert "tangible influence" and to enable them to effect real change, giving genuine effectiveness to individuals in our society. Nearly everything that the report says about young people is equally true for adults. It is shocking to realise that every statement about powerlessness, insignificance and disconnectedness is as true for most adults as it is for most young people. Unless we get to grips with that wider problem, there is no real hope of making a major change in the condition of our young people. Where do they learn their interest in politics and public affairs? If they do not start by learning it in the home, the chances of them learning it elsewhere are very much diminished.
I fear that the report envisages a massive amount of new legislation. One has only to look at page 84, on the right to be involved, which says:
"There should be legislation throughout the UK to enforce the right to participate as set out in Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child".
It goes on:
"There should be a system of independent children's commissioners throughout the UK… Their remit should be based on the UNCRC. They should have extensive enforcement powers".
I understand why the authors of the report have gone down that route, but I believe that legislation has already reached saturation point. I urge the Government to proceed with great care when considering legislation on any compulsory commitment for any of the proposals. The report makes that case, saying:
"There are inspiring examples of policies and mechanisms to increase participation".
The authors also acknowledge:
"In the UK there is an abundance of legislation and we are hesitant about suggesting more".

959
Hesitant they should remain. A huge amount can be done without recourse to legislation. We must go down that route. Most of the proposals in the report are not justiciable without making a lawyers' picnic of yet another aspect of our national affairs. I want to avoid that.
Once again, I congratulate the Carnegie Trust. I hope that it will galvanise many more in this House and beyond to the realisation that unless we can make politics and public affairs of real concern to young people so that they have a sense of ownership of it and care for it, the job will be ill done.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I declare an interest as director of the Foundation for Citizenship at Liverpool John Moores University. Like others who have spoken already, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, for introducing this topic and putting this important report before your Lordships' House. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to the Front Bench to reply to the debate. Ironically, he had the misfortune to have to reply to my maiden speech in another place in 1979 when I was the youngest Member of Parliament. Reading the report, which places great emphasis on attracting young people into politics, reminded me how much water has flowed under the bridge since that debate in 1979.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I shall reflect for a moment on the omissions from the report, one of which is the failure to emphasise sufficiently the role of the family in the plight of young people. Some 800,000 young people no longer have any contact with their father. Many of them live in difficult circumstances on large overspill estates with limited social structures available to them. I prefer to talk of the extended family rather than concepts such as the nuclear family, because it implies the messiness of family life and accepts the importance of grandparents and the network of uncles and aunts, as well as recognising that families are not the perfect affairs that people sometimes make them out to be. We make a huge error by not saying more about the importance of solid family structures in the background of our young people and of society generally. They are the basic building blocks of society and the community.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, also referred to participation at the election. The report rightly puts great emphasis on participation. The 19th century French politician, de Tocqueville, remarked that an impressive practical wisdom and power of judgment may be developed simply from participating in the affairs of a free society. There is no substitute for experience learnt at the coal face of democracy. Academic theories have their place, but better than all the theories and teaching combined are the practical actions that we take as citizens. It is crucially important just to take part.
We should reflect on the 12 per cent fall in turnout at the general election and consider that more than one in three of our fellow citizens did not take part. In the
960
Liverpool, Riverside constituency in the heart of the city, which I know well, just one in three voted in the election. Paradoxically, it was in the Westminster ward of that constituency in one local election that turnout went down to 6 per cent. It behoves us all to start taking seriously the reasons for such disinterest in and alienation from our civic processes. In the light of recent events in some of our northern towns and cities, including in Bradford over the past 48 hours, it is clear that some people are completely alienated from the rest of us. We must consider the causes and reasons behind that as a matter of urgency and encourage our young people to see their role in society.
The phrase "the common good" springs to my mind. As Aristotle said, we are not solitary pieces in a game of chequers. We must all play our part. The antidote to the individualism and atomisation of society during the 1980s and 1990s must surely be a proper emphasis on citizenship, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said. We must once again emphasise citizenship and the rebuilding of community life.
T.H. Green, the great 19th century idealist, moral philosopher and exponent of ethical liberalism, held that virtue was best understood as a personal outpouring for the common good. He said:
"And if the idea of the community of good for all men has even now little influence, the reason is that we identify too little with good character and too much with good things".
The materialism of the past 20 years and the exaggerated emphasis on consumerism and the ownership of objects has alienated many of our young people. We have to recapture their sense of idealism and draw them back into the political and community life of our country.
What is the best way to do that? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I am instinctively opposed to compulsion on this. There is a danger of prescribing yet more legal remedies and more laws to try to tackle some of the symptoms that many of your Lordships are all too well aware of. Children's commissioners, an exaggerated emphasis on rights and insufficient emphasis on duties, obligations and responsibilities and the idea of more and more law will get us nowhere. Only in this country could community service be turned into a punishment to be dispensed by the courts. Only a week ago, the front page of the Sunday Times reported:
"Government advisers are translating the prime minister's wish for the rehabilitation of the term 'do-gooder' into proposals that would ensure nobody leaves school or college without having some record of completed voluntary work".
The report went on:
"Schools will be told to draw up plans for their pupils, aged 11 to 16, to carry out compulsory community service".
That is not the way forward. We shall bring far more out of young people by encouraging them into voluntary endeavour. The foundation at John Moores University has promoted a citizenship awards scheme, which is documented in the Liverpool Echo. Some 600 primary and secondary schools are participating voluntarily. Local companies present the awards and young people are recognised for their achievements. In one case, for example, at the Holly Lodge girls' school,

961
a teacher told me that at first she was not sure who should be given the awards, so she asked the students. She said that she was amazed at the number of nominations that came forward—more than 600 from one school. She said that, as a result, she learnt more about the youngsters than she could possibly have discovered through any other means.
I believe that that is the way forward—encouraging what is already there. The report states rightly that there is also a "high level of volunteering" among young people. It is there; let us encourage and nurse it. Instead of compulsion and more laws, let us draw out the good that is there and encourage altruism. That must be the best way forward.
I conclude by referring to the personal manifesto of Frances Lawrence, published in The Times in 1995. Noble Lords will recall that she wrote movingly at that time, following the death of her husband, Philip, outside his school gates in London. Among other things, she called for the establishment of a nationwide movement to banish violence and encourage civil values; a ban on the sale of combat knives and the closure of shops that stock them; and for primary school lessons to be given in good citizenship. Those aims were to be encouraged rather than made compulsory.
She also called for the raising of the status of the police and teachers, and for the end of government neutrality in relation to the family. She called for parents to no longer allow children to lead separate lives within the home, and for there to be an emphasis on teaching the three "E"s—effort, earnestness and excellence. I believe that we can do no better than to return to the principles that Frances Lawrence enunciated at that time. In doing so, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, for giving us the opportunity to take part in the debate today.
5.1 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Massey for bringing this report to the attention of the House. I also add my welcome to my noble friend Lord Rooker.
It seems ironic that a society that hopes to see its young people grow up to take responsibility for the communities in which they live and to be responsible citizens should deny those same young people real rights as citizens. It is very modern to say that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. With that, I agree totally. If one takes away my rights and I have no sense of responsibility, why should I care about my society? I would have no stake in it.
We all know to our cost that people who have no say politically find other ways to express their dissatisfaction. The levellers, the Chartists and the suffragettes are all good examples of people who have taken the law into their own hands. When people feel disenfranchised and dissatisfied, they find a way to make their views known. With the freedom fighters in Brixton during the 1980s and, more recently, in Oldham, we have seen what happens when people, and especially younger people, feel that they have no stake
962
in their society. I say that it is better not to exclude but rather to bring in and include everyone, especially the young.
The giving of political rights to young people is nothing to fear. As a society, we tend not to listen to young people. We spend the first five years of a child's life teaching him to talk, and the next 10 to 15 years telling him to shut up. We often do not listen to young people and then we complain that they never listen to us.
I grew up in a strict but loving family. The adage, "Children must be seen and not heard", was true of my upbringing, as it was, I suspect, of that of many of your Lordships. But my family taught me a sense of civic responsibility and public service. I suspect that that may not be the case for many young people today. I value the lessons of civic responsibility that I was taught as a child. I should like to see children enjoying the same privileges today.
That is why the subject of school exclusions is one of my main hobby horses. I cannot for the life of me understand how we can help children to grow up to explore and reason out difficulties if we exclude them from teachers in the classroom and shut them away from adult control. Today's pupil who walks the corridors is tomorrow's juvenile delinquent and, most certainly, with very few exceptions, will be a guest of Her Majesty in later years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, have already mentioned the last general election, which saw a dramatic landslide for the "non-voting" party. I am sure that younger people made up a large proportion of the disconnected and disengaged non-voters. If we want to reverse that worrying trend and reconnect with young people and engage them in politics, I believe that we must take proper action to include everyone in the political process.
It is said that young people do not care about politics. That may be true of party politics, but we all know that young people care passionately about many issues: animal rights; the environment; development in developing countries; globalisation; equality; and the legalisation of drugs, to name the most obvious. With a voting age of 18, some young people may not be able to register their votes until they are aged 21 or 22, depending on when an election falls in relation to their birthday. If such people pay taxes, are answerable in law for their actions as adults, and, from the age of 16, can have consensual sex, how can we justify not giving them a voice?
I urge the Government to take the report seriously. We deserve the children that we raise. If we treat young people as voiceless, how can we expect them to contribute as adults? The two go hand in glove with political rights and civic education. If we can get both right, I believe that we shall deserve the responsible adults of the future that society so desperately requires in order to prosper in this millennium.
Finally, civic education must not simply be passed down from above to people below. We all need to spread the word of civic responsibility. I encourage the

963
Government to welcome efforts by the private sector in that process. I am aware, for example, that the Co-operative Insurance Society, which is based in Manchester and is part of the co-operative movement, is putting together an education resource pack for schools on civic education.
Noble Lords may recall that the CIS was born of the 19th century co-operative friendly societies, which encouraged ordinary working people to take responsibility for their own affairs and, in turn, for the rest of society. As we look to the 21st century, we have much to learn about civic pride and civic education from our forefathers and mothers. Many of our young people will benefit from that as well. I support the report, Taking the Initiative, by the authors, David Cutler and Roger Frost. We need to build for the future and build wisely and well.
5.8 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lady Massey on enabling us to hold such a profound debate on issues of fundamental importance to the future of our democracy. I also join other noble Lords in welcoming my noble friend Lord Rooker. I know that he relishes awkward questions. Even if this is his first appearance, I am sure that we can store up some difficult ones for him by the end of the debate.
I believe that the report is excellent and that the authors are to be congratulated not only on the conviction with which they presented it but on the clarity with which they marshalled the evidence. I believe that it is a wake-up call in the aftermath of an election about which we should all be seriously concerned. The evidence shows that young people aged between 18 and 25 are four times less likely to have registered to vote, which is profoundly serious. I wonder whether those people will be voting when they are 50.
A paradox, from which we should take some hope, suggests that those young people are not rejecting a role in the workings of democracy. Although they are disengaged from and exasperated with political institutions, they are incredibly happy to be involved in matters in relation to which they can make a difference. That is why they are active in organisations that are associated with animal welfare and globalisation. They are not capable of breaking into or making their voices heard in the more formal political organisations. We should be extremely worried about that. Why are those organisations so deaf to the contribution that those people can make?
The recommendations about energy and the environment from the Children's Parliament in 1999 show the extremely clear thinking that those young people put into that work. I wish I knew what had happened to those recommendations; maybe the Minister can tell us. I also wish I knew what future provision the Government are making for the UK-wide youth parliament, which is capable of making a marvellous contribution to the way in which debates are conducted.
964
A second paradox is involved. Just when young people appear to be "disconnecting" from the political process, we are reinventing or rediscovering democracy in this country in many ways. Your Lordships' House is a good example of that, as is devolution. Our approach to neighbourhood renewal and to involving communities is very much from the bottom up. The application of human rights legislation is also relevant in that regard. Those are extremely important and exciting opportunities.
I turn to the report. There is an astonishing difference with regard to youth policy and participation between England and the other countries of the UK. There may well be difficulties with the Children's Commissioner but it will be interesting to see how the Welsh example proceeds. The fact that children were involved in the appointment of the commissioner was particularly interesting, as is the fact that the Welsh Assembly has established a panel that is available for consultation by the Welsh Assembly. There is nothing far-fetched about that arrangement and I hope that we shall consider it in relation to Parliament.
I like the fact that the report is radical but I like it even more because it is realistic. The authors came up with the idea of voting at the age of 16 and of being able to be a Member of Parliament at 18, but they know that their report will not be manageable or realistic unless it is accompanied by profound cultural changes.
Building up the confidence to be included in the first place starts with the family and continues in primary school. Those are the settings in which children learn whether they are valued or not. All the research that I have seen—I should declare an interest as the director of a national education charity—suggests that the crucial difference between success and failure in later life is the ability to participate, in and out of school, in the sustaining and enriching activities that connect people with the community. One teacher recently told me that children who participated in an out-of-school arts project had a tremendous impact on the life of the school. Moreover, a long-term impact is involved—one day the children will become very confident. She said that they would,
"move and shake and activate for better facilities. more access, things to do, and a better deal for young people".
Where will the young movers and shakers learn those skills if not in schools councils? That is why I believe that every school should have a school council, although only one-third of schools currently has one.
If we are to have education with character, where best to see it develop and encourage it other than in school councils? How can such an education be promoted other than through the citizenship curriculum? I entirely agree with the comments of noble Lords on the pressures on teachers. At the same time, the citizenship curriculum will miss an opportunity if it does not connect with what is going on in the community, in voluntary organisations and local government and if it does not give children an

965
opportunity to participate in the life and work of the community. This is a new opportunity and I hope that in time it will be realised.
My noble friend Lady Howells spoke powerfully about the force of exclusion. It is a truism to say that the most difficult aspect of putting the report into operation will be the need to reach the people who are not likely to participate because they do not know how to do so—they do not have the necessary experience, knowledge or skills.
I very recently discovered digital democracy, which is currently a failing technology. However, there are hopes that people will be able to connect up. I have greater hopes for the children's and young persons' unit in the Department for Education and Skills. That unit, which has got off to a good start, has a right to roam across Whitehall and to speak to and represent children in new ways. There are new possibilities relating to the way in which we record and reflect the way in which children think and to the way in which they make an input to policies for social justice and so on. If it can prioritise a means of setting standards across Whitehall relating to the involvement of young people, it would be doing an excellent job. What progress has been made in setting up a young people's advisory forum involving young people?
Finally, the report has a strong and clear agenda. It talks of the hunger for greater responsibility. Its funding recommendations are terribly important. It would be cruel to involve young people by offering them the prospect of participation but no prospect of continual funding for the many excellent projects with which they are involved. I hope that the Minister will take that point seriously. The report shows us a way forward and a way of involving young people; that should be the norm and not the exception when we try to renew our democracy.
5.17 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow the inspiring and well-informed speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for initiating this timely debate and I welcome this stimulating report, which I read with great interest. I should declare an interest as a patron of A Voice for the Child in Care.
I shall give an example of participation. At Centrepoint's Berwick Street shelter for 16 to 23 year-olds who are homeless, all residents and senior staff meet every two or three weeks. That innovation was introduced during the past three months. I should explain that the residents may be newly homeless or they may have camped on the floors of their relations or friends for a while. One may have come from university and found that his or her accommodation had fallen through and another, so she tells me, has never been to school. The occasional young person may suffer from mental health problems and another might have special educational needs, although that is a rarity. Many are asylum seekers. Apart from those seeking asylum, a weak family structure is commonly in the young person's background.
966
At one meeting the young people asked whether the curfew could be extended from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. They also asked when the boys—or men—could have their hot showers again and not have to share with the women. The staff responded by saying, "Yes, the curfew can be raised. What you are requesting seems quite reasonable. We apologise for the delay in fixing the showers". They provided an explanation for the delay in plumbing repairs and added, "We are shortly to repair the dilapidated seat covers in the canteen".
Those are simply examples of normal business. We also have a comments box, a standard complaints procedure and a questionnaire which is given to each resident as they move on. That asks about their experience within the hostel. To me the most important aspect of that is the experience of agency. Those young people are experiencing control over their environment, or at least the ability to influence their environment. They have the ability to determine the circumstances in which they and their peers live.
As Ravi Gurumurthy says in the foreword to the report,
"young people need to feel they are having a tangible influence and perceive the link between their contribution and real changes".
That is what is happening at Berwick Street.
Perhaps I can define "agency" by its absence. A young mother told me that she had approached her landlord about the bathroom in her multiple occupation house. She told him that it was insanitary. His reply was, "That is how the residents leave it". That woman lacked agency. She could not influence one of the most basic elements in her environment. Such powerlessness leads to anxiety. It is damaging. It is harmful for a schoolgirl in a large school to feel powerless and that she is simply a product to be processed and stamped with a qualification at the end so that the school obtains its marks. It is harmful for children in care to be passed from foster parent to foster parent feeling that they are not listened to. It is harmful for their self-esteem and undermines their potential. I know that my prerogative in this House to regulate proceedings gives me greater confidence to challenge Ministers—on only rare occasions I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.
I turn to another point. Many speakers this afternoon spoke of the low election turn-out. That is a cause of great concern particularly, as we heard, as it affects young people. But perhaps there is a certain good in it. Does it mean that politics are now more complex? It is no longer a matter of goodies and baddies, of cowboys and indians, of devils and angels, of Right and Left. Is it less dramatic? It may be dull, but is it more authentic, more real? I leave those questions open.
I have worked with young people on estates and seen the flat roofs which inevitably leak; the lifts which often do not work; the parents separated from their children at play by 10 or 20 floors; the stairwells, stairways and walkways which provide places for drug dealers and muggers respectively. I walked with a class of primary school children through an estate to see the tower blocks in which they lived being demolished.

967
Simple solutions are easy to sell. If adults are prone to panaceas, I feel that children are even more so, especially when they deal with matters outside their experience. The report alludes to Third World debt and European monetary union. That is something with which one must temper discussions of this sort.
When children come into Parliament and talk about their locked play areas, their local police station being closed, litter and abandoned cars in their streets, I am moved and incensed. When they explain about their experience of homelessness, they often speak far better than the chief executive of the charity which is supposed to be their advocate and to speak for them.
In conclusion, I suggest that lowering the voting age to 16, in the light of what I have said, would not be appropriate. The authors of the report might take some comfort from the lowering of class sizes in primary schools. Surely if teachers are more able to give attention to their pupils, those pupils have more chance to influence their environment. Indeed, if the Government are successful in delivering more teachers who are not over-burdened with regulation, then that may work through the whole system. I look forward to the Minister's reply to the debate.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, one of the great assets of being one of the last speakers is that all wise words have been spoken. That leaves me nicely to talk about my own backwater of Tower Hamlets. Before I do so, I thank my noble friend Lady Massey for bringing this report to our attention. I am sure she does so with every knowledge that our Labour Government introduced firm citizenship education, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, assumed. I just want to place that on record on behalf of my comrade.
For a good 20 years when I was young I was involved in trying to promote the notion of good citizenship in places like Tower Hamlets. We involved young people in various ways, from taking them on holidays, involving them in youth parliaments to trying to entice them into attending after-school clubs. All that was done in the belief that not only would that make them good citizens, but that it would also improve their lives in an area where the problems may be overwhelming.
Over the past 20 years remarkable progress has been made in some of the great initiatives, such as youth parliaments, summer university and schemes for students. Various projects involving young people in bettering their educational opportunities have all been taken as good examples and have been effective throughout the country. So I am delighted to see some of those initiatives mentioned in this clear and concise report.
I apologise that I have not yet read the report in detail, as many other noble Lords confessed to doing. But I shall make sure that I do so at my leisure.
968
However, from what I read, all the schemes that it mentions are things in which our young people are already involved in various ways.
I want to make a number of comments about some of the other issues raised. From everything that has been said, it occurred to me that the killing of James Bulger and Stephen Lawrence, the maiming of Mukhtar Miah and the disablement of Kuddus Ali were all committed by young people. So what have we achieved over the past 20, 30 or 40 years in legislation to arrive at this point? The streets of Oldham, Blackburn, Burnley and Bradford are inflamed. I believe that at the moment there is enormous potential for further eruption. Essential lessons of citizenship where there has been good practice have not been translated in many of those areas. It is critical therefore to evaluate some of the good practices that have taken place in inner city areas, such as Tower Hamlets, Hackney and other places where young people have been allowed to take leadership within their community; where good citizenship is working.
I propose that we take seriously some of the lessons learnt from the efforts mentioned by my noble friend Lady Andrews in relation to neighbourhood renewal schemes, the education action zones and various other areas. We must look at where there has been good practice that worked and where it has not worked. In my small experience in Tower Hamlets what is sadly lacking is not that young people are not able to participate in local democracy, youth parliaments or all of those things. The frustration arises when there is a lack of employment and education opportunities. Of course, 25 per cent of the children do well, but what about the frustration of the 75 per cent of children in those kinds of areas? Where will they learn about the rationale of democracy? Where will they learn the lessons of how to become good citizens?
The reactions to the events in Oldham have been diverse. Many in other parties have reacted far too quickly and have not made a proper analysis of why disaffected youths have behaved in such a manner. I suggest that such disaffected youths have not necessarily wanted to damage their environment, but they have not been able to avail themselves of good quality education and good housing and they have not been taught how to express their frustrations and anger. I salute my noble friend Lady Howells for calling them "freedom fighters". The Government may like to debate that concept further.
A good start is to consider how to engage the interest of such young people. The notion that young people should be addressed on their own, without the involvement of their families, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned, is ludicrous. The idea that no one knows how to engage disaffected youths simply negates the responsibility to assist in building the next generation and in bringing up good citizens.
I hope that the Minister agrees that this report can contribute to creating good citizenship that can be built on. I believe that it will help to engage young people, but he should not exclude all the other issues that we have drawn to his attention today. In assisting

969
a generation of young people to interest themselves in how they are governed and to take part in democracy, it is important that they be involved in leadership and the communities themselves must be allowed to dictate what are good citizens.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, on introducing this debate, particularly at a time when much attention is focused on young people in our society. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has analysed the report and identified the issues that we need to tackle.
Recently the co-author of the report, David Cutler, whom I know, told me that work is taking place on a follow-up to this report to ensure that there is some international comparison available. I hope that at some stage we shall be able to measure what we have achieved and what still needs to be done.
I was delighted by the contributions of a number of noble Lords, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury. They all pointed to one clear issue which highlights how important it is for us to be able to look at the whole concept that has been identified in the Carnegie report. I refer to the general election. Only 59 per cent of the population voted and only a quarter of the country actually elected the Government. That clearly demonstrates how the people are cut off from the political process.
Those of us who were involved in doorstep campaigning can confirm that many young people of voting age were simply not interested. If we are not careful, our democracy will be sustained by only a quarter—a minority—of the people in this country. In itself that would be a tragedy. The debate that followed highlighted what we need to do to build a strong civic society. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan.
The Carnegie report has done a public service. It does three things: first, it identifies the need for promoting opportunities for young people so that they can express their opinions; secondly, in consultation with children and youth organisations it has produced sound recommendations, which tell decision-makers why they should listen to young people; and, thirdly, it identifies citizenship education as a means of achieving political and community participation. Any political post-mortem of the recent general election should take those factors into account.
Events in northern towns, mentioned by a number of noble Lords, clearly demonstrate how fragile is the relationship between young people and those who take decisions on their behalf. Too often the temptation for adults is to take decisions because they think that they know what is good for our young people. We often forget that young people are more likely to participate in projects on which they are consulted and of which they have ownership.
970
In the past I have served as a trustee of the Save the Children Fund. Young people were involved in all aspects of project design and its execution. They were not only consulted about the project content, but they were also involved in the interview process when appointments were made. It is a fact that many young people who are eligible to vote are not on the electoral register, especially in inner-city areas. Some young people, particularly black and Asian young people, cannot identify suitable role models because of the extent of the discrimination that they suffer.
While the advancement of some sections of the ethnic minority communities cannot be disputed, we should not forget that the profile of the minority community, and in particular the young people, has been shaped by the economic restructuring and the recession that occurred in Britain in the l 980s, thus providing opportunities for some, while taking them away from others. That is where we find deprivation, particularly among young people of Bangladeshi or Pakistani origin, which is far worse than one can imagine. In many cases discrimination persists at a depressingly high level. Such people are still to be found disproportionately among the poor, the unemployed, those who have never worked, those who are stopped and searched, those who are underachievers in schools and those who are victims of racial harassment and violence. Geographically and economically they live in precisely the same place that was allocated to their parents when they came here.
I do not condone violence. The situation is not helped by the poisonous propaganda of the British National Party. All politicians, on the local or national stage, have a personal responsibility. We must demonstrate the leadership that is badly needed to work out local solutions to local problems. There is no excuse for violence in the street. There is no excuse either for segregated housing with fences in between or for segregated schools with only 20 per cent of school leavers achieving any qualifications.
If we want the insight to understand where we have gone wrong, we need to consult and to involve young people. The immediate priority—I stress the word "immediate"—must be to look for short-term solutions to reach young people, to focus them on what they can do for themselves and, more importantly, for each other, and to make regeneration work for young people.
We have to accept that the second and subsequent generations of youngsters no longer accept some of the values to which their parents attach so much importance. In a fast-changing world, there is a change in attitude, a new assertiveness. Youngsters are more questioning of authority than ever before and they are also better informed. We should welcome the healthy tension that exists.
To many of us, particularly to the first generation of settlers, challenge is often frightening, but is it not time to harness the energy of our young people towards diversity, interdependence, self-reliance, liberty and pluralism? We should respect the birth of new values and the Carnegie report points the way. The

971
Government should promote the idea of an interdependent, wholesome and organic community in which diversity is respected and in which there are ways of tackling racial and religious intolerance. There is undoubtedly a conflict between what is appropriate and what is required. Therefore, there is a need to ask some pertinent questions, but young people must be part of that exercise.
What kind of a society do we want to take forward into the next millennium? We need a vision of the kind of future that we want to achieve; we need a vision of how to motivate young people; and we must describe what we want to achieve. The three main ingredients—these have been mentioned by noble Lords—must be, first, to build the confidence of young people from ethnic minorities in the structures which are in place; secondly, to ensure that young people participate from within and communicate with policy makers; and, thirdly, and above all, to identify young people as stakeholders in the process of citizenship.
We require the wisdom to reconnect our communities to a political process which enriches our democracy. Violence will never achieve this. The Carnegie report is a step in the right direction and it should form the backbone of government policies relating to young people. If we develop the concept of good citizenship, the idea of "Britishness" will be secondary.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I welcome the Carnegie report as a most useful contribution to the discussion on these matters and I echo the thanks offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for drawing attention to it. The research and examples add greatly to the debate.
However, like others, I am not enamoured of the firm proposals for legislation and legal rights, primarily because I believe that for young people's involvement to be effective it should build on their own desire to participate. Therefore, it will differ greatly from place to place and from time to time. It is not something which should be imposed from above. It should be stimulated, facilitated, encouraged and paid attention to, but not imposed. The Government should not be looking so much to legislate as to collect and pass on information on what can and is being done and what works.
I am delighted to know how much is going on to involve young people in so many different ways. I support the inclusion of citizenship in the curriculum. However, I confess to a slight distaste at the abuse of the terms "Parliament", "jury" and "grand jury", but let that go.
I want to add to the information by drawing attention to another initiative by a local authority. It is the Bexley Road Safety Action Group set up by the London borough of Bexley. It is open to people between the ages of 14 and 19 and it has taken a whole series of actions to improve road safety. It has received awards from the Prince Michael Road Safety Award
972
System and from the Institution of Highways and Transport/BP Road Safety Awards. The campaign, which began in Bexley, was adopted first in London and later by the National Road Safety Congress. Such changes can flow from the involvement of young people in this specialist area.
I see that the first finding of the MORI research indicates that,
"Young people believe that their views are taken less seriously because of their age".
That was not true when William Hague first spoke to our party conference at a young age. However, the truth is well put in UN Article 12, which mentions the views of the child as,
"being given due weight in accordance with age and maturity".
In practice, the UN resolution is right to have that caveat. If some chosen course of action goes wrong, young people would not in due course think it a sensible excuse to say, "We did what the children asked". That does not mean that we should ignore what young people say; but we adults owe them our judgment and experience as well as our ears.
Looking at elections, which have received much attention, the report proposes voting at 16. But giving the vote to 16 year-olds will not necessarily mean that they vote. We know that many older people with a vote do not use it, as was strongly demonstrated in the recent election.
Furthermore, the involvement of young people in politics is not what it was. I first became involved in politics in the Young Conservatives when we filled the Royal Festival Hall for political conferences. Of course there was a social side, but we attended weekend schools and the party conference in large numbers. Importantly, we formed one-third of the voluntary party's decision-making apparatus at all levels and we were active in elections. We politicians, as a class, have since moved backwards because the number of young people belonging to the youth wing of any party is a tiny fraction of that previous membership.
However, we should not confuse young people's boredom with politics as presently conducted with apathy. The noble Baroness, Lady Howells, made that point. We, the politicians, and the media have downgraded the practice of politics and, with it, government. Television has much to answer for in this, although it is not alone, but the sound-bite rules and most of the sound-bites which are picked up are negative. The image of Parliament is boring and negative—and not just to young people, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and others.
Part of the problem is the complexity of modern government. It is not easy to explain in plain, simple English what is happening and what the choices are and to relate that to the vision which lies behind. But in any event, the report deals not only with politics and government; there are excellent examples of what can be done in schools. Good schools have always fostered responsibility, but perhaps in our day there was a more

973
highly developed system of prefects with real responsibility and power and a few inconsequential privileges.
Such work is carried out not only in schools. We should take a moment to praise the work done for good citizenship by the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme, the Scouts, the Guides, the Churches and numerous other youth organisations, clubs and voluntary organisations—everything mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, in connection with Tower Hamlets. Those traditional activities can be built on by all the initiatives mentioned in the report, but not replaced by them. Citizenship remains at the core.
However, as was said by my noble friend Lady Young and by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, in introduction, in all this we must be careful not to demote the role of parents. Of course there are feckless and idle parents who teach their children nothing of good citizenship. But in attempting to deal with the children of this minority of parents, we must not undermine the majority of parents, uncles, aunts and grandparents—at this point I must declare an interest—who have the biggest single influence.
It has been a useful debate and it is a useful report in drawing attention to the issue. However, I believe that the role of government should not be prescriptive and that the role of legislation in this is limited.
5.48 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Massey for the opportunity to discuss the report. I must say at the outset that I shall not be able to do justice to the quality of the speeches and comments I have heard in the past hour and a half. However, in future I shall use this debate as an example of the difference between the two Houses in terms of lifetime experiences brought to the issues. I was warned that this would happen but I did not realise it would happen the first time I responded to a short debate. I genuinely mean that.
I can say that overall—and I hope that this will be welcomed—the Government are fully committed to the messages at the heart of the report. We want children and young people to play a full part in public decision-making and be involved in the design, delivery and evaluation of policies.
As regards a theme running throughout the debate, many noble Lords mentioned education and voting. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that there was ignorance about voting, particularly among the women to whom she spoke. When, as an MP, I visited schools, people asked me why I became an MP. I always replied that I became involved because I wanted to change the world. It is very important to engender the idea that one can make a difference. The complexities of modern life and the machinery of government are a "turn off', and we must recharge our batteries and try to do better in future. I believe that reports such as this one, which was published only a few days ago, will provide added ammunition.
974
My noble friend Lady Howells of St Davids referred to school exclusions and those who became guests of Her Majesty. Later this week there will be a short debate on prisons, during which I shall share with noble Lords my experiences at Brinsford Prison on Friday morning when I discussed issues with two 18 year-olds. However, I think that I had better wait until Wednesday.
The Government are already taking a number of steps to implement the recommendations, and it is right to share some of those matters with the House. We are taking action on a number of fronts that chime with the themes and recommendations of the report. It is important to raise the profile by way of new government structures. Last year a new Cabinet committee was announced by the Prime Minister. For the first time we have within the Home Office a Minister for young people, John Denham, who is supported by a young people's advisory forum. In answer to my noble friend Lady Andrews, that forum will have its first meeting later this month. Therefore, action is under way in that respect.
There is also a newly established children and young people's unit. I suggest that noble Lords look at the report published only in March of this year entitled Tomorrow's Future—Building a Strategy for Children and Young People, which was the result of work carried out originally by the Social Exclusion Unit in Whitehall. To that extent, some changes to the machinery of government are already under way. We want to develop a strategy for children and young people all the way through from nought to 19 to ensure that our services are designed around the best interests of children rather than the service provider. The policy objective is not to create work for service providers but to provide the service that young children and young people want; and we must also provide co-ordination and leadership.
To make the practice of the best the norm is always the target in every area of policy, and we seek to do that in involving children and young people. That is a core principle of Connexions, Quality Protects and the NHS Children's Task Force. There is a good deal happening on the ground. There are excellent examples, one of which is in County Durham. (When I first read the brief I thought that it was a misprint.) As part of the initiative Investing in Children, at Crook police station the police services are encouraging a children's perspective in the day-to-day planning of service activity. In Colby primary school in Norwich consultation with pupils and representation at a school governors' meeting led to changes in the catering arrangements of the school. We needed that when I was at school. It is clear that we still need to do work in that area.
Every partnership that develops plans for a roll-out of Children's Fund money needs a robust participation strategy. It is absolutely fundamental that we involve children and young people in setting the priorities for the spending of fund money. For example, the Children's Fund local network will build on the Youthbank scheme which gives young people direct experience of grant-making to support projects

975
run by and for young people. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said that many of the issues raised in the report could apply equally to adults. The same can be said of grant-making. If young people or adults gain experience of grant-making they will understand that there must be priorities. It is also important to measure and check outcomes. We also want to ensure that there are minimum standards and a consistent approach right across government.
It is self-evident that we shall work with colleagues in the voluntary sector. It is quite clear that we need a cross-Whitehall approach; it cannot be done by one government department, and the Children and Young People's Unit is a classic example of that. There is a Cabinet committee on which many government departments are represented. It is very important that we take a collective view and all pull together to avoid Whitehall turf wars about who is responsible for what. At the end of the day, we are concerned with the interests of young people.
I believe that it is worth commenting on two specific recommendations. I was very conscious of the fact that my noble friends referred to the voting age and the age at which a person can stand for election. Some years ago I carried out research in connection with a Bill to do with electoral reform that I introduced in the other place. I sought to discover where in legislation it was provided that a person could not be a candidate until he or she had reached the age of 21. The Act of Parliament that is still in force—it may be the Parliamentary Elections Act, but I am not sure—dates from 1695. The sidenote to the only section of the old Act of Parliament that is left reads, "Infants shall not be elected". It is that provision which makes specific reference to the age of 21 at which a person can stand for election. It beggars belief that in such a vital area of our life a piece of legislation that is over 300 years old is still current. The Government have not made any decision on the matter, but if ever legislation comes forward noble Lords and Members of another place will see that they are amending legislation that dates from 1695. As a piece of legislative machinery that is not something of which we can be very proud.
Certainly, these areas should be debated. The report is certainly a wake-up call for everyone. We shall consider very carefully what we can do in the near future to make this work. Some noble Lords said that one did not want lots of new legislation. It is true that from 2002 citizenship will be a compulsory part of the education framework under key stage 3. We shall need time for that to bed down. Teachers who are preparing for that now will not thank Parliament for coming forward with fast changes on top of a change that they have been planning for some time. As I said in a speech two weeks ago, we must not overload the legislative system but ensure that what we have already legislated for and decided upon works and is delivered.
The Government will look very closely at what is happening in Wales and Scotland. These matters are devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Assembly for Wales. The introduction of the Children's Commissioner in Wales is important, and the
976
involvement of children in the selection of the individual concerned is something that we ignore at our peril. We take that issue extremely seriously.
In the short time available I cannot do justice to the quality and detail of the contributions. However, the Government welcome this constructive report which includes a good number of important recommendations that we shall consider carefully. As the report says, getting it right will take time, resources and commitment. We do not pretend that securing the changes in the organisational culture across government and Whitehall will always be straightforward, but we shall give it our best endeavours and, as ever, remain accountable to Questions and debates in this House and the other place as appropriate.

Women Members of Parliament
5.59 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they intend taking in response to the decline in the number of women Members of Parliament in the current Parliament.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I open the debate by welcoming the new Minister the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, who is to reply to the debate. The customs of this House do not permit me to respond to her speech at the end of the debate, but we all look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the Minister and learning about the Government's plans to tackle the continuing problem of the very low number of women MPs. We all look forward to getting to know the noble Baroness better.
My qualification for initiating this debate is that shortly after the foundation of the Liberal Democratic Party I spent a couple of years absorbed in the business of candidate selection in the English party. Both before and after that experience I have spent a good deal of time on and off nagging my party about the subject.
Some people may not agree that the small number of women MPs—only 18 per cent of the total—is a problem. But I suggest that with one of the lowest percentages of women Members of Parliament in the developed world, the mother of Parliaments is hardly in the forefront on this issue. Perhaps that is why it has proved so resistant to change towards family friendly procedures and why its obsessions and activities seem increasingly irrelevant to our citizens. Indeed, the House of Commons is beginning to look increasingly old-fashioned even in the context of the rest of public and corporate life in this country. Could that be why so many people failed to vote at the last general election?
My honourable friend Dr Evan Harris has confirmed our backing in principle for the Government's intention to legislate on this issue. But I shall not treat today's debate as a matter of party politics. None of the main parties has an unblemished record of support for women as parliamentarians, to

977
put it mildly. In 1997, the Labour Party was put off its policy of all women shortlists, although I admire it for trying.
Neither the Conservative Party nor the Liberal Democrat. Party replaced any of their MPs who retired at the last election with a woman candidate. Even the Labour Party, with its requirement of 50/50 men/ women shortlists, only succeeded in selecting four women to replace its 38 MPs who retired.
This is an important point: it is the number of women candidates in winnable seats which is the true measure of a party's determination to increase its number of women MPs. On the other hand, both the Labour Party, with its policy of twin seats in the Welsh Assembly referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, and the Liberal Democrat Party, with its zipped list for the Euro elections, have demonstrated that positive action can work.
In other European countries, in and out of the EU, there have been many examples of such positive action bearing fruit. Research carried out by Fawcett and by the EOC suggests that only positive action will have the desired result. It is not enough, for example, although it may be desirable in its own right, simply to call for proportional representation. That will not necessarily solve the problem.
The decisions taken in France are an interesting example. After many years of discussion and failed legislative initiatives, the French Parliament in 1999 finally amended its constitutional Act of 1958 to include the clause:
"Statutes shall promote equal access by men and women to elective office".
That opened the way for a new law in the year 2000 which provides for positive action for both list elections—that is, for local government and the European Parliament—and for single member constituencies: Parliamentary elections. This March under the new law, the percentage of women elected in French towns rose from 22 per cent to 48 per cent as a result of the new requirement for lists to contain equal numbers of men and women.
It is interesting to me at least that the French constitution is based on the concept of free and equal citizens. One goes back to the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789. Of course it said "men" or "man", but subsequently that was amended to include women. This idea of citizenship is at the very basis of the French constitution. Maybe we in this country will have to grapple with that thought one day. After all, free and equal citizens, both men and women, irrespective of their colour and ethnic origin, should have equal rights. And all of them have something special and important to bring to the legislative process.
I now turn to my questions for the Minister. The first concerns the timing of this legislation. Last February I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, who was then Home Office Minister, when the Home Office intended to publish the results of its study into the legislative options for reducing the gap in numbers between men and women MPs. His
978
response amounted to telling your Lordships that the research project had not even been designed. Now we are told that the Government will "prepare" legislation—I put that in inverted commas—to allow political parties to make positive moves to increase the representation of women in public life. I hope that the phrase "public life" includes "in Parliament" because the Government are already making strenuous, and, I believe, successful efforts to make sure that women and other people are better represented in order to represent the mix of human society in this country on those bodies to which they make appointments.
At the same time, the next round of elections for the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament will soon be upon us, and, indeed, the round of selections for the next election of MPs will begin in two years it the very latest. Therefore, can the Minister tell us what timetable is envisaged for the legislation?
Secondly, has the Home Office research been completed? As a result of that research, or whether or not it has taken place, will the Government amend electoral rather than employment law? There is an important difference in the approach on those two legal aspects.
Finally, there is the vexed question of what is permissible under the European Convention on Human Rights and European Union treaty law. All the countries covered in a recent Fawcett document as having taken positive action to promote women's access to their Parliaments—Norway, Sweden, Germany and France—are all signatories to the Convention. In addition, France was finally prompted to look at the question by the provision in the Treaty of Amsterdam that proportional positive action was acceptable to secure equal treatment for the underrepresented sex. Is the Minister satisfied, with or without the Home Office research to which I have referred, that positive action is possible under European law, in both its senses, in order to redress the balance of the sexes in Parliament?
I started by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, to our deliberations. Looking around the Chamber I am saddened that no men are speaking on behalf of this thesis from the Labour Benches, although I am astonished by the seniority and excellence of the women who will speak later. I am also slightly saddened that so few Conservatives have thought it worth their while to take part in the debate, although again I welcome those who have decided to do so. We look forward to a most interesting debate and I shall take very careful note of what everyone says.
6.8 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for initiating this important debate, not least because of the importance of the subject but also because it gives me the opportunity to welcome the appointment of my noble friend Lady Morgan as Minister for Women. Having worked with the noble Baroness for a number of years, I am aware of the key role that she has played

979
in the promotion of women in the Labour Party. I know that my noble friend will continue that work in achieving equality and the advancement of women. I, too, look forward to her maiden speech.
There were many sceptics who incorrectly doubted the Government's commitment to introducing legislation to correct the imbalance in the number of women MPs. It is unfortunate that such legislation is necessary as it seemed that progress was being made by some political parties, principally the Labour Party, in introducing positive action into its selection process. Once the ability to use such action was removed, the number of women MPs declined for the first time since 1979. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, was right. It is clear that it is difficult to change entrenched positions and the prejudice ingrained in the culture of our political parties.
I do not know whether it is any consolation, but the political parties in this country are not alone in suffering from the inability to change. For instance, in France, the French Socialist Party has proposed that only women will be selected in electoral areas where women were candidates in 1997 and that in seats where MPs are retiring only women will be eligible to be candidates. In addition to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, in respect of France, French parties can also suffer a cut in their state funding if they do not put up equal numbers of female and male candidates. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats will now use that argument in favour of state funding!
The use of positive action by political parties in the EU is now relatively common. About half of all political parties use some system of quotas. At a recent conference, speakers from France, Germany, Sweden and Norway all discussed the different ways of introducing positive action. They showed that it is possible to have different structures. For example, we do not have a written constitution; nor do we have the same electoral system or state aid. The speakers reported on the results of the legislation they had introduced. In Sweden, the constitution forbids discrimination on the ground of sex. In Norway, an equality act enforces 40 per cent quotas in public bodies. It is interesting that in Sweden the Socialist Democratic Party found it necessary to establish what it called its "support stockings" organisation or else it would have formed a women's party. Even in Sweden, there were problems. Germany is probably nearest to our position in that it leaves it up to the political parties to determine how candidates are selected.
I appreciate that there are concerns about any legislation we introduce being compliant with the UK's international obligations. I quote from Commissioner Flynn, who commented in 1998:
"The Commission agrees that Community legislation is not a legal impediment to national measures to improve the representation of women in elected bodies".
We must take him at his word. Unfortunately, in this country, because no positive action is built into the Sex Discrimination Act, there was always the possibility of legal action against any party willing to make positive moves in its selection process. The challenge by two
980
male members of the Labour Party against the party's policy of all-women shortlists was successful on the grounds that the selection of candidates is seen as an employment issue. That is not the position in other EU countries. None regards candidate selection as falling under employment laws. Rather the reverse, they argue that it is an appointment to a position of trust that is not regulated by labour market laws. There is no employer, no employee and no employment contract. It is therefore essential that the proposed legislation makes the break between candidature selection employment. It is, however, important that we do nothing to damage the employment legislation that is already in place.
I look forward to the legislation being enacted in time. I look forward to the legislation being permissive so that each party can choose for itself. But I hope that it comes in time to ensure the selection of many more women candidates for the next general election. To state the obvious, women cannot be elected if they are not selected. We must improve on the current 18 per cent of women MPs.
6.14 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have a certain apprehension about participating in a debate that is principally on women and is conducted principally by women. I nevertheless congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on being prepared to join in the debate. I thought that, as they were going to do so, why not me as well? I thought that would be an advantage.
This subject is a matter of interest to everyone. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, on her appointment. I congratulate her in advance of her maiden speech, which I am sure will be very good. We shall listen to it with interest. I hope that she will find her time in this place happy and congenial. I am sure that she will.
The reason for my intervention is that I find the subject of the debate curious. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked what the Government intend to do about the low number of women Members of Parliament. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, will say that the Government greatly value women Members of Parliament but that it is not the Government's business to encourage or discourage women—in the same way as it is not the Government's business to encourage men over the height of five foot six or below the height of five foot six. That is not the business of government.
After all, what is government? The Government are drawn from the people who have been elected to Parliament. If not enough women have been elected to Parliament, that is the fault of the constituencies and the people who have selected their prospective Members of Parliament. If there is a failure in that position, it must be for the constituents to say, "We want more women MPs and therefore we must select women candidates". It can be done only in that way. The Government are made up of those who have been elected to the House of Commons. For them to turn

981
round and say, "We are now going to try to influence those constituencies so that a different kind of person should appear in the House of Commons", would be quite wrong.
It is not for the Government to say who should be in Parliament. The position is different from that of a company which prevents women from coming into the boardroom or from having significant places in the operation of the company. There are rules and laws about that. Parliament is made up of those whom the electorate chooses. It is not the Government's business to determine who should make up that electorate. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, will say that she admires the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for her interest in the subject but that it really is an erroneous one in so far as she is trying to get the Government to do something which the Government should not do.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Thomas for initiating the debate and welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, to the Government Front Bench.
No legislature can call itself truly democratic if it signally fails properly to include 52 per cent of the population it serves. That is why it is the Government's business. All parties now agree that more women should be in Parliament, so that need no longer be the main focus of our discussion. However, the reasons why we need more women can shed some light on what we need to change in order to achieve it. I therefore intend to start by looking at two of those reasons.
Many people say, "Why do we need more women? Can't men represent them?". Well, yes they can to some extent, but when it comes to establishing a framework of legislation within which we can all live in this country and which is fair to both genders, we need equal input from both genders. So my answer to that question is. "No, not fully". I have two reasons for reaching that conclusion.
My first reason is that the reality of women's lives is different from men's. They see things differently not only because their bodies, brains and personalities are of equal value but different from men's, but because they go through life experiencing work, family and society in a different way. Women therefore desperately need to be represented by people who can understand them, identify with their point of view and make common cause. In particular, we need more women in Parliament because many of the most serious social issues over which the Government can have influence affect women more than men. For example, most women undertake the care of children. One-third of those children live in poverty. Most carers of the old and sick are women. Four out of five poor pensioners are women. On average, women are paid less than men and they still meet with discrimination in the workplace. It is clear from those few facts alone that life experiences are very different for men and women.
982
Secondly, the quality of government is improved by having fairer numbers of women. Research has shown that the beneficial effect does not really come into operation until at least one-third of the members of a legislature are female. Recent successes of campaigning female MPs include the maternity review in 2000, which achieved many things that benefit both other women and men. While there is still a long way to go in the cause of family-friendly working practices and equal pay for women, these advances benefit families and are welcome.
The devolved legislatures have also demonstrated the fact that positive action works and that the resulting legislatures benefit from the presence of more women. Because they are new, they do not have the entrenched male membership, attitudes and practices of the Mother of Parliaments. This place, along with the other place, was devised for men and to work for men. That has to change. With so many women Members in the Welsh Assembly, the modernising culture has affected the style and quality of debate. It is also benefiting men who wish to contribute in a different way.
Women Members of the Scottish Parliament have undertaken excellent work on violence against women. However, this has gone almost unreported. The Fawcett Society believes that the reason for this is that a great deal of co-operation was demonstrated by women Members across the parties and this is not seen as newsworthy by the media in the way that a more masculine, confrontational style of politics is perceived. Perhaps the media will have to change their news values as we move to a more gender-balanced Parliament. Why is it that female politicians attract the most media attention when they behave like men and are confrontational? I contend that it is not necessary to be aggressive in order to get results and that it is not necessary to behave like a man to be successful in a man's world. In any case, we need to turn it into a man's and woman's world.
Both the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have proved more attractive to women seeking a political career because they have far more family-friendly working hours and systems. In Scandinavia, where there has been a high proportion of women in the Parliaments for many years, the social problems that concern women have been tackled. High quality nursery education is provided from an early age and child poverty is almost unknown—both of these factors enormously benefiting the whole of society.
I do not say that men are not concerned about issues such as child poverty, but is it a coincidence that it is in those countries where women are properly represented that social problems such as child poverty have been minimised? So better quality government can be achieved by including more women.
6.23 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I, too, should like to begin by thanking sincerely the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for tabling

983
this Question. For me, this debate is one of the most important that has been held since I came into your Lordships' House in May 2000. Why is that? It is because I believe firmly that women should be given every encouragement to play their full part in society, and that must include their part as Members of Parliament. If they are not, then the nation is the poorer for it.
The Question asks what will the Government do to increase women's participation. I prefer to concentrate on what we can do, together with the Government, and in particular what trade unionists can do. This is one area with which I am very familiar. I worked in the trade union movement for over 30 years and I have been a trade union member for over 40 years.
Women trade unionists' involvement with political parties is not a new phenomenon. Many trade union women were active campaigners for votes for women, believing that if women had the vote, the legislation which Parliament passed would be more sympathetic to and protective of women workers. Margaret Bonfield is perhaps the best known example of the interlink between women in the unions and in Parliament. She was a member of the Shop Assistants Union—which we now know as USDAW—and was one of the first to advocate married couples sharing paid work and household duties. Needless to say, that caused quite a stir at the end of the 19th century. She was the first woman to chair the TUC General Council and Congress, the first woman to enter the House of Commons as a Labour MP for Northampton, and was the first woman to become a Cabinet Minister, becoming Minister of Labour in 1928. The links between trade union women and political women were firmly established many years ago and trade union women have continued to support political parties of all persuasions.
Many trade union men are extremely positive towards and supportive of their female colleagues. But, alas, during my trade union lifetime, I saw far too many capable, intelligent and skilful women trade unionists thwarted in their efforts, both at their workplaces and in their unions—often by men who had half their attributes. Noble Lords may ask why this is important for women's representation in Parliament. I would answer that by saying that it is because unions do have an important influence in the selection of and support for parliamentary candidates, not only in the Labour Party, but primarily so at this point in time.
Trade union women are very well aware of this influence. That is why the proposals for positive action in the Labour Party manifesto are greatly welcomed by trade union women. The TUC Women's Committee has been in favour of positive action for many years and will be pushing the TUC affiliated unions to take positive action swiftly once the legislation is in place. However, we know that there will be opposition from some unions—and I refer here not only to those unions which are male dominated. One has only to look at the current position of women in the higher echelons of the unions to see the uphill struggle which they face. One
984
stark statistic says it all: in the 20 largest trade unions, there are no female general secretaries and only three women deputy general secretaries. I shall not continue with the remainder of the statistics because they are equally disastrous. Women, in particular women officials, are found in the lower echelons of the trade union hierarchy.
The TUC itself has done better than its affiliates in terms of positive action. Out of 46 members of the TUC General Council, 15 are women. That is because, when he was TUC General Secretary, Norman Willis introduced positive action in the form of each union with over 100,000 members having an automatic women's seat on the General Council. That did change the TUC. More recently, the TUC has taken a further important step through the introduction of the TUC Organising Academy, which aims to build a new kind of trade unionism by training a new generation of organisers who will aim in particular at women and younger members. Of course, the more that women organisers are put in place, the more likely it is that they, and the women they work with, may want to become parliamentary candidates.
A recent edition of the Fawcett Society's magazine, Towards Equality, states that:
"Positive action is needed, not because women are not good enough to be selected on merit, but because the discrimination they face means that they often do not get a chance to try".
I know that my noble friend on the Front Bench will do her best to ensure that the unions encourage their women members to become candidates, especially in safe and winnable seats, and take positive action to assist in their endeavours. I believe it to be incumbent on us all to encourage more women into Parliament. Only when the House of Commons has 50 per cent women Members will it truly reflect the nation's needs and aspirations.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I decided to speak in this debate because I believe very strongly that we need more women in Parliament if our Parliament is to fulfil its primary function of representing society. We face twin related problems here: first, how to encourage more women to come forward for selection to Parliament; and, secondly, how to ensure that when they do come forward, they will stand a fair chance of being selected. This latter problem is in some sense rather easier to deal with: it will be the subject of government legislation. As the Labour Party found before the 1997 general election and we found during the last European elections, it is possible to take action which is both acceptable within the party and increases the levels of representation by women.
The first problem—how can we persuade more women to believe that becoming a Member of Parliament is a worthwhile occupation?—is, I believe, much more difficult. It is a problem not only in respect of women, but also more generally. Too often Parliament appears powerless and a deeply conservative place—with a small "c"—with working conditions that make it deeply unattractive, in particular to women. Until Parliament changes, in my

985
view it simply will not attract sufficient high quality women candidates who will want to come forward for selection.
There are three specific problems for which I shall attempt three solutions. The first problem concerns working conditions. As my noble friend Lady Walmsley pointed out, Parliament needs to change its working practices. Where parliaments have changed their working practices—both in terms of childcare provision and working hours—the result has been a greater proportion of women members. Incidentally, in regard to working hours, it is not only mothers who will benefit from being able to get home from time to time in the evening; it will equally benefit fathers.
Whenever I have argued that Parliament should have different working hours, I have been met by two answers—usually from men. The first answer is that other professions require women to work into the evenings. Yes, they do, but not on such a regular basis; and there is much more flexibility for lawyers and accountants, for example, in terms of working later into the evening.
The second point that is often made is that male MPs whose families live some distance from London would not be able to manage in the evenings if they did not have something to do which required them to be in Parliament. This argument is regularly put forward by otherwise quite sensible people. Leaving aside the obvious question of what kind of men are incapable of looking after themselves in the evening in London, they would need to accept only a small fraction of the invitations they receive to evening receptions, talks and dinners, which private and public sector bodies regularly issue to MPs to help to inform them on public policy issues. This would serve two functions: it would make them better legislators and keep them out of harm's way.
The second problem is that the style of Parliament needs to change. It is hardly surprising that many women find the macho, Oxford Union style of debate in the Commons deeply uncongenial. It is perhaps not surprising that many of the women who have succeeded best in the Commons have come from an Oxford background, whether it be the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby or Ann Widdecombe. I do not believe that the style prevalent in the Commons is acceptable for those who want: to debate issues in a rational way. Proportional representation may begin to change that, but there is a problem.
The final, and biggest, problem is what many people see as the pointlessness of Parliament. Many people ask, "What is the point of being an MP with a government majority of 170? Your vote never counts. You cannot get Bills changed in Committee and the Government will ignore many Select Committee reports". In this case, the answer is, in part, relatively straightforward: if we had PR, there would be no huge majorities.
I believe that we need a different style of government in both Houses, one in which Ministers listen to arguments—particularly in regard to Bills—and
986
accept those arguments and amendments which are won on their merits. There needs to be a greater humility on the part of Ministers.
Being a parliamentarian will never be easy. It will always require tremendous hard work and dedication, and it will often be very frustrating. But it would be much more rewarding for the bulk of MPs if they had sensible working practices, less posturing in debate and a willingness on the part of the Government to take them seriously. It would certainly make it more attractive to potential women parliamentarians. All parties need to be involved in bringing about these changes, but the ball is well and truly in the Government's court.
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I wish to declare an interest in the debate as chair of the Women National Commission, which has long campaigned for very many more women's voices to be heard in Parliament. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for giving us this early opportunity in the new parliamentary Session to debate this vital matter of women's representation. In doing so, I acknowledge her own tenacious commitment to the cause of women's equality.
Like other noble Lords and Baronesses. l welcome my noble friend the Minister to her first outing at the Dispatch Box and, of course, her maiden speech, From an assessment made over a long and affectionate acquaintance, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, will be an inspiring, energetic and hardworking Minister, who will be determined to put women's equality at the heart of the political agenda.
It was a matter of great celebration to us all that in 1997 the number of women MPs rose to its highest percentage ever. Even more important was the way in which those new voices made a distinct difference to the culture of Parliament. In another place, Mr Eric Forth is always ready with advice. He said:
"We hear from the babes on the Government Benches—and from other honourable Members—that they believe that being detained inconveniently in the House is unacceptable in this modern age".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/6/01; col. 799.]
To be frank, I cannot blame the "babes", as be calls them. As well as influencing the culture of Parliament, the new women's voices are also important in regard to the legislative agenda and its implementation.
The DTI's maternity review, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would not have reached the conclusions it did without a strong cohort of women MPs pressing for better maternity pay and leave, and the introduction of paternity pay for the first time, as well as the new, very welcome, legal right of women to ask for flexible working arrangements on their return to work after childbirth.
The Sure Start programme would not have been so energetically rolled out across the country without the proactive backing and involvement of so many women MPs who wanted the programme to work in their constituencies. The strengthening of the laws on rape and stalking was, in large part, down to the pressure

987
and presence of women MPs. The list is a long one. Those are but a few examples of the changes that have taken place because of the beginning of the feminisation of Parliament.
The 2001 general election returned a magnificent Labour majority but disappointed in its reduction in the number of women MPs, a reduction for the first time since 1979, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, reminded us. That is because political parties took their eye off the ball of fair and equal representation between men and women, even though the new devolved Assembly in Wales and the Parliament in Scotland had pointed the way forward in their progressive stances on the subject.
I know women in all political parties who are fiercely committed to seeing women influence far more the life of this country at all levels, yet there has been, to my mind—with the brave exception of the Labour Party, with its all-women shortlists prior to the 1997 election—an unnecessary hesitation about adopting any processes that have a hint of "positive discrimination" about them. Sometimes that has been on the spurious ground of positive discrimination somehow sapping away merit, and sometimes on the ground of litigation and a fear of a backlash in that sense.
When I saw the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on the List of Speakers, I felt that perhaps he had become a "born-again feminist". But, having heard his contribution, I think we shall have to wait for another day. It may not be that far away, but not today.
We have a government who are committed to bringing forward legislation which will allow political parties to use positive mechanisms to increase the number of women in public life—I, too, hope that that means the number of women candidates in political parties—and for political parties to use those mechanisms should they wish to do so. The following inclusion in the Queen's Speech—that the Government,
"will prepare legislation to allow political parties to make positive moves to increase the representation of women in public life",
was, as the chair of the EOC put it, "a turning point in history". It holds out great hope for us that at last we may catch up with many of our European partners.
The Fawcett Society, the EOC and the Women's National Commission are already beginning to organise support for this new legislation. We want to ensure that the questions many are asking about the timing and content of that legislation will be answered, as far as possible, by our new Minister today.
6.40 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I, too, join in the congratulations to my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood on securing this debate. I should like also to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, to her new position.
988
Noble Lords have explained fully the reasons why women should play a full part in public life. I do not want to rehearse the points again. I want to add that that role is equally important at local level. Will the Minister confirm that any new Bill being considered by the Government will apply equally to local government, not merely to MPs?
It is at local government level that many women find their political feet first, including myself and many other speakers in this debate. It is a natural route to the wider political stage. It is also a worthwhile end in itself. Women are very active in schools, as governors and members of PTAs, as they are in local voluntary services. An item in today's edition of the Guardian states that women represent 65 per cent of workers in the voluntary services. Reference has been made to the fact that large numbers of women are carers: they look after children, elderly parents and disabled relatives. However, when it comes to standing for membership of the local authority that awards the grants and devises the social services strategy, women make up only about 25 per cent of candidates. The position has changed little over the past 30 years. The last survey, carried out in 1997, indicated that 73 per cent of all councillors were men and about 25 to 27 per cent were women.
The reasons are possibly even more depressing when it comes to women not being encouraged to stand and not being selected as parliamentary candidates. The problem relates partly to the selection process. At local council level they do not have to spend nights away from their families. However, one factor that stands in their way at local level may be the culture of the local council. If they see Parliament in the same light, it may put them off applying for selection.
Councils with as few as 10 per cent of women members should be encouraged by the Government to reconsider the issue. Such an approach should totally suit the Government's new local government agenda of forging partnerships in community planning. It is hard to see community planning succeeding when so many community activists are excluded from the primary decision-making circuit.
The culture of male-dominated councils also affects council staff. The number of women chief executives stands at less than 10 per cent. Room at the Top, a study published in May this year by the University of the West of England's business school, reveals,
"a discomfiting picture of institutionalised sexism in local government in England and Wales".
It led Julie Mellor, chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission, to respond by calling for a new public sector duty to promote gender equality. The Government could help hugely by including local government in any positive action that they are considering.
My experience as a local councillor in Somerset—where we have a decent number of women councillors, chairs and now executive members, and a history of women leaders—is that we are good at developing partnerships and strong policies and services in the areas that are of particular concern to the community.

989
But in the area that we are discussing tonight the Government must ensure that their new Bill includes local government, whose services impact especially on the lives of women.
Critics of positive discrimination—women-only shortlists —will say that able women will make it anyway over time. Of course, some do, and some stick it out. I look forward to the day when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, need not feel the way that he does, when there are enough women at local government level and national level. But in the meantime—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly interrupt the noble Baroness. It is not a question of "feeling the way that I do". All I said was that it was not the Government's business to affect and influence who stands for Parliament.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl that when we arrive at a rough parity—around 50 per cent of women and 50 per cent men—it will not be the business of government. But until that day arrives, it remains the business of government. I shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for raising this matter. It is a subject in which I am particularly interested. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, on her appointment as Minister for Women. I worked with the noble Baroness for a number of years. I know of her dedication and her determination in any task that she undertakes. I know that she will bring those same values to her ministerial role. I look forward to hearing her maiden speech.
I was very pleased to see that this topic was to be debated this evening. I was delighted that women's representation was mentioned in the gracious Speech. I believe that it is a shame that we have to resort to such legislation. But I believe also that it is the only way in which we shall see an increase in the number of women Members of Parliament.
The main reason why there are so few women in the House of Commons is that members of political parties consistently refuse to select women candidates in seats which are held by their party or which it is likely to win. There is no evidence to indicate that the electorate is unhappy in voting for women candidates. People neither discriminate nor are they prejudiced against women who stand for Parliament.
Over a period of years some political parties have attempted to address the under-representation of women in political life. I can speak with authority only for my own party, but I am aware that some other parties have made efforts to address the problem. The Labour Party uses quotas at all levels to ensure that women hold office, attend conferences and are allowed to play an equal part with men in the life of the party. This approach has worked and it has given women
990
many opportunities that they would not otherwise have had. Without quotas, party members would generally select men rather than women.
What all political parties have failed to do is to break through the log-jam of selecting women candidates for elected office at all levels, whether it be at local council level, in the House of Commons or at European level—although the Labour Party made a big effort in the run-up to the 1997 general election by using all-women shortlists until it was prevented from doing so under a ruling by an industrial tribunal.
There were no special measures in place in the Labour Party—or, so far as I am aware, in any other party—in the run-up to the last election. As a result. there are fewer women MPs than there were in 1997— proving that without special measures in place women will have great difficulty in being selected in seats held by their party.
During our debate on the gracious Speech I mentioned the fact that in Wales 10 male Members of Parliament had retired: seven from the Labour Party, two from Plaid Cymru and one Liberal Democrat. Male candidates replaced all 10. I know that capable women put themselves forward for selection in the Labour Party, and I am sure that the same happened in the other two parties. But not one was selected, proving that without special measures in place the chances of women being selected in seats that their party can win is zero—at least in Wales.
The gracious Speech mentioned that legislation is being prepared to improve women's representation in public life. I welcome this measure, but in order for it to be effective for the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament elections in 2003 legislation must be brought forward as early as possible. That will allow the political parties which wish to do so to have all women shortlists in seats where they have to find new candidates. Without this, all the good work carried out in the first elections in 1999, where so many women were elected, could be undone.
As far as concerns the Welsh Assembly, women are playing a leading role. I believe that the same can be said for the Scottish Parliament. They achieved so much because the special measures put in place by their party allowed them to be elected. This must not be allowed to dissipate. Prejudice and discrimination against women in political life must end. The proposed legislation will go a long way towards making this possible. After all, this measure is not a giant step forward for womankind, but just a small, albeit welcomed, helping hand.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood deserves our gratitude for introducing this timely debate. I am proud that I was an architect of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and a founding member and trustee of the 300 Group. I am particularly glad to be speaking this evening because the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, is sitting on the Woolsack as Deputy Speaker. She has been an example to all of us in our struggle for equality for women.

991
I regard this debate, and the legislation, as surely the business of Parliament. I do not understand the objection of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to the idea that Parliament should help to encourage women to become Members of Parliament. However, as a lawyer, I should like to say something by way of a cautionary speech to indicate that even the important end, which I entirely share, of promoting women in Parliament would not justify the use of means if they were rigidly inflexible or disproportionate. That is because European law and international human rights law anchor everything in the principle of proportionality.
A political party is not just a private association. When it selects candidates for public office, it acts as a public authority. It is bound by Section 6 of the Human Rights Act to act in a way compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. That convention guarantees the individual's right to stand for election without discrimination, but it recognises an exemption for positive measures if they are proportionate.
In Jepson's case, not to my surprise, an industrial tribunal decided, without relying on the convention, that the Labour Party's policy of all women shortlists constituted unlawful sex discrimination. The Labour Party wisely accepted the verdict without an appeal. I say "wisely" because Jepson was approved in a race case, called Sawyer, by the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
If the Government were to introduce a very wide exemption from the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act for the selection of parliamentary candidates, whether in the French or the Scandinavian style—or, indeed, old Labour style—it would remain open to serious challenge under the Human Rights Act, as well as under European Community law, by disaffected, excluded male candidates. Our courts and, if necessary, the European Courts would have to decide whether the measure, as applied, was necessary in a democratic society: was it proportionate to the aim of increasing the representation of women in public life? The courts would have to consider how far positive measures for women were compatible not only under the convention but also under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the equal right and opportunity of individuals to take part in the conduct of public affairs, and everyone's equal right and opportunity to have access to public service. Again, provided that the measure was proportionate, there would be no problem.
Moreover Article 4.1 of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women says that only "temporary special measures" can be adopted,
"aimed at accelerating de facto equality between men and women … but shall in no way entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate standards".
I congratulate the Minister on becoming a Member of this House and on her appointment as an equality Minister. I cannot think of a better choice for her
992
maiden speech, to which we all look forward, than the topic of this debate. I hope that the noble Baroness will confirm that, whatever measure the Government introduce, it will not permit political parties to act disproportionately by maintaining unequal or separate standards for would-be parliamentary candidates based upon their sex, because that would lead to the kind of mess illustrated by the Jepson case.
There are difficult political, as well as legal, issues involved here. One has to think, for example, about ethnic minorities and their gross under-representation; and the consequences if one took similar steps to promote ethnic minorities as regards access to Parliament. Indeed, that could be divisive. However, if one did not include ethnic minorities, that might seem to suggest that one values racial and ethnic equality less than sex equality.
Those considerations give rise to difficult issues beyond the scope of this debate. But, in my view, the wisest approach would involve, first, applying the full force of the sex and race discrimination legislation to tackle the existing indirectly discriminatory practices by political parties—that is not being done and should be done for a start; secondly, as my noble friend said, introducing a positive duty on public authorities under the Sex Discrimination Act, as has been done in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000; thirdly, introducing a fairer and proportionate system for electing MPs that would encourage greater pluralism and diversity; and, fourthly, introducing a carefully-tailored exemption that would allow positive action that was both necessary and proportionate. Those measures would tackle the under- representation not only of women but also of ethnic minorities. They would tackle the causes of that under-representation in a proportionate way.
6.56 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for bringing this matter before the House. I also welcome my noble friend Lady Morgan to the Dispatch Box and look forward to hearing her maiden speech. I say this with a song in my heart: many of us dreamt that the day would come when the Labour Party manifesto would state that it was,
"committed through legislation to allow each party to make positive moves to increase the representation of women".
Every one of us involved in that last effort to recruit 101 women to Parliament is relieved at the prospect of this new journey.
The use of all women shortlists in 1997 swelled the ranks of women MPs, but without positive action the past four years will come to be seen as a blip. Labour's selection of fewer women to replace retiring MPs in 2001 is a mockery of modern democracy. The result of this election sadly indicates that point, and the fact that political parties will not select significantly more women candidates without a change in the law to allow them to use positive action.
Nevertheless, with all the will in the world, the number of women MPs still represents only 18 per cent, as compared to the figure 35 per cent in relation

993
to senior managers in the public sector. That demonstrates that all of our political parties are well behind the rest of society. Even at this stage of world history, women occupy only approximately 25 per cent of Parliament—the recent respectable appointments of baronesses represent just 15 per cent of these Benches. I believe that the United Kingdom stands at 33rd position in that respect. The proposed Bill is the only credible option and way forward.
The Labour women who have been fortunate to come through to Parliament via all women shortlists have faced enormous criticism. They have been sneered at and accused of asking "patsy" questions and not rebelling enough. Their loyalty has been questioned and, worst of all, they have been accused of lacking sisterhood. Anyone with an idea about politics should know that brotherhood is left at St Stephen's Gate. So I ask: why are there different standards for women?
The concept of "Blair's Babes" has become a casual insult to 101 new British legislators. Noble Lords may have noticed the number of exchanges since 1997, particularly between journalists, about the effectiveness of the new intake, on the presumption that the 101 male legislators they may have replaced were the crème de la crème of British politics. Labour women have been bracketed in this way because other parties did not take part in this exercise. That is why I believe that the obligation for all political parties to act now through the law is critical.
Change through legislation gives us an opportunity to examine how we shall ensure that parliamentary and local democracy is truly representative of British people. No one will have failed to notice that the previous Labour effort on that front produced more than 100 women MPs but failed to produce one single Asian woman on those green Benches. We had to depend on the PM's patronage to make up some of the democratic deficit. I, of course, declare an interest in t hat regard.
This debate will consider issues such as the way in which ethnic minority candidates are treated by their good comrades during selection processes. My experience of some 25 years with my party is perhaps a good example to share with your Lordships' House but time does not allow me to do that. However, my experience is certainly typical of that of many Asian women who have sought parliamentary seats and public office. It seems that as a member of a party one is good enough to knock on doors for one's Member of Parliament, be a councillor or even become a deputy leader, but if the question arises of leadership, control or sharing power a whole host of the usual rank and file discriminatory practices creep in.
Not too long ago in my party good, caring, intelligent comrades were heard to comment that my constituency would not tolerate an Asian woman—even worse, a Muslim woman—as its representative and that such a proposal would jeopardise the seat. As a Muslim Asian woman I should like to see a Bill introduced to rectify the gross injustices of oppression perpetrated by party mechanisms which have
994
prevented many being selected. That applies to all parties. I hope that this debate will be a catalyst for change and will have an impact not only on parliamentary but also on local government selection processes. There is no doubt in my mind that Britain's ethnic minorities feel that they are cut off from the mainstream political process. Asian women have not been a part of that for a long time.
I have talked to friends who aspire to membership of this House. Many will see the current lack of progress in facilitating the aspirations of Asian women as a proof of latent racism within party mechanisms. Others will say that not enough women put themselves forward. I believe that there is truth in both statements. The selection process is besotted with networks which exclude Asian women. Good, active candidates continue to be excluded. I have run out of time. I hope that any proposed legislation will address the fundamental issue I have mentioned as well as the issue of attracting and facilitating women's parliamentary aspirations. Time does not permit me to comment on the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and on the debate of 1957. I hope that all noble Lords will read that debate.
7.3 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, to her new post in the Cabinet Office as Minister for Women. Given her background in the Prime Minister's Office and in the Labour Party, we look forward to hearing her contribution to this important debate which was introduced by my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood.
It has been a wide-ranging debate. The problem is clear: women are under-represented in our Westminster Parliament and indeed throughout the whole of our political system in the UK. Currently 18.2 per cent of our Members of Parliament in Westminster are women. That figure is extremely low compared with the rest of Europe. We are 20th in the table. Speakers have touched on why we want to increase the representation of women. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that government should not be involved in the selection process. My noble friend Lady Walmsley and the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, explained why we should be concerned about the matter. We cannot claim to be an inclusive and universal democracy if we do not have equal representation. Only when women are represented in legislatures in proportion to their presence in society will women share equal citizenship with men.
Opponents of the issue say that women can have equality of representation but only on the same terms as men. However, political recruitment procedures were devised by men to select other men. That lies at the heart of our problem. As we have heard this evening, a system which has as its representa lives mainly men has resulted in women still earning less than men and with poor recognition of their roles as carers and family makers. I refer to the financial

995
rewards they get for those roles. My noble friend Lady Walmsley and the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, referred to that matter.
Many have mentioned the reasons why we have fewer women in our Westminster Parliament. There are problems of resources. It costs money to involve women in politics. Lifestyle restraints have been mentioned. There is also the matter of the number of vacancies in Parliament. Sometimes not many people stand down at elections. Women are rarely selected to stand for seats that are winnable. I declare an interest in that I am at present part of a commission of the Electoral Reform Society which considers candidates' selection by the political parties. We have examined masculine selection procedures and selection by people who espouse traditional attitudes with regard to who should be their parliamentary representative. Many people complain that selection procedures are biased.
The main parties—this applies to some more than others but I shall try not to be too political in this matter—have tried to tackle some of those issues. There has been much awareness-raising of the opportunities in public life available to women. My party has instigated special training to try to increase the number of women coming forward. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that part of the problem is that women do not put themselves forward for selection. My noble friend Lord Newby mentioned one of the reasons for that. I refer to my horrible experiences when I first entered another place. I believe that I am the only person taking part in the debate who has been a Member of both Houses.
People have tried to take positive action. We know what happened in the Labour Party with regard to the all-women shortlist. My party tried quotas on shortlists. Under a different electoral system, we had 50 per cent men and 50 per cent women elected in the previous European election. There are legal problems associated with this matter. My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill is an absolute expert in this area. I do not beg to differ from him on these matters. I do not believe that the legal problems are insurmountable.
We should consider what has happened in the rest of Europe, as others have mentioned. In Denmark, quotas were examined as early as the 1970s. Women there have 37 per cent representation. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, mentioned what is happening in France. In France some state funding is withheld if women's representation is not facilitated. European political systems tend to comprise a higher proportion of women representatives. However, tonight we are considering how our Government can address the decline in the number of women Members of Parliament. My noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood asked about the timing of legislation. My noble friend Lord Lester also made some points in that regard. Someone asked what Home Office research had revealed in this area. The other day someone said to me that women will achieve equality when there are many mediocre women
996
Ministers in Parliament—then women will know that they have achieved equality. I look forward to that day.
7.9 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, on introducing the debate. I welcome her tenacity on this subject. I also warmly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, to the House. I very much look forward to hearing her maiden speech. I congratulate her on her appointment as Minister for Women. That is a difficult appointment. I say "difficult" because the mere fact that in the 21st century we are even discussing the need to address the imbalance of women in Parliament and all related issues which will occupy the noble Baroness is depressing. Quite frankly, in comparison the Committee stage next week of the Land Registration Bill, a very dry subject, is welcome. Then I and probably the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, and other lady Peers will simply get on with the complex task without any thought or mention of our gender or ability. I believe that no one need look further than this House for reassurance that women are more than capable of fulfilling key roles as parliamentarians.
When I became Vice Chairman of the Conservative Party, responsible for women, after the general election of 1997, having fought a seat, I was quite sure that women should make it to Parliament on merit alone. Indeed, while I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor in that role, my noble friend Lady Seccombe, who did so much over a period of 10 years to encourage women, including myself, to stand for Parliament and who gave us that confidence to stand which is so important, I was also determined to change my role from Vice Chairman for Women to Vice Chairman for Party Development. I believed firmly that the way to attract more women to Parliament was not by separating them on the ground of sex and thereby compartmentalising them but by looking for new ways to encourage young men and women to connect with politics—in ways that would appeal to them and through initiatives which are relevant to them and their lives today.
I still believe that I was right to change my role to that of party development. I am pleased to say that we are attracting many more women to our party. However, following my very active term as a vice chairman of our party, and with more experience of the issue under my belt, I changed my view that women can and should succeed on merit alone. With some considerable sadness I and the Conservative Party now believe we cannot continue to hope that in the short term women will make it to Parliament by relying upon traditional routes. That said, I believe that we must be incredibly careful about the way we move forward. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, that any legislation should be permissive. We must all listen with care to and re-read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in particular with regard to the question of proportionality.

997
The concept of all women short lists is tempting. However, it is believed that it does diminish women and we have witnessed, albeit from the sidelines as a party which has not taken part in such an experiment, a serious backlash in some quarters and constituencies where women have been compulsorily imposed as candidates. I recall that my New Labour opponent in Slough was one such candidate and there was a great deal of unhappiness which must have been tough for her. However, I must concede that she is now the honourable Member for Slough and I am not. That said, I am glad to report that the Conservative Party in Slough selected a woman again in preference to a large number of men who applied to fight the recent general election. I wish that I were able to report that she had made it this time on merit.
Indeed, I want to use this opportunity to congratulate all those women who fought in the recent election and in previous general elections. It is a tough, lonely business. The difference for me was that, having failed to secure the seat, my party then gave me the chance to succeed by a different route. While I will not discuss the selection process of our party, I think it is right to say that the biggest stumbling block for us all is prejudice coupled, albeit to a lesser extent, with too few women prepared to make the commitment.
It is now clear that there needs to be a two-pronged approach. First, we need to find a way in the short term of overcoming prejudice and thereby witnessing more able women in Parliament who are already trying to make it i n all our parties. Secondly, we need to encourage many more women with real calibre seriously to consider a life in politics. That brings me back to party development and the need to encourage the new generation into politics and to treat them in the same way as in every other walk of life: that is, with gender a non-issue. I cannot agree with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Tessa Jowell, MP, when she said in a recent speech to the Fawcett Society commemorating women winning the vote:
"For the 21st Century, I believe that we need to ensure that we achieve a tot ally different kind of politics—a gendered politics".
I cannot think of a faster way to turn both women and men off than that kind of political correctness.
Surely it should be our goal to take gender out of politics. In most other spheres and professions gender is not now an issue. Parliament and those given the important role of choosing our candidates just need to catch up with the rest of life. It was recently suggested that in politics women need more training and mentoring than men. I agree with mentoring perhaps because, as I have already said, politics is a lonely business. But with regard to the idea that women need more training than men for politics, I should love to see the reaction of any women in any other walk of life or vocation accepting such an absurd and insulting suggestion.
There are so many more things that one could say on the subject, but of one thing I am sure. I look forward to a time when we refer to all parliamentarians simply as Members of Parliament and Peers, not women MPs and lady Peers. It is not that we want women in Parliament just to make it look as though there is
998
equality. We believe that it contributes genuinely to the democratic process. In addition, the truth is that women tend to make excellent Members of Parliament. Women are capable of fulfilling a number of roles at the same time. We always have. We are multi skilled. We are also on the whole rather good at listening and, more often than not, possess a natural ability and tendency to show real humility. It was a French woman politician who said not so long ago that men seek power for its own sake, women seek power so that they can get things done. How true.
7.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Morgan of Huyton): My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for securing the debate this evening on the subject of women's representation. We have had an excellent debate and, given the constraints of time, I shall endeavour to reply to as many noble Lords as time permits and beyond that, if noble Lords will permit it, I shall write to them.
I take this opportunity to express my thanks for the kindness shown to me by Members and officials of this House since my introduction two-and-a-half weeks ago. It feels like six months! I regard my new post as Minister for Women as a daunting but great challenge and I am proud to have been given the chance to build on the work of my predecessors as Ministers for Women—the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, and the right honourable Tessa Dowell, MP.
I also feel privileged to be chairing the new Cabinet sub-committee on equality which will co-ordinate the Government's policies on equality issues and is, I believe, a real step forward. Women's involvement in politics is a subject close to my heart and one with which I have been concerned since I dealt with women's issues as Vice-Chair of the British Youth Council—now 20 years ago—as a former secondary school teacher and throughout my political life, as a local councillor, as an official in the Labour Party and as political secretary to the Prime Minister. I was involved in the introduction of all women short lists and other measures to attempt to increase the representation of women in the Labour Party—not always easy, I have to say. I find the fall in the number of women MPs in the last general election especially depressing. However, we have made real strides. We now have 30 per cent of women Ministers and women comprise 30 per cent of the Cabinet, so all is not lost. But it is clear that we have to move forward.
This Government want to encourage women to take their rightful place in public life and it is clear that many Members of this House share our aspiration that in the 21st century women should have an equal chance to be part of the institutions that govern our country. I know that many noble Lords also share the Government's determination to make sure that our society offers equality of opportunity to everyone, using legislation if necessary, and to make use of the country's full wealth of talent. This is a subject on which Members of this House have often taken a lead.

999
And I am pleased to note the support that the proposed legislation on women's representation is now attracting from all parties, notwithstanding the concerns expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
It is encouraging that Members of all the main parties in the other place have expressed support for the legislation and that a leading contender in the Conservative leadership debate has also been positive. I welcome the support that has been expressed around the House this evening, particularly the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
The Government have made clear their determination to take action in their election manifesto and in the recent Gracious speech. The reason for the proposed legislation is simple: all-women shortlists, which were introduced by the Labour Party before the general election in 1997, were deemed unlawful under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 by an employment tribunal. Therefore, any political party that tried to bring in positive measures of any sort to increase women's representation could face a legal challenge.
However, the legislation that we propose will be permissive. Its purpose is to remove the risk of a legal challenge where parties choose to introduce positive measures. It will be up to the parties themselves to decide the best action to take, if any. The Government are not forcing change on anyone.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend Lady Gale have explained, we have much to learn on the subject from the experience in Scotland and Wales. Some 37 per cent of Members of the Scottish Parliament and almost 42 per cent of the Members of the Welsh Assembly are women. That compares with only 17 per cent in this House and the other place. The Government will build on and learn from the experiences of the devolved administrations.
Experience in Wales suggests that proportional representation is not necessarily the solution, as some have suggested, because more women were elected in the constituencies on the first-past-the-post system than on the list system. There is scope for further discussion on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked whether the legislation would cover local government elections. That is an important issue. Many women get involved and end their political life at that level. We are looking at details of how our commitment to legislate should be taken forward, including which elections should be covered. We have to consider carefully the implications for devolved administrations.
The legislation is intended to encourage women from a wide range of backgrounds. I share the particular concern expressed by my noble friend Lady Uddin about the representation of black and Asian women. However, the legislation is just part of our package of measures to build an inclusive society and increase opportunity for all. For example, last year the Government introduced the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000—the most radical race
1000
relations legislation in 25 years. The Government have also set up the Disability Rights Commission, which is a major step forward in helping to secure civil rights for disabled people. We also recognise the important role that public bodies and public appointments play. We are taking action to improve the fairness of representation, but we have a long way to go.
We shall all benefit from the increased representation of women, not least because of the experiences that they bring with them and the interests that they have. They are able to bring a different perspective to policy debates. As a wife, and particularly as the mother of two primary school-age boys, I know only too well the everyday challenges of trying to juggle work and home life, especially towards the end of the summer term. Those experiences that women bring to political life will enhance and enrich all our lives.
On a practical level, there are many examples of issues pursued by women Ministers and Back-Bench Members of this House and another place. I shall give two examples in addition to those highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and others this evening. Debra Shipley, a Member of another place, brought forward a Private Member's Bill in the last Parliament which is now the Protection of Children Act 1999. It requires the keeping of a list of people considered unsuitable to work with children. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, brought forward a Private Member's Bill to provide for the licensing and regulation of private hire vehicles in London which is now the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. It helps to provide greater security and reassurance for women travelling alone. If women are excluded from the political process, for whatever reasons, we are less likely to have a full range of needs and interests addressed.
I understand the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about working practices. It is a subject of discussion in this House and the other place. Let us hope that there is progress on that.
I welcome the comments from my noble friend Lady Gibson. I know that my party will need the support of the trade unions to move representation forward. I know of the hard work that she has put in over many years on the subject. I am also delighted that our proposals have attracted such support from a range of women's organisations, including some members of the Women's National Commission, which is so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. I look forward to involving all those organisations further as our work on the legislation progresses.
The Government are keen to maintain the momentum behind the legislation. I know from the debate that many noble Lords want to hear about progress. We have made our commitment clear. The issue is not whether we legislate, but how. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, raised concerns about timing. We recognise the importance of introducing the legislation as soon as possible, particularly in order to meet the needs of Scotland and Wales as well as of the next general election. However, we also wish to

1001
ensure that it is fair and carefully considered. To that end, we are working hard on the detail now. That includes the question of whether the best way forward is via electoral or employment law. I shall stay in touch with noble Lords on that issue.
My noble friend Lady Gould explained that other countries have already increased women's representation. Some of those measures are covered by EU law. In Sweden, 43 per cent of the national Parliament are now women; in Norway, that figure rises to 48 per cent. In Germany, it is 31 per cent. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and others that the Government intend that any measures introduced to promote equality of opportunity between men and women will be compliant with the United Kingdom's EU and human rights international obligations.
There is a wealth of knowledge and expertise in the House on some of those difficult issues. I have heard some of it this evening. The Government are keen to
1002
draw on that expertise. I look forward to the contributions of many noble Lords in developing the legislation, both in the Chamber and in outside discussions.
I thank your Lordships for the courtesy you have shown me and the patience with which you have listened to what I have to say this evening. The Government are confident that, without being prescriptive in any way, the proposed legislation will usher in a more equal society, allowing greater representation of women in Parliament in the future. I hope that your Lordships will feel able to support it.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I appreciate that this is out of order and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me, but I wanted to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, on her excellent maiden speech.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past seven o'clock.

  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Council of Europe
  Council of Europe
  European Political Parties: Proposed Council Regulation
  European Political Parties: Proposed Council Regulation
  Personal Pension Contribution Statistics
  Personal Pension Contribution Statistics
  Stakeholder Pensions: Cost of Tax Relief
  Stakeholder Pensions: Cost of Tax Relief
  Life Assurance Industry Review
  Life Assurance Industry Review
  Turkey: Economic Reforms
  Turkey: Economic Reforms
  Pakistani Asylum Applicants: Medical Foundation Report
  Pakistani Asylum Applicants: Medical Foundation Report
  Undetermined Asylum Applications 1.995–98
  Undetermined Asylum Applications 1.995–98
  Tobacco Advertising and Promotion: Ban
  Tobacco Advertising and Promotion: Ban
  Doctors and Nurses: Recruitment
  Doctors and Nurses: Recruitment
  Air Pollutants: Research
  Air Pollutants: Research
  Type 2 Diabetes: Early Identification
  Type 2 Diabetes: Early Identification
  Asperger's Syndrome: Diagnosis
  Asperger's Syndrome: Diagnosis
  Autistic Spectrum Disorders and Community Care Assessment
  Autistic Spectrum Disorders and Community Care Assessment
  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency: Annual Business Plan
  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency: Annual Business Plan
  Coal Mine Methane: Utilisation
  Coal Mine Methane: Utilisation
  Commonwealth Games: Funding
  Commonwealth Games: Funding
  UNHCR: UK Funding
  UNHCR: UK Funding
  Freedom of Information Act: Implementation
  Freedom of Information Act: Implementation