Sitting of 10 July 2001

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

  GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL
  Ordered,
  That the promoters of the Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill which originated in this House in the last Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the bill in the present session of Parliament; and the petition for the bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office no later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;
  That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the last Parliament;
  That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House;
  That in the current session of Parliament the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it had passed in the last Parliament, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
  That no further fees shall be charged to such stages;
  That the petition relating to the bill which stood referred to the committee on the bill in the last Parliament shall stand referred to the committee on the bill in the current session of Parliament;
  That no petitioners shall be heard before the committee unless their petition has been presented within the time provided for petitioning or has been deposited pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 126(b);
  That, in relation to the bill, Private Business Standing Order 127 shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)' were omitted.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Drugs Trade
    Mr. David Watts: If he will make a statement on the involvement of his Department in the campaign against the drugs trade. [1538]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The Foreign and Commonwealth Office co-ordinates international anti-drugs activity for the United Kingdom. On 25 and 26 June, we hosted an international conference on the global economy of illegal drugs. We have a substantial programme of counter-drugs assistance overseas, which is directed at countries that produce or transport illegal drugs.
    Mr. Watts: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. Does he agree that it is crucial that drug barons' assets can be seized in any country? What action are the Government taking to press other countries throughout the world to take similar action to that which we propose to take, whereby we can seize the assets of drug barons? Does he share my amazement at Opposition Members, who seem to be opposed to such legislation?
    Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend notes, the Government are committed to introducing legislation to facilitate the confiscation of drug barons' assets. Much work is going on with our European Union partners and countries throughout the world to strengthen the arrangements for mutual legal assistance so that we can ensure that such drug dealers and transporters are convicted in many countries.
    My hon. Friend asks me to express amazement at the stance being taken by a number of Opposition Members. I am sorry to say that I am not amazed by anything that candidates for the Conservative party leadership are getting up to.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are not merely doing everything they can to assist the coca eradication programmes in Andean countries such as Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, but pursuing proper replacement strategies, otherwise, poor people, farming communities and the peasantry will be further impoverished?
    Mr. Straw: Yes, I can. We are working closely with, for example, the Colombian Government following the change of presidency in 1998. I accept entirely what the hon. Gentleman says. We must not only have the eradication programmes but recognise the economic reliance of many poor people in those countries on the drugs trade. Therefore, we must ensure that that income stream is replaced by lawful income streams.
    Rachel Squire: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that Russia has recognised the massive problem that it has with the drugs trade. At a meeting earlier this year with Russian MPs in the Duma, it was made clear to me and to parliamentary colleagues that Russia is keen to co-operate far more fully with European countries to build an effective partnership. Have there been any recent discussions with the Russian Government on the issue, and are any initiatives planned?
    Mr. Straw: In my previous post as Home Secretary, I discussed the drugs trade—both through Russia and in it—with my opposite number in the Russian Federation.

    645
    It has continued to be discussed in the G8. It will be discussed further by me and my Russian colleague when Foreign Ministers meet next week in Rome.

    Western Sahara
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: What recent representations he has made to the UN concerning the referendum in Western Sahara. [1539]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): We supported United Nations Security Council resolution 1359, which was passed unanimously on 29 June and which extended the mandate of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara until 30 November 2001.
    Dr. Tonge: I welcome the Minister to his new post.
    There seems to be some confusion in the Minister's Department about the referendum in Western Sahara. On 4 July, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) received a reply that indicated support for the framework agreement passed by the Security Council. On 5 July, the Government went back to the original position of supporting the UN settlement, which was for a free and fair referendum for the Saharawi people to take place as soon as possible—the settlement was reached 10 years ago. Does he not appreciate that the framework agreement means that the electorate for the referendum in Western Sahara will be increased by hundreds and thousands of Moroccan settlers and soldiers and therefore will not be a true referendum of the Saharawi people?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I am sorry if the hon. Lady is confused, but as far as we are concerned there is no confusion. The resolution is absolutely clear: it reiterates full support for the on-going efforts of the United Nation's mission to implement the settlement plan, and for agreements adopted by the parties to hold a free, fair and impartial referendum for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.
    Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister assure the House, first, that there will be no further arms sales to Morocco until the situation in Western Sahara has been resolved and, secondly, that Britain will not take part in any operation to try to rewrite the 1974 census agreement on who should be allowed to vote in the referendum? As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) rightly said, it must be for the Saharawi people, and only for them, to decide their future and their self-determination in peace. We do not want more of this constant delay; the UN operation has already been delayed for more than 10 years.
    Mr. Bradshaw: I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that I cannot give him the first assurance that he seeks. All United Kingdom arms exports are approved under extremely strict European Union and UK guidelines: they are among the strictest in the world, and are being made even stricter by legislation currently passing through the House.
    646
    As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, there is absolutely no suggestion that the UK is giving up its commitment to self-determination for the people of Western Sahara.

    EU Enlargement
    Mr. Mike Hall: When he expects EU enlargement negotiations to be completed. [1540]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The Gothenburg European Council agreed last month that we should make it possible to complete the negotiations by the end of 2002 for candidates that are ready. The objective is that those candidate countries should then participate in the European parliamentary elections of 2004, as members.
    Mr. Hall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment, and wish him well in his challenging job.
    I welcome the news that enlargement of the European Union can commence in 2002. I should like the Czech Republic to be one of the first members in that tranche. What steps will the British Government take, however, if the euro continues to be weak, to ensure that our economy does not suffer as a result of enlargement?
    Mr. Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He may like to know that the Czech Republic has closed 20 of the chapters for accession, and is among the first five or six countries in terms of its advance towards satisfactory accession. As for his second question, about the euro, he will know that just 11 countries are currently in it. Whether the accession countries come in will depend on whether they meet the criteria for the euro, and whether they decide to join. The assumption behind the question does not, therefore, arise for the moment.
    Mr. John Redwood: I too congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his promotion.
    It is clear that the Irish people have voted no, so the treaty of Nice cannot be ratified. Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that it is a most important democratic principle that if a people are consulted in a referendum and vote no, "no" means no? Or does he belong to the new wonky school of democracy according to which, if the people give the wrong answer, they must be polled as many times as the Conservative party in the election of its leader, in the hope that they will change their minds?
    Mr. Straw: I made it perfectly clear during last week's debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill that the Irish people's decision in the referendum meant what it said—that they had rejected membership of the Nice treaty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I cannot remember whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the Government at the time, as he was in and out so often; but in 1992, when he may have been—[Interruption.] We have now ascertained that the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the last Administration. In 1992 they decided, in the

    647
    light of the Danish refusal to vote yes on Maastricht, to follow a similar procedure to that agreed by the 15 members of the General Affairs Council.
    Mr. Francis Maude: We delayed the Bill.
    Mr. Straw: It is not about delaying the Bill; it is about the principle of the thing.
    At the General Affairs Council in mid-June, we agreed that we would stick to the text of the Nice treaty, while providing Ireland—if we could—with some accommodation in respect of its worries. [Interruption.] That was exactly the approach of the last Administration, and it is the approach that we have agreed to adopt. It remains to be seen whether in due course there is a further referendum for the Irish people, and whether they agree to the Nice treaty. If they do not, the treaty will not go ahead.
    David Cairns: Has my right hon. Friend received any representations from business leaders on enlargement of the European Union? When I met business leaders in my constituency over the weekend, they were very keen that we move towards the speediest possible enlargement of the European Union. They recognise that access to new markets is good for jobs in my constituency and good for jobs in Britain.
    Mr. Straw: We have had a great many representations on enlargement from business leaders in the United Kingdom. Almost without exception, they support enlargement because of the benefits that it would bring to British jobs and to British business.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: May I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his post? This month, in the Nice treaty debate, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) berated my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) for not reading the Foreign Affairs Committee report, saying that had he done so,
    "he would know that six of the applicant countries had closed the chapter on agriculture."—[Official Report, 4 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 282.]
    Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the hon. Lady was completely wrong about the contents of her own report, and that, as the report states, even after all these years none of the candidates for enlargement
    "has yet resolved the thorniest issues: freedom of movement&agriculture, competition policy, transport policy, taxation, environment and budget"?
    Given the Foreign Secretary's very words today that the Nice treaty might riot go ahead, rather than that enlargement will forge ahead, is not the cruel reality that EU enlargement is turning out to be a promise that ranks with the other great deceptions such as "the cheque is in the post" and "I will love you in the morning"?
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her generous congratulations on my assumption of this post. I did not hear all of her last point—I heard only bits of it, about loving in the morning—so I shall let it pass. As for her point about whether chapters are open or closed, as I understand it my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West corrected herself. The truth is that none of the applicant countries has closed the chapter on
    648
    agriculture. The hon. Lady is wrong, however, because a number of countries including Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia have closed chapters on the free movement of goods, services and persons.
    Mr. Derek Foster: May I welcome my right hon. Friend—a Euro-realist, like the Chancellor and me—to his new post? Does he recognise that there is huge enthusiasm among Labour Members for the completion of enlargement, as it will underpin emerging democracies in eastern Europe and force a very substantial renegotiation of the common agricultural policy? However, does he also agree that enlargement will make it all the more important that we approach the euro with caution, and will he ensure that at least the European Central Bank becomes far more transparent and that it begins to take employment and output into consideration in pursuing its inflation targets?
    Mr. Straw: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. We believe that enlargement is very much in the interests of the United Kingdom, the applicant countries and the stability of the peace and security of Europe. I greatly regret the fact that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) seemed to welcome the fact that there have been some temporary difficulties in the pathway to enlargement, as there always will be. The extraordinary achievement of the EU in the past 20 years is the way in which it has enlarged but still brought benefits to the people of Europe. We believe that that will be the case with the enlargement countries.
    It will also come as no great surprise to my right hon. Friend that I fully support the position on the euro set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his excellent speech at the Mansion House a few weeks ago.

    Nice Treaty
    Tim Loughton: If he will make a statement on progress with ratification of the treaty of Nice. [1541]
    The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): The Gothenburg European Council reaffirmed that the ratification process for the treaty of Nice will continue so that the Union is in a position to welcome new member states from the end of 2002.
    Tim Loughton: May I also welcome the Minister to his post and hope that he will be rather more forthcoming with answers to European questions than his boss?
    If the UK held a referendum on the treaty of Nice that resulted in a "no" vote, would he be happy for our EU partners to carry on regardless with the treaty? In which case, what is the point of holding any referendums in this country on Europe? Or is it just that he regards Ireland as a second-class partner?
    Peter Hain: That was a pretty poor effort, Mr. Speaker. No referendum is planned on the Nice treaty, just as there was no referendum on the Amsterdam treaty or on the Maastricht treaty, which the Conservative Government took through and was constitutionally far more important

    649
    and far-reaching than the Nice treaty. We respect the view of the Irish people and we await advice from the fish Government on how they intend to take the matter forward.
    Mr. John McFall: Does the Minister agree that those of us who support EU enlargement do not take lightly the Irish voters' rejection of the Nice treaty? Does he agree that one of the main issues is that the EU as an institution must be much more democratically accountable? Is it not important that we engage with Europe, as we will lose massive economic benefits in manufacturing in each of our constituencies if we do not ensure that EU enlargement takes place?
    Hon. Members: What benefits?
    Peter Hain: It is very interesting to hear the Opposition's catcalls of, "What benefits?"
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Well, tell us.
    Peter Hain: I will tell the hon. Gentleman. More than 3.5 million jobs are dependent on our membership of the EU—
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Rubbish!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be calm.
    Peter Hain: Conservative Members do not understand why they were so roundly rejected by the electorate on 7 June. Membership of the EU has been enormously beneficial to Britain, and the many companies in the constituencies of Conservative Members that depend on exports to Europe or trade with Europe will hound them out of office if they persist with their policy, which is nothing less than a programme for withdrawal from Europe.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister share my assessment that one of the reasons why the Irish people turned down the treaty of Nice was that they benefit so greatly from the cohesion fund? Will he and his colleagues bring pressure to bear on Ireland, and other partners in Europe who benefit greatly, to share the prize of enlargement with us?
    Peter Hain: May I very much welcome the hon. Lady's point, which for a change was a serious point about enlargement from a Conservative? She makes the point that enlargement has enormous benefits, not just for the accession states but for the British companies and jobs that will benefit from the enlarged market that will be created. The point she makes about the cohesion fund is important. A number of sticky issues need to be addressed as progress is made chapter by chapter, including the common agricultural policy and the structural funds.

    Missile Defence
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What recent discussions he has had with the US Administration on missile defence. [1542]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I discussed missile defence with the US Secretary of State Colin Powell at the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Council and the European Council on 13 and 15 June. I look forward to renewing the discussions during my visit to Washington, for which I leave later today.
    Mr. Savidge: May I welcome and congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his appointment? More than 250 Members of Parliament have already signed early-day motion 23. With all due and delicate diplomacy, will my right hon. Friend convey to our United States allies the concern that star wars, in attempting to reduce a comparatively remote threat, might increase far graver dangers? There is also a wider worry: on a catalogue of vital issues the Bush Administration seem recklessly ready either to block or breach international agreements that are essential to a safer and more civilised future and, indeed, to George Bush Snr's vision of a "new world order."
    Mr. Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for his early remarks. I have of course read the early-day motion, and I recognise the concerns expressed in it. I must point out, however, that the motion endorses the unanimous conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which included a commendation of the Prime Minister's approach to the issue.
    President George W. Bush has made very clear—he set this out again at the NATO Council in June—his wish to proceed by co-operation and consultation not only with the United Kingdom and other European allies but with China, Russia and other major countries to the east. That is the right way forward.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: But does the Foreign Secretary understand that what unites Labour Back Benchers, Liberal Democrat Members and such influential figures in the Democratic party as Senator Joseph Biden, who has recently become the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Senate, in their scepticism about missile defence is the prospect of unilateral action by the Bush Administration, when nuclear proliferation has been prevented by a network of treaties and collective agreements? What are the prospects, for example, of maintaining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty at its current level of effectiveness if the United States embarks on unilateral action of the kind proposed?
    Mr. Straw: I understand those anxieties. To some extent, they are underlined by the current uncertainties in the propositions from the United States. I note that President George W. Bush, in his speech on 1 May, said:
    "We have more work to do to determine the final form the defences might take&We recognise the technological difficulties we face".

    651
    Given that there is such imprecision in what the United States is proposing, it behoves us, as long-standing allies of the US, not to come to conclusions until we are clear about what we are concluding about. That is why the process of consultation and co-operation that the Prime Minister set in train and that I shall continue tomorrow in Washington is the appropriate way forward.
    David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that sometimes a good and firm ally of the United States should be willing to tell an American Administration when they are wrong? They are wrong over star wars, and we should have the courage to say so.
    Mr. Straw: It is very important not to generalise about the propositions and use the label "star wars". There has been a series of propositions, some of which are more likely than others to come into effect. Some, although they are on the table, may have no effect for 20, 30 or 40 years, as the American Administration are making clear.
    It ought, though, to be underlined that at the heart of the American propositions is their concern, which we share, that the world has changed in the past 30 years, with a much greater threat from rogue states. The threat from Russia is no longer perceived to be in any sense imminent, but we have to decide how to deal defensively with the threats that exist. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends agree that the appropriate way forward is not to commit ourselves on the nature of the US propositions until we know exactly what they are. That is what I shall be doing in Washington.
    Mr. Francis Maude: I wish the Foreign Secretary well in his Washington discussions. I hope that they prove fruitful. We believe that a successful missile defence system is strongly in our interests and that the Government should be willing to commit themselves now, in principle, to working with our American allies to develop a satisfactory system. We appreciate the fact that this is a difficult issue for many Labour Members, but I want to make it clear that we will give the Government robust support if they choose to proceed in that way. Is the Foreign Secretary in favour, in principle, of missile defence?
    Mr. Straw: I would probably rather go naked into a conference chamber than with the robust support of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Kali Mountford: Does my right hon. Friend accept that concern about nuclear missile defence is not confined to the House? In their letters to me, my constituents have expressed three main anxieties, which I hope that my right hon. Friend will raise with the Americans on my behalf. They are worried that the proposed system will not be successful because it is technically flawed, that it will not achieve its aim of dealing with rogue states and that it could cause proliferation in those states that have nuclear weapons. Will my right hon. Friend hammer home those points on behalf of my constituents?
    Mr. Straw: The concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed are entirely understandable, and I shall certainly ensure that they are reflected in the discussions.

    Cyprus
    Simon Hughes: What plans the Government have for contributing to a lasting peace and constitutional settlement for Cyprus. [1543]
    The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): The current United Nations settlement process offers the best chance of securing a just and lasting settlement in Cyprus, and we remain committed to supporting the UN's efforts. In conjunction with the US and our EU partners, we urge all concerned to engage positively.
    Simon Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that, if all goes well, Cyprus should be able to complete accession negotiations with the EU by the end of next year, with a view to taking part in the 2004 European elections? Should not the clearest representations be made, through the Government of Turkey, to the Government of the self-styled "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" that unless that Government help to achieve a solution to the Cyprus problem they will not be able to participate in Cyprus's membership of the EU? Should not it also be made clear that the Turkish Government's own application for membership could also be harmed?
    Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that would bear careful study by the Turkish Government, and by the Turkish embassy here. The Government very much welcome the progress being made by Cyprus, which has completed 22 of the 31 chapters needed to qualify for accession. Cyprus is an old friend, and we want its accession bid to succeed.
    Those Conservative Members who want to block enlargement by holding up the Nice treaty are preventing friendly nations such as Cyprus, Malta, Hungary and Lithuania from enjoying the benefits of democracy, prosperity, stability and peace that EU membership brings. Cyprus would be among the first wave of countries to benefit from that membership.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the 27th anniversary of Turkey's invasion of Cyprus is approaching? For all that time, Turkey has been in illegal occupation of one third of a sovereign country that is a member of the Commonwealth and of the United Nations, and a prospective member of the European Union. Will he make it clear to the Turkish Government that the whole House considers that Turkey's admission to the EU remains out of the question as long as it is in illegal occupation of one third of Cyprus?
    Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House and of the Turkish Government to the fact that formidable obstacles remain to be overcome before Turkey can accede to the European Union through the enlargement process. Those obstacles must be dealt with so that we can move forward, which is what we want to happen. We want to work with the Turkish Government

    653
    to ensure that the obstacles are overcome in a way that benefits all who would be penalised if they were allowed to remain.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Will the Minister convey to the police and security forces in Cyprus the House's congratulations on their success in defusing, before any lives were lost, the rioting and regrettable violence that took place last week on the island's sovereign bases? What measures is he taking to ensure that the violence will not recur? Can he give the House a firm date by which he expects Cyprus to be able to accede to the European Union? Frankly, nothing that he has said so far gives any confidence that the process will be anything but slow.
    Peter Hain: I shall certainly pass on the right hon. Gentleman's message.
    We are in close dialogue with Foreign Minister Kasoulides, whom I met earlier last week to discuss the Akrotiri antenna, which is being built on the salt lake there and has caused the difficulties. We made it clear through the environmental assessment that was conducted in 1997 that we see no problems to health or the environment as a result of the construction of that antenna. Obviously, we will want to make progress and resolve people's fears.
    On enlargement, if the right hon. Gentleman would enthusiastically support the Nice treaty and the accession of Cyprus, Malta and all those other states—which will realise that the Conservatives are opposing their accession to the EU—we might move faster. The progress that Cyprus is making should mean that it clears all the obstacles by the end of next year. If everything remains on course, enlargement will take place and Cyprus will participate in the 2004 European elections to become a fully fledged member of the EU, as we want it to be.
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: Will my hon. Friend give us an assurance that the appalling violence that we witnessed last week will not be allowed to interfere in any way with British efforts to secure the peaceful resolution of the wider problems in Cyprus? I appreciate that many people in this country will have been horrified at what they saw, but we seek an absolute assurance that that will not interfere with the normal processes in which Britain is engaged to secure a peaceful resolution of the problems on the island.
    Peter Hain: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are working closely, in particular with the assistance of our special envoy, Sir David Hannay, with the United Nations and others—including the European Union—to involve Turkey, Cyprus and Mr. Denktash more positively in discussions to ensure that a settlement and the achievement of our objective and that of the UN, which is a bizonal, bicommunal Cyprus, are achieved.

    EU Presidency
    Mr. Owen Paterson: What plans Belgium has for its presidency of the Council; and if he will make a statement. [1544]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Belgium has identified 16 priority areas for its presidency. I will place a list in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Paterson: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether one of those 16 areas is the proposal pressed by the Prime Minister of Belgium and his Finance Minister to establish a European tax to be levied throughout the European Union on the benighted citizens by unelected authorities in Brussels? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if that proposal were put forward and pressed, he would use his veto to block it, as it is a fundamental principle of our democracy that there should be no taxation without representation?
    Mr. Straw: That proposal is not formally on the list, but perhaps the Prime Minister of Belgium has since expanded it to 17. I confirm what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear, which is that we are opposed to that European tax.
    Mr. Paterson: A veto?
    Mr. Straw: Hang on. It follows therefore that we will use all the powers at our disposal to ensure that that opposition is carried through.
    Ms Meg Munn: What plans does my right hon. Friend have to improve the accountability of European Union institutions to ensure that they are more relevant to the people of Europe?
    Mr. Straw: My first plan is to ensure that we better explain, in language that our constituents and citizens understand, the values of the European Union. We should get away from jargon and talk about the benefits that the EU has brought for jobs, security and peace in Europe. Nothing more undermines support for Europe than a retreat into jargon. As for institutional changes, frankly, I am sceptical whether, as if by magic, an institutional change in the necessarily complicated structure of Europe will secure popular support. The Nice European Council set a pathway leading to the intergovernmental conference in 2004, in part so that the institutions could be improved. We are participating in those discussions.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: The Foreign Secretary's offer to go naked and the offer of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) to love him in the morning are taking social liberalism a little too far.
    On the Belgian presidency, will the Foreign Secretary raise again during the Council meetings the question of the takeover directive which was lost by a tied vote in the European Parliament after 12 years of negotiations? The directive is a crucial opening up of the single market. It is absurd that the Germans ratted on an agreement that their Ministers had entered into, and in those circumstances the very essence and effectiveness of the European Union needs to be seen in the way that we react to it. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will take a lead to

    655
    ensure that the directive rapidly goes back on to the agenda and that this time the Germans hold to the agreements entered into by their Ministers.
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is better qualified to speak about social liberalism than me.
    I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the takeover directive. There is a warning there for people who believe that increasing democracy inside the EU means increasing the power of the European Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in a speech in Warsaw that we see the European Union as a union of nation states. It is thus important that the principal power should remain with the Council of Ministers.

    People Trafficking
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What further action he intends to take to combat trafficking in human beings. [1545]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): We continue to work with our partners in Europe and across the world against the evil trade of people trafficking.
    This year for the first time, immigration service officials have been appointed to the staff of British embassies in Europe and 10 officials were sent to reinforce the state border service between Croatia and Bosnia—one of the key conduits for people trafficking. Furthermore, 21 members of the immigration service work as airport liaison officers overseas.
    Mr. Thomas: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion to the Front Bench.
    Does my hon. Friend recognise the continuing concern that Eurostar is being targeted by the mafia-like organisations that traffic in human beings? Can he tell us how successful the measures taken to increase security at Eurostar terminals have been, what further measures are under consideration and whether he agrees that it is co-operation not confrontation with our European partners that will be the key to dealing with this terrible trade?
    Mr. MacShane: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. When I returned from Paris recently, I was extremely pleased to see British immigration officers at the Gare du Nord working to try to control that flow of traffic. That issue and the problems with Eurotunnel were raised by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in Paris yesterday. That again proves the necessity for joined-up government between Britain and France to deal with that real menace—in contrast to the isolation and rejection of such integration and co-operation demonstrated by the Opposition.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: We welcome the steps that have been taken to deal with human trafficking. Will the Minister also deal with slavery throughout the world, especially in Africa? Are the Government
    656
    concerned about that? What steps have they taken to put pressure on international businesses to take a stand on the issue?
    Mr. MacShane: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important question. I know of the great concern that he has shown over the years about slavery, especially in some African countries. The Government have taken the lead in supporting the UN convention and in applying the protocol on human trafficking. We are stepping up co-operation with several countries throughout the world to try to put an end to that evil trade.
    Mr. John Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware of the claim that financial grants from international organisations, such as the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, are going to organisations in Bosnia, such as the HDZ, which then use the money to smuggle not only tobacco and drugs but human beings?
    Mr. MacShane: I am aware of those allegations and I shall address them when I visit Sarajevo later this week. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing them to the attention of the House. We have sent 10 British officials to work with the Bosnian state border police to try to damp down the problems of smuggling and people trafficking. Those problems touch many of us in our constituencies. That is why the first line of defence is overseas and why Britain must be engaged in Europe and throughout the world.

    Ministerial Responsibilities
    Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the ministerial responsibilities within his Department for Africa. [1547]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Within the Secretary of State's overall responsibilities, Baroness Amos is the Minister for Africa. She is responsible for sub-Saharan African issues. I am the Minister responsible for north African issues and will answer questions on sub-Saharan Africa in the House.
    Mr. Brady: I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. Does he agree that at a time of deepening crisis in Zimbabwe, and as Britain's diplomatic efforts in Africa have completely collapsed this week at the meeting of the Organisation of African Unity, it is extremely regrettable that the British Government's response has been to downgrade the ministerial responsibility for Africa from a Minister of State to two Under-Secretaries?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I do not accept for a moment that our diplomacy has failed, and the responsibilities are nothing new. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) split the responsibility between sub-Saharan Africa and north Africa when he was a Minister. Indeed, under the previous Conservative Government, a Minister in the House of Lords, not in this House, had to answer to hon. Members. As I said, my right hon. Friend the

    657
    Secretary of State carries the primary responsibility for Africa, and the Prime Minister is extremely engaged in the subject.
    Barbara Follett: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new post. What steps are being taken to resolve the long-running land distribution conflict in Zimbabwe?
    Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is an urgent need for land reform, but the British Government believe that it must be within the ambit of the rule of law and that it must be sustainable and transparent. We have contributed £44 million to land reform in Zimbabwe since independence, and we have consistently said that we would support land reform in line with the principles agreed by the Government of Zimbabwe and international donors at the 1998 land conference. Sadly, Zimbabwe is not adhering to those principles.
    Mr. Francis Maude: I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities and congratulate him on his appointment. I also welcome the Government's statements that Africa will be a priority in their foreign policy, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) that the institutional arrangements set up do not suggest that; they send the reverse signal. There is so much in Africa, particularly in southern Africa, that is encouraging, given the number of countries that have become pluralist, multi-party democracies, that are embracing the open economy and that are flourishing. We understand the desire of the old organisation of African Unity to rebrand and relaunch itself as a new African Union as a signal of a new era, but does the Minister agree that the decision of the Foreign Ministers of that union to give full support to President Mugabe's tyrannical and ruinous regime is as bad a start for the new organisation as it could possibly have? A generation ago, Africa was wealthier per capita than Asia; since then, the position has been reversed. How will the Minister convey the message that success in today's world lies in embracing the rule of law, democracy and the open economy? Mugabe's regime and the OAU's support for him contaminates the whole continent.
    Mr. Bradshaw: The right hon. Gentleman should view the statement by the African Union, as it now calls itself, in the context of its desire to maintain unity, but he and all hon. Members know that many countries in Africa, and many people in Zimbabwe, share our deep concerns about the Zimbabwean human rights record, want that country to move swiftly towards free and fair elections and feel very sad about the state of the Zimbabwean economy.
    Mr. David Lammy: I welcome the Minister to his new post. Can he assure me and my constituents, many of whom are African, that Africa remains a top priority and that conflict resolution and the formation of civil society across Africa is at the top of his agenda?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, Africa remains a top priority. The Opposition were rather unfair about my noble Friend
    658
    Baroness Amos, who will be an excellent Minister and has already shown great energy. She has met a succession of African leaders and will visit Nigeria shortly. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister has held a summit with President Mbeke of South Africa. We are very supportive of the formation of the new African Union, and the Prime Minister will take the recommendations that come from the meeting of the African Union this week to the forthcoming G8 summit in Genoa.

    NATO
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When the Secretary of State will next meet the United States Secretary of State to discuss the future of NATO. [1550]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Tomorrow.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful for that brief and succinct reply. Last year, the Secretary of State for Defence gave the impression that defence spending among European Union nations would increase. Why have the International Institute for Strategic Studies and President Bush of the United States both noted that European defence spending is, in fact, falling? Is it not now essential to repair the damage done to US-British relations by the Labour Government's desire for a European army?
    Mr. Bradshaw: No damage at all has been done to US-British relations. Perhaps President Bush is the best judge of that. He said:
    "The United States welcomes the EU's European Security and Defence Policy intended to make Europe a stronger, more capable partner in deterring and managing crises affecting the security of the Transatlantic community".
    Mike Gapes: When Ministers meet their American counterparts, as well as welcoming the fact that the US Administration have changed their approach to the European defence policy, will they also welcome the fact that there appears to be a growing recognition, particularly in the Senate, of the importance of the American Government having a detailed discussion with Russia, and that any move beyond the anti-ballistic missile treaty should take place on the basis of co-operation, not unilateralism?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said, we welcome President Bush's willingness to engage not just with us and our European Union and NATO allies but with Russia and China on the important issues of international security.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I join other hon. Members in welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his post.
    May I ask the question another way? European Union politicians, such as the Belgian Foreign Minister, Louis Michel—whom I am sure the Minister knows well—talk openly and confirm that the real reason for the European army is to realise Europe politically with a European security and defence policy. Not just the International Institute for Strategic Studies but a succession of reports

    659
    have shown that European defence spending, far from increasing to pay for better equipped forces, continues to fall by 5 per cent. a year in constant dollar terms. Notwithstanding the announcements to be made later today, spending on new defence equipment in Europe is at its lowest for decades and NATO officials have complained about gaping holes in our procurement. Therefore, does the Minister not think that it will be an uphill battle for the Secretary of State to prove to the Americans tomorrow that Europe's grand designs and diminishing defence spending will strengthen NATO rather than weaken it? Unfortunately, is it not true that NATO is not safe in the Foreign Secretary's hands?
    Mr. Bradshaw: There is rather a lot in that question. The hon. Lady and most of her colleagues on the Opposition Benches need to have a little more confidence, particularly in Britain's ability to win arguments with Belgian politicians. She has a serious point on European defence capabilities that was also made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). All of us in the House share the view that the European defence force and Europe as a whole need to improve their defence capabilities. That is partly a matter of spending more, but it is also a question of how we spend the money. At the moment, compared with the United States, we get very little capability for what we spend.

    Kyoto Protocol
    Tom Brake: What discussions he has had with his US counterpart on the Kyoto protocol. [1551]
    The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): My right honourable Friend the Foreign Secretary will discuss the Kyoto protocol when he meets Colin Powell during his visit to Washington this week.
    Tom Brake: Does the Minister agree that, while US initiatives to promote renewable energy through its Export Credit Agency are welcome, unless the US is willing to put together a detailed package of measures to achieve the CO2 reductions that have been set for it in the Kyoto protocol, both President Bush and the companies, such as Esso, that backed him during his election campaign will find themselves increasingly isolated in the international community?
    Peter Hain: We and the European Union continue to have an active dialogue with the American Administration on how their concerns and reservations about the Kyoto protocol can be addressed. No country, especially one that contributes up to a quarter of the world's emissions, can opt out of the problems. The planet faces a catastrophe unless we work together on climate warming and other environmental problems. The dialogue with the US and others is designed to achieve a solution to that.
    Linda Gilroy: I welcome my hon. Friend's response. In making those representations, will he ensure that for every military and industrial adviser that the American Administration listen to, they listen to just three of the 3,000 scientists who have confirmed in a report to the United Nations that global warming is real?
    660
    They say that it is causing increasing difficulties and inflicting growing costs that cannot be ignored or put on the back burner.
    Peter Hain: I hope that everyone concerned takes note of American scientists, including those from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, who made exactly the point that my hon. Friend advances. It is important that we all move together, which is why the European Union has been actively pursuing the issue. Incidentally, that is another reason why it is important for us to join together to ensure that the EU puts the environment at the top of its agenda, as it did in the communiqué from the Gothenburg summit.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: The Minister will be aware that the last US Administration agreed at Kyoto to reduce greenhouse emissions by 7 per cent. by 2020 on the 1990 levels. At the same conference the British Government commendably pledged to reduce them by 12.5 per cent. Before his right hon. Friend meets the US Secretary of State tomorrow, will he check by what amount greenhouse gases in Britain had been reduced when the commitment was made four years ago and by how much they have been reduced since then?
    Peter Hain: We shall certainly check that. The hon. Gentleman draws attention to a wider issue. We all have a responsibility to make progress on reducing the emissions that cause such dangerous climate change and, if necessary, to put in place policies to do so. Simply because someone is not going along with that does not mean that the rest of us should not. His point is welcome in that context.

    Plan Colombia
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: What recent reports he has received about Plan Colombia; and if he will make a statement. [1552]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): We continually monitor the situation in Colombia, including the implementation of Plan Colombia via our embassy in Bogota and our contacts with the Government and civil society in Colombia and the non-governmental organisations that work at home and abroad.
    On behalf of the House, I welcome the safe return of Alistair Taylor who was held by Colombian guerrillas for nearly two years and is now re-united with his family in Aberdeenshire.
    Mr. Lloyd: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the release of Alistair Taylor.
    Colombia has been engaged in one of the bloodiest conflicts in one of the most prolonged civil wars. Does he accept that it is astonishing for the United States or Europe to believe that our drugs problems can be solved by beating the Colombian Government into intensifying an unwinnable civil war? Will he ensure that our message to the Colombians is that we and our European allies want to be partners in working to achieve an approach to peace that engages the guerrillas and the paramilitaries? If the

    661
    war intensifies on the premise that we can solve our drugs problem, it will be at the expense of the ordinary people of Colombia who have been brutalised in this long conflict.
    Mr. MacShane: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution at the Foreign Office and thereafter to solving the problem. The civil war in Colombia has been going on for 40 years, so it started well before drugs became a crucial feature of it. However, he is right to raise that issue. This country and the EU insist on recognising the social dimension to the problem because unless we find replacement jobs for the peasant farmers who grow the crops, they will be attracted to the idea of participating in the drugs trade.
    Mr. John Bercow: I warmly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment.
    662
    Given the verdict of the head of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency that Plan Colombia is not denting the supply of drugs to the United States, what steps is the Minister taking to encourage other Governments to assist the Colombian Government in their battle against the drugs menace and the activities that accompany it?
    Mr. MacShane: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He meant them sincerely, and I hope that praise from him will continue.
    This Government and other European Governments, which are all afflicted by the drugs trade—as our constituencies are afflicted—continue to make it clear to the Colombian Government that all measures must be used in their battle to end that trade, and that economic and social help must go hand in hand with direct attacks on the guerrillas responsible for some of the trade.

Disturbances, Bradford
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the disorder in Bradford at the weekend.
I believe that the response of the whole House will be to make it absolutely clear that we cannot and will not tolerate the wanton destruction and violence that we have witnessed over the last few days. The message must be unequivocal and unwavering: whatever the debate about alienation and disaffection, attacking the police, destroying the well-being of the local community and playing into the hands of organised groups will simply not be tolerated.
The facts can be recounted briefly. The banning order on all marches and processions in Bradford for three months has been in force since 4 July. The police were aware of reports of extreme right-wing elements seeking to defy the ban. Fighting began in the town centre in the late afternoon as efforts were made to disperse an Anti-Nazi League rally. The fighting shifted from the city centre to the Manningham area in the early evening, by which time the police themselves were the focus for attack. Missiles, including petrol bombs that had clearly been prepared in advance, were thrown at the police by a mob numbering 400 to 500 at its peak; 164 police officers were injured; 36 people were arrested, only two of whom were from outside Bradford.
On Sunday night and Monday morning the Manningham area was quiet. Subsequently there was a serious attack on a restaurant in the Ravenscliff area, and I regret to say that there was further disorder last night, involving youths throwing missiles in the Ravenscliff and Holmwood areas of the city. There have been 34 more arrests arising from disorder in the city since Sunday. The police commander at the scene spoke of "senseless violence and criminality"; I endorse his judgment and applaud the courage shown by the police in dealing with the situation.
The damage to local businesses and the prosperity of the area will not be made good quickly. As always, the people who will suffer in the long run are members of the local community. We wish to work with the people of Bradford to restore calm and look to the future. But let me make it clear that a prerequisite for dealing with social ills or rebuilding confidence within the community is to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that order is restored.
Following the disturbances in Oldham and Burnley, I asked the Minister of State with responsibility for crime reduction, policing and community safety, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), to draw together an inter-departmental ministerial group. This has met twice already. My right hon. Friend will today publish preliminary details of wider action proposed by the group in addressing the concerns in a range of communities throughout the country and the way in which, in conjunction with local people, the Government can do more to minimise the risk of further disorder.
I wish to stress that we are not seeking to impose solutions from Whitehall or lift responsibility, which must rest at local level, but we are seeking from local
664
communities possible ideas on how young people can be further aided in taking up opportunities for recreation and other activities over the summer and, in particular, measures that bring together different religious, racial, and community groups.
I now propose to take that work a stage further. The ministerial group will undertake an urgent review over the summer of all the relevant community issues and will be supported by a small, dedicated review team of people with the right skills. That team will seek views from people on the ground in areas which have suffered from violence the most, as well as in other places with similar social and demographic features which have not. The aim will be to draw lessons which can inform future policy at national, local and community levels. The group will continue its work and will be complemented by the development of longer-term proposals from the performance and innovation unit based in the Cabinet Office.
There are many lessons to be learned from the past, as well as present events. For the police, intelligence and practical planning issues are particular challenges. We now need to ensure that the professionalism and experience of our police service is made available quickly and effectively to prevent further disturbances. The Association of Chief Police Officers has already held one meeting of commanders under the auspices of the national operations faculty to establish what lessons can be learned not just in preventing but in bringing to a rapid conclusion the kind of disorder that we saw on Saturday evening.
I will wish to discuss with ACPO how we might build on that initiative, pooling such experience and ensuring that operational commanders can find sources of advice immediately to help them to deal with the exceptionally difficult situation that they face. The vast majority of people in our society, regardless of their ethnic background, want the same things for themselves and their children. As we share a common citizenship, we have to find ways of working and living together in harmony. Our aim is to create an inclusive society, local communities which meet the needs of all groups, and a dialogue which transcends differences.
Organised thugs from whatever background or standpoint undermine that possibility, and that is why the threat from them must be met head on. The message from today is that we will not accept the destruction of hard-won improvements in the most difficult areas of our country—and nor would local people forgive us if we do not provide them with the protection that they deserve.
Mr. David Lidington: I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House to make a statement this afternoon. On behalf of the Opposition, may I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself with his condemnation of the violence and the criminal attacks on both people and property in Bradford over the past few days? Does he agree that the fact that no fewer than 164 police officers were injured is a stark rebuke to those people who now allege that the police were in some way the perpetrators of the violence, rather than the service trying to restore order to the streets of Bradford? On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to offer support to the police, Bradford city council and others in Bradford who are working to restore order and the city's reputation for good community relations.

665
Will the Home Secretary consider the part played by extremists of both right and left? Does he agree with several people in Bradford and some Labour Members that militant extremists from the self-styled Anti-Nazi League were out to inflame rather than heal divisions in Bradford last weekend?
A couple of days ago, the Home Secretary talked about the possibility of equipping the police with water cannon and tear gas to cope with future riots. Is he still considering that? Have the police in West Yorkshire or elsewhere requested the provision of such equipment? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is too simplistic to brand events in Bradford the product of racial tension? I agree with him that the social problems that he described—poor education, lack of skills and poor opportunities—afflict young men from British Pakistani and British white homes alike. Those problems must be tackled but they do not for a moment justify the behaviour in Bradford on Saturday night and more recently.
Will the Home Secretary launch an urgent inquiry into policing pressures in Bradford and elsewhere in West Yorkshire? Surely he knows that police numbers in the West Yorkshire force are nearly 400 lower than when the Government first took office. Even last year, the West Yorkshire police force lost more officers through resignation than it was able to recruit. Is he aware of local anxiety in Bradford that the police are too stretched to deal promptly and effectively with minor disorder, drug dealing and racist abuse on the streets? That encourages criminals and political extremists to be bolder.
I assure the Home Secretary that if he takes the necessary steps to bolster the strength and effectiveness of the police force, he will deserve support from all parties.
Mr. Blunkett: I welcome the first part of the hon. Gentleman's response. I am sorry that the second half degenerated into the party politics of police numbers. I want to make it clear that a lack of police did not contribute to the prolonged disorder on Saturday night. The number of police available was that requested from West Yorkshire police and neighbouring authorities throughout the north of England. Those numbers remain available; there are approximately 300 police on the streets. We are determined to ensure that they are there when needed.
Under the crime fighting fund, we had already planned for 292 extra police, with 92 being appointed immediately. The local police authority was also contributing through the police grant and local resources so that the total increase this year was to be 400 extra police officers—far more than 200 when we had netted off any losses through those leaving.
Last weekend was not caused by a lack of policing or police numbers. As I said earlier, we must deal with issues such as how to make the best use of experience, including that in the Metropolitan police. It is a question of how we can do that quickly and effectively when police commanders on the ground need it.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about particular police methods and equipment. I want to make it clear—on a lighter note, the shadow Chancellor might share this belief—that we should not always believe what we read in The Guardian. Although plastic baton rounds and
666
CS gas are available, I have never mentioned gas of any sort either publicly or privately to colleagues or journalists; so they made it up. I am interested in how we can use methods that are less of a risk than plastic baton rounds, which are available on the British mainland, but about which I have doubts in terms of public safety.
I am prepared to consider other methods that would allow the police to deal quickly and effectively with mass disorder and a threat to life, limb and property. I shall receive reports and we will consider the issues carefully, but in the end, good intelligence and preparation, and the willingness of the local community to be part of the solution, will be the way forward. I think that the House will join me in wanting to find ways of preventing, predicting and then dealing quickly with any further incidents of this sort.
Mr. Terry Rooney: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. We must bear in mind the fact that what happened on Saturday was pure, wanton, mindless and criminal violence, but notwithstanding that, we can see the similarities between what has happened in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley. The common thread is the presence on the streets of far-right groups: the National Front and the British National party. Those organisations exist purely to foment racial hatred. We in Bradford have believed for many years that there is no place on the streets for fascists and Nazis. Is it possible to call on the full powers of the National Criminal Intelligence Service to track and control the movement of these fascist thugs? I believe that the time is coming when Parliament must seriously consider proscribing those organisations and removing that blight from our society. Communities such as Bradford will never feel safe as long as these people are about.
Mr. Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend, and I want to say to the people of Bradford how sorry we all are that they have had to endure these disturbances and have their well-being undermined and destroyed by others who came from outside to do so or threaten to do so, who were part of the cause. There is no question but that if the National Front had not sought a march and demonstration in Bradford, and if the reaction that led to the curtailment of the Bradford Vision festival had not been provoked, people would on Saturday have been living not only in peace and quietude but in racial harmony. They would have been enjoying themselves as part of that multiracial festival, which is drawing people together and building on the lessons of 1995.
Yes, I am unequivocal in my condemnation, but I also ask those who seek to combat fascism to hold their hand carefully. I ask them to allow us to deal with public order and not to take it into their own hands. I agree that the National Criminal Intelligence Service and our security services will need to consider all those who threaten our democracy. If we can develop intelligence to know where and when they intend to destroy our community and racial harmony, we can take effective measures to stop them.
Simon Hughes: I thank the Home Secretary for his statement, which I endorse. I want to share with him from the Liberal Democrat Benches the feeling that, whatever the problems in the urban communities of our country, resort to violence, racism and intolerance of the sort that we saw

667
at the weekend is an unacceptable response, wherever it comes from. I happily join with him and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) in sending our support to the police and the elected representatives of the city of Bradford—the two groups that are most accountable for good order in that great city.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that the city council, which I understand has already commissioned some work and some reports which are due out later this week, must receive the support that it needs and for which it has asked in dealing with the problems that it is aware of and is seeking to address?
Slightly more broadly, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that the responses that he proposes through the working group and the performance and innovation unit may before long be better dealt with by the Government's doing for urban policy what they sensibly did for rural policy after the election? That would involve finding a Cabinet Minister—it may be the right hon. Gentleman or a colleague—who would be responsible throughout the country for pulling together policy in urban and suburban areas. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said in his statement, these matters are not only about law and order but about education, community relations and other factors.
There is an important supplementary question that follows on from the remarks of the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney). As part of the review of policy—I do not go down the road of proscribing far-right or far-left organisations—can we consider the intelligence that relates to what has happened in recent months throughout the country, the links between the far right and occasionally the far left and community disorder, and the way in which we might be able to review public order legislation to make it less frequently possible for people to "exercise their rights", when actually they are seeking to provoke difficulty, tension and racism in urban communities? We must deal with those who have committed offences through the law.
The other common thread is that many young people have taken to the streets, misbehaving and demonstrating clearly that they are willing to participate. Can we ensure that what they want to say about the future of their city and of their communities is listened to as much as what anyone else says, so that the next generation feels empowered in the process of developing their future? Wherever they come from and whatever their race, let us ensure that they do not feel that they are disengaged from, or have no stake in, the city or the town in which they belong and to which I am sure they want to contribute.
Mr. Blunkett: I think that there were four key questions. On a slightly light note, after the past four and a half weeks, I feel that I have enough on my plate without taking on the whole of urban Britain. However, I take the point about the coherence of the response. That is why, both within the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Cabinet Office, we will want to pull together regeneration programmes with a review.
We will want carefully to listen to young people. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will include young people in the review group so that they are clearly represented and heard. However, it is my evidence—perhaps colleagues from Bradford will confirm it—that
668
some of the hard core who were stimulating, organising and communicating the disorder on Saturday night were not young people who will join our review groups. That is because they are drug pushers and traffickers, and we need to deal with them head on.
Yes, we will take on board Lord Ouseley's report. However, I hope that everyone will come forward with ideas for finding solutions, rather than merely posing questions for others to answer. Bussing children round cities to ensure multi-ethnic schooling is easier said than done. It was tried in Bradford and it has been tried extensively in north America, and on every occasion it has been abandoned.
We all share an intent. Finding solutions that are acceptable in a democracy is entirely another matter. We would consider public order legislation, but, again, it is a difficult area. I said to the chief constable of Manchester after the Oldham incidents that the issue of when a march or assembly turns out to be a gathering of citizens goes back to 1815 and Peterloo. There are some difficult legal issues. I will happily consider them, but we have an interesting reversal of positions here: I am defending human rights and the hon. Gentleman is helping me to find the right balance between those who would destroy our society and those who have the right to demonstrate in it.
Mr. Marsha Singh: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Does he appreciate the level of dismay and shock felt by me, my fellow Bradford MPs and the people of Bradford at what happened on Saturday? Does he appreciate how dangerous the situation now is in Bradford and how fractured community relations are? Does he agree that the vast majority of the Muslim community in Bradford are peaceful, decent and law-abiding and should not be scapegoated along with the mindless minority?
I join my right hon. Friend in praising the police for their courage. I was there and I saw it. It cannot be right for our police forces to face for hour upon hour a sustained assault of bricks, bottles, powerful explosives and petrol bombs without being able to do anything about it. It cannot be right for a community to be laid siege to for hour upon hour when it needs emergency services. We have a duty of care to them, too. When my right hon. Friends consults chief officers about the need for water cannon on our streets, I hope that he will consult ordinary bobbies to see what they feel about it.
Will my right hon. Friend look at giving areas such as Bradford, over and above the police complement, beat bobbies dedicated to troubled areas who work just that beat? May I ask him to understand our feeling that Bradford lies bleeding? It needs to heal. We need my right hon. Friend's support and the support of the whole House for that healing process to begin and to finish.
Mr. Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend, who puts it eloquently and with great feeling. What the people of Bradford need immediately is the quietness and calm that will enable the prosperity and the image of Bradford to be restored to what it was for several years following enormous efforts by the community, the business community and those who came together in the Vision platform. Let us take up my hon. Friend's suggestion and be able to respond to what is required within the community itself: the dedicated policing that he describes seems an admirable suggestion.

669
It also seems that a wider community safety and disorder partnership is required, so that we can work with local people to identify those responsible, giving them the courage and protection that they need if they witness people destroying their neighbourhood and area. If we can come together and back people who witness those events, we will be able to see off those who have not only destroyed the immediate neighbourhood and people's prosperity and well-being, but created dangerous racial tension in Bradford and throughout the country. We are at a difficult moment. That is why getting it right quickly matters to all of us.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As 34 of the 36 persons who were arrested were effectively local residents, are we not in danger of misleading ourselves by thinking that the prime responsibility lies with troublemakers from outside? Would it not be better for the Home Secretary to think carefully about the fact that, in all areas of Britain and the world where people are effectively segregated on the basis of religion, nationality or colour, there is always the potential for violence? All the Government's efforts should be aimed at trying to integrate the societies and stop having areas that are inhabited by one race or another race.
Mr. Blunkett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's intention, which is being expressed more broadly at the moment, including in Herman Ouseley's report, but, as I have said, the question is how to achieve that aim. Those who have come into the country over the years—be they Jewish, Chinese, Irish, or latterly from the Caribbean, Pakistan, Bangladesh or India—have inevitably come together with family and cultural friends in the initial stages of their integration into society. It is difficult to break that up, given the availability of specific housing and support services. We all want to ensure that there is true integration, in which people understand cultural differences and diversity and the strength that they bring; but achieving that is another matter.
Yes, it was primarily local people who—regrettably—were destroying their own community, and many of them will not be those who must experience the consequences that we must address. As with Oldham and Burnley, however, people came into Bradford to cause trouble. These people light fires and walk away from them, leaving others both to take the blame and to pick up the pieces. It is they who are our true enemy, and we should be clear about that.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the work done over the years to build community relations in Bradford has been an exemplar for all of us? Living close to Bradford as I do, with a constituency close to Bradford, I much admire what has been done both by my colleagues in the House and by community leaders.
Does my right hon. Friend also agree that, while most of the Bradford community hated all that happened on Saturday night, there are extreme and wicked people on all sides—in the ethnic minorities, on the right and on the left? They are a very dangerous mix: they will move across the Pennines, and from town to city, in order to stir up trouble in many different ways.
670
Is it not time for us, as politicians, to ponder deeply what is happening, not just on the streets of Bradford? In the last few years, we have witnessed politics going on to the streets. I do not like that, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not. We have seen a wider phenomenon recently, internationally—in Gothenburg during the recent meeting there, and in Seattle during meetings of the World Bank and G7—and in our own cities, with "Reclaim the Streets" in the City of London. We ignore that wider phenomenon at our peril; if we do so, we shall fail either to understand or to combat it.
I hope my right hon. Friend agrees that we need thought and firm action in equal measure.
Mr. Blunkett: I entirely agree with the last suggestion.
My hon. Friend is right: there is a danger of alienation from politics, politicians and democracy. I commented on that the day after the general election. One of the main things that alienate people from democracy is Government's inability to deliver the most basic requirement of all—order in communities, and the ability to live peacefully. It is important for us to establish that as a prerequisite.
History shows us that those who wish to destroy society benefit most when there is disorder on the streets. That is a simple lesson not just from the last century but from long before. Those of us on the left who miss that key lesson from history delude ourselves into believing that the Weimar republic, or what happened in republican Spain, was some kind of accident. That is not so. The right flourished as a result of the disorder on the streets when the left failed to act.
Mr. Eric Pickles: I associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh). For those of us who have great affection for Bradford, it was a shocking experience to see the television pictures at the weekend and to discuss the events with friends yesterday and today.
I commend the Home Secretary's robust attitude to the extremists on both right and left who lit the fires and have gone away. Those of good intent will now have to put things right. I see one danger, however. Some newspapers have mentioned the suggestion that one solution would be to disperse people of Asian descent around the city. I am with the Home Secretary on this matter. I think that the idea of bussing or housing dispersal is anathema and plays right into the hands of racists.
We have a vibrant community in Bradford. Some parts of the community come originally from the Indian sub-continent, but they are all an integral part of Bradford, and Bradford would be the less for it were they to be dispersed through either education or housing. It is our duty as politicians to meet the needs of people rather than to get people to meet the needs of those services. I therefore hope that ideas such as bussing and dispersal will be resisted.
I hope that the Home Secretary will look favourably on the idea of opening up schools and further education institutions in the summer. Schools are about to break up, and such an arrangement would be helpful. I also go along with the suggestion, which I read about, made by the hon.

671
Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh). We need an accelerated programme to recruit black and Asian British to the West Yorkshire police force.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Before the Home Secretary replies, I remind the House that there is another statement. I wish to call all hon. Members who are standing, but I will need the co-operation of the House to do so. I therefore require shorter questions and, of course, shorter answers.
Mr. Blunkett: I shall attempt to be brief, Mr. Speaker.
After all the years in which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and I were in local government and disagreed, it is nice for us to agree on something. It is also appropriate that we should do so today. I agree with his remarks on dispersal. Additionally, throughout the summer, we should and we will provide activities in colleges, theatres and leisure centres. Moreover, this year, the outward bound programme for 15 and 16-year-olds will be backed by £10 million. I am proud of that because I was the one who initiated it.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend and of my two Bradford colleagues. However, I feel that we should perhaps be digging a little deeper and looking a little further, beyond the actions on Saturday of a minority of Bradfordians. The reason why young Asian men were on the streets of Bradford last Saturday could just be that they feel disaffected. They cannot appreciate why the good jobs, the expensive cars and the nice homes should all go to the whites. Perhaps we, too, should be asking why.
May I suggest that the remedies will not be found in new and better community centres? The remedies that I am going to suggest—like my comments two years ago on forced marriages—will not go down well with the Asian leadership in Bradford or Keighley. However, I feel compelled to make them because of the severity of the situation.
In Canada, which has otherwise very similar immigration laws to ours—
Mr. Speaker: Order. During a statement hon. Members must ask questions. The hon. Lady seems to be making a speech.
Mrs. Cryer: I am coming to it, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Lady has given the Home Secretary enough to chew on.
Mrs. Cryer: I was about—
Mr. Speaker: Order. My ruling is that the Home Secretary will reply to the hon. Lady.
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend's reference to Canada must have been in connection with the Canadians' induction programme, which involves the acquisition of language and culture. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Asylum and Immigration, the Under-Secretary who has responsibility for immigration and nationality, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), and
672
I will want to take ideas on how we can make being a British citizen and British national something to be proud of and ensure that induction into our community involves positive measures rather than simply the right to remain.
Michael Fabricant: The Home Secretary mentioned the Oldham and Burnley events that occurred before Bradford. To what extent has he explored the possibility that these are not simply copycat events, but co-ordinated events which form part of a conspiracy? Has he considered the use of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the Secret Intelligence Service to investigate the activities of far-right and far-left groups who may be deliberately stirring up trouble in those three towns and others in the north in the weeks to come?
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) asked about NCIS and the use of the available intelligence in looking at the issues. I gave a comprehensive reply, but I repeat that we must act as sensitively and sensibly as we can. There is no evidence of conspiracy in relation to Saturday night's events and provocation, but there was enormous communication via mobile phones and other equipment to co-ordinate the action against the police.
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents in Rochdale are vigilant because we are aware that what happened in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley could happen to us? Does he agree that we all have an individual responsibility to do all we can to ensure that violence such as that which we saw on Saturday does not continue and get a foothold in our community? However, does he agree that we cannot criminalise all young people, whether white or Asian? We must do all we can to empower them within their communities and make sure that they are involved in formal decision making to give them some ownership in the future.
Mr. Blunkett: None of us would seek to criminalise young people; we want to engage with them positively. However, there must he messages from the family and the cultural communities. I am aware of the divide between elders and young people in some of the communities. The message in the peer group has to be clear; bringing about greater engagement and reducing alienation will not come from destroying the livelihoods of others on the streets.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I commend the wise warning of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) and suggest that what he has said ought to be heeded by many hon. Members who represent big-city constituencies? I also applaud the early formation of the inter-departmental ministerial group by the Government and suggest that its work ought to be reinforced by Members of Parliament. Could we not have an ad hoc Select Committee on race relations and immigration that sits specifically to investigate the question of racial tension in our big cities and reports in advance of the formation of other departmental Select Committees? This is a matter of the gravest importance that concerns constituents in many cities and the country as a whole.
Mr. Blunkett: I respond in the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman asked his question, and I welcome what he

673
said. My right hon. and hon. Friends who are taking the matter forward will be happy to engage with Members of Parliament. When the Select Committee is formed, we will be happy to talk with the Chairman and others about how we make the approach inclusive. I am very happy to do so.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I support what my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) and for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) have said, and join them in condemning the mindless violence in Bradford. We must make it clear that this is not a game and that if it does not stop, someone will be killed. On a more positive note, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my local newspaper editor and his staff, Mr. Chaudhury Hussein—the chairman of the Calderdale youth forum—local authority officers and others who last night met hundreds of young Asians who, in a good-humoured and constructive meeting, pledged their commitment to work for a continued peaceful co-existence not just in Bradford but in Halifax? That is the way forward for all our communities; not petrol bombs, violence or the hatred and racism preached by the British National party.
Mr. Blunkett: I happen to know that my hon. Friend has herself played a significant role and was one of the first to make contact to warn of the dangers ahead, and I commend her for it. I also commend wholeheartedly the initiative taken at local level in Halifax, and the role that the local news media can play and have played in this instance. There is a crucial role for local newspapers and radio, and for regional television, in ensuring that we get this right. Reporters must ask sensible questions, not stirring up hatred and division but fostering and spreading excellent initiatives such as the one to which she referred.
Mr. Mark Hendrick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the activities of the National Front and the far right sparked some of the trouble that took place at the weekend, and that, although we would all condemn the violence, in some East Lancashire and West Yorkshire towns pockets of alienation are growing, despite all the wealth being generated in this country, and some youths are being tempted into joining drugs gangs, which were obviously active at the weekend? Does he agree that
674
regeneration is the answer, so that youngsters do not fall prey to that temptation and can engage in legitimate activity?
Mr. Blunkett: Regeneration, employment and positive hope for the future, so that people have an expectation that tomorrow will be better than today, are crucial, but there is no magic wand to be waved in relation to what is happening with drugs and the pressure on young people. It will take a great effort and great wisdom to be able to pull together the resources and the commitment necessary to overcome that scourge around us.
Mr. David Lammy: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Many younger people in this country, including myself, who woke up after similar problems in the 1980s in places such as Brixton and Tottenham will be saddened because we know that the stigma lasts a long time and that it can never be right for people to destroy their own homes and those of their neighbours. Will he take note of the examples of success in some of our multi-ethnic communities, such as the Broadwater Farm estate in my constituency? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) would want me to talk about success in Brixton in her constituency, too. There are examples of people working successfully together and turning things around. We need to create a bank of best practice in multi-ethnic constituencies.
Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely. That is precisely what my colleagues are seeking to do in pulling the group together: to learn from experience and share best practice, enabling us to configure similar social and demographic factors in other areas and consider what has worked best there.
Make no mistake, though: the issues of regeneration, avoiding alienation and tackling some of the greatest social scourges of our time are not ones solely for areas where there are inter-racial or ethnic tensions. They also exist on the white housing estates such as those that I represent. We must balance the two if the message is to be clear that we care about all, regardless of race, colour or creed. If we do that, we will stop those who deliberately stir up hatred and use those factors to light the flames that we saw on Saturday in Bradford. That is a task for all of us.

Type 45 Destroyer
4.18 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the procurement strategy for the type 45 destroyer.
It is almost a year to the day since I announced to the House the decision to procure the first batch of three type 45 destroyers, as part of a planned class of up to 12 ships. The type 45s will be the largest and most powerful air defence destroyers ever ordered for the Royal Navy.
Since that announcement, we have made good progress. The contract to complete the design and build of the first three ships was placed with BAE Systems on 20 December last year. Design work is also progressing well. An integrated design team—whose members come from the prime contractor, BAE Systems, and the two shipbuilding companies BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft—has been established at Scotstoun for the last six months. In addition, a number of key subcontracts, such as those for the Rolls-Royce WR21 engine and much of the combat system, have now been placed. There have been a number of successful test firings of the Aster missile, the ship's main armament, which is being developed with France and Italy.
However, progress towards the shipbuilding subcontracts has been more difficult. The procurement strategy for the type 45 was based on the allocation of shipbuilding work for the first three ships between the BAE Systems Marine yards at Barrow-in-Furness and on the Clyde, and Vosper Thornycroft. Thereafter, it was assumed that both companies would compete for the assembly of batches of the succeeding ships.
At the end of last year, however, BAE Systems Marine put forward an unsolicited proposal for the construction of all 12 of the type 45 destroyers. We have been examining this proposal carefully to establish whether it offered better value for money for the taxpayer. We have also called on the services of RAND—a highly respected independent consultancy, experienced in this type of issue—to take a fresh look at possible procurement strategies for this programme in the context of the future warship programme as a whole.
For the original procurement strategy to work, the shipbuilding companies need to work closely together during the development and manufacture of the first batch of ships already on order. Such co-operation has not been encouraged by the existence of the unsolicited proposal, nor by the prospect that the companies would have to compete against each other for the second batch of ships.
We have been keen to resolve these problems, as has industry. Working with the companies, we have developed a revised strategy, which allocates work on the ships between the two shipbuilders for the whole class of type 45 destroyers. The first-of-class ship will be assembled and launched at Scotstoun. The focus of design support to the whole class will remain there, with continuing participation by both shipbuilders. The remaining ships will be assembled and launched at Barrow-in-Furness.
Vosper Thornycroft at Portsmouth, and BAE Systems Marine—on the Clyde and at Barrow-in-Furness—will both build and outfit substantial sections of each ship. The
676
yards will continue to build the same sections throughout the programme, to increase efficiency and produce better value for money for the taxpayer.
Under the strategy, a commitment has now been made to six ships in a planned class of up to 12 ships. That commitment has therefore doubled the number on order. This larger volume of guaranteed work, and a stable foundation to the project, will allow industry to make long-term investment decisions.
Subject to negotiations being completed satisfactorily, I propose to adopt this revised approach, through which we are confident that we can secure demonstrable value for money. We are seeking demanding efficiency improvements from industry. The initial findings of the RAND study support this new approach. It reflects the best features of the BAE Systems Marine bid in terms of learning from experience from one ship to the next, but it also preserves the possibility of competition for a number of subsequent defence programmes. The new strategy gives a welcome level of stability to our warship building industry. Above all, it offers the best prospect of achieving the in-service date for the type 45 destroyer, with deliveries to the Royal Navy starting in 2007. Any significant delay in that date would have significant operational and cost penalties.
The new approach gives Vosper Thornycroft a defined and significant role in the type 45 programme. The company will be able to move its operation, as planned, into the Portsmouth naval base, and to invest in new shipbuilding facilities there. The new approach also provides a solid foundation from which the company can sustain its export business and enter competitions for future naval programmes. The company estimates that the substantial level of high-quality type 45 work should sustain a steady level of some 650 jobs well into the current decade.
Type 45 work, together with the first three Astute class submarines and the order for two alternative landing ships (logistic) announced last year, should support BAE Systems Marine shipbuilding for the rest of the decade. The company's own estimates show that, once the total construction programme is up and running, work on type 45 vessels can sustain a steady level of some 1,200 jobs on the Clyde and about a further 900 jobs at Barrow-in-Furness. I understand that, in the light of this package of work, the company has no plans to close any of its yards.
This revised procurement strategy for the type 45 destroyer is a further example of the benefits of smart acquisition, which involves an integrated team approach by the key industrial partners. The companies involved have welcomed this new strategy, and I commend it to the House.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I start by thanking the Secretary of State for his courtesy in allowing me to see a copy of the statement.
I unequivocally welcome today's announcement. Whatever else I have to say about it, the Royal Navy has been waiting a great deal of time—through two Governments—for these ships. I hope that the Government will also be able to guarantee that the in-service dates will be met and that they will stay strict and firm on the penalties they have proposed and will not allow the dates to slip any further.

677
I congratulate Vosper Thornycroft and BAE Systems on finally receiving an order and wish them well as they set about building those important ships. On that note, however, will the Secretary of State clarify Vosper's role? Will he confirm that it will continue to be fully involved in all stages of design? The company would be grateful to know that, as would Conservative Members.
Despite all the words about competition and smart procurement, nothing in the statement can disguise the fact that the announcement marks the end of competition policy in warship design and build as we have known it in the past few years. From what I have heard and read, it appears that there has been a U-turn on existing Government policy and the Secretary of State needs to confirm that and explain the reasons.
It is important to cast the matter in context. The chief executive of the Defence Procurement Agency, Sir Robert Wormsley, said:
"if we do not compete the follow-on production order there will be very little incentive for shipyards to improve their performance".
I agree, and the Prime Minister went on to say:
"competition remains the basis for our approach to procuring warships".
The Secretary of State needs to explain carefully, therefore, why he has broken with that position and that pledge. How can the Government realistically expect competition for the final two batches when only BAE will assemble and launch all six of the ships as ordered? Surely the right hon. Gentleman should admit today that the arrangements will continue into the next two batches as well, regardless of cost, and that there is no real chance of any future competition.
It is important also to remember that competition is not only about pitting one company against another but about deriving savings, not only for the Treasury but in this case for the Navy. For example, in the type 23 order, I understand that about 36 per cent. savings were made over the lifetime of the build programme. Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to indicate what savings he expects over the lifetime of this programme if he is not going to compete it?
I also understand that Vosper Thornycroft is asking much the same question and wants the Secretary of State to clarify that the decision to move away from competition relates to the type 45 programme alone and is not a statement of the Government's intent to leave competition altogether. If the right hon. Gentleman fails to give us that reassurance, we can assume that the Government intend to move away completely from the procurement system that has operated until now.
On the systems to be installed on the ships, what was most remarkable about the statement was that the Secretary of State gave little or no detail about how the ships will be fitted out for their real role. Will he confirm today that the type 45 as now planned and contracted for will in essence have little or no anti-submarine capability, particularly when the Lynx helicopter is not operational, as I understand that the ship will carry no torpedoes?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the type 45 was originally due to carry the new Merlin helicopter, but that since the Government are not including a platform
678
for the Merlin it will only be able to carry the Lynx, which will not have anything like the capability by 2007 that the Merlin would have had in the anti-submarine role?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm also that he is not providing any close-in-range weapons system, such as Phallanx, and finally, that the type 45 will have no real anti-surface capability and no land-attack capability?
The Secretary of State said in his statement that the type 45s would be the largest and most powerful air defence destroyers ever ordered for the Royal Navy. The real point is that they were intended for far more—they were meant to be ships that were capable not only of defending themselves but of defending other ships in a fleet operation. However, now it appears that unless those concerns are met the ships will have to put to sea defended by other ships.
Although I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that the ships will be ordered, too many questions have been left unanswered and too many concerns about future programmes remain to permit us to give an unequivocal welcome across the board.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening observations. I shall do my best to deal with the important issues that he raises.
As I said in my statement, design co-operation has gone extremely well. I see no reason why that co-operation should not continue with the same success—with both companies fully represented in the design team and with people working successfully together.
It is not right to say that we have ended competition policy, but neither is it right to suggest that competition was the only means whereby successive Governments delivered vital defence equipment. The purpose of our approach is to ensure the best value for taxpayers' money. Competition may be one way of delivering best value, but it is not the only way. In any event, the decision will allow Vosper's and BAE Systems Marine to plan their forward investment programme and to develop appropriate facilities to ensure that both shipyards can compete not only for future Royal Navy orders but for orders from around the world. The key point for our shipbuilding industry is that our shipbuilding companies should be given a platform from which they can properly invest and that—crucially for them—allows them to compete for the many orders that exist throughout the world.
The point about savings is that by allowing each company to build the same sections of each ship, on a progressive learning curve, not only will they build in the ensuing efficiency benefits but they will enable us to make savings as the work progresses. That was a major factor in deciding on our approach.
I think that the hon. Gentleman rather misses the point about equipment for the type 45. At this stage, it is not necessarily the case that we shall design in all the equipment required by those ships. Indeed, one of the problems in the procurement of warships in the past was that the ships were so heavily over-designed that as their role changed to meet new realities, there was not enough flexibility to allow the incorporation of new ideas, new thinking and, crucially, new equipment. That is why we have not yet taken all the decisions about equipment and,

679
more important, why there will be flexibility on the ships in order to be able to adjust to the changing strategic reality.
John Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for the announcement. I am pleased that yet again the Clyde has been given the opportunity to show that it can meet this country's present requirements and its future needs.
Will my right hon. Friend tell us what has happened to the ALSL orders that were supposed to have come on line in June? What will happen to the present work force? How can they be kept in employment during the coming months? It is my understanding that the diagrams and so on for the ALSLs are not due to be received until next year so obviously there is a shortfall of work, especially at the Scotstoun yard in my constituency. At present, members of its work force are having to go down south.
Will my right hon. Friend shed some light on what BAE Systems is saying? I and several colleagues have had great difficulty in getting any information from the company about what it has been doing. Will my right hon. Friend intercede on our behalf to find out exactly what BAE Systems plans to do? As a trade union official said to me, the silence coming from the company is deafening.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his general welcome for the proposals. I shall deal as best I can with his concerns, especially those relating to the plans of BAE Systems, although I must point out to him and to the House that commercial judgments as to the organisation of particular companies are obviously matters for those companies.
The proposal allows planning to take place over 10 years, to give a guaranteed level of work to BAE Systems and Vosper's. Both companies have welcomed that; it will allow them to go into the market and to compete successfully, I hope, for orders not only from the Royal Navy but from around the world. Notwithstanding that this is a very exciting programme of warship orders, it amounts to about 30 ships—a fraction of the total number of ships procured around the world each year—but it will provide both companies with some stability.
As for the ALSLs, I gave no undertakings about the start of work on those ships. Last year, I said when the work could begin, and that statement was based on the best information then available from the two companies. I share my hon. Friend's disappointment that work has not yet started, but we continue to hope that the two companies involved will reconcile their different approaches to design and build, and that they can eliminate the difficulties that have developed and can proceed to cut steel in due course.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in supplying me with details of his statement in advance. I warmly welcome the news that the Royal Navy will get six new warships—it certainly needs them. I congratulate him on embarking on this new concept in warship building. The concept has been tried in other parts of the world—most notably, in the United States—with some success, and we certainly welcome the approach.
The Secretary of State mentioned the RAND recommendations; will he place at least a summary of them in the Library, so that we can know some of the
680
conclusions? Does he agree that the viability of the British shipyards depends not only on their being able to compete now, but on their retaining the capability to compete in the future? Will he therefore be a bit more specific about the breakdown in the overall order to the individual companies and yards involved? That would certainly help the House to assess the order more fully. Is there enough work, for example, in Scotstoun on the Clyde to ensure that the 1,000 or so job losses suggested in the press today do not happen?
The Secretary of State mentioned equipment, and I certainly agree that we need flexibility in our warship design. Will he therefore confirm whether the Sylver launcher, which will be fitted to the type 45s, will be capable of carrying a land-attack missile, such as Tomahawk, in addition to Aster? The vessels would be much more potent if they had that capability. Does he agree that the lessons of the type 82 programme, cancelled in the 1960s after CVA01 was cancelled, show that warship programmes are interdependent? Is it not the case that the order for the final 12 of those ships is dependent on the overall concept of retaining the two carriers, which lies at the heart of the Government's expeditionary proposals?
Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. I shall try to deal with as many of the points he raises as I can. If I omit to answer any of his questions, I will certainly write to him.
As for the report, I said that we have now had the early, emerging findings from the study. A good deal of further work is still to be done, but I see no reason why we could not place a copy of the report in the Library, subject only to one exception: obviously, RAND has had available on a confidential basis some commercially sensitive details that I would not consider it appropriate to publish. With that exception, I shall seek to publish the study when it is finally completed.
As for the breakdown between the companies, essentially, each company will be guaranteed a share of the sections. The hon. Gentleman will probably be aware that these days most ships of this size are constructed in sections—whether in a single yard or in a number of yards—and the basis of the allocation is to guarantee Vosper's work on particular sections of the type 45 design and for the Clyde to have the remainder, with the assembly taking place at Barrow-in-Furness, with the exception of the first of class.
As for land-attack missiles, in answer to an earlier question I referred to the importance of preserving some flexibility. Vertically launched missiles could be launched from such platforms if that were judged at the time to be a relevant capability. That is precisely the kind of flexibility necessary to leave in place on those ships without trying to over-design their capabilities at this stage, as we are not entirely clear what the strategic landscape will be when they are in service.
Mr. George Galloway: Although the shipyard gate of Scotstoun is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), the rest of the yard is in mine. I therefore join his welcome for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement, which will guarantee a very healthy future in the medium and long term for

681
shipbuilding on the Clyde. That is as it should be. First of class, world-class Clyde-built is still recognised as an important brand around the world.
Although only one fifth of the Scottish National party's Members are here to stand up for Scotland, the statement further demonstrates the value to the Scottish economy of our being within the United Kingdom. If we were not, we would have no Royal Navy, and no orders would be being placed this afternoon.
The one thing that is stopping tin hats being thrown in the air and the Secretary of State's name being chanted joyously on the Clyde is the fact that, as I understand it, the work force are being informed that this Friday, 1,000 people, rather than breaking up for the Glasgow fair as they had hoped, will be on the slippery slope towards redundancy, through no fault of their own. The ALSL drawings should have been there and the work should have been started. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State promised the House last year that the work would be started in the middle of this year.
Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the four oilers proposal? I accept that he has no particular budget for it this year, but the company tells us that it would be cost-neutral for the Ministry. If it builds them now, it can pay for them later at no extra cost.
Will my right hon. Friend also assure the House that he will work closely with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive to try to ensure that the skills base on the Clyde is not scattered by the announcement of 1,000 redundancies and that, in particular, the jobs of the apprentices are saved? Without apprentices, we will have no shipbuilding industry in the future.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the measured welcome that he has given to the proposals. Like him, I am delighted that they will secure the future of shipbuilding on the Clyde for the next 10 years. As I said in response to an earlier question, the key to the future of that yard does not lie with orders from the Ministry of Defence. Notwithstanding an order book of some 30 warships, we simply do not have enough work to keep all Britain's shipyards going over a long period.
It is crucial that shipyards can compete effectively for the hundreds, if not thousands, of orders that are placed every year around the world. What the Ministry of Defence and the Government can do is ensure that Britain's shipyards have an appropriate platform and a programme of stability. My hon. Friend has worked assiduously on behalf of his constituents to ensure that they have a future in shipbuilding, and in the conversations that I have had with him over several months, we have recognised the importance of securing the platform and programme of stability that will allow the yard in his constituency and other yards in the United Kingdom to win work from Europe and the rest of the world. I am confident that the arrangement that I have announced will allow that to happen.
On ALSLs, I gave the House the expectation, not a guarantee, that work could begin at about this time of the year. I am sorry that negotiations between the two
682
companies have not allowed that to happen, but we continue to urge them to commence the cutting of steel as soon as possible.
David Burnside: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for today's statement, and I congratulate one part of the great shipbuilding world—the Clyde—on the securing of jobs for the whole of the United Kingdom.
Will the Secretary of State outline what co-operation and collaboration will take place with the two great parts of the defence industry in Belfast—Harland and Wolff and Shorts—that might lead to joint ventures in relation to these orders or the two future aircraft carrier orders that he might foresee?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome of the statement. As part of the overall defence programme, there will certainly be opportunities for both companies in Northern Ireland to participate in the very considerable order book that is available. I cannot give him specific details at this stage, but I am confident that work is there for Northern Ireland. It is a question that we have addressed in the past. This occasion, however, is not a matter for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and warmly welcome the fresh work for Govan shipyard. I am pleased that the Government have awarded the lion's share of the new type 45 orders to the Clyde. It shows that they have confidence in the skilled work force at Govan and Scotstoun. Although the orders secure future shipbuilding on the Clyde, I am disappointed that the current gap in orders could not be filled. Workers in Govan and Scotstoun shipyards have suffered a great deal in the past two years and the threat of redundancy still hangs over their heads.
I understand that the Secretary of State did not guarantee that ALSL work would start in Govan and Scotstoun shipyards in the summer, but that the Ministry of Defence had thought that it would. The delay means that the work force in Govan shipyard and other people in my constituency will suffer. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to put pressure on Swan Hunter to expedite the work so that the number of redundancies in the shipyard is reduced?
Mr. Hoon: I have already made it clear that that is the Government's intention.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Secretary of State confirm that Vosper Thornycroft thinks that the arrangement is much better than the original procurement agreement? In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), he said that there would be co-operation on the design. Can he guarantee that Vosper Thornycroft will be involved in all design stages? Does he think that the Government will find themselves trying to get better value from best value, which is what happens in local government?
Mr. Hoon: I shall stick to my responsibilities for Defence, and not stray into local government matters. Although I have not had an opportunity to read Vosper

683
Thornycroft's statement in detail, I am aware that it welcomes the decision. Obviously, it has been negotiating hard on an entirely commercial basis with BAE Systems on the allocation of work. If we did not take commercial decisions, the hon. Gentleman would be the first to criticise. Vosper's has been heavily engaged in design work and I see no reason why that should not continue. However, that will ultimately be a matter for Vosper's. The Government will make no decision either to prevent that or to require the company to participate if it judges it inappropriate. The co-operation of the two companies on the design work has been remarkably successful and I have every expectation that it will continue.
Mr. James Wray: We welcome the contract for the type 45 destroyer. I am glad that the Secretary of State took that decision, because the shipbuilding industry cannot he left on a tightrope. He has given us time to get the investment necessary for a long-term strategy. I do not speak as a parochialist; unemployment on the shores of the Thames is the same as unemployment on the shores of the Clyde. I thank him for the investment and hope that many more contracts will come our way.
Mr. Hoon: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, especially for his appreciation of the opportunities that the announcement affords the Clyde, and of the need for it to respond to challenges from around the world. The platform for stability that we are providing will allow our shipyards to compete effectively with overseas shipyards to win more work for the United Kingdom.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The Secretary of State has confirmed that the first of class is unlikely to be in service with the fleet until 2007. How does he intend to maintain an effective area air defence capability for the Royal Navy in the interim? Was not the modernisation of Sea Dart cancelled because the new vessel was envisaged as being in service much earlier? Will the Secretary of State initiate a programme of Sea Dart enhancement for the type 42s? Why did he give no figures in his statement? Are not the Government supposed to believe in open government? Is the taxpayer not entitled to know what the overall cost of the programme is, and at least, what the unit cost per vessel will be?
Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with any of the answers that I am about to give, I will write to him with any greater detail that is allowed in accordance with commercial confidentiality.
The programme of warship building and significant investment in Britain's armed forces was made necessary by years of cuts under the Conservative Government. If there is any gap in area defence, it is entirely the responsibility of the hon. Gentleman and the Government whom he generally supported to try to explain why, over a long period, the defence budget, instead of being increased as it is now, was cut year after year.
Angus Robertson: On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales, may I welcome the references in the statement to the 1,200 jobs that have been secured on the Clyde? How many jobs
684
does the Secretary of State expect to be lost in the short term? Will he guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies on the Clyde?
Mr. Hoon: Obviously, jobs are a matter for the companies concerned. This announcement will not cost any jobs, and my responsibility on behalf of the Government is to make the announcement. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the Government's defence plans. I hope that it indicates that from now on, instead of running down Britain's defence, the Scottish nationalists will support the Government's efforts.
Mr. Mike Hancock: On this occasion, I speak for both Portsmouth MPs when I say that we welcome the proposal, as do the majority of people in Portsmouth.
The Secretary of State talked about flexibility in the defence of the ships and the platforms themselves. Will the Government consider whether, at this late stage in the design, Merlin is still a capability that ought to be put on the type 45? If the ship is to be with us for 20 years from 2007, the use of Merlin will be critical.
If the Secretary of State believes that the future of shipbuilding in this country will be heavily dependent on what we can achieve in bringing contracts from abroad, will he open the doors of Portsmouth naval base as wide as possible to enable and encourage Vosper's to bring contracts to the city and begin shipbuilding there for the first time in 30 years?
Does the Secretary of State agree that the predatory unsolicited bid by BAE Systems, and the way in which it was made, were in no way in keeping with the substantial retention of British shipbuilding that he was trying to achieve, or in the best interests of the defence of this country?
Mr. Hoon: Both Portsmouth MPs worked assiduously on behalf of their constituents and the naval dockyard. As I said, the announcement will give Vosper's the opportunity to move into the naval dockyard and derive significant commercial and practical advantages from being there. I do not think that it is necessary for us to go over that ground. This is a positive announcement for Vosper's, and I understand that the people of Portsmouth will welcome it. It is an opportunity for Vosper's to participate in a competitive shipbuilding programme in the future.
Mr. David Chidgey: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement, particularly for the many of my constituents who work in the Vosper Thornycroft yard. He said that with this programme, Vosper's could now look forward to retaining 650 jobs. I remind him that in the year since he made his earlier announcement, the company's work force has gone down from 1,000 to 650, so this is very much a bottom line for it.
Precisely what proportion of the work on the six type 45 destroyers will be awarded to Vosper's? I am interested to know exactly what sort of player it is. Looking to the future, does the Secretary of State believe that, on completion of the first six vessels in that class, Vosper Thornycroft will be equally well placed to compete for the following six, or will it be brushed away

685
into a corner? May I remind him that Vosper Thornycroft has the best record of any shipbuilding company in this country in winning export orders?
Mr. Hoon: As I said, job numbers are a matter for the companies concerned, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not lose sight of a crucial aspect of the discussion. Only if our shipbuilding companies are capable of competing with the best in Europe and the world will they be able to attract new work to their yards. They will have to make a commercial judgment and decide the best level of employment to maintain a competitive position. It is no good the 30 warship orders available from the Ministry of Defence being spread lightly around Britain's shipyards, if those companies and those shipyards are not capable of competing for and winning orders beyond the United Kingdom. There is a commercial reality in what we are doing that cannot be ignored.
I shall set out the precise breakdown in greater detail in due course, and shall write to the hon. Gentleman so that he can be satisfied with the arrangements—but Vosper Thornycroft is satisfied with the arrangements, and as it negotiated vigorously on a commercial basis, it is not for right hon. and hon. Members to second-guess its commercial judgment of what is in its best interests.
Mr. John Burnett: Appledore shipbuilders in my constituency competed for what it thought were MOD orders for two ALSLs. As it turned out, four were ordered, but no work has started on any of them. It would give the shipbuilding industry greater confidence if there was more transparency in those MOD orders. Will the Secretary of State confirm that once MOD orders are signed and contracts exchanged, full details of the orders will be put in the public domain?
Mr. Hoon: I have already made clear my determination that the process should be transparent. I am at the Dispatch Box giving details of the arrangements, to allow right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to question those matters. As for details, subject to questions of commercial confidentiality, I see no reason why the hon. Gentleman cannot use the usual means of asking parliamentary questions or writing to me or to my ministerial colleagues to establish all the information that he requires.

Marconi
4.58 pm
Annette Brooke: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate an important matter that requires specific and urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed closure of the Marconi plant in North Poole in my constituency.
The operation has had a presence in my constituency since 1996; only four years ago, £12 million was spent on developing the present site, a high-tech research and development centre employing highly skilled software development engineers. Just one example of the innovative work done by Marconi at Poole is the 1471 callback system that it developed. Only a few weeks ago workers were assured that their jobs were secure, and investment continued in the site until recently.
Last Thursday there was a bombshell for 570 workers: at 11 am, they received their first inkling of the proposed closure of the site. The individuals concerned were devastated, and it is predicted that there will be a £42 million impact on the local economy, and further job losses. Day by day new issues are being raised, and management has been severely criticised at a national level. The company has gone from being cash-rich to being in cash deficit, the chief executive designate has resigned, and share prices have tumbled. All round, this seems to have been a story of the pursuit of short-term profits at the expense of long-term development, whether by the City or by Marconi management. Today union leaders from across the country met Marconi, and they are now in the House, meeting Members of Parliament and reporting back on what happened.
The decision in Poole was undoubtedly made in haste, against the background of a market that is predicted to turn round in a relatively short time. It is a severe blow not only for skilled manufacturing jobs in my constituency but for the United Kingdom. I therefore propose the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 to debate that important matter, which requires urgent consideration in view of the impact on my constituency and in the wider context of the United Kingdom manufacturing base.
Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady, and I must give my decision without stating any reasons for it. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter she raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, and I cannot therefore submit the application to the House.

Point of Order
5 pm
Mr. David Laws: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to a parliamentary answer that I received from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 4 July. In it, he cites a report by the National Audit Office, called "PFI and Value for Money", as evidence that the private finance initiative has given the public sector good value for money. That National Audit Office has confirmed that it never published that report, and is unaware of any such report. The Treasury has said that a typographical error occurred, but it has not made any substantive further statement.
Given that the Treasury has clearly misled the House, would it be appropriate for it to arrange for an early statement today to clarify the matter? Have you received any requests from Treasury Ministers to make such a statement?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I understand that there was an error in the answer to which he refers, and that the Chief Secretary is taking steps to correct it at the earliest opportunity.

Orders of the Day

  Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.2 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill gives effect to the proposals in our White Paper, "Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland", which was published in March. It provides the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland with additional powers to address the problem of electoral fraud.
  The measures build on the excellent work of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Forum committee on electoral malpractice, and an internal Northern Ireland Office review of electoral administration.
  Our policy across the United Kingdom is to encourage people to participate more fully in the political process. The turnout at elections has been historically higher in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. That suggests that the electorate in Northern Ireland are more politically active and more politically conscious than elsewhere in the UK. However, there has been growing concern at the perceived extent of electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. John Taylor: The origins of the matter that we are considering lie in a report to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs on electoral malpractice. It was agreed in March 1998. Why has it taken more than three years to introduce a Bill? It is possible that Assembly elections will take place soon in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I am acutely aware of the date of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report, as I was a member of the Committee when it was published. He asked why it had taken so long for the legislation to appear. The answer is that the process of drawing up specific proposals has taken some time, as they have to be broadly acceptable, workable and fair. Arriving at a set of workable proposals involved extensive consultation with the political parties, especially in Northern Ireland, as well as the electoral office and others. Some new measures have already been taken in other legislation and by administrative means.
  There has been growing concern about the perceived level of electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland. The Government have a commitment to protecting the right to free and fair elections. Of course, electoral fraud is a crime. Electoral abuse is an affront to democracy and we are determined to combat it wherever it occurs. If there is a high level of abuse, or even if people only fear that that is the case, the democratic process will be under threat. We do not want voters in Northern Ireland to become disillusioned with politics because they fear that elections are unfair.
  David Burnside: Will the Under-Secretary comment on the intimidation felt by the

  689
  electorate of Fermanagh and South Tyrone at the general election? There was widespread intimidation by Sinn Fein at polling stations, against the democratic process. Is not that the most glaring example of abuse of democracy in Northern Ireland? Although legal action is now being taken on behalf of one of the defeated candidates, will the Minister comment on what happened in Fermanagh and South Tyrone?
  Mr. Browne: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not comment specifically on any matters that may be before the court or subject to police investigations or electoral petitions. I can make it clear, however, that the Government deplore vote stealing and condemn utterly intimidation of any sort, including that which is linked to the electoral process. I am happy to make this call at the Dispatch Box: if anyone suffered such intimidation in the recent elections, they should report the incident to the police or the electoral office, so it can be dealt with with appropriate vigour.
  Although we do not want voters in Northern Ireland to become disillusioned with politics because they fear that elections are not fair, and although the perception of abuse must be dealt with, it is nevertheless the Government's view that draconian measures are not the answer. When taking measures to prevent electoral fraud, we must ensure that we do not put obstacles in the path of genuine voters. Only if we strike that balance will the measures that we take be broadly acceptable to the House and the electorate.
  My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), dedicated much of his time at the Northern Ireland Office to considering the nature of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland and what could be done to prevent it. I pay tribute to him for his work. I am sure that the House will agree that his contribution on this issue and also the range of matters with which he dealt as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was significant. It is fair to say that we would not be discussing the Bill without his efforts to find workable solutions to the problems. He met representatives of most of the Northern Ireland parties at the end of last year to discuss the proposals in the Bill. At those meetings, there was broad agreement to the proposals, especially in respect of introducing a photographic electoral identity card.
  We have been criticised because the measures in the Bill have not been introduced before now—an issue raised by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). I stress that that has happened not because of a lack of commitment to the problem. The time before publication of the White Paper was used for extensive discussion with the parties and others to ensure that our solutions to the problem of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland were workable and broadly acceptable. I regret that it was not possible to introduce legislation before the elections on 7 June.
  Even if the changes made by the Bill had been introduced before the elections, however, the procedures could not have been implemented straight away, as they depend on material collected in the autumn canvass. We had to ensure that the electorate and the parties were well informed about the changes that are being made and that the people were not disfranchised as the result of any untimely haste. In discussion with the Northern Ireland
  690
  parties, we were constantly reminded of the need to proceed in a careful and considered manner, most recently in the round of consultations in November.
  The measures proposed have been refined after detailed consultations with the political parties and the chief electoral officer. We have not been idle in implementing other changes that are not covered by the proposed legislation. For instance, new measures already in place are rolling registration and local processing of absent vote applications. The chief electoral officer has powers to examine the records of certain public bodies—for example, the Housing Executive, the district councils and the Rate Collection Agency. The existing IT in the electoral office is shortly to be replaced with updated equipment that will add to the efficiency of the office.
  We have given the chief electoral officer extra resources to provide additional staff in both his headquarters and his area electoral offices. We have also recently commissioned research to quantify with more certainty the scale of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. The results of the research should be available in September. They will enable us to be better informed about the level of abuse and the form that it takes.
  As I have said, the Bill builds on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. I wish to emphasise the value and importance of those recommendations. As I have told the House, I was a member of the Committee at the relevant time, and I am proud of the work that was done.
  I am sure that the House will forgive me for taking a few moments to pay tribute to the work of the former Chairman of the Committee, Peter Brooke, both on the Committee and in making a significant contribution to the search for peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to see so many of my former Committee colleagues in the Chamber. I look forward to them lending their particular knowledge and expertise to the debate.
  The Select Committee report was extremely thorough—
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I am pleased to be involved in a debate that is led by my hon. Friend, who played an important role in the Select Committee. He has always been involved in Northern Ireland matters during his time in the House, first as a Parliamentary Private Secretary and now as a Minister, and he is welcome.
  Will my hon. Friend recognise the work of the committee of the Northern Ireland Forum, which produced a number of proposals that were later picked up by the Select Committee? The forum often produced valuable reports, often on a cross-party basis, which are not always recognised for their significance in the House.
  Mr. Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I hope to live up to the billing that he has given me in the job that I have taken on. I paid particular attention to the forum's report in my introductory remarks. I am at pains to explain that the Bill is a result of a progression of thought. A number of bodies have contributed to that progression, and I hope that the Bill will be all the more welcome to the House because it is the result of a process in which many Members have played a significant part. I have no hesitation in paying tribute to the forum's work in that important process.

  691
  The Select Committee report was extremely thorough and it made an important contribution to the thinking behind the Bill, as did the work of other bodies. I do not detract from anything that we said in our report on electoral abuse. However, it should not be a criticism of the Bill, or of myself, that it does not implement all of the Committee's recommendations. As I have said, the Bill had to strike the right balance between limiting the opportunity for abuse and putting obstacles in the path of genuine voters.
  On closer examination of the Select Committee's report, not all of the measures recommended by it were feasible, nor would they have been effective in the way proposed. For example, the use of the national insurance number as a personal identifier had certain demerits. We considered carefully the idea of making the national insurance number an identifier, as well as the date of birth and signature, as proposed in the Bill. We are not convinced that the national insurance number would add sufficient value to justify its addition as an identifier. Arguably, it would create new difficulties. For a start, most people do not know, their national insurance number—certainly, many people do not know it. Would a presiding officer be justified in refusing someone a ballot paper if they could not recall theirs? It is possible to have more than one national insurance number. One can have a temporary national insurance number. There is evidence that people who may not legitimately have a national insurance number have more than one.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman will know from his experience on the Select Committee that that was not the reason why the national insurance number was sought as an identifier—it was so that when registration took place, the chief electoral officer would be able to identify multiple registration.
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. I will in a few moments come to the other problems with using the national insurance number as an identifer and give our view of how multiple registration should be dealt with.
  One of the other reasons why we rejected the idea of using the national insurance number as an identifier was the legal constraints of data protection that would have to be overcome. That would require additional legislation. In any event, the national insurance number was never intended to be an identifier for anything other than fiscal or employment purposes.
  It is possible to think of any number of personal identifiers: the number of personal identifiers that one could demand of people may be unlimited. In striking the appropriate balance, we think that it is appropriate to introduce into the system only the personal identifiers that are necessary to achieve the checks to ensure that fraud does not take place. We should not include in the electoral process all the identifiers that are available.
  The Select Committee recognised that a smart card, a universally issued electronically read card, for electoral purposes would probably be
  "the most effective option for combating electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland".
  As we said in the White Paper, our ultimate aim is for every voter to be issued with an electoral smart card bearing a unique identifier, but that is an aspiration.
  692
  The technology available at the moment, especially with regard to biometrics, is still too young. We would be foolish to rush into a radical new system before we could be confident of the practicalities, but we will consider further when to initiate such a secure electoral identity scheme. Such a scheme would not be introduced without further consultation with all interested parties.
  Lembit Öpik: That is a reasonable position to take, but does the Minister nevertheless agree that Northern Ireland would be a good place to pilot such a scheme, even if over time we need to make at least one update to the specific technology in use in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Governments of both parties have been prepared to do in Northern Ireland what has not been done in Great Britain, so there is no reluctance to introduce a separate system for Northern Ireland. However, there is reluctance to experiment with such an important part of the electoral system and to introduce impractical measures. I do not believe that the Government should test technology on the electoral system. We certainly do not intend to do that. When we are satisfied that the technology is robust, secure and works properly, that will be the time to consider the introduction of the more advanced biometrically based smart card. That is the aspiration, but we will do it in the way in which we have been urged to do all things in this area—carefully and at the appropriate pace, taking not only the political parties of Northern Ireland, but, I hope, the electorate in Northern Ireland with us.
  Many of the Select Committee's other recommendations have already been implemented in the measures that I outlined earlier—for example, rolling registration, which came into effect in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the UK, by means of the Representation of the People Act 2000. The electoral office has been provided with funding for additional staff. The information technology system will be replaced over the next few years, and will be capable of responding to the new measures that we are introducing.
  Members are aware that voting procedures in Northern Ireland are different from those in the rest of the UK. They reflect the very different circumstances surrounding elections in Northern Ireland. Most significantly, in Northern Ireland there is a legal requirement for a voter to produce one of a number of valid, specified documents at a polling station before being issued with a ballot paper. A person must also be resident in Northern Ireland for three months before qualifying for entry on the electoral register there. Absent voting rules in Northern Ireland are stricter than those in Great Britain, because there is no automatic right to an absent vote.
  All those measures are in place because they are necessary. I am sure that all Members regret the circumstances that make them so, but the issues surrounding elections in Northern Ireland demand them. We want election day to be as normal as possible for the voters in Northern Ireland. We do need different measures, but they must be proportionate if we are to avoid putting barriers in the way of the electorate.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the point that the Minister has been trying to make, but may

  693
  I ask two questions? First, are we not perhaps living in cloud cuckoo land in assuming that there are no problems in Great Britain? It is increasingly obvious that there is electoral fraud there. Secondly, has the Minister considered amending the regulations concerning, for example, driving licences? If a person presents a plastic card that identifies him, giving his date of birth and so on, it is not accepted unless there is also a paper document. There is a growing tendency for people to carry only the plastic documents in their wallets. Voters have been turned away unnecessarily in Northern Ireland because of a rather strict interpretation of the law by our officials. Should that not be changed?
  Mr. Browne: I know how much attention the hon. Gentleman pays to this important issue, and I always listen to what he says with respect and care. However, he will not draw me into commenting on matters that are outside my area of responsibility. It has taken me enough time to get to grips with my present responsibility; I do not want to take on responsibility for the rest of the UK's electoral system as well. I therefore shall not comment on whether there is evidence that a degree of personation or fraud is taking place in the rest of the UK; I leave that responsibility to others.
  As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, by law the driving licence is the whole document. Because I mislaid my old green licence, I now have a new licence with my photograph on it. When I have to hire a motor vehicle, for instance, I know that I must produce both the part bearing my personal identity and photograph, and the part containing the other information. There is, I understand, evidence to suggest that not all prospective voters in Northern Ireland know about this, and that people have been turned away after failing to produce the appropriate identifiers—but there is a series of other identifiers that they could produce. It is hoped that, in the climate that the Bill will create, the emphasis will be on the photographic aspect of the identification. It may then be appropriate for us to turn our attention to the part of the document that bears the photograph, as opposed to the other information. I suspect, however, that if the Bill is passed there will be a transitional period leading up to photographic identification, which will have to be managed carefully in any event.
  I respect the hon. Gentleman's knowledge and his seniority in the House, but I do not think it would be appropriate for the Government to consider any more changes than are absolutely necessary at this stage. No doubt we shall have an opportunity to discuss these matters in detail in Committee.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has raised an issue that causes great annoyance at every polling station across Northern Ireland. Surely it is an absolute nonsense that someone who presents paper documentation without a visual identifier is granted permission to vote, whereas someone who presents a part of his driving licence with a photograph clearly identifying him is denied such permission.
  Now is the time to take action on the issue. With all due respect, and although I welcome the Minister to his post, I said in last week's business questions that perhaps
  694
  the Secretary of State should have attended this debate or the debate should have been deferred for a week. If the Secretary of State were here, perhaps he would have been conciliatory on the issue. I repeat the appeal to the Minister to take on board the point and endeavour to make the relevant changes.
  Mr. Browne: Given that the hon. Gentleman and I were members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—I believe that he continued to be a member of that Committee throughout the previous Parliament—and that we established a good working relationship and friendship there, I shall not take personally his comments on the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am sure that the House will understand that my right hon. Friend is regrettably unable to attend the debate because of the fluid situation in Northern Ireland. I shall simply say that the political process in Northern Ireland is an important matter.
  As it is important to ensure that the electoral system in Northern Ireland is beyond reproach, we judged that it was right to keep the parliamentary slot allotted to the Bill and to consider it today. I am sorry for the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) if he has to put up with me rather than the Secretary of State. However, I shall endeavour to be a little more conciliatory.
  The hon. Gentleman's experience seems to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). There is a focus on the photograph as an identifier because of the significant move from identifiers, albeit not exclusively photographic ones, that the current Government have inherited—although that move was supported on both sides of the House. That may give us an opportunity to consider the importance of photographs in the context of this legislation.
  As I said, it would not be right to impose unreasonable burdens on the majority of the electorate in Northern Ireland who merely want to exercise their franchise as entitled. The action that we take must be carefully thought through, and we believe that the Bill strikes the correct balance. It provides for a photographic electoral identity card to be issued free of charge to those who are entitled to vote but might not otherwise have satisfactory proof of identity.
  It is proposed in due course to replace all the non-photographic identification on the list of specified documents. Thereafter, the electoral identity card, the passport and the driving licence will be the only identification that are acceptable at polling stations. The Bill requires that a canvass form and an application for voter registration be signed by and include the date of birth of each of those to whom the form or application relates. In certain circumstances, it also gives the presiding officer at a polling station the power to ask the date of birth of an elector applying for a ballot paper.
  It has always been intended that the measures will be applied to all elections in Northern Ireland. The Bill extends all the measures to parliamentary elections, although subordinate legislation will be needed to amend the local elections rules and the franchise for European elections.
  Before I come to the details of the clauses, I should touch on some important issues that were covered in the reports to which I referred and which we discussed in

  695
  our subsequent consultations. These are the questions of multiple registration, absent voting and exclusion zones around polling stations.
  The Select Committee expressed concern about the level of multiple registration in some parts of Northern Ireland. Some people have a legitimate right to register in more than one place and should, indeed must, be allowed to continue to do so. I am thinking particularly of students and people who have to work away from home. I am registered to vote not only in the city of Westminster, but in my constituency. The Select Committee shared that analysis, recommending that those who were registered more than once should be required to indicate that that was the case and to list all their addresses.
  We share the objective of identifying those who are registered more than once, but propose to achieve that in a slightly different way. The collection of additional identifiers—the signature and date of birth—plus enhanced IT capability in the electoral office will mean that the chief electoral officer will be able to identify more effectively where people are registered to vote at more than one address. He will thus be able to ensure that, for parliamentary elections, only one poll card is issued to such an individual and ensure that the privilege of multiple registration is not abused.
  On absent voting, the White Paper originally proposed that the date of birth and signature should be required on the application. On reflection, we have decided that a requirement for the signature alone should be sufficient. Throughout the process of developing the proposals, we have been mindful that we must introduce the minimum changes necessary to guarantee effectiveness. That is because any checks—no matter how mundane or minor they may appear—present a potential barrier to the voter. Our guiding principle has been not to set up additional barriers unless we are completely confident that they represent added value.
  Of the two identifiers, we believe that the signature is more reliable and easy to use. We appreciate that some people will be unwilling to give their date of birth, but we will already be requiring them to do so—if the House approves these measures—to get on to the electoral register. There is little benefit in requiring them to do so again to receive an absent vote. The signature on the absent vote application will provide a quick and easy visual check for electoral staff. If they have concerns about the authenticity of the application, they may still draw on the date of birth that they have from the register in pursuing their inquiries.
  The issue of so-called exclusion zones around polling stations is an important and complex one. We fully acknowledge the seriousness of the issue of intimidation. The Select Committee did so too, and rightly. Like the Government, the Select Committee decided that nevertheless the solution to intimidation, or perceived intimidation, was not an exclusion zone around the polling station. Campaigning around the polling station is a recognised political activity throughout the UK. It is perfectly legitimate, where it is carried out in a fair and proper manner.
  We see no reason to end that legitimate practice in Northern Ireland by imposing exclusion zones. We need to be satisfied that we have taken all the necessary steps to ensure that activity around the polling station is not carried out in such a way as to intimidate people into
  696
  staying away, or coerce them into voting for a particular party. We have examined the existing law carefully and believe that it is sufficient to ensure that, as it stands.
  We need to ensure that presiding officers know the law and know their duties and responsibilities and, most importantly, have the confidence to take action where it is necessary, including involving the police. We are committed to ensuring that the chief electoral officer has the necessary resources to achieve that, and we know that he has frequent discussions with the police about the conduct of election day.
  As I said earlier, we considered seriously the proposal for an exclusion zone on the lines of the procedures which operate, for example, in the Republic of Ireland. We took advice, including from the police. Their view was that that had the potential to create greater difficulties; it would cause disruption for households inside the zone; it would merely displace the potential confrontation point to outside the polling station; and it would, in fact, create several different points of possible conflict which would all have to be policed. The fact is that no one has said to us that there is a universal problem at polling stations throughout Northern Ireland, but if we went down that route, we would need an exclusion zone around every polling station. Even if we thought an exclusion zone was an effective measure, there clearly would be no reason to impose one in every instance. As I have said, we want election days to be as normal as possible for the voters in Northern Ireland.
  Clause 1 enables the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland to collect additional identifying information from registered voters. Electors and those applying for registration will be required to state their date of birth and sign the form for the annual canvass, as well as to state their names and addresses. That information will not appear on the public version of the electoral register, but will be used at the electoral office and at polling stations to make checks against the names of electors when they apply for a postal vote or to vote by proxy, or attend at a polling station to obtain a ballot paper. The chief electoral officer may use his discretion to dispense with the requirement for a voter to supply a signature in certain circumstances, such as physical incapacity or illiteracy.
  Clause 2 amends the parliamentary elections rules in relation to Northern Ireland. The changes empower a presiding officer or clerk at a polling station to ask a third statutory question: "What is your date of birth?". If the voter does not answer to the satisfaction of the presiding officer, he can refuse to issue a ballot paper. If the voter does answer to the satisfaction of the presiding officer, the ballot paper must be presented unless a candidate or his election or polling agent accuses the voter of personation.
  Clause 3 amends provisions that have effect only in Northern Ireland and relate to absent voting. Applications to vote by post or proxy must be signed and the signature on the application must correspond with the signature provided to the chief electoral officer on registration. The chief electoral officer may refuse to grant an absent vote application if he is not satisfied that the signature on the application corresponds with the signature held on his records. Refusal of an absent vote is not taken lightly. The chief electoral officer may use his discretion, but refusal without good cause would leave his decision subject to judicial review.

  697
  Clause 4 enables a person to apply to be issued with an electoral identity card, in accordance with any requirements prescribed by regulations. The chief electoral officer has the function of determining such an application, and if he is satisfied that the information given by an applicant is correct, he is required to issue an electoral identity card free of charge.
  The electoral identity card must show the elector's full name and date of birth, his photograph and the card's expiry date. The chief electoral officer can decide, in accordance with any regulations, that the card should include other information in a particular form. The card will be valid for 10 years and will be added to the list of specified documents that voters may use for the purposes of identification at polling stations in Northern Ireland.
  Clause 5 introduces a requirement for voters with disabilities to produce a specified document, in the same way as other voters. That requirement had been inadvertently omitted. Since 1985, it has been a requirement that voters in Northern Ireland should produce evidence of identity in the form of a prescribed document.
  Before the Representation of the People Act 2000 came into force, the law required that the presiding officer should not grant a blind voter's application to vote with the assistance of another person unless the voter had produced a prescribed document to identify himself. That was inadvertently repealed by a new rule in the 2000 Act, which extended the right to vote with the assistance of a companion to voters with disabilities such as physical incapacity and illiteracy.
  The unforeseen consequence of the new rule was that it removed the requirement for blind and disabled voters in Northern Ireland who were voting with the assistance of a companion to produce a prescribed document. Clause 5 repairs the provision for blind voters and extends the requirement to produce a prescribed document to all those entitled by the 2000 Act to vote with the assistance of a companion. A voter with disabilities who attends at a polling station with a companion to assist him may satisfy the requirement to produce a specified document, even if in fact the documents are produced by, and the ballot paper delivered to, the companion rather than the voter himself.
  Clause 6 makes it an offence for a person to sign either a canvass form or an application for registration if the person signing is not the person to whom the form or application relates. A person found guilty of either offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine, or both.
  Clause 7 provides that clauses 1 to 4 and 6 come into force on days to be specified by the Secretary of State, who may specify different commencement dates for different provisions. Clauses 5 and 7 will come into force on Royal Assent.
  The Bill counters electoral abuse directly and at every stage of the electoral process: registration, absent voting and polling. We want to ensure that any loopholes that have been exploited in the past are removed. At the same time, we will not prevent genuine voters from making their voices heard. All our proposals have been examined with that in mind. We intend to implement the measures as soon as is practicable, but we will take all necessary
  698
  steps to ensure that no one is disenfranchised because of them. Calls for the measures have come from within Northern Ireland itself and from parties across the political spectrum.
  People who commit electoral fraud are attacking the fundamental principles of democracy. Governments have a duty to protect the right to free and fair elections. The Bill sends a clear signal that electoral fraud is a crime and that we are determined to combat it. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.40 pm
  Mr. John Taylor: We are grateful to the Minister for setting out the background and the main provisions of this short Bill, and I congratulate him on his debut at the Dispatch Box.
  The Bill has the broad support of the Opposition, and we have no intention of dividing the House this evening. It is intriguing that the Government should have chosen to debate electoral fraud in a part of the United Kingdom on the day that the Conservative party is engaged in its first leadership election ballot. I am sure that that is entirely coincidental.
  Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman should not read too much into that coincidence, as the parliamentary Labour party is also voting for its chairman today.
  Mr. Taylor: There is an even-handedness and implicit fairness about that that may speed us on our way.
  I assure the House that my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) has, in his capacity as our chief electoral officer, put in place strict measures to prevent multiple registration or any form of personation. There have been no reports so far of people voting early and voting often.
  Regrettably, that has not always been the case in Northern Ireland. Ever since the franchise was extended in the 19th and early 20th centuries, electoral fraud, the "vote early, vote often" tradition, and problems of personation have been endemic to political life.
  It will not surprise the House that I believe that parties representing the republican tradition have been more adept than others at exploiting the system for their electoral advantage. That is certainly true over recent years, although I am told that, in the past, it was not unknown for Unionists to engage in that practice also. Just before the 1987 general election, the distinguished journalist David McKittrick wrote a brilliant article on electoral malpractice, in which he stated:
  "Complicity in these activities went right to the top. One woman campaigner volunteer recalls a former Unionist Prime Minister shaking her by the hand and urging her to 'vote early and vote often'."
  The same article describes personation as
  "simply the stuff of normal politics".
  It cites stories of people voting 10, 20 and 30 times, and quotes Lord Fitt, who recalled polling stations at which the turnout "bafflingly exceeded 100 per cent." A polling station without personation agents was known as an open box, and Lord Fitt is quoted in the article as saying that every attempt was made to "riddle the box" by pushing in as many personators as possible.

  699
  According to McKittrick,
  "houses and halls were set aside as 'dressing stations' where personators would sometimes go for a change of clothes."
  It was only when Sinn Fein began contesting elections again in the 1980s that the old convention of "doing your own side" was cast aside, and vote stealing from the other side began to take place.
  As a result of all that, elections in Northern Ireland, and in particular the identification of voters at polling stations, are already more tightly controlled than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Most recently, the previous Conservative Government passed the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985, which made it compulsory for electors to present specified identity documents before they were given the ballot paper. Despite that, however, I agree with the Government that the Act has failed to stamp out personation and electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. In particular, stories abound about the ease with which some of the documents specified in the Act can be forged, especially those that do not carry a photograph, such as a medical card or a book for the payment of allowances, benefits or pensions.
  The current extent of electoral fraud is, of course, difficult to quantify with precise accuracy. By and large, elections pass off without incident. I have no doubt that in the majority of cases the results reflect the wishes of the electorate. I also express my appreciation for the work carried out by the chief electoral officer, his staff and all those involved in the running of elections in Northern Ireland, who do their jobs, often in difficult circumstances.
  That said, however, there is enough anecdotal evidence to make it clear that more needs to be done. As the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee concluded in its 1998 report,
  "there is sufficient evidence of organised voting theft to indicate that the problem of electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland is serious".
  Indeed, rather than declining, the evidence appears to suggest that the problem has been on the increase in recent years. The result of this year's election in Fermanagh and South Tyrone has already been mentioned. Sinn Fein won by only 59 votes and the result is being challenged in the election court in Belfast because of allegations that a polling station was allowed to stay open for some time after the 10 pm close. Fermanagh and South Tyrone is not, of course, without form in the history of electoral malpractice. Anyone conversant with the result in 1955 or the allegations surrounding the by-elections of 1981 will be able to testify to that. We await the court's judgment with interest.
  Nor is the problem confined to Westminster elections—at local government and Assembly elections the existence of multi-member constituencies and the single transferable vote increases the potential for fraud. As the then chief electoral officer, Mr. Bradley, in his report for 1998–99, put it:
  "The local elections are more susceptible to electoral abuse. A small number of voters can have a significant impact on the election of individual councillors and hence, in the case of marginal councils in determining the overall control of the council."
  Electoral fraud has been the subject of a number of studies and debates in recent years at Westminster and in the Northern Ireland Forum and, recently, in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I, too, pay tribute to the work of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee under the
  700
  chairmanship of my noble Friend, the former Member for the Cities of London and Westminster, Peter Brooke. Its report in 1998 highlighted a number of areas of concern and formed the backdrop to the Government's White Paper "Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland", which was the basis for the Bill.
  That Select Committee drew attention to problems in the following areas: registration, absent voting, political presence at polling stations, and voter identification. Some of the examples that it mentions in its report are staggering.
  On the accuracy of the register in Belfast, West the Select Committee noted evidence provided by the Social Democratic and Labour party of some 18,000 names that appeared more than once on the register for the area, compared with 6,000 on a London register for an area with a large Irish community. It is no wonder that the Select Committee concluded:
  "the evidence indicates that there may be a serious level of multiple registration, at least in some parts of Northern Ireland".
  The Government's review "Administering Elections in Northern Ireland" concluded:
  "there is a level of false registration which is carried out with the express intention of abusing the system".
  On the abuse of absent voting, we learn that before the 1997 general election the chief electoral officer received 10,000 applications only hours before the deadline. As the Select Committee noted:
  "A large proportion of these were from one political party."
  There are no prizes for guessing which one it might have been. An investigation by the chief electoral officer into applications for absent voting uncovered one case in which a doctor had attested that an applicant was unable to leave his home, but another application by the same person for a different election included the statement that the person was a long-distance lorry driver.
  As the Select Committee noted, the chief electoral officer was
  "satisfied beyond any shadow of a doubt that the problem was extensive".
  The Select Committee concluded:
  "Absent voting provides a serious threat to the integrity of the electoral system in Northern Ireland."
  The Government's review stated that the chief electoral officer believed that up to half of all absent vote applications for the 1997 local government elections were fraudulent.
  On the problems of voter identification at polling stations, the Select Committee also drew attention to the weakness of the current system, concluding that
  "the present system of relying on party agents to challenge in cases of personation is unrealistic and provides inadequate protection".
  Clearly there is a need for action, and we are justified in criticising the Government for their delay in putting legislation before the House. Why did it take three years between the publication of the Select Committee report and the White Paper setting out the Government's own proposals to combat electoral fraud? As the Select Committee, in its first special report of 2000–01, put it:
  "When we reported in March 1998, less than a year after the General Election, we had a reasonable expectation that rather more progress might have been made before the next General Election in tackling the serious problem of electoral malpractice than appears likely to be the case".

  701
  That is rather more diplomatic than the language that I would use to describe the Government's delay in coming up with these proposals. The argument that they lacked parliamentary time is simply unsustainable given that they only got round to publishing their White Paper in March, and given that they regularly make time in the House for much less serious measures than the one before us today.
  As a result of the Government's delay, legislation was not in place for the recent general election; nor will it be in place should the Government go down the road of calling fresh Assembly elections if the current impasse continues. That is unacceptable.
  Turning briefly to the Bill itself, I do not intend to follow the Minister in describing each of the proposed legislative changes in detail. As far as the changes go, they make practical common sense to the Opposition. We hope that adding the date of birth and a signature, allowing the presiding officer at a polling station to ask for the date of birth of an elector applying for a ballot paper and the introduction of an electoral identity card will have the desired effect in combating what is clearly a problem.
  We particularly welcome the move towards phasing out the non-photographic forms of identification at polling stations and the new photographic electoral identity card. We urge the Government to proceed with that as quickly as possible, given that it is estimated that it could take up to 18 months to complete the process after legislation is passed.
  Looking to the longer term, the White Paper "Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland" identifies the potential for new technology to combat electoral fraud to ensure that in Northern Ireland we have a comprehensive and secure electoral identity system. The White Paper suggests that the ultimate aim should be for every voter to be issued with an electoral smart card bearing a unique identifier. That would prevent anyone from registering twice without the knowledge of the chief electoral officer, and would make it almost impossible for anyone to vote twice.
  That surely must be the way forward in Northern Ireland, so it was disappointing to read in the White Paper that, having set out the advantages of such a scheme, the Government consider them to be only "aspirations for the future". Surely the technology exists to begin working on a secure electoral identity scheme now. That is what the Government should be working towards, and with rather more urgency than they have shown with the measure before us today.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: It is good when work with which one has been personally associated eventually makes it through the legislative process. That has not happened often in my experience, so I am glad that the Bill has been introduced.
  I gave evidence to the committee of the Northern Ireland Forum which, in 1997, published the valuable report on electoral malpractice that was referred to earlier. Like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and other Members in the Chamber this evening, I served on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs which,
  702
  in March 1998, issued a report on electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) was involved in the production of both reports. The work of those committees seems to have pushed the Northern Ireland Office into action, because it started work on its own report shortly after the Select Committee began its investigations. The NIO report was published in October 1998.
  The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) cited the Select Committee report published in January 2001 in which concerns were expressed that legislation had not been introduced sooner. Peter Brooke chaired the Select Committee admirably. He had had experience of Northern Ireland as its Secretary of State and enabled us to find a form of words that helped us along the road to the peace process. As one would have expected, his work on the Select Committee always drew on his experience.
  The Bill contains a manifest defect, which I shall deal with later. I shall of course support the Bill on Second Reading, but I shall look for opportunities to table amendments at a later stage, especially in relation to the defect that I shall mention.
  Although it has been pointed out that the Select Committee report contains many references to problems of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland, the hard quantifiable detail that people might require to demonstrate those problems is not given in the report or elsewhere. It is important to set up investigations such as the one currently under way into marked electoral registers. That investigation will find out which voters in recent elections are not recorded as voting in past elections, and will check whether they really did vote recently or whether their vote had been appropriated by a political party.
  As the hon. Member for Solihull noted, there is sufficient evidence in the Select Committee report to support our justified concerns and fears about the operation of elections in Northern Ireland. That is partly because of the strong sectarian attitudes in certain parts of Northern Ireland society. It is felt that the ends justify the means, so the niceties of the electoral game and the commitment of democrats to that game can readily and easily be abused by people for their own ends.
  There is a limited commitment to the democratic process in certain areas of party political activity. If Sinn Fein had that commitment, it would certainly take action on issues such as decommissioning, but it does not act according to those principles. The hope is that the more it is involved in the democratic process, the more the process will have an influence on its operations, values and attitudes. However, that is certainly not happening at the moment, and the major electoral fraud that takes place in Northern Ireland is clearly associated with that party.
  We are having to make key decisions on the Bill at a time when a clear divide exists in Northern Ireland. Assembly elections, which may be upon us soon, need to take place in the context of our having such legislation tightly in place because, in the nationalist camp, it matters tremendously whether it is Sinn Fein or the Social Democratic and Labour party that achieves the largest number of votes and seats and which of them can rightly claim to speak on behalf of the nationalist community. The same can be said of the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party in relation to that community.

  703
  In the case of the DUP, some of us are very worried that the no vote position will hold sway. In the case of the nationalists, if Sinn Fein—a party which had played with the peace process and arranged for people to vote in association with it but clearly did not have the fully fledged commitment to it that should exist—took over, it would be in the driving seat of the nationalist position. Several of us would not like those results; we would like the majorities in favour of the agreement to hold sway politically, but that must happen in the fairest way possible and in accordance with electoral practices.
  The methods of vote-stealing are clearly listed in the reports that I have mentioned. The addresses of demolished buildings have been used, although we have heard that action has been taken to ensure that the information is available to returning officers to allow them to determine whether addresses are legitimate. There have been over-subscribed numbers in households. In those cases, a suspiciously unlikely number of people have been registered as living at a house of a certain size.
  The high level of multiple registration is also a problem. Rolling registration, which has now been established, reduces the need for multiple registration. Is multiple registration necessary if people can move from one part of the Province to another and relatively quickly establish their new addresses as those from which they will vote? We should be able to operate systems, especially with rolling registration, that get rid of multiple registration, or we should take action to reduce its operation considerably, and I believe that that applies to the whole United Kingdom.
  Forged and fraudulently used medical cards, allowance books and so on are another problem. The Select Committee was provided with evidence to show that the Royal Ulster Constabulary had discovered factories that manufactured forged documents, although there had been an attempt to burn those documents. The suggestion that electoral cards, with photographs on them, should be used is partly a response to that problem. That is one avenue that could be used.
  The rush of last-minute voter applications has been mentioned, and there has also been abuse of marked registers. The evidence from the electoral returning officer showed that much more common than a vote cast in the name of someone who had died and should no longer appear on the register was a vote cast—clearly by someone who had looked very closely at the marked register—in the name of someone who did not normally exercise their franchise rights.
  Intimidation, such as following the postman when postal votes are used, and intimidation involving the electorate more generally are serious matters which might not be dealt with easily by the issue of cards with photographs on them.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman mentions intimidation. People are visited and asked for their medical cards, which are taken from them. That is the highest form of intimidation, but it happens regularly in some areas, where two men go to people's doors saying that they are collecting medical cards, and all those votes are then cast in a clandestine and illegal way.
  Mr. Barnes: Of course, that problem will be tackled under the Bill, but a similar problem will remain because
  704
  people may have other forms of identification and their electoral cards taken away from them. That is why returning officers need to check dates of birth at polling stations. The solution suggested in the Bill is that, except in the case of incapacitated and illiterate people, dates of birth and signatures will be required when registration takes place.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, the Select Committee and the forum committee suggested that national insurance numbers should also be used. Such a suggestion is not unique in electoral activities throughout the world. Some countries have identity cards and they use them in their electoral systems. I am increasingly of the opinion that identity cards would be fruitful in achieving full and correct registration in the United Kingdom generally.
  In Malta, for example, people's identification numbers appear on the electoral register and their dates of birth can be worked out from those numbers. That system functions well in a small country that prides itself on the fact that more than 90 per cent. of its people turn out at elections. Malta operates a system in which cards with photographs on them are issued at each election. People hand in those cards at the polling stations, so those who are found to have old cards did not vote at previous elections.
  Presiding officers can now ask people for additional information—their date of birth—when the vote takes place, but why cannot signatures also be used, as they could also be checked at polling stations? Surely if there is any doubt about whether someone has stolen a card and has had the wit to discover the date of birth of the person from whom it was stolen, the signature would constitute an extra factor. In fact, signatures are only being used to check postal and proxy applications. It is right that signatures should be used for those purposes, and the committee of the Northern Ireland Forum made recommendations along those lines. It said:
  "In addition, the Committee believes that consideration should also be given to implementing procedures whereby each elector should be required to sign the electoral register and a comparison of the signature on the register and the one which was provided on the registration form, made by the polling station officials before a voting paper is handed over."
  That would provide an extra check, and it is a point that we could pursue in Committee.
  The election identity card will replace other documents that do not bear a photograph and it could be used in the same way as a passport or driving licence. However, we must be careful not to create two classes of citizens. Some people already have the passports and driving licences that they obtained for other purposes while others will have to search out the electoral identity card that will be freely supplied. When my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, he pointed out that considerable efforts would be made to ensure that people had electoral registration cards. He said:
  "We will have to make enormous efforts to ensure that the obtaining of a voter identity card is as easy as possible, even to the extent of having mobile units go round the streets so that people can step outside their door and make the necessary arrangements."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 29 March 2001; Vol. 366, c. 347WH.]
  I welcome such an approach, but why will not everyone be obliged to take part in it?
  The White Paper suggests that 400,000 to 600,000 electors in Northern Ireland may need electoral identity cards. They are part of an electorate of 1.2 million, so it

  705
  is possible that one third or 50 per cent. of the electorate may be involved in the new form of registration. To support the view that there should be an electoral registration card, I cite the views of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. In response to evidence given by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Dr. Mowlam, it stated:
  "The Secretary of State, rightly, expressed dislike for a system which provided for different types of documentation, according to whether a voter drove a car or had travelled abroad. She felt that this was divisive and we agree."
  The question that elicited that response from Dr. Mowlam was asked by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and, in reply, she said:
  "I do not want a two-tier, two-class system whereby you carry an ID voting card because you do not have anything else…I do not want us to have a two-tier system whereby if you do not have a driving licence you have to carry that. That sticks in my throat."
  Such a system sticks in my throat for practical democratic reasons. The people who do not have driving licences or passports are likely to be more elderly and poorer and it might be more difficult to persuade them to take up the provisions on offer. They will be much less likely to do so if they do not act together with other people.
  I hope that the Bill will be amended so that that defect is overcome and that we operate with a card that is used by everyone. That might lead us to consider seriously whether we should use identity cards as the basis for what takes place at the polling station.
  6.15 pm
  Lembit Öpik: I was startled to learn that the first round of the leadership election in the Conservative party coincides with the election of the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party. Surely that is more than a coincidence; or perhaps it is the same election, which would confirm a suspicion that Liberal Democrats have harboured for some time. Let us hope that no electoral fraud is on the go. For the sake of clarification, I point out that I am standing in neither election.
  In a way, electoral fraud involves the act of being too eager to vote. Although turnout in the general election overall was down to about 60 per cent., turnout in Northern Ireland can in some circumstances be as high as 200 per cent. The challenge therefore is to get people to vote but to vote only once and without pretending to be someone else.
  As we all know, the 1997 general election caused the publication of the several reports that have already been mentioned. Those reports by the Northern Ireland Forum for political dialogue, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons and the Secretary of State's Department make the problem clear. They also make it clear that we need some sort of legislative solution because nothing else has worked so far.
  In the Westminster Hall debate on 29 March this year, it became clear that there was considerable consensus in the House on this issue. Liberal Democrats form part of that consensus and we accept the need for a Bill. However, as the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) pointed out, it is a shame that it has taken so long for it
  706
  to come before the House. Had it been debated before the 2001 general election, it is possible that it would have had a material impact on election outcomes in Northern Ireland. Let us hope that there is no further delay and that the Bill is implemented before the next elections in Northern Ireland.
  We all know that vote-stealing is prevalent in the Province and takes place to a much greater extent than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Democracy is very much compromised by such activity. Trying to cheat the system is not only very naughty but actually undermines the system for everybody. I also suspect that it is probably damaging to the organisations implicated in illegal activities, because they lose a great deal of credibility with law-abiding citizens who might otherwise be persuaded to vote for them. After all, it is better to vote for an organisation that we do not fully agree with but that we trust than for an organisation that looks like it is willing to pervert the system of democracy in the interest of achieving its ends.
  Although it is difficult to quantify the level of abuse taking place during elections in Northern Ireland, it takes place at significant and, at times, possibly election-deciding levels. The report of the elections review "Administering Elections in Northern Ireland" states:
  "In the case of the absent vote facility, it is clear from the RUC's investigations, instigated by the Chief Electoral Officer, that there is evidence to show a high level of malpractice. Personation at polling stations has, however, been impossible to quantify…However, despite the fact that no-one has come forward with evidence…the experience of the RUC officers on duty at polling stations certainly suggests that abuse is taking place."
  That quotations makes two things clear. The first is that there is a strong belief within the Royal Ulster Constabulary that such events take place and, secondly, that it is extremely hard under current arrangements to bring about convictions. No one is willing to stand up and face the inevitable intimidation that they would receive for blowing the whistle on these activities. We need legislation to take the responsibility from people who reasonably and understandably do not come forward, and to ensure that the state has the power to impose rightful processes in the place of those that are currently being perverted.
  Although it is hard to prove specific cases of electoral fraud, we have a duty to do what we can to stop it. The Bill and the White Paper "Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland" have a good chance of doing that if they are implemented correctly.
  The basis for all electoral activity in Northern Ireland is the electoral register. Unless it is accurate, the opportunities for malpractice are great. The White Paper, which was published in March, states that the chief electoral officer believes that the register is 91 per cent. complete and 94 per cent. accurate. Those figures are pretty good, but they still allow opportunities for fraud to occur and that can make a real difference. Of the 18 Northern Ireland seats in the general election, two had majorities of fewer than 130 votes and four had majorities of fewer than 1,200. With such close results, we must be sure that no funny business is going on. Electoral fraud is a clear danger because it can significantly alter the balance of outcomes in the Province.
  On the Bill's detail, during the registration process it is right to collect signatures and dates of birth as personal identifiers. Indeed, that has been extensively discussed.

  707
  It is interesting to know how the information will be gathered and stored. The elections review recommended several ways that could be done—on paper or electronically, each of which has pluses and minuses. Whichever system is used, the electorate must find it user-friendly and it must be accurate. After all, it is vital that the system does not introduce new, unintended inaccuracies because of the methods used to store the information. What thought has been given to storage and gathering techniques? We want to ensure that individuals who are innocent of any wrongdoing and eligible to vote do not fall out of the system because of an error or oversight.
  The Bill allows the presiding officer discretionary powers to refuse a ballot paper if he has asked for a voter's date of birth and there is still doubt about the voter's identity, prompted either by the information in the specific document or the apparent age of the voter compared with the date of birth supplied. I welcome that measure. I raised the problem in Westminster Hall on 29 March when I explained that it would be possible for me turn up at a polling station with my grandfather's pension book and say that my date of birth was 1916. I am going grey before my time, but few would believe that I am 85, although some hon. Members might think differently. However, the age gap could be much smaller and the parameters are wide enough to make it possible to vote illegally. So long as the safety measures are watertight before individuals turn up at the polling station, the discretionary powers are a key part of what will make the Bill work.
  It has been suggested that the system is most open to abuse through the absent vote procedure. There is a remarkably high rate of absent voting in some areas of Northern Ireland and postal votes are claimed by a larger proportion of people than might be expected given its circumstances. Fraudulent applications are unquestionably made, but we do not know the exact proportion. Getting away with fraud by casting an absent vote in Northern Ireland is probably more straightforward than going to the polling station in person.
  Comparing a registered signature with what is on an application for an absent vote will be useful in reducing the chances of fraud, but the White Paper also suggested that forgery could be further reduced by adding a serial number or a bar code to the application form. The Minister also mentioned that. Do the Government intend to redesign the application forms for absent votes in that way? Frankly, I worry that postal vote fraud across the United Kingdom in general is more common than we acknowledge. It is hard to police and if we can find a system that works in Northern Ireland we might want to consider expanding the technique to the rest of the UK. I leave that thought with the Minister.
  The Liberal Democrats also welcome the Government's intention to introduce an electoral identity card, although I have some concern about its exact nature. The Minister envisages that in the long term it will be a smart card. By incorporating a computer chip, it will be fairly secure and comprehensive in its content. Although that would be a bit more expensive to produce, it would be much more secure than a plastic or embossed card, which would take us back to square one because it is relatively easy to copy or amend. Someone only has to forge a card with their photograph to put electoral fraud back in business.
  708
  Although I welcome what the Minister said about smart cards, we should seriously consider introducing them this time around and accept that we might have to update the technology later. The business sector has extensive experience of smart cards and a model might exist that has been tested in industrial and commercial environments which could be applied to the system in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will think again about introducing a smart card earlier so that we do not risk using a much more forgeable plastic or embossed card, which I fear will be the interim step.
  Although the Bill provides for the electoral identity card to be added to the list of specified documents that are needed to obtain a ballot paper, I am worried that there is no provision to remove other documents on the list which are extremely easy to forge, such as the medical card. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) made an important point about that. No one wants to disfranchise honest voters, but the identity card will be more effective and harder to forge if it is produced properly as a smart card. We need to think seriously about that.
  If we are making a concerted effort to highlight the existence of an electoral identity card, especially for the elderly and infirm, it is sensible to think about abandoning some documents so that we remove the most obvious forms of forgery and malpractice from the electoral process. The Minister commented on that, but I hope that we will be clearer on the subject in Committee so that we can be confident that we are taking a radical step by eliminating some of the open goals for opportunists.
  I hope that the Minister will answer my questions. I trust that he agrees with the need to balance the maintenance of wide access to voting with protecting the fairness of our democracy. We will not eliminate electoral fraud completely, but we can significantly reduce the theft of votes and increase the chances of detection.
  To some extent, the proposals infringe on a person's privacy. They require more information than is asked for in elections elsewhere in the UK. I am concerned that we should not set an open-ended precedent. I do not like the way that the state's interference in personal matters is developing in our society. The reach of the state is encroaching ever further on our freedom and privacy. In that context, the Bill is another move in the wrong direction. It is an evil, but the difficulty is that without it a small number of cheats stand to make a huge difference to other people's freedom to have a fair electoral process. I may not like it, but I am willing to live with it because, on balance, it improves the important electoral process in Northern Ireland.
  However, let me put down a marker: there must be a limit to how far we go. The Minister agreed with that. If we do not temper the tendency, one day we will look back and discover that there is no way to return to the relative, although diminishing, freedoms in British society. As other hon. Members said, if we push too far, we will create barriers that disfranchise people who cannot be bothered with the complexities of proving their identity by jumping through the hoops before they are allowed to vote.
  That said, it is our role to protect the interests of the vast majority of Northern Ireland citizens who respect democracy. The Bill gives us a chance to challenge the people who prefer to cheat the electoral system than to

  709
  win elections fair and square. Electoral fraud says more about the people who commit it than it does about what they stand for, because they throw their toys out of the pram. I hope that the House will accept that a consensus on the Bill has evolved in our discussions to date, and the Liberal Democrats will certainly support it this evening.
  6.30 pm
  Lady Hermon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate.
  May I congratulate the Minister on his first outing at the Dispatch Box? Ulster Unionist Members also have high expectations that he will make a positive contribution to business in Northern Ireland, so he has a lot to live up to.
  I apologise for the absence of several of my colleagues. They too are involved in the talks about the Belfast agreement, so duty calls them elsewhere.
  I have listened to anecdotal evidence of electoral fraud. Also, I grew up in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where I frequently heard the words, "Vote early and vote often", so I can tell the House that in those days, which were not long ago, it was easier to identify electoral fraud because the reward for personation was a bottle of Guinness. For those hon. Members who do not understand how powerful a bottle of Guinness is, I should point out that by 10 o'clock in the evening, it was easy to identify those who had benefited from voting early and voting often. I should add that, having been brought up in a strict Presbyterian home, I just voted once.
  The Minister has a particular interest in human rights, so I begin my comments on the Bill by reminding him of the Government's obligations to everyone in the United Kingdom, including those of us in Northern Ireland. The Minister will know that under article 3 of the first protocol of the European convention on human rights, which is of course now part and parcel of our domestic law, by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government have a clear duty: not only must they hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, but they must do so
  "under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature."
  The Government have a duty to impose conditions that will ensure—not merely try to ensure—the free expression of the people's wishes.
  For too many years we in Northern Ireland have had to endure electoral fraud, rather than enjoy conditions that ensure the free expression of people's voting preferences. The White Paper "Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland" was published in March. The title itself encouraged us to believe that, for a change, the Government were serious about eradicating electoral fraud. Our hopes were high when we read that they pledged
  "to put in place effective measures to prevent electoral abuse wherever it occurs."
  I regret to report that my hopes have been dashed by the Bill. I am bitterly disappointed because it fails fully to implement the proposals in the White Paper, and not being a patient person at the best of times I thought that three years was a long time to wait for it. Having waited
  710
  for those three years and for a month after the local elections and the general election, we have before us a weak Bill. My list of its various weaknesses will not be exhaustive because I do not want to keep hon. Members here for a long time.
  Although the White Paper rightly focused on intimidation at polling stations, the Bill completely ignores it. We have just had an election in which two RUC officers and a bystander were injured at a polling station. Intimidation is a serious problem, and I would like the Government to pay attention to it in Committee.
  The Bill is also silent on multiple registration. The Minister has kindly defended multiple registration on the grounds of convenience for students and people who live in different places. However, people have to identify their main residence for the purposes of taxation, and I see no justification for a difference in electoral law. Multiple registration is far too open to abuse, so it should be made illegal. A person should be asked to register and vote where they reside for the majority of the time, and since no one can reside in two places for the majority of the time everyone must choose one residence.
  On the new identifiers of dates of birth and signatures, I feel compelled to remind the Government that electoral fraud in Northern Ireland is orchestrated and widespread, and has a significant impact on election results. It devalues the results and undermines the authority of those who are elected. I regret that the Bill fails to give a statutory basis to increased powers and increased staffing for the electoral office investigation teams, which would enable them to scrutinise thoroughly the accuracy of the signatures and dates of birth on the electoral canvass.
  Lembit Öpik: Could we not allow multiple registration to continue with the operation of a smart card, which would be able to register whether people had voted? I ask because many people in the United Kingdom as a whole would be compromised if we required them to choose one place or another for their registration, and a smart card would provide an electronic solution to the problem.
  Lady Hermon: We are told that Northern Ireland leads the way in so many things, such as policing reform and human rights legislation, so I hope that smart card technology will be introduced to allow us to lead the way in electoral registration.
  To include in the Bill an exception to the rule requiring signatures on the electoral canvass will, I fear, prove to be a gift horse to those who are intent on fraud, and people are intent on it. The gift horse comes in the form of the discretion afforded to the chief electoral officer to dispense with the requirement for a signature
  "if he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for that person to sign … because of any incapacity of his or because he is unable to read."
  Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I sound cynical when I predict an increase in the recorded illiteracy rate in Northern Ireland. It would appear logical and sensible that those who are genuinely incapacitated or unable to read should be able to avail themselves of the new identity card proposed in the Bill. That would close a potential loophole for those who are intent on fraud.
  Although Ulster Unionist Members welcome the introduction of the new, voluntary identity cards, we very much regret that the Bill does not end the use of

  711
  non-photographic forms of identity, such as medical cards which, as the Minister knows, have enabled fraudulent activities in Northern Ireland to become a growth industry. The fact that there is no firm timetable for phasing out those forms of ID is a severe failing of the Bill, and I ask the Minister to give it his attention in Committee.
  There is no denying that absent votes represent a major source of electoral fraud. It is on record that in the 1997 general election, Northern Ireland constituencies had on average twice as many absent voters as constituencies in Great Britain. That cannot be explained simply by the fact that we have more rural constituencies. There is a huge inconsistency in the distribution of absent votes in Northern Ireland.
  The most recent election results show that in West Tyrone, which was won by Sinn Fein, there were 5,443 absent votes, and in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, which was also taken by Sinn Fein, there were 5,784 absent votes. Let us compare those figures with the 1,200 absent votes in my constituency of North Down, which has an average number of such votes. In Lagan Valley, we had 1,500. Absent votes allow fraud and should be given much more detailed attention in the Bill.
  I therefore repeat my introductory remarks to the Government: they have an obligation under the Human Rights Act to ensure that conditions are put in place guaranteeing people free expression of their choice of legislature. It would be distinctly embarrassing for the Government to be taken to task by a voter who said that, in fact, they were breaching their human rights obligations. As I mentioned, in Northern Ireland we are told regularly that we are leading the way on police reform, human rights and the equality agenda. You name it, we have got it and are leading the way. We should lead the way with smart cards and new technology. The technology is out there; it should not be our future but our present. Having waited impatiently for the Bill for three years, I now urge the Minister to follow it quickly with more substantial reform to eradicate, rather than acquiesce in, electoral fraud.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: First, I congratulate the Minister and welcome his debut at the Dispatch Box. For some time he was a colleague of mine on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs where—as I am sure that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) agrees—he played a constructive role. Unlike many others from the major parties who served on the Select Committee almost as place fillers, he showed a conscientious interest in the matters before him and played a full part in our proceedings. Indeed, I took the trouble to dredge up the Select Committee report on electoral abuse to look at his contribution, and I shall refer later to some of the interesting points that he made. I join him in his tribute to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), with whom many of us had meetings on this subject in Northern Ireland, and who showed an interest in attempting to do something that would stop the electoral abuse about which we all had a growing concern.
  The House, I am sure, will give the Bill a broad welcome—at least in general terms. It would hard for it to do otherwise. It is obscene that anyone's vote should
  712
  be stolen, and that anyone should take more than one vote in their own name. In Northern Ireland, particularly with proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote, the stealing of one vote by one person can deny the rights of thousands of people, because a fraction of one vote in a PR election can determine a seat. That form of cheating must be brought to an end as far as possible.
  The Minister made some remarks about the history of interest in the subject. As the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who came as a witness before the Northern Ireland Forum committee on which I served, said, that committee produced the first recent report on the subject. That report was valuable and drew attention to the type of problem faced in elections in Northern Ireland. However, the forum committee, like the Select Committee, felt the same frustration that the Minister expressed in the Select Committee when attempting to quantify the scale of the problem during the cross-examination—I think it is fair to call it that—of Pat Bradley, who was then chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland. Everybody knew that abuse was taking place on a considerable scale, but there did not seem to be any real attempt by the electoral office to quantify it.
  Although the Bill is being introduced now, it is still important for the electoral office to conduct an exercise to quantify the level of electoral abuse. Evidence both to the forum committee and to the Select Committee produced a number of examples of considerable electoral abuse, giving us a flavour of the high level of electoral abuse in Northern Ireland and demonstrating the need to take action.
  The Select Committee reported in March 1998, but it had to return to the subject by urging—I was going to say "prodding", but it may not be appropriate to use that word about Northern Ireland matters in the House—the Secretary of State to introduce the legislation that had been promised on the subject. I agree with those who have already drawn attention to foot-dragging by Ministers and by the Northern Ireland Office in introducing the Bill.
  It therefore came as something of a surprise when, only a few months before parliamentary and local government elections, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East, told us that he was contemplating rushing the legislation through before the end of the last Parliament. For many of us, that would have been the worst of all worlds; we would have had new legislation without ID cards being distributed, and people would start to be disfranchised because of the loss of the usual identifiers—medical cards and benefit books.
  Existing methods of identification are fairly well known; there has already been reference to the driving licence. During his speech, the Minister was twice asked to give way by Members wishing to ask about the driving licence. I do not know about the rest of the House, but he certainly did not convince me that it was necessary to have both parts of the driving licence. Indeed, he went on to explain the attributes of the new card. The explanatory notes to the Bill say that the electoral identity card will show
  "the elector's full name and date of birth, his photograph, the card's expiry date".
  Consistent with that, the Minister said that those would be the features of the identification card.
  I have with me the plastic part of the driving licence used in Northern Ireland, and on it is a name—indeed, it goes further, it has an address as well—a date of birth,

  713
  an expiry date and a photograph, all of which are features that the Minister says his identity card will have. The driving licence has not only the additional feature of an address, but a signature too, so in many ways it is a better identification card than that proposed by the Minister. However, when I look at the part of the driving licence that the Minister tells us it is essential to have along with the plastic card, I see nothing on it that adds in any way to the information required by the presiding officer in any polling station. Indeed, if any part of the present two-part driving licence is easy to forge it is that piece, which, we think, can be discarded.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real problem is that the Minister was speaking as a legalist? He was just interpreting the law, whereas I was asking whether there was an attempt to change the law to give flexibility, as presiding officers act strictly in accordance with the law. All I was asking for was an improvement in the law to provide better identification.
  Mr. Robinson: The Under-Secretary always speaks as a lawyer. I believe that the law was his profession in Scotland.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: He speaks from the heart.
  Mr. Robinson: Of course he does that too. However, I hope that he will explain what is so essential in the additional sheet of the driving licence that it can serve as an identifier at the polling station. Nothing in the additional sheet qualifies it for that. The card from the driving licence is as effective, if not more effective, than the Under-Secretary's proposal, at least in the interim.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: It was interesting that at the last election, the chief electoral officer felt that he had to go on television to tell people that it did not matter if their driving licence had the wrong address, because its purpose was to identify the person, not where they lived.
  Mr. Robinson: That emphasises the point. I know from speaking to my workers at polling stations, and to those who work for the chief electoral officer on election day, that there is a recurring problem of people turning up with one part of a driving licence and being sent away. Often, they do not return, sometimes simply because of the inconvenience.
  Mr. Barnes: Would not the problem be overcome by using only one card—the electoral card—instead of driving licences and passports? Everyone would be subject to the same arrangements, and the difficulty of determining which bit of the driving licence to hand in would be resolved.
  Mr. Robinson: It would if everyone had the card. I shall return to that idea later. However, I am worried that we could disfranchise many people simply because they will not go through the rigmarole necessary to get the card.
  Of the three most common methods of electoral abuse, the first is multiple entry. I am not convinced that anyone needs to be registered at more than one address, whether
  714
  in one constituency or in several. There is no advantage to it, and the generosity of the postal vote arrangements means that people can easily choose their main or preferred address and use a postal vote from wherever they are resident at the time of the election.
  Lembit Öpik: On the mainland of the United Kingdom, the electoral register and the council tax system are closely connected. Would not a smart card resolve the problem—not the card that the Under-Secretary mentioned, but a smart card that showed whether a person had voted? That would prevent people from voting more than once even if they had multiple addresses.
  Mr. Robinson: It would, and the smart card was the Select Committee's preferred option. However, the Under-Secretary is not offering that, at least not immediately. He is undertaking a study in the Northern Ireland Office to determine progress on the advances in appropriate technology, but the card that he is currently offering would not carry out that function.
  The BBC "Spotlight" programme suggested that multiple entry was a considerable problem. It itemised several cases of six and more people being registered at one-bedroom flats—and those people were all voting. Indeed, in some cases, the same six people were voting from each flat. They happened to be the so-called bodyguards of the Member who was elected for the constituency of Belfast, West (Mr. Adams).
  Mr. Barnes: There would be no problem in ending multiple registration. This did not apply in Northern Ireland, but when we had the poll tax, we got used to a system whereby a person's main or sole place of residence had to be designated. The system—unfortunately, in that case—operated effectively. We could do the same with electoral registration: people could designate their main or sole place of residence, and their vote would be based there. If they moved, there would be a rolling register, and they could be registered at their new residence.
  Mr. Robinson: The position as regards the electoral register is improving, and there is no barrier to getting on to the register in Northern Ireland; I believe that people can get on it in a month. That presents no difficulty. However, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) said, the best option is a smart card, which tells a story when it is read at the polling station, and shows whether the person has already voted.
  Apart from organised fraud through multiple registration, there is home-grown abuse, whereby mothers or fathers register children who have left the house some years ago because they want to give them the opportunity to vote in Northern Ireland even if they do not return to do so. Some also vote elsewhere, and others do not live in the United Kingdom. Those practices have grown over the years.
  Multiple registration applies especially with students who come to Belfast. They get a vote there and influence elections, probably more in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) than anywhere else. They then return to Fermanagh and South Tyrone, West Tyrone or Mid-Ulster to cast their votes there, too. The electoral office could identify multiple registrations through national insurance numbers, but that

  715
  will be effective only if the Government are prepared to grasp the nettle and prohibit anyone from being registered at more than one address.
  Mr. Browne: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves multiple registration, perhaps he will consider whether someone who is a council tax payer in two areas should have the opportunity of voting in council elections in both areas.
  Mr. Robinson: The Under-Secretary forgets the history of the issue in Northern Ireland. He appears to have forgotten the principle of one man, one vote. It was the practice of the Unionist Government to follow what happened in the rest of the United Kingdom, and whoever paid the piper called the tune. People were therefore allowed to vote in an area where they subscribed healthily to the rateable value and contributed to the local council. That meant that in some areas, people had two, three or five votes. That was deemed inappropriate, and the Labour party was most vociferous in its condemnation.
  Mr. Browne: I am conscious that I am interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I suspect that he inadvertently misrepresented my argument. I did not suggest that people who have more than one house in the same council area should be able vote more than once—but when there is no such conflict and people contribute through council tax in separate council areas, how do we overcome the problem of taxation without representation?
  Mr. Robinson: It was Labour party policy that what the Under-Secretary describes should not happen in Northern Ireland. There is no great difference between voting more than once in one constituency and influencing the outcome of an election by voting in more than one constituency. It would probably assist Unionism in Northern Ireland if the right outlined by the Under-Secretary existed. However, people in Northern Ireland are currently allowed to vote in only one constituency.
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me a third time, but either he misunderstands my point or he is woefully misrepresenting me. I have never suggested that people should be allowed to vote in more than one parliamentary constituency. I merely ask him to consider the simple problem of overcoming the difficulty of taxation without representation for those who pay council tax in two council areas. I do not want to complicate matters by reciting the history of the Northern Ireland electoral system or discussing votes based on houses. I want him to answer my simple point.
  Mr. Robinson: The Minister seems to think that there is some great distinction between the ability to vote more than once in a Westminster election and the ability to vote in two council elections. It was in council areas that the main problem in Northern Ireland arose, as it was decided that people should not vote more than once at council level.
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman is right that the main objection concerned council areas. It was raised not because a person could vote once in a particular area, but because he could have up to eight or nine individual votes.
  Mr. Robinson: Perhaps there is some distinction between electoral law in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, one can vote in only one council area in any election.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I take the point that has been made. There was never a distinction in parliamentary or Stormont elections, but the world got the message of one man, one vote. Only council elections were affected. People who were working and paying rates in one place but living in another were entitled to several votes, but the practice was done away with, largely because of agitation from this House. When the last Government sought to introduce the council tax, or the poll charge, it was not extended to Northern Ireland, as they did not want to recognise that it had been right to maintain the ratepayer's franchise.
  Mr. Robinson: I live in the council area of Castlereagh and I am entitled to vote there. I have several offices in Belfast, but I am not entitled to vote there.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am beginning to wonder whether I have failed to understand the franchise system, or whether the Northern Ireland system is completely distinct. Will the hon. Gentleman provide some clarification? Let us forget about his business premises. If he happened to have one home in Belfast and another in a different council area, would not he be entitled to vote in council elections in both places?
  Mr. Robinson: No, I would not have such an entitlement, as this House changed the law to ensure that I could not vote in two places. One of the front runners on the issue happened to be the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who argued that people should have only one vote, no matter what the circumstances in Northern Ireland. To that extent, Northern Ireland differs from the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Lembit Öpik: At the core of this debate is the question whether one should be able to register to vote in more than one place. I agree with the Minister that people should be entitled properly to register. Do not his words point to the inescapable fact that the only way forward is to introduce a mechanism such as a smart card to ensure that nobody cheats the system?
  Mr. Robinson: The Minister's words showed that he had been taking his decisions on multiple registration on the assumption that people were entitled to vote in more than one constituency at local government level. The basis on which he built his approach has now been taken from beneath him, so he has no argument left regarding multiple registration.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The only benefit that a person gets by registering in two places is that he can nominate someone as a councillor or even a Member of Parliament. He cannot, however, vote in two places.
  Mr. Robinson: There are some other advantages in having one's name on an electoral register, such as in

  717
  respect of mortgages and some commercial aims. None the less, the Minister must face up to the issue of multiple entry in the register. I hope that the Government do not discriminate against my party as they did with the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. If they give us some representation on the Committee that will consider the Bill, we will have the opportunity to scrutinise the matter in more detail.
  Multiple registration was only the first of three aspects of electoral abuse about which I wanted to speak. Indeed, it was the smallest of the three, as far as my notes were concerned. I shall now move on to personation, which is a key factor. Hon. Members have referred to the early custom of going to a house where alternative clothes were available and changing in order to vote again. Sometimes, vans would be driving around and people would go into them to change their clothes. I do not want to cause any embarrassment to my colleagues along the Bench, but I point out that the practice was carried out in a fulsome way by the Ulster Unionist party in earlier days. The then Republican Clubs party followed on in West Belfast, and there has been some reference to Lord Fitt's confessions on the matter.
  Even in my earliest days in politics, when people who had been in the Ulster Unionist party suggested that we should make such an addition to our campaign tactics, I had to tell them that if they used the same energy in going to houses, pulling people out and getting them to the polling stations, they would probably end up with more votes. Even before the law on identification changed, the truth of that argument was realised and that method of stealing votes seemed to dissipate considerably.
  The whole picture was changed by the entry into the political process of what was effectively a paramilitary army that had all the discipline and numbers that were required to organise major vote theft. There can be no doubt that Sinn Fein organised the stealing of votes from those whom it might have deemed to be its supporters. It also arranged, perhaps more enthusiastically, to steal the votes of people whom it knew to be opponents. We were given ample evidence that Sinn Fein did that by using the medical card in particular. For example, there was evidence that the Royal Ulster Constabulary had raided a property—I think that it was in Londonderry—where it found the burnt remains of medical cards that had been printed and were being used for vote stealing.
  My colleagues in various parts of the Province told us how medical cards were distributed from car boots outside polling stations to willing people who came along to take the votes of others. It is difficult to quantify the scale of such abuse but it seems to have been a considerable problem, and it still is. The removal of the medical card and benefit books will assist in tackling the abuse only if there is a substitute to ensure that decent people who want to exercise their vote will not be disfranchised because they do not have one of the remaining identification documents. For example, driving licences and passports are not significantly used by senior citizens. Of course, some of them will have one or both of those documents, but our studies have overwhelmingly shown that about 70 per cent. of the people who use identification at the polling stations use either the medical card or benefit books. They do so because those are the most readily available documents.
  718
  I want to help the Minister and I hope that he will consider a suggestion. He probably knows that in Northern Ireland, as a result of good, sound Democratic Unionist party policy, free fares have come to fruition. Senior citizens of 65 and above will be able to travel for free in Northern Ireland on the production of a pass. That indicates that a new photographic pass will be produced over the coming months. It will bear a name and all the features that the Minister has identified as necessary for his identification card. One benefit of including the new bus pass as a document suitable for identification may be that there will be an incentive for a large section of the community to obtain the pass.
  Many of my colleagues might think the fact that people will be able to vote for them incentive enough to obtain an identification card. They might find that there is an even greater incentive if a section of the community can have free travel throughout Northern Ireland and, if it is wished, into the Irish Republic, on the ground of having an identification card in the name of the Department for Regional Development.
  If the Minister is not prepared to recognise such a pass as an acceptable document, he could at least piggy-back his scheme when the passes are being handed out. There is no reason why two passes could not be secured at the same time. I am sure that if his office were to make contact with the Department for Regional Development and Translink, it would be possible for the two documents to be handed out at the one photo session. That would perhaps ensure a greater uptake from the section of the community that I think will be the most difficult to get registered under the new scheme.
  I hope that the Minister will consider that. Like the Select Committee, I recognise the validity of his argument that an identity card without a photograph would not be of much value in a polling station. Members of the security forces were outraged that people could enter a polling station with a medical card bearing no photograph and little verification, yet they could produce a police warrant or an Royal Irish Regiment document, which would not be acceptable. The Minister might want to consider in Committee whether a document is acceptable as long as it is a photo-identity card that is issued by government, in whatever form.
  The remedy in the Bill for personation is date of birth. It is a help, but it will not be significant in assisting polling station personnel. It is difficult even to come close in determining the ages of some individuals. I am not sure how brave the staff in polling stations will be in questioning people, especially those of the fair gender, about their age, particularly if there has to be an assumption that they are older than they are claiming to be on the register, which contains their date of birth.
  I am not sure to what extent the inclusion of date of birth will be a help. With the exception of the financial restrictions that might be applied, I cannot understand why signature was not brought forward as a possible way of confirming the identity of a person in a polling station. I think that the Minister was sold on that idea when he was a member of the Select Committee. The Committee recognised that equipment would he available digitally to compare the signature given at a polling station with that on the special electoral register available to the polling clerks at the station. A significant amount of equipment

  719
  would have to be purchased for the polling stations, but it would provide a fairly secure mechanism to ensure that personation did not occur.
  Mr. Grieve: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's point about signatures. My professional experience as a barrister is that comparing signatures digitally is far-fetched. People's signatures can vary widely depending on whether they write fast or slowly. For example, the signature that one produces as a specimen often bears little relationship to the scrawl that is appended, perfectly legitimately, to the bottom of documents.
  Mr. Robinson: I do not want to question the experience that the hon. Gentleman may have. However, the evidence that the Select Committee received was that the equipment available could judge a comparator on many points. The argument was advanced to the Committee that it was possible and reliable to use such equipment. I am sure that the Minister will require such equipment to be used in the electoral office when a signature is being used as a comparator for signatures on postal vote applications. It is the Government's intention that there should be a signature on the registration document for each person who is applying to be entitled to a vote. In the context of absent voting, signatures can be examined to ensure that there is no forgery and that no invalid applications are being made.
  It appears that those who are abusing the system concentrate on absent voting, for obvious reasons. It is the area where it is the most difficult for them to be caught. They do not present themselves in front of someone, so they cannot be nabbed. They can abuse the system at a distance in anonymity and hope to get away with it.
  Sufficient examples have been given during the debate of the number of postal votes in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) dealt with the extent of absent voting in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and West Tyrone, for example, where almost 10 per cent. of those entitled to vote voted by postal vote or by proxy. That must be an indication of the great need for medical services there or a signal of electoral abuse. It cannot be justified by comparison with any other constituency in the United Kingdom.
  In the Select Committee and the forum committee, we heard from the chief electoral officer at the time of examples of abuse of the system. At one election, an individual applied for a postal vote because he was having his legs amputated, but when the next election came round, he was going on a skiing holiday. I am sure that it is possible for someone who has had his legs amputated to go skiing, but it would be sufficient to alert me to the possibility of electoral abuse.
  The electoral office receives about 10,000 applications only days before it must distribute postal vote documents. There is little opportunity for it to engage in the necessary scrutiny. The evidence that the Select Committee received showed that the only scrutiny undertaken was to ensure that the forms had been completed properly, with names, addresses and doctors' signatures. When the forms were scrutinised more fully after the election, it was discovered that the same doctors' names appeared over and over again. In some instances they appeared on hundreds of applications, and related to people who were not their patients. The forms indicated that these people had an incapacity and could not attend the polling station.
  720
  There must be a penalty for doctors who are prepared to engage in such electoral abuse. They have no knowledge of the patient, yet they are willing to sign that the person is incapable of going to the polling station to register his vote. Given the volume of applications in certain areas of the Province, it is abundantly clear that there is fraudulent use of the absent voter system.
  Of course, electoral fraud is committed with more sophistication now. Sinn Fein-IRA purchase copies of the marked register, from which they can determine who has not voted in a series of elections. They know that if they take those votes, it will not come to the attention of the electoral office. They provide themselves with absent voter application forms for those people. They intercept the forms from the Post Office—again, there was evidence of that happening. Alternatively, they go to the house and take the application form before the person who is receiving it ever has the opportunity to vote; in some cases, they do so before that person has had the opportunity even to open the envelope. That is how it is done: it is a sophisticated operation by those who are intent on abusing the electoral system.
  The signature will assist only if there is sufficient time to carry out the investigations. If the Minister wants to tackle that issue, the electoral office must be provided with the necessary resources. A significant number of people must be put in during the run-up to an election to ensure that the investigations are carried out and that there is proper scrutiny of all the postal and proxy vote applications that come to the office. There are clear resource implications. The Government cannot simply put the legislation through and hope that everything will work out in the electoral office. I trust that the Government are prepared to fund the necessary increase in staff and support at the office.
  I shall describe some of the provisions that the Government should have included in the legislation and that I hope that we can introduce in Committee. To avoid abuse, it is essential that something is done about intimidation. The Minister talked about an exclusion zone, cordon sanitaire, or whatever term the House wishes to use. I agree with him in that I do not believe that that will solve the problem, but unless new powers are given to staff inside the polling station, and to the RUC officers outside it, intimidation will still happen.
  It is not always a question of the intimidation of voters. Indeed, it is difficult to intimidate voters because they can have the last laugh: ultimately, they go into the box and very few people will know what they have done there. It is the intimidation of other political parties' staff and workers in the polling station that gives an advantage to one political group. There must be some cognisance of the fact that additional powers need to be given to the police and to the presiding officer and his staff, so that they can tackle that problem.
  Attention must be paid to access for the disabled. It is all right saying that we will deal with people who defraud votes, but if one stops people who are entitled to vote getting to the polling station, it has the same effect. In my constituency, people have not been able to gain access to a polling station because of steps or because they could not get their wheelchairs through the gates. I am sure that the same tale could be told in other constituencies. There are many different reasons why disabled people cannot gain access. A number of polling stations are not disability-friendly. That problem must be looked at.

  721
  There should not be a hue and cry simply at the time of the election. I hope that the Minister will instruct the electoral officer to ensure access for the disabled at polling stations.
  There is one further factor that I hope to be able to raise in Committee, if the amendments are selected: bogus opinion polls, which are a method of bending the minds of voters. I say "bogus" because that is precisely what I mean. It was known that the opinion polls that were printed by the newspapers were bogus; the companies that carried them out must have known. I have seen the detail of how one opinion poll was carried out and I know that it was bogus. I am talking about the main opinion poll that was carried out for the Belfast Telegraph by Ulster Marketing Surveys in the run-up to the two elections on 7 June. UMS deliberately chose areas where my party was not standing as the sampling point.
  David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that the opinion poll had no impact on the result in any of the constituencies to which he refers? Although it might have been alarming, it had no impact on the results.
  Mr. Robinson: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is saying that he thinks that it had no impact because my party did so well and his so badly, but no one could say that it did not have any impact. I assume that since the election, he has not spoken to everyone who voted to find out whether it had any impact on them. As everyone knows, the reality is that he would not put statements into newspapers in Northern Ireland in the run-up to elections if he did not believe that they had some influence on the people who read them. [Interruption.] I can see that I will be called to order soon, so I shall wrap the subject up quickly. There must be some prohibition on people who knowingly carry out an opinion poll in such a way as to produce a result that is in no way a reflection of the support in the country for the political parties involved.
  In general, I welcome the legislation. It can certainly be improved in Committee. I hope that we have the opportunity to do that.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). It is obvious from his remarks and the thought that he has given to the subject that he has an enormous contribution to make when the Bill goes into Committee.
  In general terms, I welcome the thrust of the Bill, although areas of it could be improved and strengthened. Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I believe that it is long overdue. The Select Committee report of March 1998 said that this was an urgent and important issue. Indeed, that report followed the report by the Northern Ireland Forum, which has been referred to by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). As a member of the Northern Ireland Forum committee, I remember hearing him give evidence. I am delighted that he continues to take a close interest in electoral law and reform in Northern Ireland. Some of his suggestions are constructive and I hope that the Minister will take them on board.
  722
  We have had four elections in Northern Ireland since the Select Committee report was published: the Northern Ireland Assembly elections in 1998; the European elections; and the Westminster and the local government elections, which were held on the same day recently. Three elections were held under the proportional representation system, one under the first-past-the-post system. As has been said, with elections held under the proportional representation system, at times only a relatively small number of votes may be needed to determine who stays in and who goes out of a particular contest, and therefore who ultimately gets elected. Therefore, a significant number of fraudulent votes can have a major impact on the outcome of elections, particularly in local government.
  We debated that issue in the Northern Ireland Forum in 1997. I do not think that any members of the forum believed that we would have another local government election before legislation was introduced in the House to combat electoral fraud—especially when, as has been pointed out, half the postal votes in the 1997 local government elections were fraudulent. That speaks for itself.
  In passing, I make the point that one of the purposes of the legislation is to ensure that those entitled to vote are not disfranchised.
  Recently, there were two elections on the same day in Northern Ireland, one for Members of the House of Commons and one for members of local government. I hope that the experiment was a one-off. Many people in Northern Ireland, noting the number of spoiled papers in both elections, concluded that the holding of two elections on one day under two different voting systems—proportional representation in the local government election, and first past the post in the Westminster election—disfranchised more voters than were disfranchised by fraud. I hope the Minister will take that on board.
  I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East and others about the various bits of documentation that must be produced by those wishing to obtain a ballot paper, especially a driving licence. The issue has already been highlighted so I shall not say much more about it. However, I have often seen voters emerge from polling stations disgusted by the fact that they have not been allowed to vote despite having photographic identification—bus passes or works passes, for example. Meanwhile, they have seen others being given ballot papers following the production of medical cards or benefit books—rightly, under the current legislation—with no photographic identification being required. I am thinking especially of those who produce the part of a driving licence that contains a photograph, but do not produce the part that is necessary for them to obtain a ballot paper. That point should be considered in Committee.
  I am glad that in future there will be an identification card with a photograph that will entitle people to vote. That, I think, is widely welcomed. I suggest to the Minister, however, that the phasing out of other identification documents, such as benefit books and medical cards, should not happen too quickly. As has been said, it will take time to persuade people to apply. We do not want people to be disfranchised because they have no passport or no driving licence, but have not been able to apply—or have not got around to applying—for a

  723
  photo-identification electoral card. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire—or it may have been the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Õpik)—said that the phasing-out should take place speedily, but I think that we should proceed with caution.
  Rolling registration has been widely welcomed in Northern Ireland, and it is working reasonably well. It was a major step forward in terms of electoral law in Northern Ireland, greatly reducing the need for multiple registration. There were exchanges between, for instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East and the Minister about whether it should be possible for voters to register in two places, thus being able to choose where to vote in local government elections. It would be relatively easy to make the same choice under the rolling registration system. For example, those who wanted to vote in a particular council area because they owned property there could simply register to do so.
  I agree with those who oppose the idea of an exclusion zone. I do not think that it would be practical to place such a cordon sanitaire around polling stations. Effectively, however, there is already an exclusion zone at certain polling stations for some voters on both sides of the Northern Ireland community. I know from my practical experience as a candidate that in some areas, where an overwhelming majority of nationalists and only a tiny proportion of Unionists would vote, Unionists are being forced to cast their votes. They feel intimidated by that: they are so put off by having to walk past all the Sinn Fein workers and polling agents that they do not want to vote at all.
  Nationalist voters feel the same. They have to come to an overwhelmingly Unionist polling station in my constituency, in the Ardoyne area, and they may likewise feel intimidated. Some thought should be given to the best way to designate polling stations to allay such fears.
  I agree with what has been said about the entitlement of those with disabilities to vote. After the recent elections, constituents told me that they could not vote at, for instance, Currie primary school in Limestone road because it was necessary to negotiate two sets of steps. That puts off elderly people and makes it out of the question for those with disabilities to vote. On a number of occasions the ballot box was taken out to people so that they could vote—under supervision. That should not be tolerated in a civilised society. People should have the right to proper access to polling stations.
  It is essential for the chief electoral officer, his staff and local electoral officers to have the funds that will enable them to run their operations efficiently and to combat fraud and abuse. I was amazed to discover that while it was deemed permissible for parties and candidates to have copies of the electoral roll—they could buy it in order to address labels and so on for election purposes—they were told, when they asked whether they could have the information on a computer disk, that that was possible but that no computer in Northern Ireland would be able to read it because the software was so antiquated.
  That is the sort of system that the chief electoral officer must tackle and funds are urgently needed to deal with the problems.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I know that the Minister will receive a message telling him that plans are already afoot
  724
  to spend money on that, but that funding will not be available until 2003. That is no use: the money and the equipment must be made available more readily. Even the computer department at Queen's university could not transfer the data on the chief electoral officer's machine to machines that would be used by any of the rest of us.
  Mr. Dodds: I am sure that the Minister heard that and will accept that speedy action is necessary.
  The former chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland used to say repeatedly that if we wanted to ensure that people had the right to vote and were not deprived of it by fraudulent means, it would cost money. The House and the Government will have to ensure that that money is made available. There is nothing more precious than the right to vote, and nothing makes people angrier than turning up on election day and finding that their votes have been stolen from them. It is incumbent on us to ensure that whatever resources are necessary to enable the electoral office to operate efficiently are provided.
  I welcome the broad thrust of the Bill. We will give it a fair wind, but we hope that a number of points that have been raised will be addressed in Committee. The legislation may not be completed by the end of August or by September, when the next Northern Ireland elections will be held, if the Secretary of State is to be believed—and, indeed, if the law is followed through and there is no fancy footwork in the electoral process—but we hope that it will be enacted at the earliest opportunity.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I should first like to apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister, to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and to other hon. Members for the fact that I was not here when the debate started. As I explained in a letter to Mr. Speaker, I was asked some time ago to chair a meeting in Portcullis House on the working of the Human Rights Commissions in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, and it was not an obligation that I could get out of. Consequently, I had not planned to seek to speak in this debate.
  My hon. Friends in the Social Democratic and Labour party have not been able to attend the debate because they are with the Prime Minister, as are the leaders of the Ulster Unionist party, trying to find a peaceful solution to the problems of Northern Ireland and specifically to address the four issues that are besetting the peace process. The points that I shall make are essentially those that they would have made if they were not with the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and the leaders of the other pro-agreement parties.
  The SDLP has identified three main types of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. The first is multiple registration and voting whereby voters are registered at various addresses—perhaps their parents' and friends' addresses—as well as at their own. Currently there is very little that can be done to identify or prevent that practice.
  Personation of electors, particularly of those who do not usually use their vote, is the second type of fraud. It is committed with the assistance of forged identification, and medical cards are often used as they are simple in design and carry no photograph. Today, we have heard one anecdote after another about how that type of fraud has been committed. The need very strongly to address that issue is widely recognised.

  725
  The third type of fraud is the fraudulent application for postal and proxy votes. It, too, is often committed by using the names of non-voters or by using false registrations for uninhabited houses. However, the list of those in receipt of postal votes is and must remain available to the public. The date of issue of postal votes is also known. Consequently, people are able to go round and collect those postal votes and use them fraudulently.
  An equally important sub-category of fraud occurs in cases in which people have properly applied for a postal vote, or have been persuaded to apply for one, after which people visit their house and intimidate them or threaten them and take it from them. We know that that happens on both sides of the community divide.
  The worst thing that can possibly happen to a person is that someone take his vote from him and use it wrongly. That is stealing that person's identity, personality and most basic stake in democratic society. That is why we should take the matter very seriously regardless of where it occurs, whether in Northern Ireland or Great Britain. The right to vote is sacred to people and vital to their individuality and dignity. We must always treat seriously cases in which an attempt is made to remove someone's vote by fraud, threat or intimidation.
  The SDLP feels that Ministers have gone some way towards achieving proper prevention of some of the fraud. However, like other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, SDLP Members feel that the measures do not go far enough and that other measures could have been introduced to deal with the problem. We have already heard exchanges on the possible benefits of smart cards, which may be introduced. However, certainly the most depressing feature of the Bill is that it does not contain a timetable on removing the right to use non-photographic evidence. We do not welcome the fact that some forms of identification that are subject to fraud will still be accepted. The Bill could, as an indication of the Government's intention, provide for regulation and statutory instruments to do away with non-positive means of identification.
  SDLP Members also believe that it would have been far better to include a requirement for voters to present a national insurance number, as each national insurance number is individual and distinct to every member of society. Everyone over 16 in Northern Ireland has a national insurance number. If those seeking to vote were required to provide their date of birth and national insurance number, it would be quite simple to use computers to check for multiple registrations and the fraudulent use of those numbers. The computer system would know how many national insurance numbers were extant in Northern Ireland at a particular time.
  Mr. Grieve: I am very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments on the subject, and we may hear more about it from the Minister. However, my understanding of the issue, is that, unfortunately, there are far more national insurance numbers floating around the United Kingdom than there are heads of population. My experience as prosecuting counsel in benefit fraud cases for the then Department of Social Security was certainly that numbers could be obtained with ease and that some individuals possessed enormous multiples of numbers.
  726
  I therefore wonder whether national insurance numbers really provide the protection that the hon. Gentleman is seeking.
  Mr. McNamara: Northern Ireland's population is much smaller than that of Great Britain and there are specific Northern Ireland national insurance numbers. They could therefore assist in creating a system to deal with the problem.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is arguing. Even in Northern Ireland, however, it is amazing how people are able to obtain multiple national insurance numbers. One of my constituents was convicted of theft after manufacturing 25 national insurance numbers for 25 ghost customers.
  Mr. McNamara: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It is perhaps unfortunate that his constituent was discovered before he drew his old age pension as he would have had a reasonably large pension.
  As I said, SDLP Members believe that national insurance numbers could be used with computers as an effective means of quickly and effectively checking identities. They also believe that we have to have a timetable to stop using non-photographic identity.
  SDLP Members also believe that the Bill should contain other provisions. Although some other hon. Members may not agree with them, they believe that there should be a 100-metre limit on canvassing, posting and other party political activity around all polling stations, primarily to allay voters' anxieties and to reassure people that the polling station is a neutral zone. They believe that the withdrawal of partisan posters and active canvassing for 100 yards or so will help people to avoid the intimidation to which the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) referred. They see that as useful in preventing electoral fraud.
  My SDLP colleagues believe that we should address the powers of the personnel involved with election-day procedures. They have given the example of one of the few instances in which a police officer can observe a crime being committed but be powerless to take action because he is in a difficult situation. If he proceeded to take action, it would probably lead to a considerable breach of the peace and, perhaps, the closure of the polling station because of a riot ensuing. My hon. Friends would like to see a cordon sanitaire and more powers to prevent crimes such as personation.
  Mr. Grieve: What does the hon. Gentleman think about tellers? In Great Britain, parties put tellers into polling stations to note who has voted. Telling is what I might call almost a village fair occupation, with people having pleasant conversations and exchanging information. That is certainly the case in my constituency. If the restrictions that the hon. Gentleman proposes were to be introduced, that would prevent telling from taking place. That might be seen as an infringement of a legitimate right of people to inquire as to who is voting.
  Mr. McNamara: As I understand from my visits to polling stations in Northern Ireland, telling agents are inside, rather than outside, the stations. Some presiding officers in the UK insist that the tellers are outside the

  727
  polling station and, in my constituency, tellers have not been allowed in when the weather has been inclement. The situation is somewhat different in Northern Ireland.
  My SDLP colleagues would like the Bill to contain provisions to examine the training and resources given to the electoral officer to ensure that the reforms, when passed by this House, can be implemented quickly and efficiently. It is one thing to vote for a scheme, and another to provide the money and training to enable it to take place. The sooner that that is done, the sooner many of the Government's wishes can be carried through.
  My hon. Friends in the SDLP disagree to a limited extent with some of the comments made by members of the DUP concerning multiple constituency representation and proportional representation. My hon. Friends find it anomalous that, of all the elections in Northern Ireland, it is only the election for the UK Parliament that remains first past the post. They believe that there would be far fairer representation under multiple constituency representation—fairer for all the factions present in Northern Ireland.
  The SDLP also believes that if such a system of proportional representation were introduced, much of the impetus that is given to some organisations to resort to illegal practices would be gone because they would get fair representation. That would overcome the problem to which the hon. Member for Belfast, North referred when he said that a fraction of fraudulent votes could swing a seat one way or the other. SDLP Members believe that multiple representation within Westminster elections would work the other way from that outlined by the hon. Member for Belfast, North.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman might argue on behalf of his friends in the SDLP about how many seats the party would win under proportional representation. However, proportional representation is used throughout Northern Ireland for the European elections and it makes no difference whatever. We were told that proportional representation might lead to the election of Sinn Fein or the SDLP, but it was the DUP which topped the polls, with the Ulster Unionists and the representative of the nationalists. If that was the case then, I do not know how the SDLP can say so confidently that things would fall in their favour if proportional representation were used for Westminster elections.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Before the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) replies, I should point out that I do not want this to develop into a debate about proportional representation.
  Mr. McNamara: Indeed, but the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has made a big error. The SDLP was arguing not that proportional representation would be for its benefit but that it would be for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. The real problem for the hon. Gentleman is that, much though he represents his party, he does not represent the whole of Northern Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nor does the SDLP."] Nor does the SDLP; nor does the DUP, the UUP, the PUP or any other acronym one can come up with.
  The purpose of the Bill—to get rid of electoral fraud—should unite all parties in this House. The Bill is important and I hope that the Government take on board proposals
  728
  from all parts of the House that show a unanimity of view that they can go further. Even if the Government feel that they cannot move as many would wish, they could at least include within the Bill a provision to introduce changes without the need to come back to this House in future with primary legislation.
  7.56 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) reminded me of a situation years ago, when I was performing a wedding. The bridegroom had a difficulty with his speech and asked me to reply on behalf of the bride, so I was speaking on behalf of the bride, just as the hon. Gentleman was speaking on behalf of the SDLP.
  The points made by the hon. Gentleman were useful and helpful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am glad that you brought him back to the centre of the debate, which is how to deal with electoral fraud. I appreciated the Minister's kind words, but I have a sense of revulsion when I listen to people in this House talking as if there were no electoral fraud in Great Britain and it were normal in Northern Ireland. We are beginning to realise that the people of England, Wales and Scotland are no better than the people of Northern Ireland and that electoral fraud is practised elsewhere, including in Lib-Lab deals in some councils.
  I regret that the Bill does not apply to the United Kingdom as a whole because, according to European legislation, the same franchise and standards should be applicable throughout the UK. When the Government argue about the seamless robe of government, it would be worthwhile asking for the Bill to apply throughout the UK.
  I wish to refer to disability. I welcome the improvements that have been made in terms of access to polling stations. However, it is not enough for the electoral office and the Government in Northern Ireland to provide access to a school via the outside steps when nothing can be done inside, as it is the responsibility of the Education Department or the Education and Library Board. It is time that schools were so equipped that people with disabilities could have a normal education and then grow up to vote in those schools without any hindrances.
  I remember an earlier debate when the Government of the day introduced legislation to try to deal with electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. At the end of that debate, Enoch Powell rose in his place to draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that the Minister handling the debate had voted in both Lobbies, to show how easy it was to have multiple votes. We live in a fascinating world. The tragedy was that that Government did not listen to our arguments on that occasion, which is why we have to re-examine the question.
  I plead with the Minister to bear in mind in Committee the points of detail that we have made today. All of us would accept the principle of the Bill, but the details of how we apply that principle are important. In proceedings on the earlier legislation, it was even suggested that a rent book would be an acceptable identity document, until we advised the civil servants and Ministers concerned that there were people in Belfast who would be glad to give their rent book to anybody. Civil servants do a remarkably good job, but sometimes streetwise people are needed to guide Ministers and inject some realism into the proceedings.

  729
  There is a weakness in the system of rolling registration and postal voting. The new chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, Mr. Stanley, said that he could not guarantee the integrity of the election because he was dependent on the Post Office delivering the forms correctly. Many people in the last election in Northern Ireland did not get a postal vote even though they had applied in good time. In some cases in my area, the form was sent by return from the electoral office, but was postmarked five days later. Votes do not go missing through fraud alone.
  I plead with the Government to listen to us. Sometimes Northern Ireland Members have not been listened to because of the attitude that mother or auntie knows best. It was obvious today that hon. Members did not know what they had inflicted on Northern Ireland in relation to voting patterns. I plead with them to listen to the plea made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson): until we get proper smart cards, let pensioner IDs be acceptable. It would not be difficult in this new legislation to add them to the list of acceptable documents.
  The law says that both parts of a driving licence are needed, but they are not. We should change the law to say that the plastic part is acceptable on its own. The law also says that the driving licence or passport must be current. Some people did not send their driving licence away to be renewed because they wanted it as an ID, but were then told that it was not acceptable as it was not current, even though their faces and even addresses had not changed.
  Returning officers do a magnificent job by and large, but they stick strictly to the law. There was an outlandish case in Lagan Valley. A man and wife went to vote. The man had both parts of his driving licence with him, but the lady, like many another, had brought the wrong handbag and discovered that her driving licence was not in it. She was not allowed to vote. The husband said, "But surely a man can recognise his own wife and vouch for her identity." The electoral officer said no, that was not the law. Finally, in exasperation, the woman said, "Sure you know who I am. You had supper in our house last night."
  Now it seems that we are in for a gay old time, as human rights legislation will give people a right to sue if they brought identification that they thought was acceptable but were denied the right to vote because of a strict application of the law. That is how barristers make a living—they keep arguing over technicalities. The Government may have some wonderful days ahead. I plead for the removal of some of the strict legalistic interpretation by removing the requirement for passports and driving licences to be current and for the two parts of the licence to be produced.
  I happen to believe in the smart card. I believe that it would be better to have a multipurpose smart card. It could be a proper medical card, carrying information about medical problems requiring particular care. The cards would certainly be useful as ID in elections—Northern Ireland is the most elected place going, and people are dizzy with going backwards and forwards to vote—but we are all human, and is there anyone here today who has not put something in a safe place and then
  730
  forgotten where they left it? If we tie ourselves down to the one smart card for voting, we may face genuine difficulties with people who cannot remember where they left it.
  We need to consider the matter not with the view of the civil libertarians who are against anything that might infringe their liberties, no matter who might become a victim whose vote might be stolen, or whether a presiding officer is browbeaten. We are here to provide good legislation for the conduct of our elections in Northern Ireland, and I plead with the Minister to be a little more flexible on the detail, to get the best results for us all.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: This has been a fascinating and highly educational debate. I shall listen to the Minister with great interest when he responds on matters such as the extent of the franchise in Northern Ireland for local government elections. It may be that he and I will have learned something this evening of which we were not previously aware.
  In my earlier intervention, I pointed out that in local government elections in Great Britain, it is possible to vote in two places on the same day. The Minister seemed to assume that that was also possible in Northern Ireland, so this evening's opportunity to look into such matters has been very educational.
  I also join other hon. Members in welcoming the Minister to his Front-Bench post, and to this debate. I know from experience his long-standing interest in Northern Ireland and its problems, so it is a special pleasure to see him holding office as a Northern Ireland Minister.
  The debate has been conducted on the important premise that electoral fraud must be eliminated. Some of the manifestations of fraud are humorous and have been the subject for comedy for many years, but fraud is a serious matter. We have heard much about paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland obtaining power by means of the Armalite and the ballot box at the same time. The problem is even worse when we realise that the system being employed is that of the Armalite and the stuffed ballot box.
  Like the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), I believe that there is ample evidence that the degree of personation and fraud in elections on the mainland of Great Britain is a growing problem. I suspect that the House will have to tackle that problem in the near future, and I shall be interested to discover what the Electoral Commission has to say about the distribution of postal votes at the last general election. The enormous rise in their use in certain locations may suggest that many people are legitimately taking advantage of a right that they have been given—but a more sinister interpretation may be appropriate.
  It is clear that the House is united in its view that electoral fraud is a serious matter, and that it must be stopped. Our aim must be to ensure as far as possible that one person has one vote, and that people who vote do so legitimately.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Õpik) said that he thought that that legitimacy would be in everyone's interest. I wish that that were true, but my impression of the development of politics in Northern

  731
  Ireland over the past 20 years is that certain parties there do not seem to agree. They appear to have reaped the advantages of participation in the democratic process despite clear evidence that they have abused the system. Moreover, they do not seem to have experienced many downsides as a result.
  Lembit Õpik: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and as recently as in the 2001 general election, the parties to which he refers may have derived genuine advantage from playing the system. However, I am sure that mainland voters would not take kindly to the discovery that a major party on the mainland had broken the democratic franchise. Further normalisation in Northern Ireland could mean that those who cheat the system there would suffer the same fate.
  Mr. Grieve: I certainly hope so. If the Bill leads to the revelation that more personation is taking place—
  Lembit Õpik: Does the hon. Gentleman mean less personation?
  Mr. Grieve: No. I mean that the Bill may lead to more personation being detected, and as a result public opinion may come to oppose the practice. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who said that there was something strange about the fact that different constituencies in Northern Ireland register absent voters in different ways. For example, one wonders where the many absent voters who are registered in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and in West Tyrone come from.
  I turn now to some specific points arising from the debate. I do not want to take up too much of the House's time, so I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not comment on all the speeches that have been made.
  The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) proposed the use of national insurance numbers to prevent fraud. That possibility is not provided for in the Bill, but I shall risk repeating myself by pointing out that the usefulness of national insurance numbers for that purpose would be very limited. The Minister mentioned the matter in passing in his opening speech, and I should be interested to hear more.
  I do not want my remarks to become too anecdotal, but from my experience of prosecuting people for benefit fraud it became apparent to me that national insurance numbers were two a penny. They are readily obtainable by a variety of means, and anyone who lays hands on a benefit book containing a national insurance number can start exploiting that number. I prosecuted one case in which paramilitary groups were funding themselves through the United Kingdom taxpayer. They had obtained large quantities of new benefit books, and those books carried national insurance numbers. I therefore have serious doubts about the possibility of using national insurance numbers to curtail electoral fraud.
  Moreover, as the Minister noted, people could get muddled by a system that depended on national insurance numbers. Most people do not know their number and would be unable to state it to an electoral officer if they did not have it written down.
  Another proposal was that signatures could be used as proof of identity. I did not attend the meetings of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, so there may be
  732
  something about that proposal that I have missed. After all, banks require us to sign cheques, and bank staff make a visual comparison between the signature on the cheque and the specimen signature on the bank card. However, on many occasions it has been doubted that my signature on a cheque is the same as the signature on my card.
  The signature is a very old fashioned means of identification, and I wonder how accurate it can be. That is not to say that the Bill is wrong in requiring signatures. I have no difficulty with that, but the hon. Member for Belfast, South suggested that signatures could be used more widely, and I am not sure that that would be as useful as he believes.
  The Minister may say that the digital methods that have been floated before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee are now so accurate that a signature's particular characteristics can be detected. None the less, even if similarities can be determined between the very clear example that I might put on a bank card and the scrawl that appears when I sign a document at a funny angle, I am not sure that signatures would be very effective in the role that has been proposed.
  That brings us to the nub of the debate, and to the key matters that must be grappled with. One of the key aspects of the Bill is whether we are moving towards smart cards for voting. Clearly, the provision in the Bill for such cards should be an exceptionally powerful deterrent against fraud.
  One subject that we have to debate, and frequently do, is reconciling the liberty of the individual, and the tradition of turning our backs on any form of identification card, with the growing pressure for the use of such cards in a wide variety of situations. I do not want to become involved in too wide a discussion this evening, but voting is undoubtedly a right. As the hon. Member for North Down said, it is a right enshrined under the Human Rights Act 1998. At the same time, it is also a privilege. I would not expect to be allowed to vote if there were some doubt as to my identity.
  In those circumstances, we are probably moving inexorably, not only in Northern Ireland but in mainland United Kingdom, towards some sort of smart card identification—I hope that it will not be an identity card, with all the connotations that that has—for situations in which one's identity has to be properly established, and voting is one of those.
  I hope that the Minister will not take it amiss when I say that I worry a little about the two-tier nature of the system that seems to be creeping in under this legislation. I appreciate the conservatism of the Government on this matter and have no dispute about the principles that underlie it. In an effort to provide a number of ways in which people can identify themselves when they go to the polling station, the Minister is leaving open the possibility that some people will identify themselves with those cards and others will use other methods of identification. It has been pointed out that those at the more deprived end of society may be forced to have the smart cards, as they do not use the other forms of identification. That worries me because such people may feel that a burden and a responsibility are being placed on them, and they will have the legitimate complaint that others are using forms of identification that may be much less accurate. I hope that the Minister will keep that aspect of the matter under review.

  733
  Furthermore, if we are moving progressively towards more accurate forms of identification, and as there is widespread agreement in the House on the direction in which we should be going, it is surprising—the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) picked this up—that we are not providing in the Bill for the removal by statutory instrument of certain forms of identification, when they have passed their sell-by date and the new systems have come into operation.
  As the Minister will know, I do not usually favour legislation by statutory instrument. Indeed, I have on occasion—probably, indeed, on occasions too numerous to mention—spoken out against it. None the less, this is one area in which we ought to be capable of using the provisions of statutory instruments creatively, without resorting to subsequent complex debates in the Chamber, which take up time. It is precisely because they take time that such matters do not come before the House. To be kind to the Government, I am prepared to accept that one reason why we have waited so long for this Bill is that, notwithstanding the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, there has not been Government time for it.
  The one area that will merit careful consideration in Committee is whether we can streamline and move towards a simplified smart card system. I appreciate that that will not be done overnight, but if Northern Ireland voting is carried out entirely by smart card at the end of the process, our civil liberties will not have been infringed. They certainly will not have been half as infringed as they are by the present system, under which people may legitimately doubt whether the outcome of a particular election in a particular constituency really reflects the principle of one person, one vote.
  I do not wish to take any more time. As the Minister knows, the Opposition welcome the measure and will not seek to divide the House. We appreciate what the Government are doing, and they have our support. I hope that the Minister will take on board the matters that we have raised, and also that in his reply he will be able to touch on the anxieties raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House so as to ensure, in due course, that fraud is prevented and Northern Ireland has a much better system.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Browne: With the leave of the House, I will reply to this Second Reading debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss electoral fraud in Northern Ireland and for the many well informed contributions. Some of them were better informed than I was, but I will return to that.
  In the words of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), I am also grateful to those hon. Members who shared their street wisdom with me. I assure them that it will inform debates in Committee. In any event, I do not think that I am known as someone who is far removed from street wisdom.
  The problems of electoral abuse in Northern Ireland have repeatedly exercised Governments. The matter has been raised by the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland and his staff, by party officials across the community and by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and other committees. Together with those
  734
  bodies, the Government have examined the problem and the possible solutions with great thoroughness. The Bill makes clear our commitment to finding proposals that will really work, while not imposing unreasonable burdens on the electorate, the chief electoral officer and his staff or the political parties.
  I take this opportunity to express the Government's appreciation of the work done by the chief electoral officer and his staff and their dedication in ensuring that elections in Northern Ireland are carried out properly in what we all acknowledge are sometimes difficult circumstances.
  The measures must strike a balance between limiting the opportunity for abuse and putting obstacles in the path of genuine voters. I will endeavour to answer as many questions as I can in the time given and I undertake to write to any hon. Members whose questions I do not answer.
  I welcome the support for the measure from both sides of the House, even though it is qualified in some instances. I am grateful to the official Opposition, especially the hon. Members for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), for their support. The hon. Member for Solihull and other hon. Members raised an issue that I endeavoured to address in my opening speech: the timing of the legislation and the reason that it has taken so long for it to appear. I do not propose to repeat myself, but I point out in defence of the Government that the time taken to consider and agree workable proposals was not entirely wasted and that other things were done.
  I remind the House that the following new measures are already in place. We now have rolling registration. The chief electoral officer has a statutory right to inspect the records kept by a number of public authorities, some of which I identified. Absent vote applications are being dealt with locally, which has improved their processing. The electoral office has been provided with more funding for additional staff and with new IT systems to facilitate changes. I shall return to that point.
  It has always been our intention that the provisions of the Bill would be in place for the Assembly elections scheduled for May 2003. The hon. Members for North Down (Lady Hermon), for Solihull and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked about multiple registration. For some Members, the discussion of that point may have been the most interesting part of the debate. It appears to have generated a request from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that I enlighten the House as to precisely what the franchise is.
  If this is the worst mistake that I make as a Minister, it will not be the worst ever made by one, but I do not think that the hon. Member for Belfast, East is correct. Unfortunately, the legal advice available to me at the moment is not precise enough for me to be able to check that point and I do not have access to the documentation, so I shall write to him to set out the position. I shall clearly set out what we propose. On that basis, we can hold an informed debate on multiple registration in the Standing Committee.
  Mr. John Taylor: I am grateful to the Minister, not least for his great candour, for which he is to be commended. However, even going along with the analysis part of the way, I would bet far more money than I would care to lose that the position in England is that one may

  735
  vote only once in a parliamentary election and only once in a European election even if one is multiply registered, and that it is an offence to vote more than once for Westminster or Europe. However, if one is twice registered for local government purposes, with two bona fide residences, one may vote twice in those circumstances. That is my understanding.
  Mr. Browne: Given my track record on the subject, I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman when I have checked whether his contribution is accurate. Several hon. Members commented on my interest in Northern Ireland and on my contribution to Northern Ireland matters when I was a Back Bencher in the previous Parliament. It is true that I have some knowledge of Northern Ireland affairs, but today's debate has taught me what I have already told all my officials: a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I tell them that they should remember that although I know some things, they should tell me regularly when I do not know.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: When the Minister investigates local government voting will he check whether in Northern Ireland one is even entitled to register at two distinct places? My understanding is that as it is not always possible to guarantee that people do not register twice, the offence occurs when people vote twice. In Northern Ireland, it is my understanding that one can register only in one place at one time.
  Mr. Browne: I am not in the mood to bow to anybody's wisdom at the moment, so I shall undertake to check all those matters. The hon. Members who raised them will be written to with a clear exposition of the legal situation. That will inform the debate in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Solihull and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) referred to the pressure put on electoral officers by the last-minute presentation of large numbers of absent vote applications. Measures have already been taken to improve the system for absent vote applications. They are now processed at local electoral offices instead of by the chief electoral officer as was the case when the Select Committee examined the issue.
  Absent vote applications are already checked for authenticity and the electoral office devotes much of its resources into clearing the large number of such applications that arrive at the last minute. To be able to compare the signature on the application with the one on the database should assist in the quick identification of suspect applications, despite the reservations expressed by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. However, the eventual introduction of automated absent vote processing will also help in making efficient use of resources.
  The hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and for Solihull, among others, asked why we do not move over to smart-card technology right now. As we said in the White Paper, the ultimate aim is for every voter to be issued with an electoral smart card bearing a unique identifier. I have already told the House that that is an aspiration for the future. I have been accused of setting my ambitions too low in that respect, but the fact is that the technology currently available is still young.
  As I said in my opening speech, I am concerned that we should not use the electoral system to develop the technology. Such a comprehensive scheme would need to
  736
  be wholly secure before it could be introduced in such a sensitive and important matter as electoral administration. The cost of introducing and maintaining such a system would be great. In the light of the American experience in Florida, it is worth noting that technology must not be used for the benefit of the electoral office if it is to the cost of the electorate. Our view is that we would be foolish to rush into a radical new scheme before being confident of the practicalities.
  Lembit Öpik: I have been holding back congratulating the Minister on his new post until I found out how he performed. Having seen how he has performed, I have unbridled admiration for his honest and humble presentation so far. Does he accept that we have two options: a smart card, which could help us to police the voting process; or a dumb card, which could easily be replicated? Does he accept that in the specific case of Northern Ireland, although the cost per head may be high, the absolute cost will be low because we are not dealing with very many people? Does he also accept that the overwhelming view on both sides of the House and among all parties is that we should trust what the financial industry has already tested for us: the smart-card technology, which must surely be effective if the financial industry trusts it?
  Mr. Browne: As usual, I am grateful for all compliments or observations to my credit, but hon. Members will no doubt move well away from making them after this maiden appearance at the Dispatch Box. Perhaps I should make this speech last as long as possible and enjoy it while I can.
  I repeat that the contribution of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has been helpful, as have all the contributions; they will inform the Bill's progress. Cost is not the reason why we do not propose to adopt the smart-card technology now. In the meantime, we do not propose to introduce a dumb card; we shall use the best card available to us. We are not introducing the smart card now because we are not satisfied that the biometric technology that underpins it is as yet mature enough to be used at elections.
  Mr. Barnes: The House should accept the Minister's arguments for not introducing the smart card, which everyone wants in the end, but if the electoral identity card is the best available, why cannot it be universal, as it would then feed into the smart-card provisions later? If everyone had an electoral identity card, we would move down the road towards the smart card.
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking us forward; I had intended to address what has been described as the introduction of a two-tier system, involving photographic identity cards for elections and driving licences and passports otherwise. I repeat that a smart card for everyone remains an ultimate goal, but the technological difficulties have to be resolved first.
  I believe that no stigma is attached to receiving an electoral ID card. Indeed, for many people, it would be far better than having to show their benefit books as a method of identification. The ID card will be freely and widely available to those who require it. It represents the quickest way to create a situation in which we can remove the medical card and the other non-photographic ID cards

  737
  from use. Although I constantly caution that we must move steadily and that we must take the parties and the electorate with us, we have to take action as quickly as is reasonable. If introducing the ID card, as a stepping stone towards the smart card, allows us to act more quickly, that is what we should do, and it is what we will do. That is why we shall take advantage of the fact that other people can use forms of identification, such as the driving licence with a photograph and passports, that cannot easily be forged.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East suggested using the travelcards that, I understand, will shortly be issued to all people in Northern Ireland over the age of 65. [HON. MEMBERS: "Over 60."] I may be wrong; it may be 60. In any event, we will not accept a travel pass because such a document is not designed to high enough a security specification for it to be a reliable identifier for electoral purposes. However, he made the sensible suggestion that we should take advantage of the fact that the cards are being issued to piggy-back on them to encourage people to apply for electoral identity cards. Although following that sensible suggestion will require discussion with the devolved authorities, I will explore it further and examine whether it can be pursued.
  Several hon. Members sensibly raised the issue of the two parts of the driving licence. In my evolving response to interventions on my opening speech, I suggested that we would consider the possibility of treating that part of the driving licence with a photograph as sufficient for identification purposes. There may be downsides to consider and work through. For example, driving licences can be stolen. However, it is reasonable to suggest that the part with the photograph will not be used by anyone who does not look like the person on the photograph. Therefore, that problem may not be as big as was first thought. I undertake to consider the issue.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I welcome the Minister's willingness to reconsider the issue of driving licences.
  On the senior citizens bus pass, the Minister cannot argue that the design does not suit. The only design that he can be aware of is the design of the present concessionary pass, and that is to be changed for a free fares bus pass. The design work has not been done yet, so the pass could incorporate whatever mechanisms he requires for it to be used for electoral identification purposes.
  Mr. Browne: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. However, it is not a question of the design or content of the card, but one of its security specifications and whether it can be produced fraudulently. That is one of the main concerns with the current documents used for identification purposes.
  Mr. McNamara: Will my hon. Friend the Minister respond to the point made from both sides of the House that the Bill does not contain provision for getting rid of non-photographic identification documents? To achieve change in that regard, we shall require further primary legislation. If we could deal with that problem by regulation, we could get rid of it when it is opportune to do so.
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I was intending to come to it and, if he
  738
  bears with me, I shall work through some of the issues that have been raised and attempt to conclude the debate within a reasonable time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire welcomed the research that is taking place into the electoral system in Northern Ireland and he asked for details on it. The preliminary results will be available by August and the final report is due in September, which is quite soon. The research has been commissioned to investigate all aspects of operations at recent elections and includes possible electoral malpractice. It is designed to investigate every stage of the electoral process and will involve the general public, presiding officers and counting staff. Anecdotal evidence suggests that electoral abuse is widespread in Northern Ireland. We hope that the research will better inform us of the extent of abuse and the form that it takes so that we can tackle the problem.
  My hon. Friend also referred to signatures. We could ask for voters' signatures at the polling station, but we must implement only essential measures that do not create unnecessary barriers. We believe that the collection of a person's date of birth and signature on registration and the use of the date of birth and photographic identification at the polling station are sufficient. We have no intention of putting more barriers in front of voters than are necessary to tackle the problem.
  The support of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is also welcome. I am acutely aware of the balance that is necessary when we legislate to place restrictions on the electoral process. His speech was a model of how to walk that tightrope; he argued for immediate implementation of a smart card and then exposed the dangers of the creeping introduction of identification cards.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether we will redesign the form for absent vote applications. We shall discuss how best to improve it with the chief electoral officer, including the use of bar coding and serial numbers on forms, which we believe are valuable. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the need to improve the register's accuracy and suggested that that should be a priority. The Northern Ireland register is 94 per cent. accurate, which is high, as he acknowledged. Rolling registration, the chief electoral officer's powers to examine other databases and improved information technology in the electoral office will enhance that further.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked why we do not legislate to remove the medical card and other non-photographic forms of identification from the list of specified documents. It is clear that we will need to give people a reasonable amount time to obtain a specified form of photographic identification, such as electoral ID, and to get used to using it. We cannot disfranchise voters in our haste to legislate.
  We have always intended to get the measures in place in time for the scheduled Assembly elections in 2003 and we propose to remove the non-photographic ID from the list of specified documents by subordinate legislation when we are able to.
  Lembit Öpik: Will the Minister at least commit the Government to listening sincerely to our concerns when we raise them in Committee where it will be more appropriate to cover them in detail?
  Mr. Browne: That is implicit in my remarks. Today's debate will inform discussions in Committee where we will be able to consider the issues raised.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down for reminding me of the human rights implications of electoral law. I expected her to do that and was not disappointed. She raised serious concerns that will engage us in Committee. I am sure that she will forgive me for not responding to them now, but they will be addressed.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East made a characteristically analytical speech. He was correct to remind me of my contribution to the Select Committee's work. He and other hon. Members mentioned the important issue of disabled access to polling stations. I am acutely aware of the need for such access, and I am proud of my constituency, which has complete access for disabled persons to all polling stations. I am sure that I am not alone in that. I take very seriously the issue of access for all to polling places.
  I know that the chief electoral officer is looking carefully at locations and endeavouring to ensure that there is access for all. Hon. Members mentioned some of the constraints, such as the age of buildings. Many old school buildings, in particular, are inaccessible. I know that the chief electoral officer takes very seriously his obligations to ensure equality of access, and I hope, during my term as Minister, to make significant progress on that.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East emphasised the need for computer systems. The replacement of the IT system at the electoral office is already under way. The new system will come into effect in July 2002 and will have the capacity to cope with changes to the electoral system envisaged by the Bill.
  Although we live in a democratic society, it is unlikely that we will ever be able to eradicate electoral fraud, but these proposals will make fundamental changes and give the chief electoral officer significant additional powers to combat fraud. Personation at the polling station will be made much more difficult by the requirement for all voters to provide a specified form of photographic identification. The chief electoral officer will be able to collect the signature and date of birth of every elector in Northern Ireland, and that will facilitate the process of checking absent vote applications and verifying identity at the polling station.
  The measures will tackle electoral abuse effectively without disadvantaging honest voters. We intend to implement them as soon as is practicable, but we will take all necessary steps to ensure that no one is disfranchised because of them. The Government alone cannot eradicate electoral fraud. We must continue to work in partnership with the electoral office, the police and political parties to tackle electoral fraud in all its forms. I ask hon. Members who are opposed to electoral fraud, and who want to protect the democratic exercise of the franchise, to take the appropriate action by supporting the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  ELECTORAL FRAUD (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill:

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

    Proceedings in Standing Committee
    3.— (1) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 18th 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.— [Mr. Stringer.]
    The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 90.

    Division No. 17]

    [8.52 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Browne, Desmond

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Ainger, Nick

    Burden, Richard

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Burnham, Andy

    Alexander, Douglas

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Casale, Roger

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Caton, Martin

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cawsey, Ian

    Bailey, Adrian

    Challen, Colin

    Baird, Vera

    Chaytor, David

    Banks, Tony

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Barnes, Harry

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Battle, John

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clelland, David

    Beard, Nigel

    Clwyd, Ann

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Coaker, Vernon

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Benn, Hilary

    Coleman, Iain

    Bennett, Andrew

    Colman, Tony

    Benton, Joe

    Corston, Jean

    Berry, Roger

    Cousins, Jim

    Best, Harold

    Crausby, David

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Cruddas, Jon

    Blizzard, Bob

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Borrow, David

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Cummings, John

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    741

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    David Wayne

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Lammy, David

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

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Laxton, Bob

    Dawson, Hilton

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Lepper, David

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Leslie, Christopher

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Levitt, Tom

    Dobbin, Jim

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Doran, Frank

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Dowd, Jim

    Lloyd, Tony

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Love, Andrew

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Lucas, Ian

    Efford, Clive

    Luke, Iain

    Ennis, Jeff

    Lyons, John

    Farrelly, Paul

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    McCabe, Stephen

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

    McCafferty, Chris

    Flint, Caroline

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Flynn, Paul

    McDonnell, John

    Follett, Barbara

    MacDougall, John

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McFall, John

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Foulkes, George

    McKechin, Ann

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Galloway, George

    McNamara, Kevin

    Gapes, Mike

    MacShane, Denis

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Gerrard, Neil

    McWalter, Tony

    Gilroy, Linda

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Godsiff, Roger

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Goggins, Paul

    Marris, Rob

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Grogan, John

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Martlew, Eric

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hanson, David

    Merron, Gillian

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Havard, Dai

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Healey, John

    Miliband, David

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Miller, Andrew

    Hendrick, Mark

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Heppell, John

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hesford, Stephen

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

    Moran, Margaret

    Heyes, David

    Morgan, Julie

    Hill, Keith

    Morley, Elliot

    Hinchliffe, David

    Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

    Hope, Phil

    Mountford, Kali

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Mullin, Chris

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Norris, Dan

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Hutton, John

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Olner, Bill

    Illsley, Eric

    Organ, Diana

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Jamieson, David

    Owen, Albert

    Jenkins, Brian

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

    Perham, Linda

    Picking, Anne

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Plaskitt, James

    Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

    Pollard, Kerry

    Joyce, Eric

    Pond, Chris

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Pope, Greg

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Kemp, Fraser

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Kidney, David

    Primarolo, Dawn

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    742

    Purchase, Ken

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Pumell, James

    Stringer, Graham

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Rammell, Bill

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

    Tami, Mark

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Rooney, Terry

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Ross, Ernie

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Roy, Frank

    Timms, Stephen

    Ruane, Chris

    Touhig, Don

    Ryan, Joan

    Truswell, Paul

    Salter, Martin

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Tynan, Bill

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Sawford, Phil

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wareing, Robert N

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Watson, Tom

    Simon, Siôn

    Watts, David

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    White, Brian

    Singh, Marsha

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Skinner, Dennis

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Wills, Michael

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Winnick, David

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Soley, Clive

    Woolas, Phill

    Southworth, Helen

    Worthington, Tony

    Spellar, John

    Wray, James

    Squire, Rachel

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Stevenson, George

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Mr. Tony McNulty and

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Mr. Ian Pearson

    NOES

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Heath, David

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Hermon, Lady

    Barker, Greg

    Hoban, Mark

    Barrett, John

    Holmes, Paul

    Beggs, Roy

    Horam, John

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Brooke, Annette

    Knight Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Burns, Simon

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Burnside, David

    Lamb, Norman

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Laws, David

    Calton, Patsy

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Lidington, David

    Cash, William

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Chidgey, David

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Collins, Tim

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Conway, Derek

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Cotter, Brian

    Moore, Michael

    Cran, James

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Dodds, Nigel

    Paice, James

    Doughty, Sue

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Evans, Nigel

    Pickles, Eric

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Flight Howard

    Rendel, David

    Flook, Adrian

    Robathan, Andrew

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Goodman, Paul

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Gray, James

    Ruffley, David

    Grayling, Chris

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Sanders, Adrian

    Hammond, Philip

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Hancock, Mike

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Hayes, John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Heald, Oliver

    Stunell, Andrew

    743

    Swayne, Desmond

    Watkinson, Angela

    Syms, Robert

    Webb, Steve

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Whittingdale, John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Willis, Phil

    Thurso, John

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Trend, Michael

    Mr. John Randall and

    Tyler, Paul

    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  ELECTORAL FRAUD (NORTHERN IRELAND) 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 Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill, ii is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Stringer.]
  Question agreed to.

  Special Educational Needs
  9.6 pm
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move,
  That the draft Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.
  The draft code of practice is designed to replace the current code of practice on the identification and assessment of educational needs, which was introduced in September 1994. The code of practice puts flesh on the provisions of part IV of the Education Act 1996, as amended by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. The intention to revise the code was signalled in the Green Paper "Excellence for all Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs", which was published in 1997. The draft reflects the concerns expressed in the Green Paper and subsequent developments, especially under the new Act.
  Regulations made under the 1996 Act and laid before Parliament on 19 June provide the detail of the statutory requirements for assessments, statements and reviews of statements of special educational needs in England. They will replace the 1994 regulations. Separate regulations, which were laid on the same day, set out information that local authorities must provide about their arrangements for special educational needs. Amendment regulations were laid on 10 July to ensure that the six-week time limit within which LEAs must respond to a parental request for an assessment also applies to requests for assessments by schools and other responsible bodies.
  Mr. Phil Willis: I thank the Minister for giving way so early. Given the Government's intention to bring in private sector companies to run many schools and local authorities, would a private sector company be regarded as one of the other responsible bodies?
  Mr. Timms: The school will be regarded as the body, with the local education authority. If some partnership involving the private sector were to affect the LEA, the provisions would apply as to an LEA in any other circumstances. I do not think that the involvement that the hon. Gentleman has in mind would change either the code or the regulatory position.
  Mr. Willis: What would happen if a private company such as Nord Anglia were to take over the running of a school or group of schools? As a private sector company that is trading on the stock market, would it be regarded as a responsible body?
  Mr. Timms: The code of practice would apply to the school and local education authority in precisely the same way. The duties set out in the 1996 Act, the regulations and the code of practice requirements would have to be met in the normal way. I do not think that the situation that the hon. Gentleman envisages would change that. I hope that I have managed to make that point clear.
  Section 314 of the Education Act 1996 provides for the Secretary of State to revise the code of practice from time to time, and where she proposes to do so, to consult upon a draft, consider any representations made and modify that draft as she sees fit. The Secretary of State, in those

  745
  circumstances, must bring a revised draft to Parliament for approval under the affirmative procedure, which is what we are doing.
  The current code of practice has undoubtedly done much to improve the identification and assessment of special educational needs. Ofsted reports on the implementation of the code of practice have shown that it has helped schools considerably in identifying children with special educational needs and matching appropriate provision to their needs.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: A number of my constituents have taken a close interest in the development of the new code. That interest is borne out of battles that they have had with the local education authority, past and present, over the provision of special needs for their children. When the parents have won, the battles have shown them to be right.
  The current code provides that
  "a statement should normally be specific, detailed and quantified" —
  I stress "quantified"—
  "in terms, for example, of hours of ancillary or specialist teaching support."
  During the development of the new code, Ministers at various times have said that provision should be quantified as appropriate, or have said that the new code will advise LEAs that there may often be a need for statements to say how much help a child should need. Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to clarify that in the new code LEAs should normally be expected to quantify special educational provision in statements of special need?
  Mr. Timms: Many people have been following the debate closely and I know that they have been in touch with their Members about it. I know also that my hon. Friend has taken a close interest in the matter.
  The phrase that appears in the draft code is "quantified as necessary". I shall set out the thinking behind that, and my hon. Friend may want to come back to me on the important point that he has raised.
  The network of special educational needs regional partnerships, which my Department is supporting, adds an important new dimension to the SEN framework by encouraging collaborative working and sharing of good practice among schools, parents, local education and health services and voluntary agencies.
  The draft code of practice is about removing barriers to participation and learning and raising the attainment of all children. Providing effective support for children with special educational needs is an essential feature of an effective school. In some instances, children with special educational needs may not be seen as a great catch by some schools. We need to maintain our focus on high expectations and high standards. At the same time, we must find ways of celebrating the impressive achievements of schools which succeed with pupils who have special educational needs, of which there are many. The work that we are doing on value-added performance tables can play an important role.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: Before the Minister departs too far from his answer to the hon.
  746
  Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), I shall ask him about quantifying where necessary. It is vital to understand that for parents who have real concerns, a statement is no good unless accompanying it is a properly signed up and agreed quantity of special care or special education that will go with it as support. If the Minister is to leave the provision as vague as quantifying where necessary, the code will be seen as not being worth the paper on which it is written. The issue needs to be probed and clearer answers should be given.
  Mr. Timms: I intend to devote some time to the issue in recognition of its importance and the fact that many people have raised concerns about it. In a few minutes, I shall give the matter ample attention.
  I want to set out some of the background to our thinking on the new draft code of practice. It places greater emphasis —this has been widely welcomed —on early identification of children's special educational needs, including a new chapter on the early years. We are supporting that greater emphasis through the £25 million that we are making available over the next three years to help LEAs and their early years development and child care partnerships to improve local provision for young children with SEN, and through the multi-agency working party that we are setting up to consider the needs of children under two with SEN and disabilities and the needs of their families. That will help us to produce guidance for health and education practitioners on early identification and help for those children.
  Early identification is not just relevant to the early years. Children can have special educational needs at different stages of their school career. We have therefore developed the guidance in the draft code of practice on school-based intervention to focus less on procedures and more on improving teaching and learning. We have given proper recognition to the role that class and subject teachers play in identifying children's SEN and in tailoring their approaches to address those needs. We have reduced the number of school-based elements from three to two and cut the paperwork on individual education plans to free up time for teachers to concentrate on helping children to learn.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is still the enormous problem of schools, parents and medical practitioners not recognising conditions such as dyslexia? The children often develop all kinds of behavioural and other problems because it is not recognised. It becomes expensive for everyone later. There is little incentive for a school seriously to assist with identifying dyslexia. Often, it is expensive for the school. That worsens the problem, rather than mitigating against it.
  Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is in response to concerns of that sort that there is the new focus on early identification in the new draft code. We hope that that will help to deal with precisely that sort of difficulty.
  The role of education and other professionals is central to the SEN framework, but the child has a unique and important perspective to offer on his or her own needs, so the draft code places the voice of the child at the heart of the provision. There is a new chapter on pupil

  747
  participation, which carries an expectation that schools and LEAs will seek and take account of the views and wishes of children with SEN throughout their school lives.
  Partnership with parents is given fresh impetus with the guidance in the draft code on the new duties on LEAs under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 to provide parent partnership services and a means of resolving disagreements between parents, the LEA and schools. The draft code makes it clear that those services in no way affect the rights of parents to appeal to the SEN tribunal.
  The key principles of the new statutory framework for inclusion introduced by the 2001 Act are also set out in the draft code of practice. Inclusion can improve the education experience of all children —those with special educational needs and disabilities and their peers. It helps children to recognise that they are good at different things.
  Chris Grayling: The Minister is talking about inclusion, but does he recognise that many parents who have children with special educational needs feel that a mainstream school is not the right environment for their children? Many in my constituency have talked to me about the particular problems that their children face. They feel that their education is being held back by their presence in mainstream schools. Indeed, I have been the governor of a first school where an entire class suffered because of the problems faced by one child, who should not have been in a mainstream school. Does he therefore recognise that, although in some senses—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member and I try to do my best, but his intervention is far too long. I shall allow the Minister to reply to the point that he has raised.
  Mr. Timms: The key thing is that the needs of the child be met in the best way for that child. That is the principle that underpins the measure. That is what we are taking forward with the new draft code of practice.
  When we consulted on changes to the current code of practice, teachers and local education authorities said that it was too bureaucratic and did not focus enough on teaching and learning. We have addressed those concerns in the draft code. We consulted extensively. We sent out more than 30.000 copies of the consultation draft of the revised code between July and October 2000, and received more than 1,000 responses from a wide range of organisations and individuals. Officials took part in many conferences and meetings to listen to people's views. Most favoured the main changes that we proposed. They liked the focus on identifying special educational needs early, and the focus on stronger school-based provision to meet those needs. They liked the reductions in paperwork for teachers, and the emphasis on involving children with SEN in decisions about their education.
  A number of other issues were raised during consultation. We listened to people's views very carefully, and have made changes to the draft in response. In chapter I we have brought together the strategic planning functions of school governing bodies and LEAs in regard to SEN, to make it easier for parents and others to know who is responsible for doing what.
  We have referred to the requirement for LEAs, through the Special Educational Needs (Provision of Information by Local Education Authorities) Regulations 2001,
  748
  to publish a range of information on their policies for special educational needs, any development plans, and their arrangements for monitoring services for SEN and keeping them under review. That will include details of what LEAs would expect schools to provide for children with SEN during the "school action" and "school action plus" phases—school-based SEN provision in the draft code—and what LEAs themselves would expect to provide by way of support. LEAs will need to work closely in partnership with their schools to draw up the information, which will mean better information for parents on how support is provided locally.
  We have provided fuller guidance for LEAs on the services that they are expected to provide for parents through parent partnerships, and on resolving disagreements with schools and parents. We have strengthened the guidance on seeking and taking account of the views of children. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the draft code give stronger support to the role of the SEN co-ordinator in helping school governing bodies and head teachers to raise standards of achievement for children with SEN, and recognise their need for support in schools.
  The guidance on assessments in chapter 7 has been strengthened by clarification of the terms on which LEAs should seek advice, and making it clear that they should seek the views of the child. We have enhanced the guidance on specifying provision for individual pupils in their statements, and highlighted the accountability that schools and LEAs share for children with statements when funds are delegated. That is in chapter 8. We have been able to address issues raised during the consultation, and have improved the existing code of practice in the process.
  Many people expressed particular concerns about the section on specifying special educational provision in children's statements in the consultation draft. They feared that it could be read as weakening the position of children with statements. It has been suggested that the draft code is unlawful in what it says about specifying provision in statements. I do not believe that it is. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), formerly Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), formerly Under-Secretary of State, described the changes that we planned to make to the consultation draft. Let me explain how we want them to work.
  The draft code makes it clear that a statement should describe all a child's special educational needs clearly and in full, set out the main objectives that the special educational provision aims to meet, specify clearly and in detail the provision required to meet each of the child's needs, and describe arrangements for setting shorter-term objectives for the child and any special arrangements for the annual review of the statement.
  The code stresses the importance of the school monitoring and evaluating the child's progress during the year, and places a new emphasis on the importance of the child's progress towards identified outcomes being monitored by the LEA with the school.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said a few moments ago, the current code of practice advises that provision in a child's statement should
  "normally be specific, detailed and quantified".

  749
  The draft code that we are considering today advises that appropriate provision for each identified need should always be specified in terms that are clear, specific and detailed. It advises that provision should be quantified as necessary, and explains that that means according to the needs and circumstances of each individual child and that, in detailing appropriate provision, local education authorities may often need to quantify it.
  The draft code is consistent with the law and does not deny help to children who need it. Provision in children's statements must relate to their individual needs and the context in which they may be taught, as that will be part of the provision. We want statements to be clear about what is to be provided, how it is to be provided and for what purpose. That is why we have emphasised in the draft code that statements should set out the arrangements for monitoring the child's progress towards identified outcomes, to check the effectiveness of the provision over time.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Do Ministers intend to issue to schools further detailed guidance, with examples if necessary, on quantifying the support that has been identified as necessary to meet the child's specified needs?
  Mr. Timms: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know follows these matters very closely. I confirm that our intention is to issue guidance dealing with those matters.
  Mr. Harold Best: Will the guidance notes include references to mechanical aids and other teaching aids that may be considered necessary but might be expensive? Computer programmes, for example, can be extremely helpful to children suffering from dyslexia.
  Mr. Timms: I am sure that it will contain references to those matters. However, my hon. Friend will have to wait to see the actual document to see how that will happen. I shall make a couple of points on that in just a moment.
  Mr. David Laws: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Timms: I need to make a little more headway, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, but I will then gladly give way to him. This is a very important subject about which many questions have been asked and I should like to explain the Government's thinking on it.
  The Government believe, and I think that hon. Members will agree, that the quality of provision and its effectiveness are of prime importance. When a child's special educational needs and circumstances are such that provision must be quantified to meet those needs, we expect that to happen. That is the basis of the guidance in the draft code of practice. It may help if I give some examples to illustrate our thinking.
  A child in a mainstream school with severe language difficulties might, for example, require a daily or weekly period of time to be provided by school staff to deliver an
  750
  individual language programme. I would anticipate that, in most such circumstances, the amount of time would be quantified.
  Let us, however, take another possible example, involving a visually impaired child in a mainstream school. That child or his school may require advice or help from a specialist teacher of the visually impaired, which is specified in the statement, but it may make no sense to specify the number of hours in the statement, or a minimum number may suffice as the time required may fluctuate with the changing needs of the child or his teachers for support.
  The child may also need the type of aids described by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best), such as low vision aids or computing equipment. As the child matures or curriculum requirements change, such aids become out of date and the specialist teacher at the school will identify more appropriate ones. It therefore makes sense to be flexible about how they are specified in the statement. The new code seeks to avoid undue rigidity, which was a risk when interpreting the wording of the old code.
  Mr. Laws: What effect does the Minister expect the change in wording to have on the provision of special educational assistance in schools? In particular, can he sum up in a sentence the reason he believes that the wording will be in the interests of our constituents as opposed to the old wording, which many feel is more in the interests of children in schools?
  Mr. Timms: We are seeking to achieve a focus on quality, rather than just quantity. There are instances where flexibility is needed in the best interests of the child. We do not want to take people automatically down the route of quantification if the best interests of the child can be expressed more effectively in another way. That is why the code refers to quantification where necessary.
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I remain deeply concerned about the quantification aspects of the proposal because my local authority is trying to close a school in a cost-cutting exercise, saying that the school is too expensive to run. With respect to preventing and resolving disagreements, we all want to ensure that all children receive the same quality of service, wherever they reside in the UK. How will the Minister ensure that each authority deals with disputes in an equitable manner? Is there any intention to take reports from each authority to ascertain how effective the dispute forums are?
  Mr. Timms: I hope that the dispute forums are effective; that is our intention. The provision made in particular schools for particular children with particular kinds of support needs may well differ depending on the circumstances that prevail. We need that flexibility to ensure that the best support is provided. It is important that the dispute mechanism to which my hon. Friend refers is addressed. I want to assure her and the House that we are anxious that this should be done correctly and that the code should allow the most appropriate provision for children in every part of the country.
  The draft code is designed to ensure that, as the law requires, local education authorities consider each child's needs on an individual basis and specify the right sort of

  751
  help in their statements. That is why, for the first time, we are making it absolutely clear that LEAs must not, in any circumstances, have blanket policies never to quantify provision in statements. That advance has been widely welcomed. It is also why we are supporting the guidance on specifying provision in statements with changes elsewhere in the draft code to the guidance on assessments.
  Following helpful interventions during the debates on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 in another place, we have now made it clear that professionals giving advice can comment on the amount of provision that they consider appropriate for a child and that LEAs must not have blanket policies preventing that. Again, that has been welcomed.
  Mr. Hancock: The issue of the quantity of care is vital. Would parents have grounds for objecting to a statement if the quality of care was acceptable, but the quantity was not? As the measure is worded, I sense that parents would not have the right to object on those grounds. That might make it easier for an LEA to avoid spending the right amount of money on a child who might have to go to a special school, perhaps even out of his area. Without the quantification criteria being addressed properly, the LEA would find it easy to do that.
  Mr. Timms: The form of words in the code is "quantification where necessary". Those who draw up the statement will decide and parents and, indeed, the children themselves will have the opportunity to make a contribution to the process. If parents are unhappy, they can appeal to the SEN tribunal.
  The draft code of practice will, I believe, help significantly to improve provision for children with special educational needs. The changes reflect changes in education since the original code was introduced and will allow for better attention to be given to children's needs. I commend the draft code to the House.
  9.36 pm
  Mr. John Hayes: It is important to say at the outset that the discussion thus far has been conducted in a constructive and co-operative way. The Bill that became the Special Needs and Disability Act 2001 was dealt with constructively in Committee in both the Lords and the Commons. We all want to do our best by children with special educational needs.
  This is not a party political matter. There are differing views across all parties. There are, however, important differences between myself and the Minister and between my party's and the Government's position. The debate in Committee focused essentially on the importance that we placed, both here and in the other place, on the individual, specific needs of the child. We tabled amendments that the Government rejected. We feared that unless those specific needs were written into the Bill they would be lost at a later stage. I have to say, more in sorrow than in anger, that that is what we are seeing tonight.
  Ministers assured us time and again that the code of practice would reinforce the individual, specific needs of the child—but it does not. If anything, it weakens the interests of the child by being increasingly imprecise
  752
  about those needs and failing to specify and quantify what is needed in a way that would be the guarantor of decent provision by local education authorities.
  That stands in stark contrast to the assurances given by the then Secretary of State for Education and Employment on Second Reading of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill. He said:
  "We shall make it clear that education authorities are required to specify provision in statements, as they always have been. We shall retain the requirement in the regulations for provision to be specified, matching the terms of the duty on education authorities set out in the Education Act 1996. The code will state clearly that statements should
  'describe clearly all the child's special educational needs in full; set out the main objectives that the special educational provision aims to meet; specify clearly and in detail the provision required to meet each of the child's needs; describe the arrangements for setting shorter term objectives for the child; describe any special arrangements for the annual review of the statement …'"— [Official Report, 20 March 2001; Vol. 365. c. 218.]
  In the Lords, we were told by Baroness Blackstone that the code would reinforce the specification and quantification of needs, and Lord Davies of Oldham said:
  "In the revised code of practice, we shall insist that the child's statement should describe clearly all the child's special educational needs in full; set out the main objectives that the special educational provision aims to meet; specify clearly, and quantify as necessary, the provision required".— [Official Report, House of Lords, 29 January 2001; Vol. 621. c. CWH 92.]
  Those assurances were given to quell some of the disquiet felt about these matters by Conservative Members, some Labour Members and many people outside Parliament. Those people were alarmed in the first place by the infamous Green Paper published by the Government in 1997, which was described by one Labour Member as a green light for the closure of special schools. The aim was to weaken and dilute the statement, which has been an important guarantee of the interests of special needs children and their parents.
  Thankfully, that Green Paper has been consigned to history, if not the rubbish bin, and we came to believe that its proposals would not be implemented —until we read this new code of practice. I shall set out some of our specific concerns. The Independent Panel for Special Education Advice has stated:
  "Our view is that children's best interests would be served if Parliament refused to approved the new code. By failing to quantify provision as expected, it weakens the position of children with special educational needs."
  I shall give some examples of that. The code omits to give guidance to local education authorities on how to fulfil their duties, it omits to tell them how to identify children who have special educational needs, and it omits to mention that they should undertake assessments of children with medical problems that constitute a barrier to them being able to access education provision.
  As the Minister rightly said, in the current statement it is required that a child's needs are stated clearly and in detail, and that they should be quantified and specific. However, the new code suggests that the statement should quantify provision "as necessary". Frankly, that is an open invitation to those LEAs that do not take seriously their responsibility for statementing to act in a way that is not in the interests of children or parents.
  We should acknowledge that the performance of LEAs in respect of statementing is patchy. As the Minister knows, some authorities are slow to statement children,

  753
  and some are resistant to the very principle of statementing. I am not making a party political point, as the problem with the LEAs to which I am referring crosses party boundaries. If the Minister gives those LEAs any opportunity to weaken provision, we must conclude that some will take that opportunity —yet that is precisely what the code does.
  Ms Diane Abbott: I confirm that it can be an enormous struggle to get children statemented. Until recently, my LEA was dominated by Labour. Parents who do not know their rights and who do not contact their Member of Parliament have no hope of securing a statement for a child. Giving LEAs more room to stall and prevaricate will make the problem much worse for some of the most vulnerable children in the system.
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. There are two problems: some LEAs are inefficient when it comes to statementing, and some are resistant to issuing statements at all. An analysis of the number of children statemented by LEAs, and of the time that that process takes, shows that the performance of LEAs is enormously variable across the country. There is no consistency in the approach of LEAs to the matter of statementing, which is very much left to local choice and judgment. In some cases, that judgment is not all that it might be. Again, I make no party-political point when I say that, as the LEAs to which I refer are run by all parties.
  The Independent Panel for Special Education Advice has tested the matter with lawyers. It has taken legal advice that suggests that the new code will be unlawful. Its barrister has said that the code will be challenged on the grounds that it is reducing the requirement for quantification and provision. That will reduce the protection for children and encourage vague statements, and so achieve exactly what the Department for Education and Skills says it is trying not to achieve.
  The Department for Education and Skills has told the public that it does not want to weaken the position of special needs children. Ministers in this and the other place have told us repeatedly that their intention in bringing more children into mainstream education is not to dilute the quality of education that they receive but simply to alter the place where it is provided. The code however, with its lack of specification and quantification, would damage the provision for special needs children.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are already many examples of cases where provision is not specified sufficiently clearly? If the new code exacerbates the situation, pupils with special educational needs will lose out even more.
  Mr. Hayes: As has been said, performance is patchy throughout the country. I want to strengthen the position of those who require special education and their carers, not weaken it. That was my position long before I came to the House when I was a member of a local education authority and was heavily involved in such matters. It has been my position outside of my responsibilities on the Conservative Front Bench, as co-chairman of the all-party group on disablement, and it is my position in the role that I am performing now.
  754
  I said that I did not think that this matter was party political. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) and agreed with every word he said in his brief intervention. I have also listened carefully to other Labour Members who have intervened from the Back Benches. Their comments clearly reflect the widespread concern about the matter. That causes us some difficulty, as we do not want to frustrate the good intentions behind the code and the legislation. There is much in the code and in the legislation that it attempts to put into practice with which we agree. On the other hand, we would be failing in our duty to the children concerned and their carers if we did not point out that we have these fundamental concerns.
  Another example of where the Government have gone wrong is that the original consultation version of the code contained a section that talked of children's best interests being fulfilled by giving LEAs a
  "duty to gather information from schools about registered pupils who live in the LEA's area for whom schools are intervening through School Action Plus. LEAs should also be aware of children of statutory school age who are not attending schools, whether they are excluded, educated otherwise at school or educated at home."
  In other words, the draft code was particular about the responsibilities of LEAs, whereas those responsibilities have been made woollier, weaker and more vague as a result of the amendments to and the omissions from the original draft. That is surprising in the light of the consultation exercise. The people consulted did not take a collective decision that LEAs should be given less clear instructions, nor did the organisations consulted suggest that. If anything, it was suggested that they should be given clearer instructions—more specificity and more obligations to provide their services equitably.
  While I do not want to delay the House tonight, there is profound concern on both sides of the Chamber about the weakness of the code. In good faith and in the spirit in which this matter has been conducted thus far, during the debate on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill and in the Standing Committee that dealt with it, I must warn the Minister that unless he comes up with firm answers to some of the queries raised from those on the Conservative Front Bench and other parts of the House before the matter is debated in the other place, I suspect that my hon. Friends there and many others will want to consider the code critically and may not be able to bring themselves to support it.
  9.49 pm
  Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief as there is only an hour and a half for the debate and many Members want to speak. I hope that the Minister for School Standards will have the chance to reply to the debate and that he will seriously address many of the concerns expressed on both sides of the House.
  People in my constituency have expressed concern that the draft code of practice was only published on 22 June, and we are already debating it. I suspect that if our debate had been delayed, more Members would have wanted to contribute. Indeed, more organisations might also have expressed concern.
  The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) referred to local education authorities, whose role is extremely important. The Minister might reflect on the trends in education policy that have often served to

  755
  reduce and undermine the role of LEAs in favour of direct funding to schools. LEAs are crucial. They are the only line to ensure that children with special needs—with disabilities and all that goes with them—receive what they require. If that is left to individual schools, without an LEA to enforce national policy, it will not happen.
  In an earlier intervention I mentioned dyslexia, a condition experienced by many people. During the previous Parliament, I tabled several questions about what happens to people whose dyslexia is not identified and who do not receive the obvious special help that is necessary. A disproportionately large number of such people do not achieve in education. They may end up in prison or have many problems, simply because a basic need was not identified at an early stage when help could have been given. People with dyslexia can achieve just as much as anyone else and, in many cases, much more. It is a question of identification.
  If there is a financial system that militates against the school identifying the problem because it costs the school money and there is an endless rigmarole of delay before the LEA responds to a request from the school, we are clearly failing to give children what they need. Will the Minister reflect on that point in his reply?
  There are many parents in my constituency for whom English is not their first language. Indeed, many of them barely understand any English at all. Their children often have special needs. The children of refugees are often extremely traumatised and suffer from stress. If there are no translation facilities so that those parents can understand what is going on, many of the children lose out. I realise that this point is not necessarily part of this debate, but I hope that the Minister will be aware that because of the effects of housing policies, some asylum-seeking children have to move house, hostel or bed-and-breakfast accommodation so often and change schools so often that they drop out of the education system altogether. They have no opportunity for full-time education.
  Will the Minister address the transitional arrangements for school students with special needs of any sort after the age of 14? The draft code does not seem to include a specific requirement for either local education authorities or individual schools to follow up such pupils, who might end up by dropping out of the system altogether. Will the Minister deal with that point?
  Will the Minister also comment on fixed time limits for requests for statementing? Unless such limits are laid down for local education authorities to reply both to parents and schools on statementing needs, the lack of resources or the unwillingness of LEAs to identify such needs means that they will not be met. I hope that specific timetables will be included in any changes to the code.
  The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings noted that LEAs would be allowed to quantify as necessary. We cannot allow such latitude. If we do so, the resources will not be made available and as a result children with definite special needs will lose out. Everyone is aware that the standards of treatment of special educational needs differ greatly between local authorities.
  I understand what people are trying to do with the code of practice; they are trying to introduce some uniformity across the country. Obviously, I welcome that approach, but I have been advised by many of those involved,
  756
  and I am afraid that the draft code of practice contains too many loopholes. I hope that the Minister will address those points in his reply and that he will promise us that there will be an opportunity for a greater tightening up of such matters than has been demonstrated hitherto.
  9.55 pm
  Mr. Phil Willis: This is an important issue, and I regret that we are spending an hour and a half on it late at night, given that many hon. Members would have liked a full debate. That is important.
  I have been involved with this issue since the enactment of the Education Act 1981. It is interesting that 250,000 pupils in England and Wales now have statements. That is a huge number of young people. It is also interesting that local authorities and schools spend £1.3 billion on supporting special needs, so this is a big issue and it is rather sad to rush the code of practice through when there are so many uncertainties. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that, as well as on the debate, before the code of practice goes to the House of Lords on Thursday.
  There are obvious concerns, and hon. Members have commented on the closure of special schools. The reality is that, in the past 20 years, special schools have not closed in the numbers that people think. There are still roughly 100,000 youngsters in special schools—the same figure as 100 years ago. The great success of the education system since 1981 is that many more youngsters who would have gone into special schools have, in fact, been educated with their peers. That is important.
  The hon. Members for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) raised an important issue, which the Government have tried to address in the code of practice. A great fault is that, since 1981, if a school has recognised that a statement is needed but a parent has not agreed, for whatever reason, it has been impossible for the school to go ahead with the provision, so the child has missed out. I have worked in communities with children from 26 nationalities, and it has sometimes been very difficult to persuade parents that their children have had special needs because they have thought it a stigma to be avoided. The perverse fact is that middle class parents are now knocking on school doors saying that their sons and daughters need statements because they recognise that the system involves additional resources.
  We welcome a great deal of what the code of practice involves. We particularly welcome the involvement of parents and students. We also welcome the increased amount of information that will be available. In particular, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) has said, there is an opportunity to resolve conflicts under the regulations, to which the Minister did not refer, but which is very important. Conflicts need to be resolved before they go before the tribunal. I am also pleased that the role of SEN co-ordinators is recognised in the code. Far too often, SENCOs have to do their job, with all the bureaucracy that that involves, in no time at all. Many of them also have full teaching timetables. I hope that the Minister will go further than simply providing advice about time by ensuring that time is actually allocated.
  Mr. Hayes: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the need to involve parents in conflict resolution at

  757
  an early stage. He will know that the new terms refer to the need to express the provision in terms of hours, equipment or personnel, but does he agree that the failure clearly to quantify the required provision will lead to greater conflict with parents, who can, at present, usually expect statements to be absolutely clear about the explicit terms of the provision?
  Mr. Willis: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, and agree with him wholeheartedly. That is one of the reasons why we might vote against the code. We are uneasy about it and particularly about those provisions. I shall come to them shortly.
  Several provisions in the code must be strengthened. Although we welcome chapter 10 on "Working in partnership with other agencies", the language in it is so loose that it beggars belief. For example, paragraph 10.16 contains the ideas that Connexions should be involved with young people particularly from key stage 4 onwards, and no one would disagree with that. However, schools and local authorities have no control over Connexions and, in this paragraph, the Government optimistically say that the Learning and Skills Council and local education authorities should work together. Frankly, the council, which the Government set up, and the LEAs are at odds with each other and, unless the code clarifies how the council and LEAs will work together to provide for youngsters aged between 14 and 19, those youngsters will fall through the bottom again as they have done for so long.
  I come to a point made by the hon. Member for Islington, North. One of the key issues in getting the provision right is for LEAs to have some control over admission rights. The comments of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who speaks for the Conservative party, were a bit rich because his party went into the last election saying that it wanted 24,000 separate admission arrangements. Each school would have been able to deny access to children with special needs if it so wished. It is sad that Conservative Members have not admitted that that was a huge mistake although I accept that the hon. Gentleman has distanced himself from that policy by supporting an appropriate candidate.
  Controlling admission levels is important. It appears that the White Paper will allow private companies to take over schools, private schools to take over state schools and companies for profit to take over schools, so how will we be able to control admission arrangements then? How will be able to ensure that the code of practice is binding on all those organisations? The Minister did not respond to that point adequately earlier, but I hope that he will clarify the position. At the moment, everything is up in the air. If we are saying that only bog standard schools will have to admit children with special needs, we are going back 20 years and before these arguments were even raised.
  Liberal Democrats welcome the enhanced roles for LEAs. We are delighted that the code of practice clearly states their responsibilities. We are also delighted that the Minister has made it clear in the code that individual education plans should be crisp. In the school that I came from 400 youngsters were on the special needs register. If every one of them had had an individual education plan for 10 subjects that would have meant that 4,000 pieces
  758
  of paper were circulating round the school all the time. The Minister must consider the whole issue of individual education plans.
  Paragraphs 8.36 and 8.37 are the key to the code of practice. It is totally unacceptable to produce a new code saying that we do not need to quantify what is in the statements. The key issue in the past 20 years has been that successive Governments have said, "This is what your child needs as a special needs statement, but we will not quantify what they will actually receive." A statement may say that a child needs language therapy, but it does not have to make it clear whether it will be given for one week, every week, every month or once a year. The position is never clarified in that sense. The previous Secretary of State, now the Home Secretary, made it clear on Second Reading of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill that quantification would be clarified, and it is a betrayal of the House and of youngsters that that has not happened. There is much about the code of practice that we support. There is also much that we want to support, but the key issue of quantification has not been addressed and for that reason we will vote against the motion.
  10.5 pm
  Angela Watkinson: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate.
  At the beginning of this Parliament, I viewed this occasion as one to be planned without due haste and decided to absorb some of the customs and practices of this place before embarking on my 10-minute voyage. However, such has been the quality of the maiden speeches by my new colleagues, who now have that first notch on their guns, that I decided that the absorption of customs and procedures I have managed to achieve so far would have to be enough. I shall therefore proceed without further delay, lest a bravura performance by another colleague prove impossible to follow.
  Before addressing the substance of the debate, I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Keith Darvill. During the past four years, when he was the first Labour Member of Parliament for Upminster, he worked assiduously on behalf of his constituents and was held in high regard and affection by all sections of the community. The election campaign was fought, as it should be, on policies rather than personalities and with courtesy and good humour. The fact that we are able to serve on the same school governing body illustrates the spirit in which the campaign was conducted and I wish him and his family well.
  Before that, from 1982 until 1997, Upminster was represented by Sir Nicholas Bonsor. He was Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and a distinguished former Army officer who earned a formidable reputation in both capacities during the war in Bosnia. His was a familiar face on our television screens in news bulletins at that time.
  For the benefit of hon. Members who are not familiar with Upminster it is, famously, at the end of the District line, at the eastern boundary of Greater London and the county of Essex. In fact, Havering, of which Upminster forms a part, is 50 per cent. green belt, and in that respect has more in common with Essex than with inner-London boroughs.

  759
  Upminster is special in that it is a constituency of great contrasts. Its outer-lying areas are very rural, with scattered properties and farms. Indeed, one of the earliest cases of foot and mouth disease in the current epidemic was identified on an Upminster farm only 1 mile away from the abattoir at Little Warley where the disease was first discovered. Several other farms were also slaughtered out as a result. Hon. Members will be all too aware of the distressing circumstances and the long-term anxiety caused to farmers who are worried about their livelihoods as that crisis continues.
  The village of North Ockendon has an important claim to fame in that a 17th-century inhabitant, William Coys, created modern beer by using hops instead of malt and water, which made the earlier drink known as wort. I imagine there are many who have cause to thank him for that discovery—going out for a wort and curry on a Friday night would not have the same popular appeal.
  In the north of the constituency lies a large post-war housing estate, Harold Hill, which is well designed with plenty of green space and trees. Despite various regeneration projects in the past decade, much more remains to be done in the more deprived parts of Harold Hill to increase employment opportunities and improve living standards.
  The loss of one third of their uniformed constables over the past four years has not helped the police in their task of protecting the law-abiding majority from the effects of crime in the area. I have lost count of how many local people have told me that they want a strong visible police presence in their neighbourhood, and I shall miss no opportunity to call for a substantial increase in police numbers so that they can respond to the demands made upon them.
  Upminster also comprises the town of Cranham, where Sir James Oglethorpe MP lived in the hall. He became an important 18th-century celebrity when his attempts at penal reform for debtors led him to be involved in the founding of the state of Georgia, USA. The town of Upminster is mentioned in the Domesday book as having 39 inhabitants, rather fewer than the current figure. It now boasts as one of its town centre landmarks a fine example of a smock mill, which is currently in need of funding for its restoration. Emerson Park is the most prosperous part of the constituency and has many large, desirable properties. Harold Wood grew from a small halt on the Great Eastern railway into a large, pleasant residential area, which now includes the only hospital in the constituency.
  Its proximity to London and the M25 make Upminster ideal commuter territory. The local economy also relies on 5,000 shops and small businesses. They compete successfully, despite the burden of over-regulation, with the larger neighbouring centres of Romford and Lakeside. Council tax has increased by almost 50 per cent. over the last four years, and Upminster has had the third highest increase in the country this year. The formula used to calculate Government grant does not favour Upminster. It includes such factors as the number of houses in multiple occupation, the number of ethnic minorities and unemployment levels. None of those features very prominently and, as a result, the widening gap between grant and spending requirements has to be bridged annually by ever higher council tax. Upminster residents are being bled white.
  760
  The schools in Upminster are popular and attract many families, including my own, to live there. The only complaints about education that I received while campaigning were from parents who were unable to find a place for their children at the school of their choice. Many are over-subscribed, including comprehensive, single-sex, denominational and grant-aided schools, and two excellent special schools, Ravensbourne and Corbets Tey. That demonstrates the demand by parents for choice in education, including special education.
  Having spent 12 years working in a special school, I know that it is impossible to generalise about special needs pupils. The school catered for physically handicapped and delicate children—terms that have long since fallen out of use, but which in the 1970s and 1980s covered a wide spectrum of need. Some of those pupils, with medical problems such as diabetes, epilepsy, heart conditions and even asthma and eczema, would probably have benefited from mainstream education, with the appropriate support. They certainly flourished in the small classes and protected environment that the school provided.
  There were, however, others with very disabling conditions, some quite rare, who I think would have experienced extreme difficulty in mainstream schooling, and whose families would have missed the support mechanism that a special school is able to provide. I recall one pupil who arrived, aged five, in his mother's arms, in baby clothes, with a dummy in his mouth. He had Freeman Sheldon syndrome, a rare condition of multiple skeletal deformities, and was not expected to walk or achieve any degree of independence. He quickly developed into a child of cheerful disposition, with high intelligence and a wry sense of humour, who went on not just to walk but at 21 to gain a degree in computer science at London university—a tribute, I believe, to the special school that was able to cater for his needs.
  Of course, inclusion has merit for many special needs pupils—those who are able to participate and achieve in, and enjoy, that environment—but we cannot have total inclusion. The need for special schools will continue for those pupils who, for a variety of reasons, need the protected environment and specialist provision that only a special school can provide. I had to look pretty hard in the code of practice for references to special schools, and there were not many. Their role should not be underestimated, and I hope that they may rely on inclusion in the choices made available to special needs pupils.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) for drawing to my attention the concerns of the Wiltshire Dyslexia Society on two counts. The first is the failure of the code of practice to require statemented pupils' special needs to be quantified, which has already been mentioned by several speakers. That leads to the obvious concern that adequate funding will not be provided to meet those unquantified needs, which may influence mainstream schools' willingness to accept those pupils.
  Secondly, the code of practice requires individual education plans to focus on only three to four targets. Given that some pupils have complex needs, that limitation could lead to some important needs being overlooked. I would have much more confidence in the capacity of the code of practice to make proper provision

  761
  for all special needs pupils if both those points were addressed, together with a strengthening of the role of special schools in the spectrum of special needs provision.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). It is obvious from her contribution that she will make many more assured and expert speeches on issues in education, particularly special education in which she clearly has a great deal of experience. I also thank her for her kind tribute to our old colleague Keith Darvill who, unfortunately for us, is not back in the House. However, the campaign in Upminster was undoubtedly conducted in a generous spirit, and Keith made his mark even if he could not win the seat a second time—who knows, we may well see him here in the not too distant future. It is plain that the hon. Lady is committed to Upminster; she lives in the community and is committed to it, especially to its special education and the children involved. Her concerns are shared by Members on both sides of the House.
  As there is only an hour and a half to debate the draft code of practice, it is all too easy to focus on the areas about which we are concerned. I preface my concerns by pointing out that the code of practice has a number of pluses, including more concentration and focus on working with parents when preparing statements of special educational needs and preparing to provide help and support for children with special educational needs. The code also puts an emphasis on encouraging pupil participation—trying to get pupils more involved in the development of special educational programmes and whatever is felt to be necessary to help them in diagnosing and meeting their needs.
  The code also includes welcome guidance on early years settings, which are incredibly important; in fact, they are vital. The earlier that special needs are identified, the more likely it is that the education of children with special educational needs will have a successful outcome and that that will be achieved effectively, not only for the child but for the school and the local education authority. By meeting needs with appropriate expenditure at an early stage, it is possible to avoid what can often be heavy expenditure later.
  I shall not dwell on all my concerns, some of which have already been raised today. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will provide further reassurance that the special educational needs guidance to be issued by his Department will meet all our concerns about issues surrounding the word "quantification". I do not really like the word because, as has been said, the quality of provision is also important. Nevertheless we should not duck the question of specific, detailed descriptions of the provision that children need.
  The draft code focuses a great deal on children's needs and the ability to identify them properly. It is therefore disappointing that it does not make stronger reference to identifying the specific provision required to meet those needs. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure me on special needs guidance.
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman made a valuable and important contribution to the Committee stage of the
  762
  Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. Does he accept that referring to quantification "as necessary" is weak? "As necessary" is a euphemism, which usually means "when you fancy" or as you like".
  Mr. Griffiths: I do not totally agree with that. Words such as "reasonable" have been used by Governments of all shades of political opinion throughout the years. If we apply a tight definition to "necessary" in the context of all that is said about the need to identify a child's specific educational requirements, we could argue that the word means that those requirements should be properly reflected. I agree that we could have avoided a semantic argument if more had been said about the need for detailed provision. I place great faith in my hon. Friend the Minister in respect of the Department's guidance.
  I shall speak about only one other matter because I agree with much that has been said on both sides of the House. I raised mobility and independence training during the Report stage of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill, as the Royal National Institute for the Blind brief conveniently points out to all hon. Members who have been able to read it. That organisation expresses anxiety because its report "Shaping the Future" shows that few children who need mobility and independence training get it.
  My hon. Friend the Minister responded by saying that the Government supported a multi-agency approach to the problem. I hope that he will reassure me that the SEN guidance that will be issued to schools and local authorities provides some clarity about the requirements for giving children a fair chance in school and in life so that they can live full lives and, when possible, make a positive contribution to society. I hope that he will provide positive information on the guidance's contents in respect of the specific provision that children need.
  10.23 pm
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: I shall be brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on an impressive maiden speech, which was delivered with impeccable clarity. I enjoyed her tribute to her predecessor, and I found the image of two candidates spending many months on the campaign trail, and attending the same governing body meeting, charming. I am sure that those meetings were of the usual high quality.
  I have never taken the District line all the way to Upminster, but many years ago, before the M25 was built, I drove from Kent to East Anglia, and had to wend my way through the Ockendons after forcing my way through the Dartford tunnel. I therefore have some memories of the hon. Lady's constituency.
  I want to return briefly to what has become known as quantification. I am grateful for the further explanation provided by my hon. Friend the Minister, and I know that my constituents will welcome the examples that he has given, which will partly reassure them, but I should like to explain why they will still view the phrase "as necessary" with some concern. Their unease derives from the battles that I mentioned earlier in an intervention. Many parents have battled with LEAs over many years to try to get the special needs provision that they feel their children deserve and need. They feel that LEAs will use whatever opportunities they can to try to make as little

  763
  provision as possible. That background suspicion of LEAs is what makes them concerned about the phrase "as necessary".
  Will my hon. Friend complete the process of reassurance and tell us that he does not expect the number of cases in which quantification is necessary to be significantly smaller under the new code than under the existing code? Will he send out a signal by giving that assurance, or by telling us that quantification will normally be necessary? If the guidance sent out to schools reflects that message, I am sure that the parents in my constituency who take a close interest in this matter will be reassured and feel grateful to the Government for polishing up a code of practice that is otherwise very good.
  10.26 pm
  Dr. Rudi Vis: First I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for being present for this rather important debate. I thought that you might not be in the Chair after the many debates that have taken place today, but I am sure that you decided to pay attention because this one is so important.
  The code of practice contains several good ideas, but unfortunately, other aspects suffer in comparison with the current code. I have three areas of concern. The current code advises local education authorities that
  "the provision (in Part 3 of the Statement) should normally be specific, detailed and quantified (in terms, for example, of hours of ancillary or specialist teaching support)".
  However, the code laid before Parliament on 20 June advises LEAs in the following terms:
  "The statement should … quantify provision as necessary".
  It also states:
  "there may often be a need to express it in terms of hours, equipment or personnel."
  In other words, the concept of the norm is now ambiguous. There is no guidance on the criteria that are to be used when deciding quantification of provision. That is not an improvement; it is worse.
  The Independent Panel for Special Education Advice, from which most of my information comes, has obtained counsel's opinion on the wording of the new code. In short, the opinion is that the guidance on quantification in the code is unlawful. The panel believes that Parliament should withhold approval of the code unless paragraph 8:37 is redrafted. The view of David Wolfe, a barrister from Matrix chambers, is that broadly speaking, the code is unlawful and will be read as reducing the requirements for quantification of provision, thus reducing protection for children. He believes that it will encourage vague statements and achieve exactly what the Department for Education and Skills says that it is not trying to achieve.
  I also want to deal with two more matters. There are questions concerning the removal of guidance on the duty to identify children with special educational needs. The Education Act 1996 gives LEAs the duty to identify children with such needs and the existing code of practice advises LEAs that in order to fulfil that duty, they should gather information from maintained schools about children living in their area who have special educational needs at stage 3.
  The consultation draft of the new code, which was issued in July, brought the guidance into line with the new proposal on Action/Action Plus, In other words,
  764
  it required local education authorities to collect information on children at Action Plus. It strengthened the guidance by advising LEAs to be aware of the need to identify children with special educational needs among those who were excluded from school and/or being educated at home.
  The final version of the guidance excludes most of those provisions, and they should be brought back. They should be part of the guidance.
  There is also a terrible omission in the code of practice—guidance when an assessment of a child with medical needs is necessary. I know that you have referred to that. I liked your maiden speech and I congratulate you on it.
  The Education Act 1996 suggested that children with medical needs that do not give rise to learning difficulties, but which prevent or hinder them from making use of education facilities of the sort generally provided, are entitled to be considered for statutory assessment. That is broadly speaking what you said. I am most grateful that you mentioned in your maiden speech—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was not in this place when I made my maiden speech.
  Dr. Vis: That is right, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). You are younger than me, Mr. Speaker, so I could have been in the Chamber when you made your maiden speech, but I was not.
  Lynne Jones: Is my hon. Friend advocating that we should vote against the motion? There are many of us who, like me, have not studied the provisions in detail but are concerned because we have received briefings from bodies such as the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which are concerned because some of the provisions will be detrimental. Does my hon. Friend support the provisions in the code of practice, or does he not?
  Dr. Vis: I am grateful for that intervention. I am sorry to say that I will not vote for the motion. I believe that the old code was superior in a number of ways to the draft code of practice. If the vote goes against the Government we shall still have the old code, and we shall be better off. I shall vote against the motion, and I hope that my side will win. I hope that there will then be a reinvestigation of the three areas that I wished to mention.
  It is necessary for children with medical needs to be treated—but I shall finish with that, because one of the Government Whips is signalling to me that I should, although I have a great deal to say about these matters. It seems that the code does not pay sufficient attention to the treatment of children with medical needs.
  10.34 pm
  Mr. Timms: With the leave of the House, I shall reply.
  We have had a thoughtful debate, and I know that many people who follow these matters with great interest will be pleased by the care with which Members have considered the issues.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on her maiden speech, which the House much enjoyed. I appreciated her tribute to her predecessor,

  765
  Keith Darvill, whom I know well. We particularly enjoyed her account of her constituency. It is interesting to know the significance of South Ockendon in the history of beer, which was a new discovery for me. On the basis of the contribution that she has made tonight, the House will look forward to hearing from her on many occasions.
  The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) raised three particular concerns: quantification, the obligations of local education authorities and the treatment of medical conditions. A number of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have expressed concern about quantification. I will reflect on the points that have been made on that subject. I emphasise that the assurances given by my right hon. and hon. Friends in debates on the matter have all been fully reflected in the draft code that is before us. I refer hon. Members to paragraph 8:35 and those that follow. It is important that we permit flexibility in order to ensure that the needs of children with special educational needs can be met in the best way. We do not want always to have an over-rigid quantitative approach to meeting those needs, as another approach may be more appropriate.
  On the other two issues—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or European Union documents).
  Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Division deferred till Wednesday 11 July, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001].

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993
    Motion made,
    That, for the purposes of their approval under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2001–02, and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2001–02 shall be treated as if they were instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).—[Mr. Caplin.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions 6 to 12.
    Hon. Members: No.

    POLICE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    That the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Drug Testing of Persons in Police Detention) (Prescribed Persons) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 20th June, be approved. —[Mr. Caplin.]
    Question agreed to.

    INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    That the draft International Criminal Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.—[Mr. Caplin.]
    Question agreed to.

    INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    That the draft Specialised Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and Privileges of UNESCO) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.—[Mr. Caplin.]
    Question agreed to.

    POSTAL SERVICES
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    That the draft Sub-Post Office Start-Up Capital Subsidy Scheme Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 22nd June 2001, be approved.—[Mr. Caplin.]
    Question agreed to.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    That the draft Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 26th June, he approved.—[Mr. Caplin.]
    Hon. Members: No.
    Division deferred till Wednesday 11 July, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001].

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    That the draft Life Sentences (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.—[Mr. Caplin.]
    Hon. Members: No.
    Division deferred till Wednesday 11 July, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001]

    TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.—[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: 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.
  Hon. Members: Object.

  School Sports (Health and Safety)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]
  10.39 pm
  Jane Griffiths: I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss such an important topic. Before launching into the debate, however, let me say that the ballot for end-of-day Adjournment debates this week seems to have thrown up something unusual. Yesterday's debate was initiated by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend), and tomorrow's will be initiated by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). It seems to be central Berkshire week.
  Tonight's debate concerns health and safety in school sports events. Let me begin by stressing the importance to me of the involvement of pupils in sport. We often hear nowadays of the increasing obesity of younger people. In 1999, the Department of Health revealed that obesity had risen dramatically in the previous five years. In 1999, 17 per cent. of men were obese, compared with 13 per cent. in 1993, while nearly 20 per cent. of women were obese, compared with 16 per cent. in 1993.
  Similarly, the report "The Health of Young People '95–97" showed that among young people aged between two and 15, 29 per cent. of girls and 44 per cent. of boys did not participate in physical activity lasting at least 30 minutes in any given week, excluding activities at school.
  There are public health concerns about problems being stored up for the future health of our nation. As a result of those concerns, the Department of Health launched a number of initiatives aimed at nutritional standards for school meals, the promotion of healthy travel to school, including cycling and walking, and the promotion of more exercise for children—for example, an hour's exercise every day.
  School sport obviously has a key part to play in encouraging pupils to be active. Active children are more likely to be active adults. Involvement in sport through school offers young people the chance to get exercise, and to do good to their health. Sport in schools offers much more as well: learning about team work, learning about and achieving personal excellence, and the discipline that is needed for pupils to do well. For those and many other reasons, I believe that it is important for school sports to happen and for pupils to be offered a chance to take part in them.
  I do not want children to be wrapped in cotton wool and prevented from gaining the benefits of sport that I have described. I had rather a robust view of safety when bringing up my own children. I believe that children learn through experience about the boundaries of what they can do safely. If they are cut off from that experience, they will not learn about those boundaries, and may put themselves at risk in their future lives. The obvious counter-argument is that we do not want to encourage reckless behaviour. We want to make sure that, where possible, risks are reduced.
  That brings me to my purpose in seeking the debate. Before I describe the situation, let me repeat that I do not want it to be seen as providing an excuse for pupils not to engage in sports.

  769
  At my first advice surgery after the general election, in Woodley library, I was visited by Alison Mendes, a resident of east Reading. She had come to see me because she was concerned about what had happened to her daughter. She felt very uninformed about what had really happened.
  On 14 May, Mrs. Mendes's daughter, Bianca Halliburton, took part in an inter-school athletics event representing her school, the Blessed Hugh Faringdon Roman Catholic school in Reading. Bianca had volunteered to fill a vacancy in the school hurdling team. According to the school, she had received no training in hurdling this year. The school says that she had represented the school athletics team the previous year, and had previously competed in a hurdles race. I have not been able to discover whether she was trained in hurdling the previous year, before taking part in a race. The fact is, however, that on 14 May Bianca took part in a hurdling event, and fell. She broke both legs very badly, and Mrs. Mendes wants to know why.
  The school is keen to stress that Bianca was not pressurised into taking part in the event. It is also keen to state that she had not been training this year. If the fact that Bianca had not been training is not relevant to what happened, why mention it? If it is relevant, there are serious questions to be asked about why the school put her forward for the event.
  I had not intended to go into any detail about the correspondence that I have had with the school—I did not think it necessary—but it happens that today the school wrote to another of my constituency neighbours, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), in whose constituency it is situated. I should point out that the incident happened in my constituency, not at the school itself. The school told him that it might well experience "detrimental effects" as a result of this debate. The school is concerned that its position may be misrepresented.
  Consequently, I have decided that I will share with the House the school's representations to me, so that there can be no misunderstanding or misrepresentation. The school has been clear that Bianca volunteered to participate in the event, that she had not been in training and that it felt that the event in which she participated and broke both her legs was conducted correctly.
  My constituency neighbour has written to me on the matter and undertaken, as I understand it from his letter, to ensure that the Minister replying to this debate is fully briefed. Such an approach to an Adjournment debate is rather interesting, and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may wish to offer some guidance on it. We have had some very helpful guidance from Mr. Speaker on the conduct of Adjournment debates.
  Reading borough council, which runs the sports stadium where the accident happened, has investigated the matter. That investigation shows that the hurdles for the race were set at the correct low level and were facing the right way. Having formerly, as a Reading borough councillor and chair of the arts and leisure committee, been responsible for the council's sports service, I would be surprised if the answer were any different. It is a professional and well-run service.
  770
  The fact that the hurdles were set out correctly is backed up by the astonishing photograph in today's Reading Evening Post, which shows Bianca as she falls towards the athletics track. Behind Bianca one sees a hurdle in the next lane beginning to fall over, and one sees the hurdle in Bianca's lane beginning to fall over. It is not possible to see from the picture whether Bianca has already had the accident that hurt her so badly, whether it is in the process of happening or whether it is still to happen. However, that still does not answer Mrs. Mendes's question about what happened to Bianca on 14 May.
  I could not get an answer from the council on the matter other than on how the hurdles were set out. I have been told that the papers of the officer who investigated the accident were now with the council's insurer, Zurich Municipal, and that it was not possible to find out anything more about what had happened.
  I then spoke to Zurich Municipal. It said that it had been notified of an event at which a child—Bianca Halliburton is 12 years old—was injured and that it has asked an inspector to investigate the matter. As the investigation has not yet started and no claim has yet been lodged, I have not been able to obtain a clear answer about what happened to Bianca. However, I have established that an internal Reading borough council report has stated that the hurdles were set out correctly.
  Has Mrs. Mendes had more luck than I have in obtaining an answer? When she came to see me, she said that she had spoken to the school, but that she felt that she had not been told what had happened. It seems that no one at the sporting event saw what really happened. The starter of the race did not see what happened because he had just turned away to put down the starting pistol. Other pupils from the school could not see what happened because they were on the other side of the stadium from where the accident occurred. Mrs. Mendes has, however, managed to find the brother of someone taking part who might have seen something. He said that he thought that Bianca staggered or hesitated just before the hurdle, but he could not say much more.
  Mrs. Mendes then found a teacher from another school who was present at the event. She said that Bianca was about to jump the hurdle and fell. That version seems to fit in with the picture in today's local newspaper. However, the remainder of that teacher's comments are worrying. It is of course essential for a first aider to be present at any such sports event. After Bianca had her accident, the first aider asked her to try to stand up. However, it was only when it became clear that she could not stand up that an ambulance was called. It is fortunate for Bianca that, as the doctor who saw her said later, the treatment that she received from the first aider did not worsen her condition.
  Bianca was off school from the date of the accident, 14 May, until yesterday, 9 July, and had to use a wheelchair for most of that time. I am very pleased to say, however, that her school put in place measures to assist her in returning to school. She is now getting on with her life. I hope that this awful thing that has happened to her will not have a lasting impact.
  At 12, one is growing very fast, and it is important to be able to be active at that age. I hope that Bianca grows up fit and healthy and able to take part in sport in the future. I know that Mrs. Mendes is not seeking to blame anyone and is not seeking retribution. I do not respect the

  771
  culture of blame, retribution and compensation, and it is important to campaign positively for better outcomes. But Mrs. Mendes wants to know what happened to Bianca and that it will not happen to anyone else's daughter.
  As I have said, I have not been able to identify exactly what happened to Bianca on l4 May, or why it happened. The Reporting of Injuries, Disease and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 require reports of such incidents, a proportion of which are then investigated. That applies to workplaces, but it is not clear whether it applies to sports venues such as Palmer park stadium in east Reading, where the accident occurred.
  The Health and Safety Executive told me that it had not had a report under the regulations and that it was not clear that there was a requirement for such a report. In talking to a number of bodies such as Sport England, the Youth Sports Trust and the Health and Safety Executive, I have been pointed to one source for guidelines on safety in sport. There is what is considered to be standard guidance, issued by the British Association of Advisers and Lecturers in Physical Education. The guidance covers many matters: the setting up of hurdles; the correct spacing; that they must be facing the right way; that they are not too high; and that they are correctly weighted. I have referred to all those matters.
  The guidance also states that someone taking part in such an event should have had previous progressive practice. That means that people should have become used to the stride in, the height and the technique necessary for hurdling. It also states that people competing should have previous experience and, on the day, should have the appropriate attitude and be warmed up. In this case, the school states that Bianca had had previous experience in competing in hurdles. I do not know what training she had had; there appears to have been none this year. In itself, this leaves me uneasy. I remain to be convinced that someone should be allowed to take part in an event that they have not taken part in for a year without at least some refresher training.
  My approach is a positive one, to try to get everyone working together. It is clearly important that we find out what happened to Bianca so that we can find out if we can prevent it from happening to anyone else's son or daughter. I would like to get everyone together locally from the council, the school, people present at the event and anyone else concerned to try to establish what happened—a summit meeting.
  I would also like to see the British Association of Advisers and Lecturers in Physical Education invited, as it is used to giving expert witness. The aim of the summit would be to identify everything that is known about what happened on 14 May and to try to work out what happened. That should establish whether anything can be done to prevent it from happening again.
  If that is not possible, I will search with Mrs. Mendes for a way to establish an independent inquiry to do the same. Either way, I hope that we will learn more about what happened to Bianca Halliburton on 14 May. That is where the Government come in. If anything comes up that requires Government action—I wonder whether some further regulation of school sports might be necessary—I would like to be able to feed that to my hon. Friend the Minister. I also hope that the Minister will undertake to try to find ways of creating greater awareness of the
  772
  British Association of Advisers and Lecturers in Physical Education guidance and more rigour in implementing and interpreting it.
  As I began by saying, school sport has an important part to play in our society. We must not let what happened to Bianca Halliburton prevent people from taking part in school sports, but we must learn from it and find if anything can be done to prevent it from happening to anyone else.
  10.54 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) on securing this debate. It is an honour to be allowed to participate in what appears to be central Berkshire week. I will not take personally her references to obese men. I appreciate the responsible way in which she put her concerns about this incident in context, especially in relation to the importance of young people participating in sport at school.
  Let me clarify where the responsibility lies for the health and safety of pupils taking part in sports days or in any other school activity. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and its associated regulations place a general duty on employers to protect the health and safety not only of employees but of others affected by the activities of their organisation, so the responsibility for the health and safety of school pupils rests either with the local authority, for community and voluntary-controlled schools; with the governors, for foundation and voluntary-aided schools; or with the proprietor, for independent schools.
  The employer is required by the regulations to conduct an assessment of the possible risks arising from the school's activities and to introduce measures to minimise those risks. We expect the relevant personnel to discharge that responsibility professionally and in accordance with statute and good practice.
  That is not to say, as my hon. Friend said, that we should wrap our children in cotton wool. There are risks in many things that we do in life, and we cannot deny our children opportunities that will enrich their lives, nor can we ban every sporting activity for the fear that it carries some risk of injury. It would also be wrong to give any impression that teachers are to blame in advance of a full investigation of any individual incident.
  Naturally, in this case my sympathies go out to Bianca, who must have suffered a great deal of pain from the injuries that she sustained, especially to her legs. My officials have spoken to her head teacher and I am happy to learn that she has now returned to school, albeit on crutches, to resume her education. I wish her a speedy recovery.
  I understand that the event at which the injury occurred was organised by Reading borough council. The council's lawyers are currently investigating the incident, so my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot at this stage comment further on it specifically, but I have asked my officials to liaise with officers in Reading, and we must consider whether any lessons can be learned.
  Bianca's mother, Mrs. Mendes, certainly has a right to know the truth about the incident, and my hon. Friend, as the Member concerned, has a right to be involved in that

  773
  process, representing Mrs. Mendes in accordance with her wishes. I hope that my hon. Friend will find that reassuring.
  I further assure my hon. Friend that if she feels, as a consequence of further investigations into the incident, or because it has brought to her attention issues in which she was not fully involved before, that Ministers should be aware of implications or lessons, I will be pleased to hear from her at an appropriate time.
  I take this opportunity to express my sadness at the recent deaths of Bunmi Shagaya, who drowned on a school visit to France, and Yusun Moolla, who drowned on a school visit in Warwickshire. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the House, are with their families, friends and teachers as they struggle to come to terms with their terrible loss.
  Inevitably, many parents will be worried about whether they should allow their children to take part in school trips. When things go so tragically wrong, it is a natural reaction to want to cocoon our children and prevent them from participating in school trips or extracurricular activities of any kind. Of course we must reflect on what went wrong, the lessons to be learned and any action that the Government can take further to reduce risk. However, we are not prepared to engage in a kneejerk reaction or to rush to judgment. That often leads to wrong decisions being made for the wrong reasons, and to bad legislation and bad guidance.
  Millions of pupils in this country participate in incident-free school visits every year. They derive tremendous benefit from taking part. The educational and personal development opportunities that such visits present are an integral part of the learning experience that we offer our young people. There is no justification for suggesting to parents that they should prevent their children from participating in such activities.
  What is vital is that the adults who organise the visits plan their itineraries carefully, assess what might go wrong, and take steps to minimise the likelihood that it will go wrong. That process of assessment should continue throughout the visit, so that any changes in plans are similarly assessed and action taken. The steps to take are set out in a guide produced by the Department called "Health and Safety of Pupils on Educational Visits", which is free to all schools, and to parents too if they want a copy. It is also available on the Department's website.
  774
  The guide was drawn up with the assistance of health and safety experts, teachers, tour operators and activity providers, the police and rescue services. It is regarded as robust, and it draws together a lot of good advice. In the context of the debate that has taken place after the recent tragedies, it is reassuring that the guidance has received significant praise from the media and from people in the education system. They consider that it offers a high-quality framework.
  I hope that parents will retain confidence in a system that sets out to ensure that pupils can reap the benefits of school visits without coming to harm. It goes without saying that my officials will look carefully at the findings of the inquiries that have been set up, and that we will update our guidance if we find that there are lessons to learn.
  On the specific subject of school sports days, I wish to refer to the excellent work carried out by the British Association of Advisers and Lecturers in Physical Education. Its booklet, "Safe Practice in Physical Education", contains a wealth of helpful advice to schools about how to ensure that children can take part in all forms of physical education safely. The advice is based on accepted good practice arising from experience in the field, and I know that physical education teachers all over the country find it helpful and informative.
  Another good practice guide produced by the Department for Education and Skills provides comprehensive guidance on the design of school grounds—a matter that may be relevant in this case. The guidance includes planning advice for sports facilities, and covers issues such as cordoning-off areas for field events that involve throwing, and providing safety cages for hammer and discus events. All measures should be designed to enable activities to take place in a safe and secure environment, but without placing unnecessary restrictions on participation.
  My hon. Friend highlighted a number of important issues in her contribution to this debate. I hope that she feels that the Government take such concerns seriously. As I have said throughout, we are committed to learning all relevant lessons from specific incidents that result in injury, or worse, to young people. I should be grateful for any contribution that my hon. Friend feels she can make to ensure that we learn the lessons from the incident that she has described, and from more general concerns.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

GPs (Sussex)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
9.30 am
Tim Loughton: I am delighted to have secured this debate so early in the new Parliament. I welcome the new Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), to her first outing in such circumstances. We will be gentle with her. I am pleased to see so many colleagues from West Sussex. They, too, have encountered the problems that I am about to recount; my comments will relate mostly to Worthing, but the problems are found throughout the two counties that comprise Sussex.
I hope that I do not gain a reputation for whinging on behalf of my constituents if I claim that we in Sussex—especially in Worthing—have special problems. I have initiated several Adjournment debates on the problems facing the elderly in West Sussex, the enormous pressures that are put on social services by the high population of elderly people, and the great pressures put on the health service generally in the county. Much of what I say will strike a chord with other hon. Members but, as they would expect me to say, the situation in Worthing is far more acute.
That severity is the result of a cocktail of contributory factors, not least the fact that the population of the borough of Worthing is the oldest in the entire country: 48 per cent. of the electorate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) are of pensionable age, making the population there by far the oldest in the country. The knock-on effect is felt in many of the other Sussex constituencies where the proportion of elderly in the population is nearly as high. That is why I broadened the debate to include the whole of Sussex, even though I shall concentrate on Worthing.
Worthing has more than double the national average of over-65s and more than treble the national average of over-85s. Of the 211 hospital trusts in England, Worthing hospital now has the ninth longest waiting times; they have been gradually worsening for the past four years. Hospitals with even longer waiting times include those of the neighbouring Mid Sussex national health service trust and the Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS trust, which is not far away. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) knows of that problem.
A great deal of work caring for patients who wait inordinately long times falls back on GPs. Patients whose operations are cancelled need some form of ameliorative treatment while they wait. The enormous pressure on social services—I introduced a debate on
182WH
that subject some months ago—leads to significant problems of bed blocking. All those factors result in increased fallback on GPs, particularly in Worthing. One Worthing GP says,
"To be an average GP would be wonderful for us".
but in Worthing there is no such thing as an average GP.
I do not mean to be alarmist or scaremongering, and I am not trying to score party political points. What I am about to describe is based on facts and the experiences of several GPs in Worthing and elsewhere in my constituency who are at their wits' end.
Mr. Nick Gibb: We in Bognor Regis have the same problems. The Bognor Regis health centre has cut 1,000 patients from its list. This morning, I received a letter from a doctor saying that there is simply no leeway—he cannot accept more patients. Grove House in Pagham is full and not taking more patients, Maywood and West Meads surgeries are full, and Feltham and Middleton have recently discarded patients. The doctor points out that there might well be 2,000 patients in Bognor Regis who have no GP at all.
Tim Loughton: I thoroughly understand the problems in my hon. Friend's constituency, just along the coast from my own. The situation in Worthing is rather more alarming, although that does not improve the situation affecting him and his constituents.
My comments stem from a meeting that I had just before the election with a couple of dozen GPs, at their behest, and from a letter sent to patients of one surgery in Worthing that has had to close its list. Virtually all the GP surgeries in Worthing have now closed their lists to new patients. My argument also stems from the anger that that engenders in many patients, even though they understand the pressures that their doctors are under. Usually mild-mannered doctors have gone public to give details of their plight to patients, not least in a series of articles run by the Worthing Herald, a local paper to which I pay tribute for the work that it has done on the issue. In an article entitled "Why your doctor fears for your health", one doctor is quoted saying:
"I do a 12 hour day average. I have no lunch and it gets dangerous. We cannot deliver the quality of care patients want and deserve. We try to squeeze everybody in but it's impossible."
Another says:
"There's a massive danger of burn-out and an increasing risk of mistakes. The only thing that stops that is the sheer professionalism of doctors in this country… It is just killing us. I would not let my children go into medicine."
A letter from Shelley road surgery in the centre of Worthing—it lies in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West but caters for many of my constituents in East Worthing—informed patients that it was about to close its list. In it, the doctors stated:
"There is now no room for any more work without adversely affecting patient care and our own health. It is our firm belief that consequently it is dangerous for the Health Authority to continue to allocate patients to this practice until further notice."
Those professional doctors are not pulling any punches. They are responsible and experienced GPs who work hard in their patients' interests in increasingly difficult circumstances. Those doctors did not close their surgery

183WH
on the doctors' day of action in May; instead, they made a responsible protest by informing their patients of the problems that they were experiencing.
I pay tribute to the doctors who, although they are working under enormous pressures, have, both on and off record, contributed to my speech. In particular, I thank the Shelley road surgery and Dr. Bruce Allen, who has taken the decision to speak out on behalf of his patients and colleagues because the local GP service is at breaking point. He sent me some comments for the debate, which I received yesterday; he apologised for having taken so long to get back to me after learning that I had secured the debate. His excuse—
Mr. Peter Bottomley: His reason.
Tim Loughton: Indeed. His reason for taking so long was that on Thursday he had worked solidly between 8 am and 11.30 pm, on Friday he worked solidly between 8 am and 8 pm and on Saturday he worked solidly between 7 am and 10 pm. He typically works between 60 and 65 hours per week. It is not a question of being on call or waiting for something to happen—all the work involves intensive patient contact.
The surgery deals with 11,400 patients and has a full-time equivalent of 5.7 doctors, which means that each doctor has about 2,000 patients. Doctors live in fear of falling ill themselves because of the problems that that would cause in terms of getting cover for patients, and because of the pressure that it would put on other doctors in the practice. On top of those working hours, in the past few weeks Dr. Allen has had his face spat at, been threatened with violence and sworn at profusely, and has had paint stripper poured over his car; one of his partners has had two tyres slashed and another a knife scraped down the side of his car. That has happened in cushy, affluent, south-coast Worthing.
The statistics are clear. In Worthing, 14 per cent. of the patients on a typical GP list are aged over 75; that is more than double the national average of 6.9 per cent. On the list of one surgery in Worthing, 22 per cent. of patients are aged over 75; that proportion is thought to be the highest in the country. The proportion of over-85s on patient lists in Worthing is 5.1 per cent.—more than three times the national average of 1.6 per cent. Worthing primary care group has 30 nursing homes caring for 778 people and 78 residential homes caring for 1,515 people. The Shelley surgery has 125 nursing home patients and 190 residential home patients on its list. That works out at an average of 55 per GP, whereas the UK average is five per GP. That surgery copes with 11 times the national average of patients from care homes.
The British Medical Journal states that nursing home patients require just over two times the number of visits required by patients of equivalent age who live in their own home. The home visit rate for over-85s is double that for over-75s, and we know the additional requirements that over-75s bring. However, no additional capitation is available for over-85s. That problem is not unique to Worthing, but many people like to retire to Worthing and, because of the general niceness of the place, they tend to live a very long time. We are delighted that they do, but local GPs face an inordinate amount of extra pressure as a result.
184WH
There are many other factors involved. Many people in our town live alone, which is a known cause of increased demand on GP services. In the Central Worthing ward, 16 per cent. of the population are aged over 65 and live alone; the figure is more than 21 per cent. in another ward. That compares to only 5 per cent. of the population in "younger" Sussex towns. Despite those extra pressures, Worthing does not have more district nursing services available than any other area of Sussex.
We have a serious problem with nursing recruitment. There have been 70 vacancies at Worthing hospital for more than five years. There is a particular problem with recruiting practice nurses to help with the work load: they simply do not apply for the jobs. Worthing also has a serious shortage of health visitors to deal with the under-fours. The absence of those extra staff creates additional pressure that falls back on to GPs.
Worthing has more than its fair share of deprivation. Of 155 wards in West Sussex, Nos. 1, 11 and 16 in the rank of deprivation are in Worthing, but local GPs describe the deprivation payments that come within the national health budget as very inadequate. In addition, there are enormous pressures in the mental health sector. We have three homes in the centre of Worthing for long-term psychiatric patients. Many patients have recently moved to the Shelley road surgery area following the closure of Graylingwell psychiatric hospital further to the west: the capitation fee to the GP is much lower, but the patients' problems are not diminished. I remind hon. Members of the tragic case of Sarah Lawson, who was killed by her father while she was in a desperate mental state. He is a constituent of mine and the tragic incident took place in Worthing, although I am sure that the report on it will show that local GPs and the staff of the local care trust offered a great deal of support and performed very professionally.
Extra local pressure is caused by four homeless hostels that contain potentially high demand patients, including people with serious alcohol and drug misuse problems and are therefore susceptible to hepatitis and HIV. There are two local homes for disturbed children, including one for mentally disturbed adolescents from Southwark in London. It is cheaper to house them in Worthing than in London, but they are far removed from their social care workers. A doctor told me that a youngster from one of the homes recently ran amok through the streets of Worthing brandishing a knife. To section him, the doctor had to locate and contact the social worker and psychiatrist in London. In addition, the Shelley Road surgery runs fortnightly methadone clinics on a shoestring budget and meets demands from three local hostels for asylum seekers, with the extra pressure and costs that that involves.
Things are not easy in Worthing and the situation is getting worse. At the Shelley road surgery, each doctor sees an average of 58 patient contacts in a working day: that is one every 8.27 minutes, including home visits and telephone consultations. Those figures represent a 21 per cent. increase during the past six years. The doctors have also to deal with referrals, incoming paperwork, letters and test results that require action. They must also run practice premises, achieve national service framework targets, attend primary care group meetings and postgraduate education meetings, run

185WH
audits, participate in local development schemes, hold weekly practice meetings, monitor prescribing patterns and keep within their budget.
An enormous extra work load has been placed on general practitioners across the country. They now must administer drugs to deal with cholesterol levels, monitor more blood pressures and achieve blood pressure reduction targets, which involves administering more drugs. Forty per cent. of patients being monitored for blood pressure typically require three drugs to achieve targets, and those drugs must be administered by the GP. They are also administering more antidepressants and treatments for osteoporosis. They, rather than hospital outpatient departments, now give prostate injections, and there have been further shifts from hospitals to primary care in dealing with routine diabetic care and coronary heart disease follow-ups. In addition, the closure of long-stay geriatric and psychiatric hospitals has given greater responsibilities to GPs. Those may be progressive developments, but they were usually made without consultation as to their likely impact on GPs and without proper additional resources accompanying the patients. As one Worthing GP puts it,
"ten years ago most people had never heard of cholesterol and osteoporosis—nobody worried about blood pressure. We now handle an enormous amount of things but have got no extra staff."
All that is without proper additional funding and, as I said, we have woefully inadequate extra capitation for the elderly.
The funding model for GP surgery staff is 30 years out of date. Many GPs have to subsidise from their own pocket the necessary extra staff. It has been estimated that GPs in West Sussex subsidise the staff model by between £750,000 and £1 million a year. There has been an alarming rise in resignations among practice staff: one surgery in Southwick in my constituency has lost five out of its 16 members of staff in the past six months. Losing experienced staff means that it will have to increase the number of new staff, if it can find and recruit them. As a consequence, the staff budget will be overspent by £20,000, which will cost each partner £4,000 from his or her own pocket. As one said,
"in effect, we are being penalised for trying to deliver 'the new NHS"'.
GPs are having to pay to move to new premises in Worthing because the old ones are bulging at the seams; they are not getting the necessary support from the local health authority. There should be sporadic reimbursement for computer equipment, but the total budget for computers in Worthing in the current financial year is, in effect, zero. How are surgeries supposed to modernise? New local development schemes, which the Minister might mention as bringing extra funding, provide only 20p per patient per annum, and practice development money amounts to only £1 per patient per annum—and both have been described as hopeless. Worthing GPs are particularly annoyed to have received no fees from the Government for flu jabs for the over-65s, despite the Government claiming success for averting a flu crisis.
The situation is not a happy one. At the Shelley road surgery, there is a two-week routine wait to see a GP and a one-week routine wait to see a nurse. Out of 48 GP positions in Worthing, there are four full-time
186WH
equivalent vacancies. The last three advertised posts attracted zero applications, and the health authority acknowledges the problem. As one GP put it, new GPs consider working in Worthing, but decide to move elsewhere because resources do not flow there proportionately. Although nearly all the surgeries in Worthing have closed their lists, the lists continue to increase because the health authority compulsorily allocates additional patients.
The closure letter sent by the Shelley surgery said:
"We write to inform you that we will be closing our list with immediate effect".
Ten reasons were given:

"1. The increasing complexity of medicine with no increase in GP numbers or resources.

2. Extra NHS funding is not reaching GPs in any useful way.

3. New initiatives in primary care mean more work for individual GPs.

4. The continual shift of work from secondary care.

5. We have 11 times the national average of Nursing Home patients…

6. We have a very high elderly population but no extra resources to deal with them…

7. We have significantly less than our share of District Nursing provision within Worthing (based on capitation alone)…

8. The proliferation of high demand children/adolescent units and community psychiatric units in the local area with no extra provision for primary care.

9. We have for many years provided a specialist clinic for drug addicts which has been totally inadequately resourced.

10. The final straw has been the recent dramatic rise in allocations to this practice."

The letter ends by quoting a local GP:
"Safety is one of the most important issues. It is forcing me to the point of being too quick, with a greater potential for missing problems and making mistakes. I feel that there is an abuse of my integral rights as a human being, consistently overloading me with extra work. My only option is to resign and I will be tendering an undated resignation"—
that is a tragic culmination of a GP's career.
There is a crisis not only in recruitment of new GPs, but in retention of experienced GPs. A recent survey in West Sussex showed the age at which GPs hope to retire: 30 per cent. hope to retire between the ages of 52 and 55, and 60 per cent. before they are 60, whereas only 4 per cent. want to retire aged between 60 and 64, and 6 per cent. want to retire as soon as possible. Experienced GPs are talking about leaving an already demoralised service. They cannot be replaced by going to a shop and buying a new packet of seeds to grow some more.
The health authority knows about the problems, but the glossy, professionally assembled briefing pack full of wonderful brochures with which general election candidates were provided may have led one to think that the health service in West Sussex is flourishing. It was difficult to find much discussion of the problems that I have recounted today. The community health council—long may it remain in Worthing, but if the Government revisit their previous intention, it will not last much longer—flagged up four problems: retaining GPs other than those retiring and recruiting new GPs; appointment times for non-emergency conditions extending in many practices; GP contracts being renegotiated with an adverse effect on morale; and the acute need for more nurses to lighten the load, but severe difficulties in recruiting them.

187WH
We hear a great deal from the Government about their plans for NHS hospitals in terms of hospital waiting lists and recruitment of doctors, but GPs account for only 3 per cent. of the entire NHS budget. Small wonder they feel that they get a raw deal. In 1990 there were 27,523 GPs and by 2000 their number had increased to 30,252, which is a 6 per cent. increase in working time equivalent GPs, whereas there were 15,520 consultants in 1990, compared with 23,045 last year, which is a 45 per cent. increase. No wonder GPs feel that theirs is the Cinderella service in the NHS. The statistics on GPs are confused by the full-time working equivalent figures: a truer estimate of the increase in the GP work force is probably no more than 1 per cent.
When international comparisons our made, the figures in this country are woeful. There are 554 doctors per 100,000 patients in Italy, 350 in Germany and 303 in France. In the United Kingdom, there are 164 GPs per 100,000 patients; the next lowest figure in the European Union is Ireland's, where there are 219 GPs per 100,000 patients. In the whole of Europe, only Turkey and Albania have a worse ratio than the UK. The future is worrying. According to the British Medical Association,
"The imminent retirement of large numbers of GPs in the next few years in some of the most deprived areas of the UK is a cause for great concern. One in six GPs currently practising in the NHS qualified in a south-Asian medical school and two-thirds of these are likely to retire by the year 2007."
Apparently, only about 20 per cent. of junior doctors are interested in a career in general practice. The BMA says that a 30 per cent. long-term increase in the GP work force is needed, yet in their NHS plan the Government are promising 2,000 more GPs over the next four years, of whom 1,100 were already planned.
No doubt the Minister will say that the Government are doing their best to retain doctors by offering 10,000 golden handcuffs. It seems amazing that doctors are not interested, but behind the figures is the fact that a GP who retires at the age of 60 in West Sussex has an average life expectancy of 14 years, whereas a GP who retires at the age of 65 has an average life expectancy of only two years. That is a no-brainer—£10,000 in exchange for 12 years of life in retirement is hardly an attractive proposition. The Government need to look beyond that gimmick, because it has not been well received.
We worry, too, about the increase in clinical requirements in the NHS plan, as they will require longer patient consultation times even though doctors' schedules are already tight. An increase of one minute in the average patient consultation time is an increase of just under 10 per cent.; that will require a corresponding increase of more than 3,300 GPs. The BMA notes:
"GPs' morale is at an all-time low, with many doctors feeling that patients are being let down. Inadequate consultation times, burgeoning paperwork, a shortage of doctors, nurses and hospital beds plus under-resourced new directives and targets all lead to patients not getting the care they deserve."
That is the verdict of grass-root GPs. When operations are cancelled or people face long weeks of waiting to see a specialist, the family doctor has to keep the patient going until treatment has been delivered. The
188WH
Government are not facing reality, and GPs are fed up with warm words. One GP quoted in a national newspaper said:
"We just don't seem able to get ministers to listen. They seem absolutely bent on ignoring everything we say. GPs are fed up and when we talk to them around the country the sole topic of conversation is 'When can I get out?'"
That is the nature of the challenge. That is the drastic problem facing the GP service nationally.
All those factors, and more, are concentrated in and around my constituency, especially in Worthing. The risk is that doctors will leave the NHS en masse, and perhaps leave the country or leave the profession when we can least afford it. Help is needed before something breaks. The current situation is not fair to our doctors or our constituents, nor is it safe.
I ask the Minister to have a close look at the problems in West Sussex and Worthing, which have a high concentration of elderly people and problem patients. Sussex and the coastal strip are not wealthy, cushy areas, but the Minister's colleagues have dismissed them as such. We desperately need help. I implore the Minister urgently to consider the matter in the light of the alarming statistics and case studies that I have presented to her. I hope she will agree to meet GPs in my constituency to see what can be done to help them before things really snap.
9.59 am
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on initiating the debate. I welcome the presence of Conservative Members of Parliament from Sussex. The issue clearly matters to Labour Members as well, and I am glad that they are so well represented—[Laughter.] I would like especially to pay tribute to the Whip for his contribution to our debate.
My hon. Friend's speech was far better than any of the rest of us could have delivered. He brought together the points that matter, and I will not repeat them in any detail. I invite the Minister not just to respond to the debate, but to give a lot of thought to how to respond to the issues that have been spelled out.
In Worthing, West Sussex, Sussex as a whole and in the country, great efforts are being made, and I pay tribute to the efforts of the auxiliary staff, support staff, nurses, doctors, managers and administrators across all the health services. However, it is also true that more could be done but is not being done. Many people's experience of the national health service is that it has become a national waiting service. Some things can be put right. There was a time in Worthing when the wait for a 20-minute hearing test at the hospital on the NHS was a year; once the assessment had been made and the hearing aid had been ordered, it took five months to have it fitted—six weeks for it to arrive and three and a half months to get an appointment to be shown where the on-off switch was. However, that temporary problem has been resolved.
Many other waits have not been resolved. Worthing and Southlands hospitals have reduced some of their waiting times, which is welcome, but they remain far too long. My hon. Friend mentioned the situation in Surrey: one in 10 of those waiting for more than a year in Surrey

189WH
are waiting for in-patient treatment, and the Sussex figures are not that different. However, it is instructive to contrast those figures with those for Durham health authority area that covers the Prime Minister's constituency: there, the rate is one in 100 or one in 200. There may have been reasons why that disparity arose, but there is no reason for it to persist four years after we were told the NHS was going to be saved.
Hon. Members and their GPs all know people who have died because they have had to wait. The debate is not about hospital services, but I do not want to focus solely on GPs and not mention the efforts being made by people working in hospitals. Some complaints are unjustified, others are justified, but all need investigation and consideration. In GP services, complaints about what doctors do are far fewer, but the concerns about things going wrong have been well spelled out by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. GPs hours are far in excess of those agreed for junior hospital doctors, and at least junior hospital doctors are trying to get experience of new sorts of cases.
GPs working 60, 70 or 80 hours a week is not the same as a Member of Parliament working those hours. Much of our work consists of going to parties or listening to our colleagues speaking: we do not hold people's lives immediately in our hands. Every time a GP examines someone he has to ask serious questions—for example, he might have to determine whether a baby has meningitis, which requires him to be alert to symptoms that are not obvious. I pay tribute to a GP who diagnosed an ectopic pregnancy in someone who matters a lot to me. He dropped his surgery commitments and came round after hearing a couple of sentences on the telephone through his receptionist. That is the kind of skill that GPs exercise all the time.
The underlying point—the challenge for the health authority and the Government—is the special position of Sussex, West Sussex and Worthing in particular. The issues that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham spoke about—people with special needs who are in their middle years or younger—do not apply only in inner cities. People with such problems live in many different areas—they include troubled teenagers and people who need to escape addiction to illegal drugs or legal ones, for example, alcohol. However, the real problem locally is the population of over-85s. Thirty years ago, health policy administrators understood the extra loads that the over-75s brought, but the over-75s of that era are the over-85s today.
Three years ago, West Sussex health authority carried out a pilot study to find out how to analyse the needs of the over-85s. The study was not continued, in my view because the cost or resources implications were unsustainable at local level, and because the health authority could not justify using the extra resources that would otherwise help family doctors to meet their patients' needs in a humane way if they could not find the cash.
I shall not say how the resource allocation model penalises places like Sussex. We could start a debate about morbidity and mortality rates, but I am sure that the Minister will become familiar with those and many other figures. Instead, I want to talk about what Worthing is showing the rest of the country. My hon.
190WH
Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham pointed out that the proportion of over-85s in Worthing is five times higher than in the rest of the country. What is happening now in Worthing will be happening everywhere in 20 years' time. The actuaries can tell us how such things happen.
The spread of the over-85s will come about as did the spread of the over-75s. If we had had this debate 20 years ago, and if I were making the same point about the over-75s, people would have nodded and said that I was right. That is certainly what has happened. It will now happen with the over-85s, but the average person of that age will give doctors almost twice the work load of someone aged over 75, which is many times the load imposed by a person of my age. I am 56 and I see a doctor every two or three years for trivial complaints; I am lucky, but it is a function of my age. However, when I am 75, I am likely to need to see a doctor once a month, and when I am 85 I might have to see a doctor once a week.
That acceleration puts an extra burden on GP services and on their staff and surgeries. The doctors do not mind doing the work—in fact, most of them go into medicine, and most of their nursing contemporaries go into nursing, to help people avoid illness and disease, to help cure those who can be cured and to care for those who cannot be cured. The question is how much of that burden each of them has to shoulder. The fact that 11 per cent. of patients in West Sussex are over 85—the national average is 5 per cent.—has an impact on doctors' surgeries. That should be recognised; an extra doctor, or even an extra half doctor, would make a difference to the work load. It would also allow a bit more room in what I think of as the concertina.
None the less, the problem remains of what happens when a doctor retires, or is sick, or is called away to help run the local primary care trust. This may be the right place, but it is not the right time to rerun the argument on GP fundholding. There are some excellent GP fundholding practices in my constituency, which includes Rustington, but we are now to have primary care trusts. I shall not argue about that today. However, I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said in connection with the community health council, and I plead with the Minister to ask her colleagues not to abolish CHCs.
The work of Trevor Richards, chief officer of Worthing and district CHC, and his colleagues has been important and I pay tribute to them. It was their asking whether the Association of Community Health Councils opposed the Government's determination to abolish the councils that began to make the difference, and the timing of the election has made it possible for the Government to think again. I ask them to do so. I ask them not to abolish community health councils. CHCs' work can be expanded into the family doctor field, but the experience that they bring to the job cannot be supplied by reconfiguration, patients' advocates or the other arrangements that the Government have in mind. I do not ask the Minister to say this morning that Government policy will be changed, but I ask her to present our plea to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister.
I also ask the Minister to request that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister visit the coastal area of Sussex, together or separately, for a private meeting. I would suggest that the doctors came to No. 10 or to

191WH
Richmond house in Whitehall, but the travelling time would result in their being unable to see 30 or 40 patients. If the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister could spare the time, they should come to Sussex to meet the doctors, nurses, support staff and local managers and administrators. By all means, let the meeting be private—there is no need for cameras to be present—but it is important that they hear directly from those who can reflect upon today's conditions in Sussex, which will spread around the country over the next 10, 20 or 30 years as the benefits of old age and the consequent burdens on the health service extend.
I pay tribute to the doctors who raised this issue in a responsible manner. The headlines said that no more patients would be accepted south of the railway line in Worthing, but the doctors knew that if a practice kept its list open while others closed theirs, it would get all the new patients. By closing their lists, practices required the health authority to make allocations, but that does not solve the underlying problem of the excessive burden. If the Government could see a way forward through the health authority and implemented a plan to get resources through—rather than relying only on words and charm—doctors would notice the difference, and patients would, too.
I have been a Member of Parliament for quite some time, although not for as long as you, Mr. Winterton. I have had experience of GP services in depressed areas of Victoria, in Stockwell in south London, and in my previous constituency in south-east London. I am now watching GPs in my Worthing constituency. Partly because of conditions there and partly because of the age of the people and the burdens involved, the stress and strain in Worthing are greater than any I have known during 26 years as a Member of Parliament.
I plead with the Minister to ensure that resources can flow and that the approach to the problem can be modified, so that GPs can do their work and meet our constituents' medical need.
10.10 am
Mr. Howard Flight: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on his excellent speech and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) on reiterating the points that it raised. I also congratulate and welcome the Minister. The spirit of today's debate is non-partisan—it is about solving practical problems.
I cannot add to the well researched presentation of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, which dealt with problems along the Sussex coast. If I may, however, I want to discuss an instance involving GPs slightly to the north, in my part of Sussex. I, too, plead for the Minister's help to solve a fairly simple problem—it will involve no cost to the Government—that illustrates some of the problems that GPs elsewhere encounter.
In Pulborough, we have outstanding doctors. Two fundholder practices came together to create a bunch of incredibly hard-working and innovative doctors who serve their community well. For two years, they have been working on plans for a remarkable new centre,
192WH
which was to have been a model for the country and to have received a beacon award. To get the necessary funding, they used local help to put together a scheme with the Dunhill trust. At the time, they had the support of Horsham district council.
The scheme addresses several problems constructively and collectively. First, the new medical centre would provide nursing care facilities, operation facilities and convalescent facilities—services that a rural community needs. Secondly, by moving into the Horsham and Chanctonbury GP group area, the scheme would gather 140,000 patients who would render the future of St. Richard's hospital much more secure. One of our problems is whether hospitals have enough patients to guarantee their futures; the scheme would indirectly address that and enable consultants to come out and do a lot of operations on the spot. Clearly, the doctors could not finance such a scheme by themselves, so it was a blessing when a charity was brought in to put up the finance and combined the scheme with the provision of a modest retirement village. That would also meet a need, as that part of the world has nowhere of a sheltered nature for elderly people to go, which presents other social problems.
The scheme was worked out over two years. The district council identified the Oddstones site as suitable and suggested that those involved apply for it. Then planning policy guidance note 3 was introduced. At the last minute, the head of planning took the view—wrongly; the note contains certain qualifications— that he could not recommend the site after all because the majority of it was greenfield land. As a result, the planning committee, doing what it thought was its duty, turned the application down. The doctors have spent £100,000 out of their own pockets on planning costs. The district council, trying to be constructive, has made some alternative suggestions but, for a variety of reasons, those will not work.
I was in contact with the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), about the scheme, because it would have been a model for the country. West Sussex health authority and the national health service had offered tremendous help, but the rather unhelpful letter that I received—I am sure that it was not written by the former Minister herself—said that the health authority could not be involved in planning issues. That illustrates the precise point that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has endeavoured to address. We have held huge public meetings—attracting 10 times as many people as any political meeting—as the community is genuinely furious that a project that everyone wants is being frustrated.
The community does not want any more housing than it needs, nor does the problem involve choosing one section of the community over another. There is a castiron case for using a bit of greenfield land because that is the only land that would meet the criteria for the site. I have written to the Secretary of State asking for help because there is no point in having a public appeal to finance a planning appeal unless such a planning appeal has a chance of success; otherwise we would be misleading citizens. The doctors cannot be expected to finance that, given what they have already spent to no avail. The issue is bipartisan, involving health and the environment, and the essence of the decision to be made is political: is there a possibility of PPG3 being

193WH
interpreted in a different way? The question is then whether the health case for the total combined package and the model that it represents are sufficiently deserving to warrant such an interpretation.
I warmly invite the Minister to come and look at what is being planned at the same time as she looks at the more acute problems in coastal West Sussex. It is an example of doctors, on their own initiative, seeking to solve several major problems of the community. They have constructively found the resources to address the problems yet—incredibly frustratingly—they have been blocked by what is perceived locally as narrow-minded pedantry arising from a different issue, that of excessive housebuilding in the area.
We all face the problem of an ageing population. The question in West Sussex is what is the right level of resources for both GPs and hospitals in a community that has both a high average age and an increasing number of people aged over 85. The problems of GPs differ between rural areas and the south-coast urban area. The pressing need in rural areas is for the type of centre that I have described. A lot of beds will be released if there are local convalescent facilities, and a great deal of time and expense will be saved if many minor operations and nursing care can be undertaken in a local centre. For a group of doctors who have come up with the answer to be frustrated in such a way is not only a shame, but a disgrace. I plead for the Minister's help.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Before I call the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) to speak for the Liberal Democrats, I remind the Chamber that the debate is fairly narrow, relating to NHS GPs in Sussex. I shall be generous in showing discretion. and no doubt hon. Members will want to draw comparisons, but I urge them to note the narrowness of the debate.
10.20 am
Sandra Gidley: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I could not disagree with anything he said—he may find that unusual coming from a Liberal Democrat. The hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) also raised pertinent points. I understand your warning. Mr. Winterton, but the speeches that we have heard not only describe problems in Sussex, but tell of events around the country. From Sussex to Sunderland, from Cumbria to Cornwall, the problems highlighted are present in varying degrees. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to GPs as normally mild-mannered individuals. I agree. Most people share that perception of their family doctors. However, when I was at the BMA conference last week, I realised that the people in the hall were angry—they had had enough.
Before I turn to more general points, I should talk about the specific problem of an ageing population, which has been identified in Sussex. GPs receive more money for elderly patients, but the way in which contracts have developed has shown a sticking-plaster approach. GPs realise that they have more work to do for elderly patients, they negotiate a little more money, and on the system goes, but as the needs of the elderly become more complex, they require a lot more time, and
194WH
time is money. There is a balance to be struck. Even if a GP has plenty of work, his patient numbers remain the same, which is a problem. A GP from the north of the country told me that things balance out somehow, but that is clearly not the case. It was said that what is happening in Sussex will happen throughout the United Kingdom in 10 or 20 years. GPs in other parts of the country do not face the problem so acutely, so I thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for making that good point.
GPs want increased time for consultations and are scathing about the 48-hour target that the Government have set for appointments. Some people can wait: those having routine appointments do not need to see a doctor within 48 hours, so it is patently ridiculous to set a target for them, whereas people who require urgent help need to receive it within 24 or 12 hours. We have set a target without thinking about what we need to achieve for the benefit of the patient.
The GP's job has changed. Thirty years ago, GPs referred tonsillitis to specialists, but they would be laughed at if they did so today. There has been a shift from treatment in hospitals: there are no general physicians in our hospitals now; everyone is a specialist. Conditions such as asthma and diabetes are managed in the surgery, which takes an increasing share of the time of doctors and other staff.
It is frustrating for doctors that to an increasing extent they have to manage patients who are on a waiting list. In many areas—I suspect that it is so in Sussex—there is a wait of 18 months for an orthopaedic appointment. In that time the burden of managing the patient's pain and expectations falls on the GP, who probably in the end prescribes antidepressants—after all, it is pretty miserable to wait 18 months for an appointment. More multiagency working is also taking place. Often funding must come from health, education or social services, so more GP time is taken up in meetings. We all know how frustrating and time-wasting those can be.
Computerisation has been mentioned, but no one pointed out that, because most computers are surgery based, GPs who previously took notes home to work on them must arrive at work an hour or two early to update records on the computer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Blears)indicated dissent.
Sandra Gidley: That is not just my view. If the Minister does not agree, perhaps she would like to look at a series of press cuttings compiled under the heading "A time for general practice". There are many quotations from GPs telling how it is.
The stress of being on call has increased. The requirement has grown over the years as many GPs—especially older ones—decide to sacrifice income and pay to have a good night's sleep. GP morale is at an alltime low, and not just in Sussex. Dr. John Chisholm, who chairs the BMA's general practitioners committee, has said:
"First rate family doctors feel their patients get a second rate NHS service—or worse. Many doctors say they are planning to retire early, or leave the profession, rather than go on with the intolerable burdens of paperwork, bureaucracy and the frustration they feel from fighting to get appropriate treatment for their patients."

195WH
It is not just politicians, therefore, who are making such points. It is doctors.
There are also problems of recruitment. I have talked to a local GP about this and we have heard about a similar state of affairs in Sussex. Twenty years ago there would be 30 applicants for a job in a certain practice; four years ago there were three applicants for a job in the same practice; another vacancy arose recently and not a single person applied for the job. If our doctors do not want to become GPs, we shall face a crisis. There was a crisis of GP provision in the late 1960s. Reference has been made to the Asian work force. In the 1960s efforts were made to find GPs abroad, but most of those GPs work in the more difficult practices and are approaching retirement age. We desperately need ways to tackle the problem that will probably hit us in about six years.
A recent survey showed that about 80 per cent. of family doctors will consider resigning their NHS contracts next spring if the BMA's GP committee is not able to secure a new and acceptable contract. Negotiations are under way. A public perception survey showed that 72 per cent. of people thought their GP was either fairly overworked or very overworked. If the people whose views were sought heard today's debate, the percentage would probably increase.
We have heard about the rise in the number of consultations per GP, which is contributing to the problem, and about the number of additional GPs announced under the NHS plan—not 2,000 but 900, and it is not even certain that those are to be fulltime equivalents. The BMA has calculated that an extra 10,000 GPs are needed to meet increased patient expectations and to cope with the demands of the national service frameworks. However, the Government appear to have developed an ostrich approach to the problem. A BMA briefing states:
"The Health Departments…did not accept that there was a significant problem with morale and recruitment. They accepted there had been an increase in workload, but maintained that it could be addressed by working smarter as well as harder."
I am sure that Members of Parliament would not like to be told that. The briefing adds that
"they declared that the availability of NHS Direct and skill mix options should reduce work for GPs."
That really is the ostrich approach.
The doctors speak for themselves more eloquently than I can. The final comment that I want to use comes from someone in Cumbria; I apologise for the fact that it is not from Sussex, but the problem is nationwide. The person states:
"We are simply pig sick of the health service. We are having to deliver government promises to patients with no extra funding. This is not a party-political statement as the fault lies equally between the last Conservative Government and the current Labour Government. They have promised and are promising the earth to patients knowing full well that we cannot possibly deliver and it is the patient at the end of the day, who is suffering.
Roughly an extra £10 million has been given to North Cumbria…Very little has filtered down into primary care and yet doctors are being expected to deliver on the new national service frameworks for all sorts of different treatments; asked to carry out appraisals on all staff; reorganise counter services; make improvements in line with national directives; prescribe more
196WH
expensive treatments; constantly report back to our health authority on a vast number of issues and fill-in a whole host of documentation.
There won't be a GP left in Cumbria"—
any part of the country could be substituted for Cumbria, I think—
"who is not fed-up with this system".
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Is the hon. Lady going to mention Sussex?
Sandra Gidley: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. To keep you happy, I will substitute Sussex for Cumbria.
Mr. Philip Hammond: On a point of order, Mr. Winterton. Who is the Chairman to whom the hon. Lady keeps referring?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I am being very tolerant today. I am not yet an additional Deputy Speaker for sittings in Westminster Hall. The hon. Lady can call me Mr. Chairman or Mr. Winterton. I accept either.
Sandra Gidley: Now, back to Sussex.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: If we were on the radio I should press the button to challenge for hesitation.
Sandra Gidley: I have already been accused of deviation for not speaking on Sussex, but I shall carry on and finish the quotation. It continues:
"We've been piggy in the middle for too long working with diddly squat and we've had enough. We've been running so fast for the last ten years just to land up standing still. We're exhausted, fed-up and are now ready to say we've just had enough."
10.32 am
Mr. Philip Hammond: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on securing this debate and raising important issues. I also congratulate and welcome the new Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), to her important job.
What has been said this morning about West Sussex is to a great extent true of the whole country, although my hon. Friends have raised an important point about the mechanism for allocating funding to health authorities and the system's apparent failure to recognise the severe problems caused in some areas by increases in the elderly population. However, that is a matter for another debate. The Government are examining the allocation mechanisms for health service spending, so no doubt we shall return to the subject.
More than nine out of 10 patient contacts in the national health service are at primary care level, and the majority of those will be with GPs or their staff. The family practitioner service is the jewel in the crown of the NHS. On the whole, it has served the NHS extremely well and provided an efficient, relatively low cost and high quality service. It is apparent to us all that that jewel is under severe threat, and I am amazed that the Government appear to be willing to tolerate that threat to a service that is the core of the NHS, especially in view

197WH
of the fact that the NHS plan states that development of primary care services is to be the key to the modernisation of the NHS.
I would like to take hon. Members back to before 1997, to fundholding. I shall not argue the merits of fundholding. It had its faults and never covered a sufficient percentage of practices to be evaluated fully. However, from the fundholding experience, I want to draw out a fact that the Government now recognise, which is that entrepreneurial spirit can be unleashed in the delivery of public services. When it is unleashed, it is a powerful force that empowers GPs to develop their practices and find best practice solutions for their patients. The primary interest of the vast majority of GPs is to serve their patients and develop professional services for them, and they can do that enthusiastically using their undoubted skills and imagination. Fundholding certainly stimulated something in the GP population.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman refer to fund holding in Sussex?
Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to you, Mr. Winterton, for reminding me that fundholding practices in Sussex made an important contribution to the delivery of services in that area. By contrast, GPs in Sussex have found the Government's reforms prescriptive in nature and bureaucratic in structure. The reforms have created significant additional bureaucratic work that has undermined Sussex GPs' ability to use their professional judgment in the interests of their patients. The Government's attacks on the medical profession in Sussex and their sometimes unwise inflation of patient expectation in Sussex and elsewhere have caused morale in general practice to fall to an all time low ebb. No one can doubt that, so I shall not quote from the report of the BMA conference with which we are all familiar.
The Government's agenda is to shift the emphasis of service delivery to the primary care sector and to propose better quality GP services. Most GPs think that that should involve spending a longer time with their patients, but the Government focused on the time before access to a GP is achieved and set a 48-hour target. Additional pressures arise from the Government's programme. I accept that some of the measures are entirely necessary and inevitable, for example, revalidation and continuing professional development, but they must be seen against the demographic background that we have heard described, which will place incredible pressures on the service in future.
My concern is with the Government's response to the problem. In the national plan, they set out several outcome targets including a target for access to GPs. They underpinned those with some input targets that they must know will not deliver the output targets in the plan—the former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), came close to admitting that. The Government have raised public expectations that cannot and will not be met. That places GPs in Sussex and elsewhere under extreme stress and pressure. Day in, day out, they face patients whose expectations have been raised, but the GPs do not have the wherewithal or resources to fulfil those expectations.
198WH
The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) spoke about the GP numbers in the national plan. The Government have set a figure of 2,000 additional GPs by 2004, but the BMA says that 900 of them are already in the system, so the figure represents only 1,100 genuinely additional GPs. I do not want to get into an argument about that, but I am concerned that the figure of 2,000—as against the BMA's figure of 10,000—does not represent whole-time equivalent GPs.
I should tell the Under-Secretary of State that there is no doubt about that. I asked the former Minister of State an explicit question and his answer was explicit: it is a head-count figure. That means that if 2,000 full-time GPs retire or leave the service and 4,000 half-time GPs are recruited, the Secretary of State will be able to say correctly, arithmetically speaking, that he has met the target of delivering an additional 2,000 GPs. However, not one additional doctor-hour of patient service will be available.
That problem must be seen against the backdrop of the changing profile of the medical profession and the increasing feminisation of the medical work force. Across the nation, 34 per cent. of GPs are female; that is a fair reflection of the position in Sussex. Last year, the majority of entrants to medical schools—58 per cent.—were female. Our medical work force will, therefore, become increasingly feminised. That is a good thing, but the Government must recognise the fact that female doctors, because of family responsibilities and a greater predilection for part-time working during at least part of their careers, contribute fewer working hours on average over their careers than their male colleagues. That means that, as the medical work force is feminised, it will have to get larger to keep the service at a standstill.
The figures in the NHS plan, which are not whole-time equivalents, take no account of such factors. There is a real probability that the Government will meet the target that they have set themselves in the NHS plan in technical terms, but deliver fewer general practice doctor-hours in total. I challenge the Minister to explain why the Government do not express their targets in whole-time equivalent GPs. That would be a meaningful figure and would underpin, in a way that could be understood across parties and in the community, the Government's laudable strategy to increase the number of part-time workers in the NHS by luring back into the service people who, for various reasons, including family responsibilities, are unable to give a full-time commitment.
There is another problem. The Minister will no doubt tell us about the increased numbers of training places. The Government have committed themselves to creating 450 additional GP training places by 2004, but training GPs is not enough: we must get them to join the service once they have completed their training. However, conversion rates are falling: in 1996–97, 1,029 doctors joined general practice; in 1999–2000, the figure fell to 958. Whether we like it or not, GPs are among the best educated and best trained members of our work force and they are generally endowed with some of the best interpersonal skills. They are therefore much in demand outside medicine. I am sure that other hon. Members know many GPs who have been recruited away from medicine to other careers.

199WH
We must recognise those competing demands. The NHS will never be able to compete simply by offering GPs financial incentives, and I do not think that it should. Obviously, money is important, but it is not the whole game and is probably not the most important factor. GPs want the freedom to exercise their professional discretion in the interests of their patients. They want freedom from scapegoating by the Government. Of course there are a few rotten apples in the barrel, as there are in any barrel. Even in so joyous a place as Sussex, we find the odd GP who falls short of the standards that we all expect. However, the vast majority have, as their primary and overriding concern, the ability to deliver, with the benefit of their extraordinary skills and professional training, the best possible services for their patients. To do that, they need not only the resources and the support of Government combined with freedom from scapegoating and the blame culture, but the liberty to exercise their professional judgment locally in the interests of their patients.
The Government must recognise that the primary care group-primary care trust experiment, whatever else it may bring or has brought, has not engaged GPs at the grass roots as was anticipated. It has not provided an alternative mechanism to fundholding for unleashing the entrepreneurial spirit among GPs. The Government must recognise that the practice is the fundamental unit for general practitioners. They need to enthuse and inspire GPs at that level if the services that the public expect and the Government want are to be delivered.
That brings me to my final point about the delivery of first-class general practice services in Sussex. During the general election campaign, the Labour party and the Prime Minister offered the British people world-class public services—not just good or better, but world-class. The ball is now firmly in the Government's court: they have been given a clear mandate to deliver those world-class public services. The Minister must know that the public will be watching. In this Parliament, the Government will be judged by their success or otherwise in delivering world-class public services. They cannot do that in relation to health care unless they win over the GPs in Sussex and elsewhere by inspiring them and empowering them to deliver and develop their professional practice for the benefit of their patients. Unless they have the freedom to do that, we will never restore general practice to what it was and should be—the jewel in the crown of our national health service.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): In calling the Minister to reply to the debate, I, too, congratulate her on her appointment.
10.47 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on securing this important debate. I have welcomed the atmosphere and tone in which it has been conducted and have learned a great deal, particularly about the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the specific problems there. I would also like to thank all
200WH
hon. Members for their kind words of congratulation. I will do my best to address my comments to Sussex and Worthing and to be as direct and focused as I can.
I represent an inner-city constituency that has many problems of deprivation, but that does not mean that I do not recognise that there are sometimes real pockets of hardship, poverty and deprivation in seemingly affluent areas, especially in many of our coastal towns. There are particular problems associated with the structure of the population in such places, and the hon. Gentleman has highlighted the issue of NHS care for the elderly. About 75 per cent. of the NHS centres on care for older people; it is a fundamental part of the service and we need to take it into account.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the combination of services. Older people are not the only ones involved. His area has four hostels for the homeless and a number of institutions looking after vulnerable children. I have been made aware of that combination—he referred to it as a cocktail of ingredients—and I will take it seriously.
Several hon. Members asked if I could arrange for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister to visit the area and talk to GPs and listen to their problems. I cannot promise the Secretary of State, and I certainly cannot promise the Prime Minister, but I can promise myself. I have regional responsibility for the area and I intend to get to know my areas in detail. I want to listen to the GPs and the nurses, the people working at the front end of our services, to find out what it is like on the ground. There is nothing more valuable than hearing people speak in their own voices, rather than reading official documents. Much to the disquiet of some of my officials, I intend to go out during the recess on a tour of the areas for which I am responsible. I shall do my best to visit the areas that are represented by hon. Members who have spoken today.
Let me start my first debate as Minister by paying tribute to all who work in the national health service. They have changed the landscape of the NHS in recent years, and have a key role to play in its future. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) referred to public sector entrepreneurs—a phrase that was, I think, first used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is good to find that we share a view. In my constituency, a school for social entrepreneurs is developing the imagination, creativity and innovation of people in the public sector. Staff are the key to developing different ways of working.
However, today's debate is about GPs in Sussex. We owe GPs a great debt. I acknowledge the energy that they put in day in, day out, week in, week out. We have heard about their long working hours and their tremendous amount of patient contact. Their commitment is resulting in improved services in all communities. Because the Government recognise the pressures on GPs, we made a commitment in the NHS plan to help to develop primary care services. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge told us that 90 per cent. of patient contacts in the NHS are at primary care level. That is why the development of primary care is the key to modernising and improving

201WH
services. One of the things that we have constantly emphasised is our desire to give people in the front line the power, the resources, the money and the decision-making opportunities to change the services that we provide.
Let me run through a few of the things that the Government are doing. I shall not have time to tell hon. Members about everything in the NHS in 10 minutes, but I hope to expand on some issues in future. We are investing £100 million over the next three years to encourage the recruitment and retention of GPs. Some of that will be spent in Sussex. Although new GPs receive £5,000 to enter general practice, I acknowledge that financial incentives are not the be-all and end-all. People work in public service because they believe in it and they want to provide services to their communities. However, financial incentives can help when they are deciding where to practise and what kind of work to take up. It is important that the Government acknowledge the need to attract more people to general practice by providing extra incentives.
We are also trying to provide extra incentives for women returners. The point was well made about the increasing feminisation of the service and the need to ensure that women can continue to practise and that their skills remain up to date while they are at home caring for relatives or on maternity leave. We have introduced a scheme under which women work for four sessions a week in the NHS to maintain their contact and to continue their professional development, so that when they are ready to return, they constitute another pool of workers from which to draw.
We are investing £100 million to support service development. Sussex received £3 million this year—that is about £10,000 per practice, half of which can be spent entirely as the practice wishes. It is important for creative and innovative GPs to be given the resources to change their practices. We recognise the personal strains on GPs, which is why we are setting up the first ever occupational health service for GPs. If we do not look after their health, their ability to care for others may be impaired. In addition, we are trying to reduce the administrative burden on GPs, although there remains a lot more to do. We have saved them from having to sign applications for passports and driving licences, and all the extraneous things that people ask doctors to do. Doctors should be doing what they do best: seeing patients, providing consultations and working out care plans.
We are also modernising the surgeries of 3,000 GPs. It is important that GPs, like Members of Parliament, work in a decent environment, because people's working environment affects the quality of their work.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Is the Minister going to advise us how many surgeries in Sussex have been modernised? It would be helpful if she directed more of her remarks to Sussex.
Ms Blears: I am grateful for that comment, Mr. Winterton. I am sure that at least a proportionate amount is being spent on modernising GP practices in Sussex—[Laughter.] When I visit the area, I shall have the opportunity to see for myself the improvements that are being made. I look forward to it.
202WH
We are also increasing the number of GPs, although it is a slow process. The target in the NHS plan of 2,000 extra doctors is a floor, not a ceiling. We would like more GPs—indeed, we have asked the BMA to suggest ways in which we might increase the number of doctors. The BMA has not yet responded, but I hope that it will. In fact, the number of GPs in Sussex has increased from 802 in 1997 to 835 in 2001. It is not a huge increase, but it is going in the right direction.
Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister say whether that number is a whole-time equivalent, or whether it is a simple head count that conceals an actual reduction in whole-time equivalents?
Ms Blears: I do not have that information with me today, but I shall find out and let the hon. Gentleman know.
We are moving in the right direction. I remind the Opposition that GP numbers began to fall in 1991 and continued to fall for the next five or six years; only now are we beginning to solve the problems caused by the massive reduction in training places that took place under the Conservative Government. I appreciate that we are not here today to make party political points, but we should remember that the GP training places and GP numbers fell dramatically under the Conservative Government.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: If the Minister cannot cover the subject in the remaining few minutes—I realise that we do not have much time—would she write to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, sending copies of the letter to the rest of us, saying how she plans to analyse the additional burdens imposed by the over-85s? My hon. Friend and I both spoke about the need to look forward. It may not be possible to answer that question today, but we should be grateful if she would to write to us.
Ms Blears: I certainly shall. In the few remaining moments, I shall try to give some pertinent examples of how GPs are being helped to look after elderly people in Worthing.
First, local primary care groups are considering how to use nurse practitioners to provide general medical care in nursing homes. They are already running clinics that deal with coronary heart disease and high blood pressure, which relieves the burden on GPs. Three GP practices in the area now have a dedicated health adviser for the elderly, providing support especially for the over-85s. Under a local scheme, the scoring assessment for those who need cataract operations is now being made when they visit the optician, so that they do not have to return to their GP; that innovation, too, is relieving pressure on general practitioners in the area.
Many general practitioners in Worthing and in Sussex generally are embracing change and innovation. They are looking to the future and are prepared to consider new solutions. We have heard a great deal today about the problems of general practice. The challenge for the Government and for Parliament is to try to come up with long-term, sustainable solutions so that GPs feel really valued and know that they are an important part of the health service. The innovations that we are introducing in Worthing, Sussex and elsewhere help to support GPs in their work.

203WH
I must also mention the work of NHS Direct. That service takes thousands of calls a month. It refers people to different kinds of care, gives them advice on how to look after themselves, and refers them to pharmacists, midwives and a range of other services.
If long-term sustainable solutions to the pressures that GPs undoubtedly face are to be found, we politicians must be more creative and more imaginative—we must work smarter and not simply work harder. We need to achieve investment at the front end, so that we can provide patients with appropriate care. It is not always right to visit the general practitioner; patients can often receive care in other ways and in places that are quicker, more appropriate, and that better meet their needs.
We have a responsibility to look creatively at the whole of the health service. We value general practitioners enormously, but we must not forget that the NHS comprises a range of primary care workers, whose contribution I acknowledge. Nurses, advisers and community-based workers are doing a marvellous job in supporting patients and providing services. We rely on them. I want to ensure that they find their working lives enjoyable and satisfying, rather than consisting wholly of pressure and overwork.

Transport (East Midlands)
11 am
Mr. Mark Todd: I rise from this phalanx of east midlands Members of Parliament to raise a subject that I believe will engender a lively debate. I shall start by setting out the principles on which any modern transport strategy should rest. First, every citizen should be able to fulfil most of his or her daily needs by travelling on foot or by bicycle, which requires, as I shall explain, a change in the way in which we plan our built environment. Secondly, every citizen should have access to quality public transport—by "quality" I mean sufficient to enable people to get to work or to fulfil normal shopping needs. By that criteria the twice-weekly bus service common in some of my villages is inadequate. Thirdly, people need comfortable, affordable access to other parts of the United Kingdom. Delightful though South Derbyshire is, its inhabitants sometimes want to travel to other parts of the country reasonably cheaply and comfortably, without difficulty in accessing the mode of transport that they use from where they live.
Fourthly, companies in our region should have speedy access to their markets and to other parts of their supply chain so that they can build more successful enterprises and reach new markets and new customers. Fifthly, our modes of transport should be integrated. It is not enough to have a bus service if it does not link to the rail network or to the local airport. Such links are sadly too often missing, both in the east midlands and in other parts of the country. Sixthly, information should be made available to people to enable them to make informed transport choices. It should not be difficult to find out where one can catch a bus or a train, or what air services are available in an area. Again, there is a need for improved information and communications technology, in the interests not merely of creating better informed citizens but of creating alternatives to transport.
Seventhly, we need to ensure that alternative transport choices and fiscal measures discourage the most polluting car uses. I represent a rural constituency and recognise that possession of a car—I have one—is virtually essential to carry on any sort of normal life in my area and, although we cannot see too far into the future, probably always will be. However, we want to ensure that we take measures that encourage the most efficient use of a car and not the gas-guzzlers that are still on our roads. Eighthly, we should try to ensure that information and communications technology is fostered in a way that allows people to choose not to travel at all, so that people could, for example, work from home for a substantial part of their working life, thereby minimising transport use.
How can we apply those principles in the east midlands? Our demanding economic goal to turn the east midlands into a top 20 region within Europe by 2010 is made more complex by the fact that the region is substantially rural. People choose to live there because of the smallness of many of the communities, the delightful countryside around them and the quality of the environment that people can enjoy. The last thing that we want is to develop a successful region by polluting its attractiveness and destroying the reasons why many people choose to live and work there.

205WH
Therefore, transport strategy and the choices that we make are crucial parts of building that successful economy and protecting the things that most of us regard as essential if the east midlands is to continue to be an attractive place to live and work.
Specific measures that must be taken include improving the quality of the rail services in the region. It is crucial that we upgrade the Midland Mainline service between the Derby area, which is the part of the region that I represent, and London. That means increasing the speed and frequency of the service that is available.
Paddy Tipping: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, in the 10-year transport plan, the west coast main line and the east coast main line are both listed for major investment, but there is no mention whatever of the need to invest in the midland main line? That will have terrible consequences on urban conurbations such as Nottingham, Derby and Leicester.
Mr. Todd: I entirely share that view. However, a seed of hope—perhaps the Minister will reassure us—in the M1 multimodal study, which I will touch on shortly, is the emphasis on and thorough exploration of upgrading the midland main line as an alternative to some of the more frightening prospects of widening the M1
Phil Hope: Corby is the largest town in Europe without a passenger railway station. Midland Mainline has been involved in a feasibility study with a view to reopening the railway station in Corby to make a direct route between London, Corby, Nottingham and the north. A passenger railway service is vital to Corby's regeneration and to attracting new retailers and new building to the shopping centre.
Mr. Todd: Although I am not nearly as familiar with the needs of Corby as my hon. Friend is, I share his view. A community the size of Corby should have a proper rail service, and the lack of it certainly makes it more difficult to attract inward investment and to regenerate the town further—I recognise that there has already been a great deal of success. The position in my constituency is substantially worse than in many others, as there are no rail services in any part of South Derbyshire, except for the two little villages of Willington and Hatton. Swadlincote, the only town in my constituency, lost its railway service in the Beeching cuts. I shall return to that subject shortly.
In developing a strategy for the east midlands as a whole, we should also explore the need for dedicated rail freight services. That might require support for Central rail. I have an open mind about that: there are some advantages to the Central rail project, but it needs further study. It would be a brave private sector initiative to provide a link from the north-west to London and then into Europe. It would run through our region and provide significant advantages to the areas that it touched. Regardless of that proposal, it would be desirable to increase substantially the freight carried by rail, perhaps moving towards the goal of 10 per cent. of total freight volume by 2010.
We must invest in new local rail services to link the major routes—in this case, the midland main line—to centres of population. That would reduce road use, and
206WH
I can use myself as an example. When I work at the southern end of my constituency in Swadlincote, I have to use a car, either to reach the rail network or to drive down to London to get to Parliament. The links to the rail network are inadequate, and it takes about half an hour to reach any rail station from Swadlincote.
There is the opportunity to open the existing rail freight line that runs through part of my constituency. It has been called the Ivanhoe line or, increasingly, the National forest line because of its route through the National forest, which is developing successfully throughout that part of our region. The line would provide passenger stations in my constituency on the edge of Swadlincote, as well as linking into Burton and areas of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor). I was pleased to see that that option was recognised by the M1 multimodal study as a possible way of dispersing traffic from the M1. I attended the meeting at which that was discussed, and commend the imagination shown. I recommend that approach to the Minister as another reason for supporting the National forest line, together with the opportunities for regeneration and improvement of the environment in South Derbyshire and North-West Leicestershire.
We must invest in railway station improvements, because some stations are unattractive. There has been a welcome programme of improvements in Derby, but other stations in the region do not encourage people to use them. The investment in the new parkway station south of Derby would substantially increase the attractiveness of the Midland Mainline to many people. It would make it easier for people to reach a railway station to join a mainline service, rather than having to choose the unappealing option of heading into a major city.
On the road network, I have already mentioned the M1 multimodal study and I commend its imaginative approach and breadth of vision. I was impressed by the initial consultation document, which set out many alternative strategies to the obvious option of providing more lanes and changing the interchanges for the Ml. That should be the least favoured option, and we should ensure that the study produces action on a range of alternative measures that reduces traffic on the M1 and prevents the need for substantial road widening. I have touched on some initiatives—improving the midland main line is certainly one, as was recognised in the strategy, and the Ivanhoe line is another—and many others are available. I understand that the multimodal study will be published later this year, and many people are looking forward to its contents. I am looking forward optimistically and hope that it will dispense with the arguments for massive road widening along much of the route.
Another multimodal study affects one crucial issue in regional planning, which is linkage between regions. We all represent east midlands constituencies, but we must remember that the region links into other parts of the country as well. The multimodal study on the A38, which touches one side of my constituency, is also crucial, but now I must be rather less positive. The initial information that I received showed that people were starting strongly to favour major widening schemes along the A38. I am not saying that none of that is necessary. The road is heavily used and links Derby,

207WH
Burton and Birmingham, but I was disappointed at the lack of consideration for other modes of transport, and particularly other interchanges with other modes of transport, that might be fostered.
I shall now deal with air transport. East Midlands airport is a major economic growth point in the region, as everyone examining economic strategy for our region has recognised. We all welcome that. In particular, its success in freight shows the need for a more holistic consideration of strategy. Surely it is crazy for a major freight airport to have no rail link. It is clearly inappropriate that any freight arriving at East Midlands airport has to move to a road-based mode of transport.
David Taylor: I endorse what my hon. Friend said about East Midlands airport being a major engine for economic growth, but will he comment on two related concerns? First, the lack of environmental controls produces extensive night noise. Secondly, the airport is a catalyst for large-scale urban sprawl, particularly around junction 24.
Mr. Todd: My hon. Friend has snatched the words out of my mouth. Our constituents regularly draw attention to the difficulties of night noise and general noise from the airport. In addition, more than 80 per cent. of the airport's employees travel to it by car, which is not satisfactory. We need better public transport links to the airport to reduce that proportion substantially. The parkway station, which is conveniently located relatively close to the airport, may help to reduce the burden, but more work is required.
Rigorous controls on night flying and noise generation by the airport are needed as the price of its future development and growth. Last year, the Government consulted on noise controls at the airports that are not subject to national noise controls; the east midlands region awaits the outcome. Many people from my area contributed to the consultation, which has taken a year so far. In a recent parliamentary answer, I was told that we could expect a response later in the year. The sooner it arrives, the better.
North West Leicestershire district council has proposed the alternative approach of adding East Midlands airport to the three London airports, obliging it to be subject to national controls. One suspects that the Government may not favour that option, because they consulted on a locally based framework for noise controls, but an early response to the consultations would certainly put many people's minds at rest, assuming that the Government moved in favour of locally set controls.
Lastly, I shall deal with the bus network. All of us who represent more rural parts of the region welcome the substantial additional investment in local transport through bus grants available from county councils, supported by the Government. In my area, there has been an increase of about 50 per cent. in real terms in the amount of money available for that purpose from 1997. That has been well spent on extending evening and weekend services, at least in my constituency. That improves the accessibility of public transport, and people now recognise that it is available all the time,
208WH
most notably in the community transport system. South Derbyshire community transport in Swadlincote has received a substantial additional amount of money and is now a major bus operator in the area.
I have two criticisms. First, insufficient money is available to introduce substantial numbers of new routes. As I said, many villages in my constituency have minimal or non-existent bus services. Secondly, we have not yet worked out how to integrate community transport and scheduled bus services; people still see them as "either/or" rather than a seamless service in which one could catch a bus from Church Broughton, for example, in the northern part of my constituency, and join a scheduled service in Hilton, which still has a rudimentary bus service. Integration of those services should be more actively explored. It can be done at a local level, but the Government could prompt such initiatives, as a large effort has been put into community transport.
We must have a planning system that supports communities. In my constituency, 200 houses have been built on an old hospital site and 200 more are planned. The estate has no bus service, so possession of a car is essential. Such developments are inappropriate; a planner to whom I spoke about the matter said, "I don't think we'd do that nowadays." We must build into the planning system an obligation to provide public transport, and ensure that there is access to it. Section 102 agreements should be used to fund public transport systems, which are essential in such areas.
Local authorities must more actively engage in the use of information and communications technology in public transport and in providing alternative means of working without needing to use public transport.
People want a growing regional economy without losing the region's beautiful environment and without having to rely on one or two economic sectors which, although they may make organisation of the transport network easier, make our economy more vulnerable. That is why transport diversity and flexibility is crucial. I have emphasised modes of transport and integration between the various parts, and the role of local government in knitting them together. I look forward with keen interest to the Minister's response.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. It appears that as many as eight hon. Members may wish to contribute to the debate, including the Opposition spokesman. There must be adequate time for the Minister to reply, so I ask hon. Members for self-discipline so that everyone who wishes to speak may do so.
11.23 am
David Taylor: I congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing this important debate. Our east midlands constituencies are the nexus of regional communications, as they contain the East Midlands airport, the M1 motorway, the Midland Mainline railway, the M42-A42 and the Derby southern bypass, and to the south lies the A14-M6 link. Our constituencies are at the heart of the east midlands but, as my hon. Friend said, we need better regional rail services to link with the national network.

209WH
Few people remember the third man on the moon, or will remember the third person to drop out of the Conservative party leadership contest, and few will remember that the third commercial railway line to open in this country was the Swannington to Leicester line, much of which is on the National forest route, which my hon. Friend mentioned. The line was opened in 1832, the year of the great Reform Act, and it substantially reformed the lives of businesses and people in our area. Beeching came along 131 years later and, together with thousands of miles of network in the United Kingdom, the line was axed. Many stations—and access to the mainline network on the then Leicester to Burton line, running through North-West Leicestershire, South Derbyshire and other constituencies—were removed.
In the subsequent 20 years the line was used mainly for freight, linking local pits and other employers to the network, but closure continued. The National forest came into being, with a major impact on the environmental and economic regeneration of our area. It brought with it new industries, including the expansion of leisure and recreation, but the people who want to live and work in our area still lack an adequate rail service. That was recognised early on, and the Ivanhoe line project of the 1990s meant the planned opening of 16 new stations on the route from Loughborough via Leicester and Coalville to Burton and Derby.
Twelve sites were identified and work was done to bring track and signalling up to passenger standards. Passing routes were constructed and four trains were to be purchased to run the service. The relatively easy add-on section between Leicester and Loughborough was designed, built and opened in 1994. Along came another Conservative Government to restructure the rail network under the Railways Act 1993. That brought about two changes that had a serious effect on the second stage of the Ivanhoe project—the part that we now call the National forest line. First, capital investment was to be carried out by Railtrack and recouped through track access charges. Secondly, all trains were to be leased rather than purchased. Those two changes had the effect of transferring costs from the capital account, which previously would have been funded by Government grant and borrowing approvals, to a revenue account funded directly by the county council.
The county council baulked at a bid under the rail passenger partnership fund because the outline capital cost was about £15 million. Each train cost about £600,000 to operate, with a third going in lease charges. The forecast revenues meant that the deficit under the restructured rail network was about £2 million a year—a significant sum. At a meeting last year, the county council cabinet of a Conservative-Liberal administration decided not to make a pre-qualification bid to the rail partnership passenger fund.
Many campaigners were extremely disappointed. The argument that the Ivanhoe line did not represent value for money was narrowly financial, born of the cold hearts of accountants in dim and dusty rooms. I speak as an accountant in attributing those qualities to accountants. What of the wider environmental benefits: the reduction in pollution and congestion in cities and towns surrounding the route, the accident savings—despite Hatfield, it is much safer to travel by rail than by
210WH
car—the regeneration benefits through access to the National forest, and the reduction in social exclusion? My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire mentioned that earlier: we represent similar areas; people living in the rural areas often have poorer access to services and facilities than those in urban areas do.
The county council went cool on the project, but the North-West Leicestershire district, in conjunction with others such as South Derbyshire, did not let it lie there. The project was reviewed to establish whether there was a way ahead. The partnership was and remains more positive about the potential for this line, but even it agreed with the county council that the RPP fund as presently constituted was inappropriate for the scheme. Either the rules on RPP funding must be revised to permit capital grants or another source of grant aid must be used. The failure to address that problem will frustrate Government policy, as laid down in "Transport 2010" and elsewhere.
Some of the options in "Transport 2010", the 10-year plan, suggest that there are ways forward for the scheme. For example, the rail modernisation fund provides investment
"that is necessary to expand the network and increase passenger rail use by 50% and rail freight by 80%. The fund will…encompass a range of funding mechanisms, including capital grant and debt finance".
I should like the Minister to respond to that point, or perhaps write to me.
The partnership that is investigating possible ways ahead has concluded that there are three major aspects to a scheme to restore passenger services on this important regional line. The prime objective must be to open the line to passenger traffic; any expansion of freight or transit excursion traffic should be secondary and should not prejudice a regular passenger service. That is the partnership's key conclusion. The Strategic Rail Authority and train operators must, of course, be involved.
Secondly, my hon. Friend referred to developer interest, which offers some sources of funding. However, in most cases, planning gain for the developments that are seen as necessary in the structure plans up to 2011 and beyond has probably already been taken, so I am not sure whether that option gives us much in the short term.
Finally, the partnership has included the line as a proposed coalfield transport regeneration project, which it has submitted to the Coalfield Communities Campaign. That option offers a great deal, and I am optimistic that it will provide further funding of the sort that we saw in earlier years.
I conclude with three quotes from three campaigners, some of whom have been heavily involved in the issue over the years. County councillor Horace Sankey told me that I should
"support developers who will give money to Burton-Leicester Railway and would make it real"
and tangible. He added that I
"should start pushing for Government to at least part own Railtrack",
and I go along with that.

211WH
Mr. Gerald Box, who, together with Keith Payne, has been an active campaigner, said:
"In this district, there is a superb opportunity to set the seal on all the exciting developments that have replaced the rape of the coal industry—the re-establishment of a railway. This would be 1) a visible symbol of national government policy, 2) a practical piece of social, environmental engineering and 3) a chance to use an existing asset to join us to Europe."
Thirdly, to show that it is a cross-age and cross-community issue, I want to quote Matthew Smith, who is 13 and who wrote to me this week. He said:
"The people of this area have recently re-elected you"—
the Labour party—
"back into power…Labour did promise"
that this time would be better and that it would
"do the will of the people. If this is so, make a difference and do your best to improve this area's transport by opening up this rail line and helping people without cars or the elderly to travel more easily."
I look to the Minister to give us that support; it will find an echo in the community and be warmly welcomed by groups and individuals such as those whom I have quoted. I look forward to his comments.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Before I call the next speaker, I should say that I or whoever succeeds me in the Chair will call for winding-up speeches to begin at 12 o'clock.
11.33 am
Paddy Tipping: This is a welcome and timely debate. The regional transport strategy is part of the draft regional planning guidance, the final part of which will be issued this autumn.
There is a great feeling in the east midlands that we need to be in the premier league of top 20 regions in Europe. To achieve that, we need to build our infrastructure. A major aim must be to increase our skills, training and education to enhance the quality of our work force. A secondary and extremely important aim is to invest in the transport infrastructure. I shall briefly discuss three issues that affect the east midlands.
Three major rail routes run out of London: the west coast main line, the east coast main line and the midland main line. In the 10-year plan, there are major investments for the west coast and east coast main lines. The midland main line has always been perceived as the poor relation. It serves major conurbations such as Leicester, Nottingham and Derby, and we must ensure that investment in it continues. The train operator, Midland Mainline, has done well, with its Turbostar service and the parkway station at junction 24. However, major track improvement is needed over the next 10 years. A spur to that will be the redevelopment of the St. Pancras-King's Cross interchange, which will involve the Eurostar coming in to north London. It would be a travesty if the speed of the service on the midland main line were pedestrian compared with that on the line through Kent and the chunnel to France. We need to work hard on that. We also need to work hard on the east coast main line. My hon. Friends who have
212WH
spoken have mentioned the need for quality services and stations. Further investment is needed in Newark station on the east coast main line.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) spoke about the multimodal study on the M1, which is important and must not be delayed. We must think carefully about its consequences. I say to people in Westminster Hall today and to a wider audience that we must tackle the thorny issue of the A453 from junction 24 on the M1 into Nottingham. There has been procrastination on the subject for many years, and the time has come to grip the nettle. Investment will not come into the Nottingham conurbation until hard decisions are taken about widening the route of the A453. Certain routes proposed by some of my colleagues would be environmental disasters. Hard choices must be made following the study, so I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will not renege on them, but will take them and get on with the job.
I want to talk briefly about the need to regenerate coalfields, which my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire and for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) mentioned. The Robin Hood railway line has been an enormous success in the east midlands, especially in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, whose county councils I commend for pursuing it. We have reopened a derelict line, and the service has been a tremendous success. Unfortunately, its success outreaches the infrastructure available. The trains are crowded, new carriages are needed, and there should be a half-hourly service rather than an hourly one. We must improve quality and reliability. An extension should be made as well, providing a route from Mansfield to Tuxford, taking in Edwinstowe and Ollerton.
We must consider the use of mineral railway lines across the east midlands. The moratorium on their use was recently lifted. If possible, we must reserve the lines for park-and-ride sites, but many of them will not qualify. Many run from urban areas and pit villages into the countryside. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire said, we must encourage people out of urban areas into the countryside on their feet and bikes.
One of the problems with Railtrack, aside from simple inaction or the inability to deliver a quality service, is an inability to take decisions about redundant railway lines. If the Government were to examine closely the issue of mineral railway lines, use them positively where possible and, where not, use them for amenity and recreational purposes, that would be a major feather in their cap.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his succinct and brief remarks.
11.40 am
Gillian Merron: I am keen to ensure that Lincolnshire plays its full part in making the east midlands a premier region, an aspiration that I share with my colleagues in the east midlands group of Labour MPs. We have worked together to advance that.
Lincolnshire is the largest county in the east midlands, with the greatest length of roads in the region. However, with a population of around 600,000 it has the second

213WH
lowest population density in the region, and that brings its own challenges. As part of the large network of highways in the county, there are some 2,500 miles of public rights of way, the reopening of which by the county council following the foot and mouth crisis has been desperately slow. Many of my constituents are unhappy about that, as am I, and I urge the county council to get on with the job that they should have got on with already.
Transport is one of the greatest challenges that the present Government have to face. It is one of the greatest messes that we inherited and we face the challenge of putting it right. In my constituency, improved transport links are crucial for attracting, retaining and improving investment and business. They are also essential to enable people to get about safely, conveniently and comfortably, to develop communities and to improve the quality of life.
Lincoln has long suffered from being cut off. The situation will be greatly improved by the dualling of the A46 between Newark and Lincoln, as the Government have now approved the £28 million scheme. However, Lincoln's standing would be greatly improved by better rail services. We have no direct link to London, and the existing routes do not provide the service that many of us would reasonably expect in the 21st century.
As hon. Members will be aware from previous debates and from questions that I have raised in the House, Lincoln also suffers from the unenviable distinction of being the only major city that is cut in two every time a train passes through it. However, we have another challenge before us, as part of the national transport agenda is to remove heavy goods vehicles from the congested road network. The proposal to improve the London to Edinburgh east coast main line includes doubling the present volume of freight over the next 10 years. An integral part of that upgrade would be to divert freight from the east coast main line on to local parallel rail routes. That would mean more freight transport through Lincoln, and would adversely affect the city. As chair of the Lincoln rail working group, I have worked with others to find solutions to the problems that will be created by the new scheme. Although it will bring tremendous benefits to Lincoln and the surrounding area, it must be implemented without detriment to the city.
The Lincoln rail working group is not simply made up of local interested groups and local authorities, but includes representatives of Railtrack, the East Midlands development agency, the Government office for the east midlands and the Strategic Rail Authority. Its composition should give hon. Members an idea of the importance of the issue, in both regional and national terms.
The east coast main line upgrade is a vital scheme that could bring national, regional and local benefits, including the potential for improved rail services, direct services to London and rail freight facilities that would serve local needs. However, it would be completely unacceptable if there were no change in the provision of rail services in Lincoln as that would lead to immense difficulties in the city and the surrounding areas. We are working to address that. Only yesterday, I went on a walkabout in my constituency with members of the Lincoln rail working group and representatives of the Strategic Rail Authority looking at the problems and
214WH
considering how to overcome them. Our proposals in "Vision @ Lincoln", which were presented to the public some months ago, included an underground and a surface option. I shall be meeting my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in a few weeks to discuss it.
My firm belief is that we have a one-off opportunity in Lincoln to cure a long-term ill—one that the city has lived with for 150 years. I also believe that it is very much in line with Government thinking that transport solutions should help create new opportunities for regeneration by bringing investment to local areas as well as providing better passenger services and assisting in the movement of freight.
I have no doubt that, without a major development in Lincoln, an artificial cap will be placed on investment and development in the city; again, that would be unacceptable. I must emphasise that it is not a matter only for Lincoln. It is a matter for the region and beyond, which is why I am pleased to have had the opportunity to raise the matter once again in this Chamber.
Transport links are a key matter for the city and surrounding area. An eastern bypass for Lincoln would clearly ease the increasing traffic pressure on the city centre. I am sorry that Lincolnshire county council did not see fit to acquire the land necessary to enable it to be built.
The operation of bus services presents a considerable challenge for companies such as Roadcar, but Paul Hill and his team have worked hard to service Lincoln and beyond. Lincolnshire has received considerable Government funding for rural bus services, and I saw the outstanding results of that investment on the route between Lincoln and Langworth. Use of the Lincoln to Skegness Inter-Connect bus route has increased by 112 per cent. That is not surprising, because it is supported by the new flexible bus services, CallConnect and CallConnect Plus, which are designed to allow those who live in rural areas to reach the main service routes by making a simple telephone call. That must be the way for the future, and I hope that the Minister will continue to endorse such schemes.
As I represent an urban constituency, I have a question for the Minister. What about support for urban bus services? Although it is right and proper to support rural bus services, many needs remain unresolved and unmet. We need continuing support for urban bus services, so that people wanting to travel to Bracebridge Heath or Birchwood and all points between can be sure of travelling when they want in comfort and safety. Transport is the key to lasting prosperity. I ask the Minister to see it in that light and to act accordingly, so that the east midlands region can take its place in the premier league.
11.48 am
John Mann: I shall give a transport perspective from the northern extremity of the east midlands, and I shall start with the railway. The east coast main line bisects my constituency. I hope that a decision on the franchise will be made in the near future. I hope also that the Government will consider afresh the intricate freight network, which is underused or not used at all, that criss-crosses my constituency to connect current and former coalfields with power stations. As a

215WH
potential freight network, it is unparalleled. For economic regeneration, it needs to be used not only for the locality and the region but as part of an expanding national freight network. That should be our hope for the future. Little work has been done on that recently, but I hope that the Government will consider it.
The issue of roads is a major one, not least following the Government's announcements on improvements to the A1M, with the removal of six roundabouts between the A1M in Yorkshire and Huntingdonshire. Three of them directly affect my constituency. In local jargon, they are called the "killing fields" because of the number of fatalities that have taken place on and around them. I urge the Government to consider reversing the previous Government's somewhat hidden policy of not allowing short-distance expansion of motorways. The A1M stops at Blyth roundabout, and I should like to see it expanded southwards to at least Newark.
It is absurd that one has to compete with cyclists on the A1, having left the A1M. Hon. Members may not be aware of the cycling heritage in my constituency. On Sunday, I opened a BMX track in Harworth, where the Tommy Simpson memorial museum is based. I hope that the Government will support the proposed new cycleway and racing track that we would like in Harworth as a true memorial to Tommy Simpson. I want to take cyclists off the A1 and put them somewhere safe for them and for motorists. The expansion of the A1M by at least 20 miles southwards would be a major step forward for the region. The number of accidents caused by tractors and others criss-crossing what was the Great North road is absurd. A slight reversal of policy at minimal cost would serve the Government well.
Many hon. Members may want road safety projects in their constituencies. If they want road humps, I have them to spare. In my constituency, Nottinghamshire county council seems to regard road humps in the same way as the mythical bus: we never see one until 100 come along at once. Manton estate has 900 road humps. Some cul-de-sacs have almost as many of them as houses, which shows the absurdity of the decisions. I am all for road humps that secure safety, especially that of young children, but not for those that almost become a BMX track or skateboard park in their own right due to their sheer number. I urge the Government to advise local authorities on road humps, to ensure a balance. Some of the road humps in my area should be removed to more needy parts of the east midlands.
The Chesterfield canal has been a major success for this and the previous Government, and I commend the investment in it. At this time of year, the issue on inland waterways is safety. The Government need to urge British Waterways more strongly, throughout the summer and especially the school holidays, to maintain vigilance and public education to ensure that the fatalities that have occurred over the past two summers on the Chesterfield canal in my constituency are not repeated. Young children dive in and attempt to swim in what can be very dangerous water, especially for them.
The issue of cars brings me to the issue of cable. One way to get cars off the road is to allow people to work from home. In the Bassetlaw constituency, however, it is rather difficult to work from home, because neither
216WH
NTL nor Telewest has, in its wisdom, chosen to cable the area. I hope that policy on telecommunications and transport can be integrated to put pressure on those companies, which the Government have given lucrative franchises. In that way, we can ensure that my constituency is cabled so that many people—particularly those in rural villages who work from home or wish to do so—can have the benefits of cable, and can minimise the number of journeys that they make. Clearly, that is common sense in this technological age. However, it is also common sense that infrastructure requires investment if local people are to make proper use of it in their homes.
Finally, the east midlands has one airport and the north midlands needs a second airport. Finningley was an air base in Nottinghamshire until someone decided to change the boundaries and stick it in Yorkshire. We can live with that in north Nottinghamshire, but we want aircraft to take off and land at Finningley, as the Vulcan bombers did year on year.
When a new airport or an extension to an airport is proposed anywhere, we seem to see the NIMBYs. In my constituency, however, we have the YIMBYs—which stands for "yes in my backyard". We want an airport at Finningley. We want the runway to be used; we want new developments there; we want to see aeroplanes landing and taking off; and we want the job creation that will result.
I hope that the Government will consider the absurd public inquiry that is taking place. It is wanted not by anyone locally, but by competitors and, in particular, by Manchester airport, which seems to be trying to buy up the regional airport stock of Britain. This Government are a Government of competition, and competition among regional airports is essential. Finningley will increase competition, and I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that competition is good for the economy. I hope that all hon. Members from the east midlands will join together to support the case for a new regional airport to service the north of the east midlands in particular. I hope that we shall have that new airport at Finningley in the near future. That would benefit the east midlands and the country.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Before I call the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), I make a plea to the Opposition spokesmen. This is a relatively narrow debate and remarks must relate to the east midlands, although I and my successor in the Chair will show some latitude.
11.58 am
Tom Brake: I shall try to confine the vast majority of my comments to the east midlands.
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing this important debate; he touched on many important transport issues. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on coining the term YIMBYs. I wonder whether everyone who lives around the proposed airport site is quite as keen on the development as he appears to be.
The hon. Member for South Derbyshire touched on the subject of railways and improvements to the midland main line route to London, which Liberal

217WH
Democrat Members support. However, until changes are made to the way in which Railtrack is run such improvements are likely to take place only in many years' time, not in the immediate future. At the moment, Railtrack seems more interested in pay-offs and pay awards than in building railways.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Ivanhoe, or National forest, line. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) pointed out that there was some opposition—or at least lack of support—from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to the scheme. The hon. Gentleman did not say where the funding for the scheme would come from; it would cost something of the order of £2 million a year over 25 years, which is the amount that the council spends on the concessionary fares scheme. Leicester county council would therefore have to make a substantial financial commitment, but it is unclear where the funds would come from. I am sure that there is no objection to the scheme in principle, but Opposition Members need to demonstrate an economically viable way of implementing it.
David Taylor: Two million pounds was the original figure for the scheme, which caused the then Liberal Democrat-Conservative county council to shy away from it, but the present partnership has identified a less costly option, which seems to have considerable potential. I hope that the county council will back it.
Tom Brake: I am pleased that a cheaper alternative has been found. I also hope that the council will, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, consider such associated issues as the environmental benefits of the scheme.
The hon. Member for South Derbyshire also mentioned East Midlands airport. I understand that the flight path goes over his constituency and also that it is one of the airports that has unrestricted night flying. We support the development of such regional airports, which can have a positive impact on regional economies. However, we are concerned about the increase in the number of short-haul and domestic flights, at the expense of more environmentally friendly means of travel such as railways. We do not want an unfettered expansion of airports, and we would like the Government to incentivise rail travel, to promote alternatives to damaging short-haul and domestic flights.
There have been no clear guidelines, standards or rules governing the future expansion of airport policy. A national policy is needed, and soon, so that those matters can be considered in the round rather than as individual proposals—whether that of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire or the on-going terminal 5 inquiry. If the hon. Member for Bassetlaw was referring to the Heathrow inquiry when he said that no one locally was in favour of it, I am surprised by that assertion and I disagree with it. That is not the view that I get. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene.
Mr. Bill O'Brien (in the Chair): I hope that we shall not have a discussion on terminal 5 at Heathrow. Will hon. Members stick to the agenda?
Tom Brake: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. Perhaps we shall talk about the issue when the terminal is complete.
218WH
The hon. Member for South Derbyshire also mentioned roads, including the M1 corridor multimodal transport study and the A38 multimodal transport study. I understand that at least three other such studies are on-going in the region. That demonstrates the need for the sustainable transport authority for which we are pushing, which would encompass and integrate all modes of transport. Such an organisation might do away with the need for such a proliferation of multimodal studies, which require time and effort to complete. Setting it up may remove the need to put effort into specific multimodal transport studies.
Hon. Members mentioned the Government's 10-year transport plan; the eye-catching headline figure of £180 billion is significant, but dissecting that figure shows that it is only £158 billion at current prices. If what will be spent on new projects, rather than on-going maintenance, is removed it leaves only £103 billion. The £48 billion investment from the private sector is not certain to be forthcoming, given the difficulties that are being experienced in respect of another project that requires massive private sector investment: the London underground. Dissecting the different parts of the £55 billion of committed investment over a 10-year period shows that the annual investment figure is not as great as the £180 billion starting figure suggests.
The hon. Member for South Derbyshire mentioned bus services in the east midlands, and I support his call for more bus services in the east midlands, London or anywhere else. Bus services can deliver improvements in public transport more quickly than any other mode of transport. An initial proposal for the Ivanhoe or National forest line was a complex bus service that would have delivered more frequent and more flexible services than the train alternative.
The hon. Member for South Derbyshire identified some important transport issues in the east midlands, which will not be resolved without fundamental changes to the way in which such matters are governed. That is why my party's alternative Queen's Speech proposed a Bill to establish a sustainable transport authority that would integrate the functions of the Strategic Rail Authority and the rail regulator and oversee buses, coaches and other modes of transport. It would remove from Railtrack its responsibility for operating the railways and put it in the hands of a not-for-profit organisation, which would be much better placed to deliver the transport improvements that the hon. Gentleman wants.
12.7 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: First, Mr. O'Brien, I must tell you that I have an interest in a family business concerned with building and road haulage, which is declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing the debate and on the reasonable manner in which he presented his case. Listening to what he and other hon. Members said—my party is in listening mode at present—left me in no doubt about the importance of transport in the east midlands. I cannot help reflecting on the major economic changes in the coal and steel industries that have affected the region, which has done extremely well to adjust to those

219WH
changes. However, integrated transport is the key to attracting jobs and growth in the region. The east midlands is a successful area, but we should not be complacent about it.
In the past four years, the Government have not delivered as much as they promised in respect of transport. A litre of petrol cost 59p in 1997; it is now 80p. The Government have taken about £9 billion from road users, much of which has gone to the Treasury rather than being spent on improving public transport, which many hon. Members consider to be a priority in their constituencies.
The 10-year plan is coming up to its first birthday but we still do not know how the £180 billion—if, indeed, it is £180 billion—will be spent. We need more details and more dates from the Government.
The Confederation of British Industry, the British Road Federation and others in the industry have spoken about the effect of congestion on the economy and on job creation. Transport must be a priority for the nation in the next few years.
Several constituency-specific issues were raised on which it will be more beneficial for the Minister to comment than the Opposition spokesman. However, I shall pick up one or two points. We rightly discussed regional airports, which are most important. Terminal 5 is relevant because the Government's new deal for transport promised a White Paper on regional airports, but they will not produce that document until the inquiry on terminal 5 has reported, which will probably be in the autumn. In the meantime, can the Minister give us some idea—
Mr. Bill O'Brien (in the Chair): Order. By discussing terminal 5 at Heathrow, the hon. Gentleman is straying away from the subject of transport in the east midlands. Will hon. Members stick to the subject, please.
Mr. Syms: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.
Can the Minister tell us when the White Paper on a new deal for transport and regional airports will be published? It is relevant to the East Midlands airport and to those hon. Members who are interested in what happens in Finningley—there are many more besides the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). We all know the impact that the regional airports have on the regions and it is important to have an overall strategy. The impact of competition was mentioned in the context of the Manchester airport company buying the East Midlands and Bournemouth airports and others.
We have heard much about multimodal studies, for which the previous Government will be known; the challenge now is whether they will be implemented and what impact they will have on the M1, the A38 and so on. Some important conclusions can be drawn from the studies, which need the Government's support and taxpayers' money.
I enjoyed hon. Members' contributions, especially that by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. I have much sympathy with what he said about humps and bumps and what goes on in his constituency, and I look forward to hearing more from him in debates.
220WH
The Government have raised from the road user a substantial amount of tax that has not been put back into the infrastructure. We look to the Government to deliver in the next three or four years; they must give transport in the east midlands a high priority.
12.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I join hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing the debate and for the measured way in which he introduced it. His constituents, and those of other hon. Members with east midlands constituencies, have powerful advocates for transport in the region.
I shall refer to each contribution to the debate and then make some general points. In addition to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire, there were good contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and for Bassetlaw (John Mann). The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), flew into the debate from Heathrow. At one time he seemed to be on a non-stopping train through the east midlands; he paused only occasionally. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) spoke in his usual measured way. He is a good contributor to these debates but he, too, took the non-stopping train through the east midlands and got on to the subject of Heathrow. Bearing in mind your strictures, Mr. O'Brien, I shall avoid that matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire made the important point that highways—I shall use that term to consider both the road surface and pavements—are for all users, including pedestrians and cyclists, not just for cars. That point is at the heart of our policies. My hon. Friend also mentioned the need for information for people using public transport. Our proposals on the transport direct service include exciting proposals on the use of new technology to allow passengers to make more reasoned choices.
My hon. Friend also spoke, rightly, about pollution. The Government have made major inroads on that issue by encouraging the use of cleaner fuels by cars and particularly by heavy and diesel vehicles in urban areas. That is important in my hon. Friend's area. We are also encouraging the use of vehicles with smaller engines by reducing vehicle excise duty for vehicles under 1,549 cc from September.
I shall deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire during the rest of my speech. I hope that I can even embrace some of the points made by his constituent, Matthew Smith, in asking us to do the will of the people.
The east midlands is a diverse region. It is not dissimilar to the areas that I represent in that it has not coalesced into a large urban sprawl. It is a series of habitations contained in a large rural area. Most of the urban areas are relatively self-contained, although the size of their travel-to-work areas continues to increase, partly as a consequence of the improved living standards that they enjoy. I take to heart what my hon.

221WH
Friend said about our transport policies' informing our regeneration policies and creating new jobs and enterprise. Several hon. Members made that extremely important point.
The main north-south routes—the M1 and A1—are increasingly congested, and in urban areas the rush hour is lengthening. The proximity of settlements to the M1 corridor and the success of economic developments close to it have encouraged the use of private cars and road freight.
Several hon. Members mentioned the regional transport strategy and local transport plan. The integration of transport and land use planning is one key to developing a sustainable transport system. In the east midlands, development of the draft regional planning guidance is well under way, and I expect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to issue the final version before the end of the year. The draft regional transport strategy, which forms part of the regional planning guidance, sets out a policy framework for transport in the east midlands, which is reflected in the development plans and local transport plans produced by local authorities.
In recent years, the resources awarded by Government to east midlands local authorities for transport have increased substantially. Since 1999, the level of the settlement has doubled year on year, and under the 10-year plan we expect a further doubling of annual resources by 2010. Notwithstanding the cynicism shown by Opposition Members, people on the ground have seen some of the benefits of those resources. That step-change in investment will enable good progress to be made with the implementation of the region's local transport plans.
Importantly, the funding will enable the east midlands' authorities to address the Government's 10-year plan target of halting the deterioration in local road conditions by 2004 and eliminating the maintenance backlog by 2010. Just before this debate started, I attended a conference in Euston at which we launched a new code of practice for surveyors in local authorities on improving the quality of road maintenance. I believe that the east midlands was represented there.
Several hon. Members mentioned multimodal studies. The content of the regional transport strategy and local transport plans will be informed by the three multimodal studies currently under way in the east midlands. They will identify options for addressing the transport problems of the M1, the A453 and the M42-A42 corridors. The outcomes are likely to amount to a substantial package of new infrastructure and service improvements across all modes of transport.
The Government recognise the urgency of completing the studies as quickly as possible. However, it is important that the studies examine all options in the open, inclusive way that was set out in the transport White Paper. The groups of interested parties that we have established to manage and direct the studies are working effectively, which is a testament to the high degree of partnership working in the east midlands. We
222WH
expect the M1 and the A453 studies, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood asked, to report to the regional planning body next spring. The M42-A42 study will report in spring 2003.
The east midlands authorities have an impressive track record of success in bidding for funds under the rural bus challenge, which aims to stimulate innovation in the provision and promotion of rural public transport and improve quality and choice. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln spoke about the success in her area. Indeed, Lincolnshire's winning Inter-Connect scheme has been nationally acclaimed as an exemplar for improving rural accessibility, while Leicester and Rutland's Cross County scheme is, at £1.6 million, the largest single award in the history of the competition. I took careful note of what my hon. Friend said about urban transport, especially the integration of buses with other services. Her points were well made and are relevant to other areas.
Building on the success of the rural bus challenge, we have launched an urban bus challenge to improve public transport in deprived urban areas. Some £46 million is being made available during the next three years, and bids have recently been invited. We look forward to receiving bids from the east midlands authorities for innovative and imaginative projects, and some of my hon. Friend's points might be met in that context.
The matter of rural motorists was raised by many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Poole. In many rural areas, there might be no practical alternative to the motor car for some people. The Government recognise the problems experienced by such motorists, with the price of fuel increasing because of the world price of crude oil. The hon. Gentleman will know that we scrapped the fuel duty escalator, which was introduced by the last Conservative Government; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.
In the previous Budget, the Chancellor also announced a package of measures that will benefit motorists in rural areas. That includes a reduction in duty on low sulphur fuels, a freeze on vehicle excise duty until next year and a raising of the small car threshold for vehicle excise duty on cars. The latter should benefit those in rural areas who have larger cars for travelling longer distances. The hon. Member for Poole should bear in mind the fact that evidence shows that the cost of car use is greater to people who live in an urban area than to those who live in a rural area. People in rural areas who have to travel longer distances, or those using smaller diesel vehicles, might also want to consider converting their vehicles to use liquid petroleum gas. It is considerably cheaper and does not have the pollutants that other fuels do.
There were many mentions of rail investment. In recent years, we have seen substantial levels of investment in the region's rail network. For example, Midland Mainline has doubled the frequency of trains on its routes, and during the next eight years there will be further investment of £230 million in more new trains and facilities, including a parkway station near the M1 at junction 24.

223WH
Of course there is much more to be done, as several of my hon. Friends mentioned today. In particular, there is a growing desire among many local communities to be connected to the rail network. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), who has now returned to the Chamber, mentioned earlier that Midland Mainline and local authorities are investigating the potential for reconnecting Corby to the passenger rail network. That will be very good news to his constituents, and I am sure that he will continue to press all the relevant authorities on that matter.
Derbyshire county council and its partners are working with the Strategic Rail Authority to examine the potential for reopening the Matlock to Buxton route. No doubt that springs partly from the hugely successful Robin Hood line project, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood. It has made the former Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire coalfield area much more accessible and has brought regeneration and other benefits in its wake. It was to facilitate such schemes that we introduced the rail passenger partnership fund. The proposal to extend the line to Ollerton is interesting and is, I understand, to be the subject of a bid to the rail passenger partnership fund by Nottinghamshire county council.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire mentioned the Ivanhoe line. Stage 2 of that project is an interesting proposal. His 13-year-old constituent, Matthew Smith, said that we must follow the will of the people. I hope that his constituent will see some progress by the time he takes his A-levels—or even before. I acknowledge the wider benefits that that scheme would bring, but the economic appraisal of the line shows that a prohibitively large operating subsidy would have to be met by Leicestershire county council. I know that my hon. Friend has met previous Ministers to discuss the way forward. Direct capital funding for rail projects is one of the funding options contemplated in the 10-year plan, and the options are being worked up by the Strategic Rail Authority whose strategic rail plan, to be
224WH
published later this year, will set out the principles of investment support and describe the forms of funding that will be available for rail investment.
David Taylor: The projections of the deficit are linked closely to the county council's estimate of passenger revenue, which is thought by the new partnership to understate the actual position.
Mr. Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. Those who are assessing the project will obviously consider that aspect. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be the first to draw attention to it as an advocate on behalf of his constituents.
I shall now discuss problems with the existing rail network in the east midlands. The upgrades of the west coast and east coast main lines have implications. There is an issue about the extended journey time between London and Northampton on the west coast main line following the upgrade, but a working group of local authorities, Railtrack and the Strategic Rail Authority is identifying potential solutions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln discussed some problems with freight transport through her area. We, too, are aware of the problems that are caused in Lincoln and Spalding by the diversion of freight traffic from the east coast main line during its upgrade. I recognise the seriousness of the issue and its potential implications for retail and other activity in affected towns. The Strategic Rail Authority, with local partners, is already engaged in that issue and will help in working up prospective solutions and advising on the financial role that the Government could play.
In the short time left, I shall mention the East Midlands airport. I acknowledge that public concern is growing about the environmental impact of the airport and the surrounding developments on the local community. I understand that the airport has established a community fund to provide grants of up to £1,000 to soundproof homes affected by aircraft noise.
I have little time left and I know that I have not covered all the issues in detail. If hon. Members draw to my attention any points that they believe have not been covered in enough detail, I will certainly write to them. We have had a useful debate, conducted in a constructive atmosphere. I hope that my comments have been helpful.

Orthopaedic Waiting Times (Norfolk)
12.30 pm
Norman Lamb: My reason for calling the debate is to draw attention to how long people in Norfolk have to wait, often in real pain, to see an orthopaedic specialist—and then even longer for an operation. We all agree that waiting more than a year for a first appointment with a specialist is unacceptable. From first referral to the specialist to having an operation performed can sometimes take a further two to three years. The Government must now respond with additional resources to recruit more specialist staff and enable the Norfolk and Norwich healthcare trust to deal with this waiting-times scandal.
I shall refer to three particular cases. Depressingly, they are not exceptional. The first case is that of Mrs. Green of Trunch, who tells me that she suffers so badly from pain some days that she is unable to walk. She saw her GP in March this year and he wrote to the hospital requesting an appointment with a specialist. Two months later she received a letter from the hospital dated 24 May. It stated:
"The current waiting time for this kind of appointment is approximately 85 weeks. We are very sorry for the long wait and for any inconvenience this may cause."
She regarded that, understandably, as a sick joke. The letter suggested that she might be able to see a consultant in about January 2003. If she subsequently needed an operation, it would probably not happen until early in 2004. Waiting that long simply cannot be justified.
Mr. Oliff of Cromer is another case. He suffers from osteoarthritis and is in considerable pain. He finds it hard to walk, but he is also a carer for his wife, who is a diabetic, has had two strokes and has problems with her balance. Mr. Oliff's GP referred him to a specialist in May last year. When he attended his appointment in January this year, he was told that the wait for an operation would be between a year and 18 months. Let us all try to imagine the problems that he and his wife will suffer while he waits all that time for his operation.
The third case involves a lady who, understandably, wants to remain anonymous. She is 54 and worried about losing her job. She is on long-term sick leave, waiting for an operation. It has been pencilled in for January 2002, but her employers told her that they would retain her job for only six months.
Those are just three examples of people who have come to see me, often in distress, deeply worried about when they will have their operations. Long waiting times have other implications. One consultant explained that a patient's condition often worsens while they are waiting, which can result in more complex, more expensive surgery. Sometimes the patient suffers other medical problems—a stroke or a heart attack—so it is not possible to operate. Patients are likely to remain in pain for the rest of their lives, or simply die before ever being treated. That cannot he what a modern, efficient and responsive health service aspires to.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that in my travels around my adjoining constituency of North-West Norfolk, I have encountered many similar cases.
226WH
The Queen Elizabeth hospital at King's Lynn has the same problems that he mentioned in respect of Norwich. Does he agree that it is not just a question of the long waiting times given to patients, but the fact that there is a waiting list to go on to the waiting list, which makes the actual waiting times even longer?
Norman Lamb: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I intend to allude to that very problem.
I want to deal with the extent of the problem in Norfolk in comparison with the rest of the country. I shall focus first on the out-patient and then on the in-patient waiting times. Regarding the time that patients have to wait between a GP appointment and seeing the specialist, in the first quarter of 1997, just 59 people in Norfolk were waiting more than six months for the first appointment. In the first quarter of 2001, that number had increased dramatically to 461. Interestingly, trusts and hospitals do not even keep statistics on the number waiting more than a year for an appointment, presumably because nobody ever imagined that it would be necessary to compile them. We now know that that is the reality for people in Norfolk.
In-patient waiting times between seeing a specialist and having an operation are similarly worrying. The Norfolk and Norwich trust now has 3,392 people waiting for operations in this specialty. Of those, 445 are waiting more than a year from their specialist appointment. That compares with just 68 people waiting more than a year back in March 1997. The Government should be ashamed of that record.
The Norfolk and Norwich health authority has one of the highest in-patient waiting lists in the country—it is eighth out of 99 health authorities in England, and the proportion of those waiting more than a year is almost double the national average. The Minister may wish to reflect on the enormous variations across the country. In North Yorkshire, only 0.2 per cent. of those on the waiting list wait more than a year, compared to Norfolk's 12 per cent. That demonstrates the postcode lottery in orthopaedic care, which should be taken into account in determining whether it would be fair and equitable to provide additional funds for the worst affected areas.
Why is the position in Norfolk so bad? The problem stems from winter 1996. In the run-up to the 1997 general election, there was a serious problem with emergency admissions. Resources were switched away from specialisms such as orthopaedics to deal with the crisis in emergency admissions and the resulting curtailment of elective activity quickly led to a backlog, which has remained ever since. Depressingly, the year-on-year figures demonstrate that the position has worsened.
I must stress that it is not the problem of an underperforming or inexperienced department. Norfolk's specialists are among the most highly regarded in the country. Among their number is a past president of the British Orthopaedics Association, the president of the British Knee Society and the secretary of the British Hip Society. These are eminent professionals and Norfolk is lucky to have them, but they need extra support and additional resources. Their throughput of patients is one of the best in East Anglia, but because of their reputation, they have specialist work from

227WH
neighbouring trust areas referred to them. That is part of the problem and part of the reason why they need more resources to cope.
Another cause of the continuing failure to eat into the backlog of patients is that there are not enough beds in Norfolk's main hospital. Shortage of beds means cancelled operations and longer waiting times. Bed numbers have fallen year after year. Although the recent arrival of Philippino nurses has helped, it remains a depressing picture.
Last year, the occupancy rate at the Norfolk and Norwich hospital was 91 per cent., which compares with the nationally accepted standard of 85 per cent. The inevitable result of a hospital operating at such a high occupancy rate is that for much of the time, and not just during the normal winter crises, the hospital is full. That means that operations have to be cancelled, because no beds are available. In the past two years, 500 operations at the Norfolk and Norwich hospital have been cancelled. That is a ludicrous state of affairs, because it leaves expensive highly trained surgeons twiddling their thumbs rather than operating on patients.
What can be done? We have had reassuring words from Norfolk health authority about more funds being invested in this specialty and more people being treated than ever before. I am sure that the Minister will allude to that. I fully recognise that Norfolk has a growing elderly population, but that is an extra justification for more resources to deal with the appalling backlog of patients and to keep pace with demand.
A plan is in place for an eight-month overlap between the opening of the new Colney hospital and the closure of the old Norfolk and Norwich hospital, so that both hospitals operate simultaneously. That could help to reduce the backlog—although it will not remove it—but to achieve that, the hospitals will have to recruit short-term contract surgeons. That has not yet been achieved and will not be easy. Recruitment to permanent posts is hard enough, but recruitment to short-term contracts is even more difficult. I think that it is accepted across the board that the transfer to the new hospital will result in a reduction in activity for a time. It is possible that no operations will take place for two weeks.
Overall, therefore, there is little reason to believe that things will improve in the foreseeable future. Waiting times for orthopaedic appointments and surgery in Norfolk are unacceptably long. It is critical that the Government respond to the debate by providing additional funding to remove the backlog of cases. Further significant investment is needed now, so that the trust can plan its way forward. It must not he left with more uncertainty until the new financial year.
In reality, we have a two-tier health service in this specialty. If people have money, they can opt out of that horror, but if people are on a low wage, unemployed or reliant on the state pension, they simply have to wait and wait and wait. We cannot accept that any longer. The Government must deal with the underinvestment in this specialty and provide the resources that Norfolk needs.
12.42 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing what I believe is his first Adjournment debate and I welcome him to Westminster Hall. Without wishing to sound patronising—I am probably failing—he has done an excellent job on behalf of his constituents. I am aware that there has been considerable local interest in orthopaedic waiting times in Norfolk, and I appreciate his concerns and those of his constituents. I hope that I can reassure him that progress is being made.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government have made significant progress in reducing waiting times. As part of the NHS plan, maximum inpatient waiting times will fall on a staged basis from 18 months now to 15, 12, nine and eventually six months by 2005. As a first step towards that, the 15-month maximum waiting time for an in-patient appointment will be achieved by the end of March 2002.
Most out-patients are already seen within six months, which will be an absolute requirement by the end of March 2002. The plan is that by the end of 2005. the maximum waiting time for a routine out-patient appointment will be halved from more than six months to three months. Within those new guaranteed maximum waiting times, patients will be treated according to individual assessment of clinical urgency. The Government's eventual objective is to reduce the maximum wait for any stage of treatment to three months.
We are committed to reducing waiting times for orthopaedic treatment, in line with the national targets set out in the NHS plan. The NHS plan will see year-on-year increases in equipment, facilities and staff. As the extra capacity becomes available, the Government will be able to reduce waiting times. The areas with particular problems will be targeted for special action. On the specific issue of Norfolk, we are committed to increasing resources to the NHS to achieve our aims, and I am pleased to announce that Norfolk has received record increases in funding. I am sure that the honourable Gentleman is aware of the announcement in this year's Budget statement of the largest ever increase in funding for the NHS in England. The total allocation for Norfolk in 2001–02 is £504 million, which represents a total cash increase of £40 million and an increase of 8.6 per cent., or 5.9 per cent. in real terms.
The Government have therefore already to some extent recognised the hon. Gentleman's call for resources and his plan for the future. As he pointed out, we may need to reform and improve the system to ensure that his constituents and people throughout the country receive the treatment that they deserve. The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about waiting times for orthopaedic treatment in his area. As he said, waiting times for orthopaedics began to rise in 1995 and increased dramatically in 1997. However, that trend was halted at the end of 1997 and the trust responded with a range of waiting list initiatives and activities to begin dealing with the problem. Those initiatives halted the rise in waiting lists but, as the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out, could not address the large number of patients that had been added to the waiting list. I recognise the honourable Gentleman's concern about

229WH
in-patient and out-patient waiting times. As I have said, the Government are committed to tackling the issue. Action has been and will be taken in Norfolk to address the issue.
Since 1997, an additional £1.5 million has been invested in orthopaedic surgery. That includes the appointment of two additional consultants and supporting orthopaedic investment. There remains the issue of the total number of patients waiting for surgery, which is proportionally higher than the national average. The average waiting time for an orthopaedic operation at the Norfolk and Norwich hospital is 4.9 months, compared with the national average of 4.1 months. That has put a great deal of pressure on the trust, an issue to which I shall return.
Norfolk health authority is reviewing orthopaedic services, under the leadership of Dr. Norman Pinder, Norfolk health authority's director of public health. The review will look at Norfolk as a whole. Importantly, it will identify best practice from independent sources such as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Audit Commission and will relate it to implications for the NHS plan and national service frameworks. It will focus not just on hospital services, but will also give opportunities to examine how current orthopaedic referrals are managed, looking particularly at alternative ways of treating patients. Examples could include the use of surgical podiatry, therapy services for the management of back pain and increasing capacity in rheumatology for the treatment of medical musculoskeletal problems. Those matters are important, because I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the wait for out-patient appointments is too long and that action must be taken.
On one case that the hon. Gentleman raised, it is worth saying that patients who are in considerable pain while waiting for an operation may return to their general practitioner for reassessment of their condition to be re-referred as an urgent case. Notwithstanding that, we must ensure that the system operates properly with appropriate resources.
In addition to the specific orthopaedic services review and to ensure that the Government's targets are met, the national health service plan implementation programme committed the NHS to undertaking local modernisation reviews during the summer. The reviews are intended to aid implementation of the NHS plan by genuinely localising implementation and engaging staff, patients and partners in local government and the private and voluntary sectors. The findings from each review will be used to create robust three to five-year plans, describing specifically how the NHS plan will be implemented in local health communities. There will be a two-stage approach to the local modernisation reviews, the first of which will be completed by the end of this month. The orthopaedic review in Norfolk will inform its local modernisation review by identifying what additional provision must be made and where it should be provided.
Mr. Bellingham: Will the review envisage out-of-area treatment? For example in the case of the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King's Lynn, there was a period last summer when there were so many road accidents
230WH

that orthopaedic operations were continually put back. Will there be an opportunity for people waiting for such delayed operations to be treated outside Norfolk?
Jacqui Smith: I am sure that the balance between emergency and elective care, and the pressures on the system from wherever they come, will be part of that review, and that the hon. Gentleman will be able to feed into the review's conclusions.
As the hon. Member for North Norfolk suggested, the Norfolk and Norwich hospital is recognised as an efficient trust and is opening a new hospital later this year. It will be a brand new, purpose-built hospital for the residents of Norwich and the surrounding area, and will cost £229 million. It will be the largest new single-build hospital to be built in the country under public-private partnership. Although completion was contracted for January 2002, construction has proceeded considerably ahead of schedule, and I am pleased to note that it will open to its first patients this autumn.
The hospital is designed with the latest state-of-the-art facilities and technology, which will provide substantial improvements in accommodation. Perhaps more importantly given today's debate, the new theatre complex will include four orthopaedic theatres that will benefit from an airflow system that will minimise the risk of post-operative infections and allow a greater range of orthopaedic procedures to be performed.
I am pleased to report that the health system has identified an opportunity, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk suggested, to use the vacated space at the old hospital to provide additional surgery, including orthopaedics. That will cover the three-week period during the hospital move when, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, no elective surgery will be performed. To do that, Norfolk health system has funded an extra £3.9 million to carry out 2,000 additional operations at the old hospital during an eight-month period beginning in the autumn.
Through the proactive work of the local health system, an extra 1,200 patients will be treated during this financial year, at least half of whom will receive joint replacements. The trust aims to reduce the number of long waiters on the waiting list, depending on the suitability of patients to be treated at the old hospital.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the issue of staff. The trust is actively recruiting staff at present with a view to commencing the project in October and operating it until July 2002. There will be two additional wards, and two further locum orthopaedic consultants will be appointed. Hon. Members from the area will be interested to know that the programme will offer patients general surgical and urological facilities as well.
I recognise that the trust did not achieve its in-patient targets last year and reported a shortfall of 1,470 against its target for in-patient surgery. I have already referred to the historical difficulties with orthopaedic activity at Norfolk and Norwich hospital. However, recent work by local commissioners has revealed that the department's efficiency compares favourably with departments of similar size and similar large acute hospitals. That has been verified through the use of well-accepted modelling techniques and was highlighted by the hon. Member for North Norfolk.

231WH
How is the trust tackling its waiting list targets? It has produced a recovery plan and support has been provided by the regional modernisation action team. In addition, expert advice has been sought on waiting list management to improve the capability to model and forecast waiting list pressures and to work through how different solutions could be used. Despite that efficiency and the additional investment that I outlined, in-patient and out-patient waiting times are still too long, and hon. Members are right to be concerned. However, the GP referral rate is not rising and the number of patients being added to operation lists following out-patient attendance is in equilibrium with the number of operations being carried out.
In addition to the review of orthopaedic services and input into the local modernisation review, the local NHS is clear that early action will need to be taken to reduce waiting times. The trust and health authority are currently developing a proposal to open two additional operating theatres at the new Norfolk and Norwich site, which will considerably alleviate the waiting list problem. The plan will be presented to the regional office in September and, if approved, the new theatres will be operational in July 2002. The local modernisation review will report later this month, and I would be happy to follow up any significant issues if hon. Members would find that helpful.
I recognise that the targets are challenging, but I am reassured that collaborative working with the regional office, health authority and local primary care organisations will allow the targets for 26-week outpatient appointments and 15-month in-patient and daycare waiters to be achieved by the end of the financial year. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, in addition to the extra investment in the system and the action taken to ensure that that investment is spent in the most effective way, I, and no doubt other hon. Members, will be keeping a close eye on ensuring that his constituents get the health service that the Government are committed to delivering.

Corporate Killing
12.59 pm
Ross Cranston: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise this subject in Westminster Hall, and in doing so I welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform to his new position. He has already given a speech on this subject in the past three weeks, and he is on the case. I look forward to his reply to the debate.
Hon. Members are aware of the public disquiet that arises when the criminal law seems helpless when faced with catastrophic events, such as the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster, the King's Cross fire and serious rail crashes at Clapham, Southall and Ladbroke Grove. There are also other, less well-publicised tragedies in which people are killed and nothing seems to happen. Today I intend to outline why I believe that holding the companies responsible for such tragedies to account in law is both principled and possible.
I begin by drawing the attention of hon. Members to the problems with the law at present. With regard to the tragedies that I referred to, there might well be prosecutions under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The Court of Appeal, in a 1999 decision—Howe—said that fines for health and safety offences should be of a level that brings the message home to a company's managers and shareholders. Consequently, First Great Western Trains was fined £1.5 million following the Southall crash. However, can we with all honesty say to the public that such action recognises the degree of culpability that should be attached to a company and its management in such tragedies? If we, as a society, can say that motorists who do not intend to kill someone, but do so through recklessness or irresponsible driving are guilty of involuntary manslaughter, how can we absolve the company that pays little regard to the safety of its staff or its customers? When the inquiry judge in the Herald of Free Enterprise case found that the company was infected from top to bottom with a disease of sloppiness, did that not illustrate the need to make companies as accountable as individuals for their actions? Such sloppiness was not the fault of one individual, but of a culture in which safety was very much a secondary consideration compared with profit.
The recognition that companies are responsible for the ethos and the culture that pervades their action is central to the principle underlying an offence of corporate killing. Safety should not simply be seen as secondary, but as an equal part of the problem. Companies and organisations must recognise their place as stakeholders in society. At the recent conference organised by the British Safety Council at which the Minister gave a speech, Sir Michael Latham, chairman of the construction company Wilmott Dixon, welcomed a law that punishes managers who make no serious attempt to protect people on construction sites. He said:
"Safety is a culture. Those who believe in it and care about it will take it seriously. Those who do not will not voluntarily mend their ways. And if that means they fall foul of the new corporate killing law, I for one will have no sympathy with them at all."
The public disquiet about the lack of an offence of corporate killing reflects the sentiment expressed by Sir Michael—that safety should be a non-negotiable part of business culture.

233WH
Having outlined the principle behind an offence of corporate killing, I want to turn to the practice. First, I commend the Government, who have recognised the problem. At the last election the Labour party committed itself to the introduction of an offence of corporate killing. In May last year, the Home Office published a consultation paper based on a 1996 Law Commission report. No implementing measures were mentioned in the Queen's Speech, but I commend the Government for giving a lead on the issue.
I want to discuss the points raised by the Home Office and Law Commission documents. Both show that the ordinary criminal law is inadequate. The Southall rail crash is indicative of the way in which a company's lack of attention to safety led to safety systems on the First Great Western express either being faulty or not being switched on, and inadequate procedures for determining when a train should not be taken out. The Crown Prosecution Service prosecuted the company but the judge halted the trial. The matter was referred to the Court of Appeal, which in February last year upheld the decision of the trial judge on that point.
The result is that, at present, to convict a company of manslaughter by gross negligence it is still necessary to identify the top management of the company as being to blame, rather than to recognise that the company as a whole should be responsible. It is not possible simply to find that the company has a duty of care and has been in breach of it in a grossly negligent way; nor is it possible to aggregate management failures whose cumulative effect is negligence.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) introduced his Corporate Homicide Bill last year, he rightly pointed out that the so-called identification theory led to the law discriminating against small companies in which it is easier to identify a manager or director who is to blame. Indeed, it is no surprise that the only three successful prosecutions for corporate manslaughter have involved small companies. With larger companies, responsibility is diffuse, so there is often no one person to whom blame can be attached. Even if an individual can be identified, it is highly unlikely that that person will be part of the top management, to accord with the identification theory.
It was to overcome the identification problem that the Law Commission in 1996 proposed a completely new offence of corporate killing. No longer would it be necessary to establish first that an individual was guilty of manslaughter and secondly that he or she was part of the top management. Rather, the prosecution would have to establish that the company's conduct, which caused death, fell far below what could reasonably be expected. Causation would be established by a management failure, such as the management and organisation of activities in a way that failed to ensure the well-being of those affected, whether employees, customers or others. Corporate killing could result from the cumulative acts of several individuals in the company. That approach was rejected by the Court of Appeal in the context of corporate manslaughter.
The offence of corporate killing would not be precluded even if the immediate cause of death was the act or omission of an individual. However, in contrast with corporate manslaughter, individual blameworthiness would not be a prerequisite for
234WH
corporate killing. The law would then better recognise the reality of business life—that often it is the cumulative effect of many actions within a company's culture that causes poor attention to safety and, sometimes, tragedies. However, as I have said, there might be cases in which, although a charge of corporate killing was available, an individual in the company could also be prosecuted for manslaughter offences. In that way, the offence of corporate killing sidesteps the identification problem. However, that problem would remain outside the context of a death, so that—absent vicarious liability—a company could not be liable in criminal law for wrongdoing unless a directing mind was blameworthy. That causes difficulty with a range of statutory offences that demand mens rea. It is also a problem with the application of statutory defences. I wrote about that problem many years ago. While some judges have indicated a willingness to overcome the difficulty, ultimately we need legislation. However, that is a separate issue.
The Government have accepted the Law Commission recommendation for an offence of corporate killing along with changes in the general law of manslaughter. Those are not my concern today. Indeed, the Government have gone further than the Law Commission and accepted that the offence of corporate killing should be applied not just to companies but to all undertakings such as NHS trusts and partnerships. In their consultation paper they say that some 3.5 million organisations might come within the ambit of the offence. There is no good reason not to extend the law of corporate killing to cover Government bodies as well.
Let us turn to some of the difficulties in implementing an offence of corporate killing. It has been suggested that business is against such a proposal, but that is a red herring; many prominent business leaders, such as Sir Michael Latham, are in favour of the new offence. While there is resistance to a new offence—in some cases, I have to concede, by lawyers—the debate is being won by the proponents of change.
When the consultation document was published last year, the Institute of Directors said that it was happy to support its proposals; in fact it called it a step in the right direction. There were those at the recent British Safety Council conference, like Gwyn Hughes from P&O Princess Cruises, who feared that a law of corporate killing would lead to co-operation and information drying up or being destroyed. However, he said that he could not object to legislation because he had no solution to the social need to allocate blame.
The difficulties that I envisage are to do with the legal ramifications of such an offence. The offence of corporate killing will arise irrespective of individual culpability, although it may be that, as well as citing severe corporate failure, the prosecution in particular circumstances might be able to proceed against an individual—whatever his or her level in the company—for a manslaughter offence. My concern is whether there should be additional, new consequences in the criminal law for people such as directors or managers of companies that are convicted of corporate killing. There can be little argument with the proposal in the consultation document that an individual who contributes to a management failure resulting in death might be disqualified from participation in the management of any future undertaking. That is a

235WH
principled extension of the company directors disqualification legislation, and would enable the sanction to be tailored to the individual's failure.
More controversially, the consultation document asks for comments on secondary liability for corporate killing for individuals who "substantially contribute" to the undertaking's primary offence. Presumably, the degree of culpability would fall short of conduct otherwise giving rise to a manslaughter prosecution—in the new scheme for that offence, reckless manslaughter, unlawful act manslaughter or manslaughter by gross negligence. However, there are problems of principle and of policy. There must be some causal connection between the individual's conduct and the killing. It should not be enough that he or she happens to be a director or manager of the undertaking—putting the individual in the dock might satisfy a sense of vengeance, but it would be unjust and would provide no incentive for corrective action by undertakings. It would also undermine the principle that the offence of corporate killing should hold to account not individuals but companies as a whole, with the aim of encouraging a business ethos that recognises the duty to stakeholders.
The only way that I can see to take the notion of "substantial contribution" forward is to build on the well-established test for making directors, managers or other similar persons liable under regulatory legislation, such as section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which is about whether corporate killing has the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to neglect on the part of, such a person. For individuals to be convicted on that test, it must be shown at least that they have responsibility for making relevant management decisions and have failed, for example, to adopt a sound safety policy based on acceptable risks or to ensure that mechanisms are in place to review and monitor the application of such a policy.
The offence of corporate killing is essential for the sake of public confidence in our system of justice. All too often, companies and organisations have been able to escape the net of the general criminal law for gross errors that would have seen individuals in the dock. The offence of corporate killing will be an important additional string to the bow of making all companies take safety seriously. Most companies recognise not only that they have a moral obligation to those affected by their activities, but that it makes good business sense as well.
In the long run, a good safety record will pay for itself, as shareholders, employees and customers gain confidence in companies. The offence of corporate killing will help all organisations to appreciate that, and help to change corporate culture so that safety is given the same priority as profit.
1.16 pm
The Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform (Mr. Keith Bradley): I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) on securing the debate, and also on the quality of his speech. It was wide ranging and covered the ground on corporate manslaughter effectively.
As my hon. and learned Friend points out, we are committed to the introduction of an offence of corporate killing that will hold companies to account
236WH
for serious wrongdoings. Our consultation paper, issued in May last year, set out our thoughts on how to reform the law on involuntary manslaughter as a whole. One of the key proposals was to introduce a new offence of corporate killing to be used instead of the current law of manslaughter. The fact that there have been only three successful prosecutions of a corporation for manslaughter highlights the need for reform. A company may be convicted only if an individual or a group of individuals who embody the company are found guilty. That requirement, known as the identification doctrine, means that it is difficult to secure a conviction, even when a company has been found to be at fault under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.
I shall use an example already cited by my hon. and learned Friend. In the case of the Southall rail crash, which claimed seven lives, the judge ruled that a charge of manslaughter could not proceed because of the difficulty of identifying someone when Great Western Trains was responsible for the negligence. However, it was not in doubt that the company had done wrong. It pleaded guilty to a charge under the 1974 Act and received a fine of £1.5 million. We recognise that convictions under the 1974 Act are serious, but we share the view expressed by my hon. and learned Friend that it is important that a company can be charged specifically with a homicide offence when a death is caused by its wrongdoing.
The proposals put forward for consultation built on the Law Commission report entitled "Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter", which was published in 1996. We use the term involuntary manslaughter because our proposals concern the criminal liability of those who kill when they do not intend to cause death or serious injury. There are two ways to consider such people. One way is to argue that society should always punish a person who causes terrible consequences. The other is to argue that a civilised society should not make people liable to punishment for a serious crime simply because of the result of their conduct, but only when they were aware that their conduct could lead to death.
One criticism of the current offence of unintentional manslaughter is its wide scope. At one end of that range is conduct by a person who causes death while engaged in a criminal act that carried with it no more than a risk of causing some slight injury. At the other is death caused in circumstances in which the risk of death was obvious. One of the problems with the wide range of conduct covered by manslaughter is the difficulty that judges have in determining appropriate sentences for particular cases. It also leads to problems for the public, who may not understand why a judge has awarded a particular sentence. It was against that background, as well as because of concerns at the lack of successful prosecutions of corporations for manslaughter, that we made our proposals last year.
The consultation period ended in September 2000. During that time, we received more than 160 responses. Almost all were of high quality and required careful consideration. As my hon. and learned Friend will know, it was not possible to fit a Bill to reform the law in this area into what was to be the final Session of the previous Parliament. Nor was it possible to include such a Bill in last month's Queen's Speech. There has been a

237WH
benefit, however, in that we have been able to devote more time to giving those responses detailed consideration.
We have yet to make final decisions in the light of the comments put to us. However, the introduction of a new offence of corporate killing is a manifesto commitment. Needless to say, we aim to honour that commitment, but I cannot say exactly when a final decision will be announced. When we make our announcement, we plan to publish a list of those who contributed to the consultation exercise, together with a summary of their responses, except in those cases when contributors asked not to have their comments made public.
Our aim is that the law should be more effective in making private individuals and undertakings accountable for their actions. Unless there are overwhelming reasons against doing so, it is reasonable that large undertakings should be no less liable to prosecution for manslaughter than private individuals or sole traders.
The Government are mindful of the need for businesses to continue to operate successfully. However, corporations must also operate responsibly, and effective sanctions against the kind of negligence or recklessness which kills are an important way to ensure that. To mark the seriousness of the offence, it would be triable on indictment only. We also propose, however, that alternative verdicts under sections 2 or 3 of the 1974 Act would be available to a jury in the event of a defendant being found not guilty of corporate killing.
The proposals set out in the consultation paper focus on the way in which activities are managed or organised by the undertakings. The offence of corporate killing will be committed when a management failure is one of the causes of death. Management failure will be defined as conduct that falls far below what can reasonably be expected of the undertaking in the circumstances. That is an exacting test, but not an unreasonable one; conscientious enterprises that take seriously their responsibility to ensure the health and safety of those affected by their activities should have nothing to fear. Expert witnesses will be available to assist a jury in determining what it was reasonable to expect of a particular defendant in the circumstances.
We also propose that companies should be liable when management failure is a cause of death rather than the cause of death. That is because, in many cases, the death may be more directly connected to the operational negligence of an employee—for example, a train driver may pass through a red signal, or a construction worker may erect scaffolding dangerously. However, the management failure might consist of a failure to take precautions to prevent such negligence, or a failure to introduce appropriate training or supervision.
The Law Commission suggested applying the offence of corporate killing to incorporated organisations only. That would create anomalies, because it would exclude large partnerships yet include some public companies and others that were not run for profit. As my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, we propose going further than that and applying the new offence to all undertakings.
Our proposal would considerably broaden the scope of the offence to about 3.5 million enterprises; for example, it would include NHS trusts and voluntary
238WH
bodies. That reflects our view that the offence should be as inclusive as possible, and that employees and members of the public should be entitled to the same level of protection, regardless of the status of the undertaking.
Our proposals also recognise that Crown bodies should be held accountable when death occurs as a result of management failure. We have proposed an approach similar to that in the Food Safety Act 1990. That would allow the courts to make a declaration of non-compliance with statutory requirements, which requires immediate action to rectify the shortcomings that have been identified. The proposal provoked considerable debate, and we are carefully considering how Crown bodies should be held to account when a management failure is a cause of death. As my hon. and learned Friend recognised, it is a difficult issue, which raises important constitutional questions about how—not whether—the Government should be held to account.
Our consultation paper also invited views on whether individuals should be liable when they have contributed to a corporate killing. One concern is whether corporate liability alone might fail to provide a sufficient deterrent, particularly within large or group companies. Another consideration is that individuals who are responsible for a fatal incident can be prevented from continuing in similar positions, where the public would be vulnerable to similar conduct. If the causal link between the individual and the death were sufficient, it would be possible to prosecute for one of the individual offences. However, even when the individual cannot be prosecuted for manslaughter in his or her own right, we recognise the force of the argument that the public interest demands that individual directors who have contributed to management failure resulting in death should be subject to specific action against them. As my hon. and learned Friend said, there is already the option of disqualification for up to 15 years under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 in the case of directors who are convicted of an indictable offence in connection with their promotion, formation, management or liquidation of a company.
The consultation paper also invited opinions on whether there should be an additional criminal offence in respect of contributing to the corporate offence and, if so, whether imprisonment should be available as a sanction. Not surprisingly, we received many comments on that proposal. It will come as no surprise that that was probably the most contentious part of the consultation paper. I have noted what my hon. and learned Friend said on the issue, and I agree that the approach taken in section 37 of the 1974 Act is worth considering. We shall have to come to conclusions on the right way forward. In doing so, we will take careful note of the comments that we have received.
Although I cannot say what conclusions we shall reach on that last question or on the other issues of detail, I can set out the broad considerations that we believe we need to bear in mind in reaching them. First, reform is needed. The train accidents that have occurred over recent years, involving the death of passengers, have ensured that the process that the Law Commission started in 1996 with the publication of its recommendation for a new offence of corporate killing remains as relevant as ever.

239WH
Secondly, life cannot be made entirely risk-free. We must guard against raising unreasonable public expectations in that respect. The programme of maintenance work that Railtrack put in hand after Hatfield and the disruption to train services raise the issue of the lengths to which an enterprise should go in ensuring safety.
I mention those two points because they underline for us the need to strike the right balance when introducing our proposals on corporate manslaughter in the light of the consultation exercise. My hon. and learned Friend referred to a balance, and safety must be given the same priority as profit. The public and employees have a right to be protected from goods and services that are lethally substandard. On the other hand, we must bear in mind the fact that too strict a test of liability might lead the more conscientious enterprises to question whether to continue supplying goods or services that attract risk. It is important that we consider those issues in detail; we must get it right before we proceed to legislate. We should not let up in our determination to reform the law in this area. I thank my hon. and learned Friend for the opportunity that he has provided for the Government to reiterate those points.

Hazel Grove Bypass
1.29 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the issue of the Hazel Grove bypass, and I am grateful to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), for being here to listen to my plea. I hope to be even more grateful when he acknowledges that plea and grants my heart's desire.
I have been campaigning for a bypass for Hazel Grove for more than l2 years. During that time, there have been petitions, debates in the House, questions to Ministers and deputations. I am a new hand compared to some residents of Hazel Grove, who tell me that they have been waiting 30 years. Indeed, some people who claim to have met Lloyd George say that they have been waiting 60 years. It is a long-standing and definite need, and from time to time it has been supported by all political parties. Indeed, my Labour opponent in the general election assured residents that he supported that plea.
The argument is not only about another bypass. We are also asking the Government to put their heart and their money into a comprehensive attack on pollution and congestion across a wide swathe of Greater Manchester. On top of the national traffic growth projections, which are horrific enough even on a modest estimate of 20 per cent. by 2010, my constituency has three specific local circumstances that aggravate the traffic and congestion problems.
The first problem is the opening of the final section of the M60 link road that circles Manchester. That has resulted in a great deal of additional traffic being directed into my constituency, filtering through the area and increasing congestion. The second problem is the opening of the second runway at Manchester airport, which has resulted in a rapid and large increase in the number of passengers travelling to and from the airport. The map shows the motorway is on one side of my constituency and the airport on the other—the congestion is in the middle.
As if those two problems were not enough, Greater Manchester is something of an economic hot spot in the north-west; and the south-eastern part of Greater Manchester is particularly so, as a result of the increased prosperity created by the airport. It is estimated that current traffic movements of about 18 million passengers a year will rise to 32 million a year by 2010 and to 42 million by 2015. There will be an additional 70,000 trips per day through my constituency to the airport.
At the heart of that economic hot spot, with the motorway on one side and the airport on the other, the community is in decline. I know that the Minister comes from Plymouth, which is rather a long way from Hazel Grove. Indeed, until this debate, he might not have known where Hazel Grove was. The heart of the issue is the A6 trunk road from Manchester down to Derby, which is straddled by my constituency. In the area that we are talking about, the A6 has two lanes running in each direction through an urban shopping centre. The road takes a great deal of heavy freight traffic to the

241WH
north-west, particularly transporting minerals from the Peak District. It carries a high load of commuter traffic, as well as traffic seeking access to the M60.
The public transport infrastructure in the area is not good. I have been a persistent critic of First North Western, with its 40-year-old rolling stock, its unreliable services and its overcrowded carriages. The stations have no access ramps, and sometimes no toilets. The alternatives are scarcely in place at the moment.
The road scheme has been a line on the map for many years. It has gone through what I would call engineering overkill. Each time a new group of engineers examined the plans from 10 years earlier they added a couple of lanes each way and a couple of interchanges, so that by 1995 the scheme had reached enormous proportions. It is not altogether surprising that it ran into trouble on cost and other grounds.
The Conservatives took the so-called Stepping Hill link out of the national road programme. They cancelled the Disley and High Lane bypass. In 1997, the new Government dropped the central part of the scheme—the so-called A6M. In the meantime, there has been a steady increase in traffic, congestion, pollution, noise and fatalities. There have been a number of tragic deaths on that length of road. If one examines a map of traffic accidents and incidents in the borough of Stockport, one finds that every junction of the A6 is clustered with accidents and fatalities. Having stood there a few times over the past couple of months, I can say that in wet conditions it is horrific for people standing on the pavements, who are sprayed by the vehicles that race through the town.
The Government established the south-east Manchester multi-modal study—SEMMS—and the transport consultants conducting it are due to report within the next few weeks. That report is eagerly awaited by my colleagues in Stockport, and by the residents of Hazel Grove in particular. We know from the preliminary report that the consultants will put great emphasis on deflection and diversion strategies. Those strategies have my complete support—I am not making a plea for a road at any cost or as the only solution. However, one of the diversion strategies being prayed in aid is the airport authority's intention that a quarter of all journeys to the airport should be made by public transport. That is an excellent aim, which I strongly support. However, even if that aim is achieved, 30 million such journeys will he made by road annually by 2015—double the number made today. When the diversion tactics are in place, road traffic levels will still significantly increase.
I hope that the SEMMS study will state that First North Western should be replaced and that we should have a franchise-holder that can deliver services properly for local commuters. I hope that the report will state that there should be a rail service introduced from Marple to Stockport. I also hope that it will argue that the Metrolink tram should be extended not just to Stockport hut on to Bredbury, where it could join up with heavy rail routes. There are plans for quality bus routes along the A6, part of which is already in place. All those provisions will help to give people alternatives to using their cars.
However, even when all that has been done, road traffic congestion will increase. We still, therefore, need those missing road links. The first and highest priority
242WH
is a link road round the Hazel Grove shopping centre. Stockport council was so concerned about the decline of that shopping centre that it commissioned shopping consultants to see what might be done to bring it back to life. The consultants, Drivers Jonas, produced a report that said that there were various ways in which the council could try to revive the centre, but that the fundamental problem was the traffic going through the centre. The report stated that until or unless that was got rid of, the centre would continue to die on its feet.
Getting the Stepping Hill link to bypass the shopping centre is a very high priority. We also need to ensure that we have a road that connects the M60 at Bredbury with the Manchester airport eastern link road at Woodford and on to the airport. It used to be called the A6M, but I do not argue that we need the heavily engineered motorway solution that was once on offer. We need a vehicle-only route that safeguards local communities and leaves the citizens of Bredbury, Romiley and Hazel Grove with a reasonable and peaceful environment in which to work.
I want the Minister first to acknowledge the severe problems that local residents and commuters face. Secondly, I want him to show some recognition of the exceptional levels of traffic growth that are starting and which are foreseeable with the expansion of the airport. Thirdly, I want him to put his weight behind the options to be published in the SEMMS report, which we know will be a mixture of public transport and road-based solutions. Their implementation as quickly as possible is essential for the well-being of my area, especially Hazel Grove. Fourthly, I want him to be ready to commit resources for the implementation of those transport solutions.
When I last spoke to the consultants—I am in frequent contact with them, as hon. Members will imagine—they told me that they planned to publish on a time scale that would allow the local authorities to incorporate their ideas in the integrated transport plans that they will propose to the Minister. The timetable is desperately short. Those submissions have to be made in the next six to eight weeks, and the report has still not been published. It is important for the Minister to signal to the local authorities that he will be ready to respond favourably when they include the ideas in their integrated transport plan submission.
In Hazel Grove, we have had plans for decades. Special extra pigeon holes have had to be built for them. Every time someone reconsiders them, they scratch their heads, say that the problem should have been dealt with and call for another plan. The residents of Hazel Grove have reservations and concerns about yet another plan. They do not want just a plan, but an implementation package. I ask the Minister to please accept the plan, provide the resources and give us an implementation package, so that the residents of Hazel Grove do not have to put up with the problem any longer.
1.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions(Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on securing the debate, on raising a subject that is important to his constituents, and also on his well-considered and thoughtful approach. He has been a tenacious advocate of the bypass on behalf of his constituents.

243WH
I am not sure that I will be able to provide something today that will instantly meet the heart's desire of all the hon. Gentleman's constituents. However, I will try to outline the Government's position on bypasses and consider the context in which a decision will be made on the Manchester and Stockport area. I accept his points about pollution and congestion. Although I represent Plymouth, I assure him that the Government represent the United Kingdom. We have a broad brief and understand the issues. Even though I may not be familiar with every piece of gravel at the side of the road in his area, I am exceedingly well informed on the issues by officials.
The hon. Gentleman said that some of his constituents had waited a long time—some thought it 20 years, some 60 years—for the bypass. However, the subject is now being discussed in a different context. The road is no longer part of the major trunk road system, but part of the local road system and will be discussed as part of the local road strategy. There are some differences and, in that context, the Government's role has changed somewhat. He might consider that that is good news, in that the issues will be discussed locally, and local priorities will be brought to bear on the decisions that are made.
Mr. Stunell: The Minister is right about the transfer. I draw his attention to the fact that that will not happen until April next year—so there is plenty of time for him to chip in some money.
Mr. Jamieson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and for having raised this topic. It is both interesting and useful to hear at first hand about the impact that traffic congestion and pollution have on the economic, social and environmental well-being of Hazel Grove residents, and he has set out the case for transport improvements very clearly.
We recognise that both quality of life and the economy depend upon transport. Motor vehicles have revolutionised the way in which we live, bringing greater flexibility and widening people's horizons. However, the use of our vehicles has a price—for the economy, for our health and for the environment. That is particularly true in urban areas such as Hazel Grove, where the steady increase in traffic over many years has led to increased congestion and the negative effects on communities that the hon. Gentleman has so graphically described.
We made it clear in our White Paper "A New Deal for Transport" that we are committed to improving the environment in towns and cities. We want people to be able to move around easily and in safety. By removing a large proportion of the through traffic from a community, a bypass can certainly bring about an improvement in safety for residents. The severance effect of high traffic flows is reduced and accessibility is increased. Residents face fewer risks when crossing the road and, if the footway is inadequate, when simply walking on the pavement in close proximity to traffic. I am informed that that applies in the area that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
244WH
A bypass also improves the quality of the built environment. Noise levels are reduced and air quality is improved. The removal of heavy traffic allows communities to develop their opportunities to improve the reliability of public transport and to provide better facilities for cycling or walking. The removal of through traffic can also boost an area's commercial and retail vitality, providing a safer, cleaner and more attractive place in which to shop and to do business. That is also particularly relevant to today's debate.
However, it is also possible to make a harmful impact on the enviroment. People who formerly enjoyed a quiet environment might find themselves near a busy road that has become the bypass for another area. A bypass might adversely affect designated areas. Some of these consequences might be unavoidable, but they should be carefully considered when deciding whether or not to proceed. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that environmental and other matters should figure in our consideration of bypasses.
As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove said, there are proposals of between 20 and 60 years standing for a bypass of Hazel Grove as part of the larger north-south bypass of Stockport to relieve the A6. Some development work has been undertaken. There are now, as he mentioned, endless pigeonholes with plans in them. As he knows, a public inquiry was held in 1987–88, and orders were made in 1989 and 1990. Supplementary orders were published in 1991 and 1992. However, following a reappraisal of the scheme, the Conservative Administration decided to withdraw those orders.
At the time of this Government's 1997–98 roads review, the Stockport north-south bypass had not been sufficiently developed for us to consider it as a candidate for the targeted programme of trunk road improvements. In addition, the scheme was on a part of the trunk road network that we concluded was not of sufficient strategic national importance to justify its inclusion in the core trunk road network.
The core network will continue to be a direct central Government responsibility, with non-core routes being transferred to local highway authorities in accordance with the policy that was set out in "A New Deal for Transport", which was subsequently the subject of consultation. In all, we propose to de-trunk some 3,000 km—about 2,000 miles—of non-core routes. That will be done in a phased programme with the first tranche of 500 km due to be de-trunked in 2001–02. Non-core trunk roads, which include the A6 and A523 in Greater Manchester, mainly serve local and regional traffic. We concluded that those routes would be more appropriately managed by local highway authorities, to enable decisions about them to be taken locally, and better to integrate them with local transport and land use issues.
Nineteen schemes in the road programme that we inherited from the previous Administration were on non-core routes proposed for de-trunking. They were withdrawn from the national trunk road programme, and the relevant local highway authorities were invited to consider taking them forward as local road schemes within their local transport plans. Among those schemes were the A6 Stockport north-south bypass, the A555-A523 Poynton bypass and the A555 Manchester airport link west.

245WH
Rather than put forward immediate bids for the schemes, it was decided to look at the problems that they were designed to address. The south-east Manchester multimodal study is one of several multimodal studies dealing with particularly complex problems that can be tackled only by examining all forms of transport in the relevant area and seeking balanced solutions that will contribute to our integrated transport policy. In recognition of the importance of the problems in southeast Manchester, SEMMS was one of the first multimodalstudies to be commissioned.
It may be helpful to explain the process of the study. A consortium led by Steer Davies Gleave was appointed following competitive tender in December 1999. We are funding the study and the Government office for the north-west is leading, in partnership with key interested parties in the study area. As for all the multimodal studies, we have established a steering group that is responsible for its management and direction. Membership is wide and incorporates all district and county councils that are covered by the study, the Strategic Rail Authority, the Highways Agency and the regional development agency, together with other business interests including Manchester airport and a representative of local environmental and community groups.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove asked about implementation. Perhaps I can steer things his way a little, even if I cannot give him his heart's desire. The study is going through a well-structured process. Much time has been spent analysing in depth the transport, planning, social and economic issues within the study area. The work has confirmed many of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman about the adverse impact of congestion on parts of the study area, including Hazel Grove and the A6 corridor, and the lack of attractive, sustainable alternatives to the car. Problems have also been identified associated with long-term land use planning decisions and with the adverse impact that stone lorries can have, particularly in his constituency. There are also areas of significant deprivation within the study area, which have their own transport problems and needs.
The study, having produced recognition and understanding of the severity of the problems, is also developing solutions. Working with the steering group, the consultants have identified a range of possible measures to address the problems. Potential solutions being examined include the construction of bypasses; Metrolink extensions beyond those agreed by the Government in March last year; an extension of the Greater Manchester quality bus corridor programme;a significant enhancement of the quality and reliability of rail services, which has been developed in close co-operation with the Strategic Rail Authority's work in Greater Manchester; measures to assist cyclists and
246WH
pedestrians; the better management of freight movements; and a significant intensification of efforts to promote a change in travel behaviour.
Those measures have been assembled into a number of strategies covering the full range of transport activity. Their potential impact has been appraised in detail to get a broad picture of the potential costs and benefits of the various options. The consultants and the steering group are now engaged—literally as we speak, for they are meeting in Manchester today—in putting together a recommended strategy based on the results of that work. I understand that the recommended strategy is expected to include proposals for bypasses to alleviate traffic for local communities, extensions to the Metrolink and an upgrade in the availability and quality of alternatives to the car.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove will be aware that consultation is playing a very important part in the study process. Emphasis has been placed from an early stage on giving people, their elected representatives and interested organisations the opportunity to participate in identifying problems, formulating strategy and deriving solutions. There have been regular newsletters, consultation meetings and briefing sessions, and I believe that on three occasions the hon. Gentleman has met with the Government office for the north west and its consultants. There will be a further opportunity for consultation offered shortly, once a recommended strategy has been developed, and officials will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman should he wish for further briefing.
We expect the final report on SEMMS to be made in August. The regional planning body will then make its recommendations to Ministers in the light of the report. If the case for an A6 by-pass to take traffic out of Hazel Grove is accepted, it will be for Stockport metropolitan borough council to take the lead in working up the scheme and to submit it for consideration for funding as part of the Greater Manchester local transport plan. In the 10-year plan, we have made a clear commitment to fund the outcomes of the multimodal study process. My officials are already discussing how major schemes proposed by SEMMS can be taken forward through the local transport plan system.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising those matters. I am sure that, like me, he is looking forward to seeing the results of the study. He can be assured that the issues that he has raised will be considered with great care at all levels. I thank him once again for raising those matters in such a measured way. I am sure that this will not be the last time that we hear from him; perhaps the heart's desires of his constituents will one day be achieved.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Two o'clock.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Authority Boundaries
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received proposing local authority boundary changes in Merseyside; and if he will make a statement. [2105]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We are not aware of any such representations. Boundaries in Merseyside were last looked at in 1997 when the Local Government Boundary Commission for England was directed to carry out a review of Sefton. No changes to boundaries were recommended at that time. Under the current programme of periodic electoral reviews being carried out by the Local Government Commission, a change to local authority boundaries cannot be considered.

  Harbourside, Tewkesbury
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what factors underlay his Department's inspector's recent decision to allow an appeal to build eight houses at Harbourside, Tewkesbury. [1851]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: The decision to grant planning permission was made by a Planning Inspector. I have therefore asked the Planning Inspectorate's Chief Executive, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Chris Shepley to Mr. Laurence Robertson, dated 10 July 2001:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about the planning appeal decision to allow housing on land at Bredon Road, Tewkesbury (the "Harbourside" site).
  The Inspector issued her decision on 17 May and I am enclosing a copy of her decision that explains her reasons for allowing the development. As you will see, Tewkesbury Borough Council did not object to the principle of housing on the site and the Environment Agency confirmed that the development did not prejudice its Floodplain Management Policies. The Inspector's main issue was the effect of the dwellings on the existing development around the marina site.
  It is clear from paragraphs 7–13 of the decision, that there are already two existing residential developments, along the south-western and south-eastern sides of the marina basin. The Inspector had to consider whether the proposed development, to be sited alongside the north-eastern boundary would fit in with the existing housing and environment. The Inspector found that, in her view, the proposals would enhance the existing sense of enclosure, and produce a lively and balanced composition around the marina,
  436W
  integrating satisfactorily into the existing housing and the surrounding area. She concludes, in paragraph 13, that the proposal would not conflict with the Council's development plan, and subsequently granted permission, subject to a number of conditions designed to protect the sensitivity of the site and to ensure the scheme complies with the development plan.

  North Circular Road
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects the North Circular Road improvement programme to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [2722]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The North Circular Road is now the responsibility of the Mayor and Transport for London.

  Fuel Duty Rebate System
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact of the rules which apply to bus and coach operators over the payment of fuel duty and the eligibility for the fuel duty rebate system. [2516]

  Ms Keeble
  Under the current rules, fuel duty rebate may be claimed for bus services which are registered with the Traffic Commissioner as a local bus service and which are available to the general public.

  We shall be extending eligibility to claim rebate to the operators of a wide range of community transport services during this financial year.

  We shall be replying shortly to a recent recommendation from the Commission for Integrated Transport that the rebate should also be available for the operators of long-distance scheduled coach services in return for the provision of half-fare concessionary fares for elderly and disabled passengers.

  Housing
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans his Department has to introduce new target rents for newly built or procured properties on first lettings; and if he will make a statement. [3068]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department's "Guide to Social Rent Reforms" which was issued last December stated that:"Newly-provided housing funded through Social Housing Grant, and approved for funding from 2002–03 onwards, will normally have rents set immediately at the target levels given by the restructuring formula."

  This remains the Government's policy. The Housing Corporation is currently reviewing the framework for calculating grant rates for newly provided social housing so that it properly reflects the new structure of rents at which properties will be let.

  Departmental Staff Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many staff from his Department and its predecessor were seconded to private sector companies in(a) May 1999 to April 2000 and (b) May 2000 to the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will list in each case

  437W
  the companies to which staff were sent, the names and ranks of the staff involved and the duration of the secondment. [3240]

  Staff Rank

  Duration

  1 × Pay Band 6(G7)

  To Capita RAS

  February 2001 to November 2001

  1 × Pay Band 6 (G7)

  To Shell International

  August 2000 to October 2002

  1 × Pay Band 4 (HEO)

  To Arthur Andersen

  January 2001 to January 2002

  1 × Pay Band 4 (HEO)

  To Carillion Ltd.

  March 2001 to June 2001

  1 × SCS (Grade 5)

  To Carbon Trust

  April 2001 to October 2001

  2 × Pay Band 6(G 7)

  To Carbon Trust

  April 2001 to October 2001

  1 × Pay Band 5 (SEO)

  To Carbon Trust

  April 2001 to July 2001

  1 × Pay Band 2 (AO)

  To Carbon Trust

  May 2001 to November 2001

  Informal Public Spaces
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 4 July 2001,Official Report, columns 158–59W, what his definition is of "surplus to requirements" in the context of building on open space; and if he will make a statement. [3173]

  Ms Keeble
  The consultation draft of PPG17 (paragraph 15) lists the range of valuable functions that open space can perform within urban areas. If individual areas of open space no longer fulfil any of these functions, then they may be "surplus to requirements" and local authorities may consider whether they should be made available for development. Development may also be allowed on areas of open space where an exchange of land takes place to compensate for the lost open space. In particular, this may be appropriate where it will allow the release of a site for development needed to meet other economic and social objectives identified locally.

  We are currently considering the responses made to the consultation draft of PPG17. We hope to publish the final version by the end of this year.

  Speed Limit (Schools)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he plans to introduce a statutory 20 mph speed limit outside schools. [2585]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: The Government have given local authorities the power to introduce 20 mph zones. Our Road Safety Strategy encourages their use in the areas where the most vulnerable are present, like the areas around schools. Where 20 mph zones would not be appropriate, local authorities are encouraged to look for alternative measures to ensure child safety.

  Passenger Capacity (Commercial Airlines)
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to introduce legislation to regulate the passenger seating capacity of commercial airlines. [2863]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Civil Aviation Authority has had mandatory minimum standards for seat spacing on UK registered aircraft since 1989. These are contained in Airworthiness Notice No. 64 and were introduced to ensure the safe evacuation of an aircraft during an
  438W
  Dr. Whitehead
  (a) 1 May 1999 to April 2000: none; (b) 1 May 2000 to 31 May 2001:

  emergency. There is also a limit on the number of seats in each row, which determines the minimum width of the seats.

  In its response to the House of Lords Select Committee Inquiry into Air Travel and Health, the Government referred to some research which is being funded by the Civil Aviation Authority to look into the relationship between aircraft seat dimension and passenger size. This study, which is being carried out on behalf of the Joint Aviation Authorities, looks at the changing size of air passengers, but also includes a review of recent research into deep vein thrombosis, and indicates additional areas where further research may be necessary. The study (and any subsequent follow-on study) will provide the Government with the information necessary to review the current regulations on seat spacing. It is due to be presented to the Joint Aviation Authorities shortly.

  Departmental Title Change Costs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the total cost of(a) design, (b) stationery, (c) new name plaques and (d) ether costs of the naming of his Department; and if he will make a statement. [3031]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My Department's costs have been very low as it makes extensive use of electronic templates, keeps low stocks of stationery and generally uses out-of-date stationery for purposes such as internal photocopying and notepads.

  Recent changes in departmental responsibilities aim to improve efficiency in delivering Government policy. The costs of the name change to my central Department so far amount to £25,250, and are broken down in the table.

  £

  (a) Design

  264.37

  (b) Stationery

  8,782.31

  (c) Name plaques

  6,235

  (d) Other costs:

  Templates and display panels

  2,984.50

  Changes to the website (c.50,000 pages)

  4,398

  Costs incurred by our storage and distribution company

  2,585

  Note:

  These figures include VAT.

  Landlord and Tenants Act
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many applications to challenge landlords' choice of insurers
  439W
  under paragraph 8 of the schedule to the Landlord and Tenants Act 1985 have been received by leasehold valuation tribunals. [3178]

  Ms Keeble
  The leasehold valuation tribunals were first given jurisdiction for nominated insurer cases in September 1997. Since that time, there have been approximately 60 applications made under paragraph 8 of the schedule to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

  Travel Concessions (Solent Ferries)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if pensioners will be able to use the long distance travel concessions announced on 4 July on cross-Solent ferries. [3260]

  Ms Keeble
  A local authority must offer at least the statutory minimum concessionary travel requirement (half-fares for elderly and disabled people, with no charge for the pass) on local buses within its boundaries. Each authority may also offer concessionary travel beyond its area and by other means of transport—for example train and ferry services—if it considers it right to do so, using its discretionary powers in the Transport Act 1985.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to extend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to place a duty on transport operators to allow disabled people to use all their vehicles. [3258]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government have already taken significant steps towards delivering accessible transport under the DDA. Regulations setting standards of access for trains, buses and coaches are already in force. Taxi drivers are also now under a duty to carry guide, hearing and other assistance dogs and we will be consulting in due course on access standards for licensed taxis.

  My officials are involved in constructive discussions with both the transport industries and disability organisations regarding the further extension of the Disability Discrimination Act to transport operators, and the other recommendations relating to transport made by the Disability Rights Task Force in its report "From Exclusion to Inclusion."

  Our aim is to find ways in which we can take forward the recommendations to deliver further improvements in access and mobility to disabled people without compromising the viability of industry. I hope to be in a position to publish a consultation paper on the options by the turn of the year.

  Assistance Animals
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will list the airports which have facilities to process assistance animals travelling on passports for pets with their owners; [1723]

  (2) if he will list the airline carriers which will allow assistance animals to travel on board with their owners under the passport for pets scheme. [1724]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.
  440W
  Whether an airport has the facilities to process animals under the pet travel scheme is determined by the airline which seeks this Department's approval. It is the carrier that is approved, not the airport. An airline wishing to participate nominates a route, including the airport for which it can demonstrate its ability to comply with the requirements of the scheme. This forms the basis of its operational contract and foundation for the Department's approval. It is essential in order to ensure that every animal entering the country under the scheme is properly checked for compliance.

  Within the limits of their agreements with this Department, it is a matter for each airline to decide how it transports pets into the UK, in light of its own operational and safety requirements. Some airlines have been able to demonstrate procedures to transport assistance animals in the cabins of their aircraft while meeting all the scheme's requirements. They are British Midland Airways, from Amsterdam, Stuttgart and Paris into London Heathrow airport, Lufthansa from Frankfurt into London Heathrow airport and British European operating an Air France flight from Toulouse into London Heathrow airport.

  As additional transport companies and new routes are agreed by the Department, details (including whether they are able to carry assistance animals in the cabin of their aircraft) will be placed on the DEFRA website and made available through the PETS helpline.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the recent division of regional responsibilities between different Government Departments. [1286]

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

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 9 July 2001, Official Report, column 408W.

HEALTH

  Residential and Nursing Care
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential care and nursing(a) homes and (b) places he estimates there will be in (i) 2002, (ii) 2003 and (iii) 2004. [921]

  Jacqui Smith
  No estimates have been made centrally of the number of residential or nursing care homes in 2002, 2003 and 2004, nor of the places within those homes. On behalf of the Department, the Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU) has made longer term projections of future levels of demand for long-term residential and non-residential care services for older people on a range of assumptions. The PSSRU projected that, keeping pace with demographic pressures, the number of older people in residential and nursing care homes will respectively rise by 12 per cent. and 13 per cent. over the period 1996 to 2010. This is equivalent, for both types of care, to almost 1 per cent. a year.

  Mental Health Care
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how the cumulative additional investment on mental health care over three years from 1999 has been allocated(a) for each year, (b) between health and social services and (c) between different Government initiatives and programmes; [1464]

  (2) when he will make allocations to health authorities under the mental health framework for 2001–02; and what is the total amount to be allocated. [1462]

  Jacqui Smith
  The additional central investment on mental health care over the three years from 1999 is shown in the table,(a) for each year and (b) between health and social services (in £ millions).

  It is not possible to give accurate information on the split between different Government initiatives and programmes because the funding was allocated with health authority baselines to tackle local needs.

  The total additional amount to be allocated in 2001–02 is £12.35 million revenue and £58 million capital. The allocation process has already begun and should be completed by the autumn. Most of this additional funding in 2001–02 will be used to provide significant improvements to high secure services.

  Mental health investment: national service framework/NHS Plan implementation

  £ million

  Revenue investment

  NHS CAMHS (child)

  NHS adults

  PSS (personal social services)

  1999–2000

  10.0

  58.5

  146.0

  2000–01

  10.0

  56.0

  13.0

  2001–02

  2—

  12.35

  3,420.0

  Committed so far

  20

  126.85

  77.0

  Capital investment

  £ million

  1999–2000

  4.5

  2000–01

  9.0

  2001–02

  558.0

  1 Eight for CAMHS

  2 The planned £10 million increase to the central funding for CAMHS was issued as part of the growth health authorities received in 2001–02—it was not separately identified. Targets are however being monitored. The £20 million central funding for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 has been added recurrently to HAs' baselines

  3 Of the £20 million, £1 million went to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for the homeless mentally ill initiative and a further £1 million is to be used for central initiatives

  4 Five for CAMHS

  5 Includes £5 million for acute psychiatric ward refurbishment, and £9 million for Fallon

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by name of report and health authority, the independent inquiries into mental health services established under HSG (94) 27 which have been published since February 1994. [2009]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.
  442W
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by name of subject and health authority the independent inquiries into mental health services established under HSG (94) 27 which are currently under way but which have not yet published reports. [2001]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]: The information requested is as follows.

  Independent inquiries in mental health services established under HSG (94) 27, which are currently under way, but which have not yet published reports

  South West Region

  SC—Dorset HA

  DM—Dorset HA

  JD—Gloucestershire HA

  JC—Somerset HA

  RG—Wiltshire HA

  RG—Wiltshire HA

  MM—Avon HA

  Trent Region

  KH—Leicestershire HA

  BR—Leicestershire HA

  AA—North Derbyshire HA

  MS—Lincolnshire HA.

  North West Region

  AK—Blackpool HA

  PL—Blackpool HA

  RH—East Lancashire HA

  AP—Liverpool HA

  MA—HA

  SR—HA

  West Midland Region

  No independent inquiries currently under way.

  London Region

  AB—Brent and Harrow HA

  PL—Brent and Harrow HA

  AC—Brent and Harrow HA

  XX—Brent and Harrow HA

  WT—Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  PR—Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  MH—East London and City HA

  DN—East London and City HA

  SH—East London and City HA

  WH—Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

  MM—Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  South East Region

  MS—West Kent

  RS—West Surrey

  SL—West Sussex

  WW—Berkshire

  CM—North and Mid Hampshire

  PH—North and Mid Hampshire

  NL—North and Mid Hampshire

  Eastern Region

  DB—Norfolk HA

  KB—Norfolk HA

  JN—North Essex HA

  443W
  North Yorkshire Region

  DM—Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  DG—Calderdale and Kirklees HA

  RW—Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  AJK—Bradford HA

  ME—Tees HA

  GE—Leeds HA

  AM—Leeds HA

  SK—Calderdale and Kirklees HA

  Note:

  The names of the patients have been replaced by initials, as many patient names may not be in the public domain.

  London NHS Housing Co-ordinator
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the principal duties of the London NHS housing co-ordinator; and what targets have been set and what resources have been allocated to the post holder. [2688]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service housing co-ordinator was appointed by the NHS Estates Agency on 1 April 2000, and is now one year into a three-year programme. He is supported by three full-time staff and has access to professional and other support staff at the London regional office, and within the NHS Estates Agency. The principal duties, and targets, have changed during this period, and now include: to improve the quality and quantity of affordable homes for NHS staff in support of the NHS's recruitment and retention requirements; to deliver the NHS Plan's target to secure 2,000 additional residential units in London; to estimate the need outside London, securing additional residential units as required, starting in the south east; establish a London wide NHS accommodation bureau; pilot a scheme to provide affordable hotel type rooms in London; consider ways of providing affordable home ownership for NHS staff; and issue guidance, advice, and best practice exemplars for providing staff accommodation. Following the initial success of the programme, the team are now rolling out the initiative to cover areas in the rest of England where high property prices impact on staff recruitment and retention.

  The post holder has delivered, or is on target to deliver, these objectives. Initial milestones for the project involve securing new accommodation at Lever Street, EC1, which in addition provides 26 hotel-type rooms, Pentland House, SE13, and most recently in Kilburn at Acorn Estates. The NHS accommodation bureau has been established with access to more than 12,000 residential units in London.

  Overseas Nurses
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Woodspring, (Dr. Fox) of 25 June 2001,Official Report, column 26W, on overseas nurses, what the nature of these representations were; to what countries his Department intends to extend the initiative offered to Spain; what countries have turned down the opportunity to enter into a similar agreement; what reasons they gave for turning down such an opportunity; and if he will make a statement. [2701]
  444W
  Mr. Hutton
  The countries outlined in response to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 25 June have made written or verbal representations to the Department about the availability of health care professionals from their country to work in the National Health Service.

  The Department will work with these and other countries making a similar approach to agree the most appropriate means to support international co-operation in the recruitment, secondment, exchange or development of health care professionals with the NHS, which is of mutual benefit.

  To date, no country has declined to work with us and no country has yet agreed a similar arrangement to the one we have with Spain.

  Walk-in Centres
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many expressions of interest his Department has received about introducing NHS walk-in centres. [2523]

  Mr. Hutton
  We received 100 applications following the issue of Health Service Circular 1999–116 in May 1999.

  39 of the 40 National Health Service walk-in centres that were approved in 1999 are open. A further three National Health Service walk-in centres were approved in 2000. By the end of 2001 all 43 will be open.

  Ashworth Special Hospital
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the costs of providing additional security measures at Ashworth special hospital which arose out of the Fallon inquiry and the Tilt report. [2806]

  Jacqui Smith
  £4.5 million capital was invested in 1999–2000 to improve security and safety at Ashworth hospital in response to the findings of the Fallon inquiry report. A review was also undertaken at that time of the likely need for future investment on security and modernisation. As a result, an additional £3 million capital per year was allocated for this purpose to the Department's north-west regional office. £16 million of capital funding is being made available to Ashworth hospital authority, over the period 2000 to 2004, to meet the additional security measures recommended for the hospital in the Tilt report.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much it cost to erect a new security fence at Ashworth special hospital; and if he will make a statement. [2805]

  Jacqui Smith
  The report of the review of security at the high security hospitals (the Tilt report), published in May 2000, recommended that the perimeter security of the three high security psychiatric hospitals, Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton, should be upgraded. The recommendation was accepted by the Government. Current estimates are that the planned additional external perimeter barrier at Ashworth hospital will cost £1.7 million capital. Schemes
  445W
  linked to the external perimeter barrier, including external and internal perimeter roads, will cost a further £1.5 million capital, making a total cost of £3.2 million.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources have been allocated for additional security measures at Ashworth special hospital arising out of the Tilt report; and if he will make a statement. [2807]

  Jacqui Smith
  £16 million of capital funding is being made available to Ashworth hospital authority, over the period 2000–04, to meet the additional security measures recommended for the hospital in the Tilt report.

  MRSA
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many lives were lost in NHS hospitals as a result of MRSA in each of the last 12 years. [2378]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: There are no centrally held statistics on deaths caused by hospital acquired infections, including Methicillin resistant "Staphylococcus aureus" (MRSA).

  MRSA infection can take the form of many different diseases from trivial skin infection to pneumonia or septicaemia. It is difficult to tell what contribution MRSA infection makes to death. MRSA does not have a distinct code within the revision of the international classification of diseases used for coding diagnostic data in the National Health Service and death registration data at the Office for National Statistics.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances hospitals with individual trusts but combined clinical services may apply for teaching services. [2925]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: The arrangements for establishing training placements for National Health Service staff will vary according to the staff group involved and the stage of training they have reached. The most important aspects local education providers will consider are the quality of training on offer and the range and depth of experience required from the placement.

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce proposals to reform the clinical negligence system. [3618]

  Mr. Milburn
  I have announced today my intention to publish a White Paper early in 2002 on reforming the way clinical negligence claims are handled.

  Head Injuries
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will respond to the Health Committee's report, "Head Injury: Rehabilitation" (HC307 Session 2000–2001). [2395]

  Mr. Hutton
  We expect to publish our response to the report before Parliament rises on 20 July.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the cost, per month, for each of the last six months, of the Millennium Dome to(a) the Millennium Commission, (b) Government Departments and (c) private funds. [76]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The New Millennium Experience company (NMEC) has advised that the monthly cost of the Dome and the site on which it stands for the last six months is as follows:

  £000

  January 2001

  2,615

  February 2001

  1,635

  March 2001

  1,459

  April 2001

  719

  May 2001

  687

  June 2001

  1486

  1 Budgeted costs

  Note:

  Final figures for June are not yet available

  In addition to care and maintenance, costs for the first part of this year include expenditure incurred on Dome decommissioning.

  Government Departments are not involved directly in financing the Dome Ministers have received support from officials over the last six months in respect of the Dome sale process and any other Dome-related matters in the normal course of business; but the cost of this is not separable from the cost of support to Ministers on other matters.

  I am not aware of any cost of the Millennium Dome to private funds over the last six months other than costs incurred by potential bidders. These are a matter for them.

  Millennium Bridge
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the opening date of the Millennium Bridge. [80]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on compensation for self-employed tour guides affected by foot and mouth restrictions. [2149]

  Dr. Howells
  It is the long-standing policy of successive Governments not to offer compensation for consequential losses associated with animal disease outbreaks. However, despite the restrictions needed to control foot and mouth, more and more of the countryside is open for business and there is still plenty to do and see. Visitor attractions are continuing to open and rights of way throughout England are now 68 per cent. open. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
  447W
  wrote to local authority chief executives on 22 June proposing revocation of blanket closures of public rights of way. I am confident that these measures will benefit self-employed tour guides.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she last met representatives of the British Hospitality Association to discuss the impact of foot and mouth on tourism. [132]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: Representatives of the BHA were present when I addressed the CBI's tourism Conference, "Tourism UK—Restoration or Regeneration", on June 26, as well as the Tourism Foot and Mouth Summit which I chaired on 3 July.

  On both occasions I stressed the importance I attach to my Department's sponsorship of the tourism industry, and I look forward to meeting the BHA on many occasions in the future.

  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is arranging a series of meetings, which will include discussions with the representatives of the British Hospitality Association.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact of the foot and mouth crisis on the hotel and tourism industry on the Isle of Wight. [2695]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: Our best estimate to date is that the loss of revenue in 2001–02 by the English tourist industry is likely to be around £120 million per week averaged over the eight month tourism season. We have not attempted to apportion this overall estimate to individual Regional Tourist Boards or individual tourism destinations, such as the Isle of Wight, since the available data do not enable this to be done with a sufficient degree of reliability. We are currently revising the model on which this estimate is based in the light of the latest available data.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on standards of service in public libraries. [117]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 makes it a duty of library authorities to
  provide a comprehensive and efficient library service.

  We introduced standards of service for library authorities from 1 April 2001 to help them and users understand what is required under the Act. Since 1998, we have also encouraged better planning and accountability in public library services through the introduction of annual library plans and these will now act as the vehicle for monitoring and assessing library authorities' performance against the standards.

  Film Council
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many representatives of the Film Council attended the latest Cannes Film Festival; at what costs to public funds; and how many new British films were screened at the festival. [115]
  448W
  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: 28 Film Council and British Film Commission (BFC) staff attended the Cannes "Marché"—the commercial film market—which runs parallel with the main Film Festival, at a cost of £66,500. 100 British films were shown or promoted at the Marché.

  The BFC ran a series of seminars and workshops for international/European producers and other industry professionals explaining film finance opportunities in the UK; the range of the production section in the UK; and financial and fiscal mechanisms that can benefit films that shoot in the UK. In addition the BFC organised three showcases exploring different areas of production expertise and co-hosted a reception with the British Screen Advisory Council for European producers.

  Diary Appointments (Cancellations)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many diary appointments for the Secretary of State were cancelled on her taking office. [1269]

  Tessa Jowell
  I have not cancelled any of my diary engagements since becoming Secretary of State. Invitations accepted by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) for engagements after June 8 were accepted on the understanding that they would need to be reconsidered should a new Secretary of State be appointed.

  Digital Terrestrial Television
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the future of digital terrestrial television. [2091]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Government have set out in their White Paper—A New Future for Communications—their proposals for the sector, including working with industry and viewer groups to develop a clear and effective strategy for achieving the switchover to digital broadcasting.

  S4C
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the subsidy to S4C was(a) in total and (b) per viewer in the last year. [1754]

  Dr. Howells
  The level of S4C's grant in aid is determined by a formula introduced by the Broadcasting Act 1996. For the calendar year 2000, S4C's grant in aid was £78.218 million. The BBC also produce 10 hours per week of Welsh language programmes for broadcasting on S4C, costed at £16 million for the financial year 2000–01. This represents a cost of approximately £65 per viewer, based on S4C's estimated weekly reach of 1.441 million viewers for the year. In addition, outside peak hours S4C broadcasts the best of Channel 4's English language output.

  Religious Broadcasting
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will undertake a review into the quality and content of religious broadcasting on(a) terrestrial and (b) satellite television. [1660]
  449W
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: No. Requirements with regard to religious broadcasting are set out in the BBC's Agreement with the Secretary of State, and in the case of other broadcasters, in their licences. It is the responsibility of the BBC Governors and the Independent Television Commission to ensure that those requirements are met.

  TV Licences
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make it her policy to provide free television licences to all old age pensioners. [2478]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over, because older pensioners are more likely to be reliant on television as their window on the world. Older pensioners are also more likely to be on low incomes. We have no plans to extend free television licences to pensioners below the age of 75.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the timetable is for the introduction of new proposals on concessionary television licences; and if she will make a statement. [2838]

  Dr. Howells
  We hope to set a timetable shortly for the introduction of measures to preserve the rights of beneficiaries of the Accommodation for Residential Care concessionary television licence scheme who remain in accommodation provided or managed by a local authority, a housing association or a development corporation, when the social mix or the level of warden cover change. We are currently consulting with the BBC on the implementation of the proposals to ensure that they will work smoothly. Regulations will then be introduced.

  School Sport Co-ordinators
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 2 July 2001,Official Report, columns 73–77W, what measures she has taken to monitor the effectiveness of the school sport co-ordinator programme. [2814]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: In addition to Sport England's standard monitoring of Lottery projects, the Government's Plan for Sport commits DCMS and DfES to commissioning an impact study to look at the effectiveness of the school sport co-ordinator programme in raising school standards, raising sporting standards and increasing participation for all young people, with an emphasis on under-represented groups. We are in discussion with Sport England, the New Opportunities Fund and the Youth Sport Trust about the nature of that impact study, which we expect to have under way in September.

  World Athletics Championships
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what recent discussions she has had with the International Amateur Athletic Federation regarding London's ability to host the 2005 World Athletics Championships; [3197]
  450W
  (2) what discussions she has had with the International Amateur Athletic Federation regarding the ability of London to host the 2005 World Athletics Championships; and if she will make a statement. [3100]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: I spoke on the telephone to Istvan Gyulai, General Secretary of the IAAF, on 2 July to reiterate the Government's support for the World Athletics Championships being staged in London in 2005.

  Tennis
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to expand indoor tennis coaching facilities throughout the country. [2329]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: Sport England are currently working with the Lawn Tennis Association to develop a facilities planning model to quantify the need for additional indoor tennis facilities and to identify the areas of greatest deficiency. This will be used to inform a new strategy to expand the provision of indoor facilities building on previous investments made by the Lawn Tennis Association, Sport England and the All England Club.

  Space for Sport and Art Programme
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what public funds are allocated for the Space for Sport and Art Programme; how much has been spent on this programme to date; and on which projects. [3255]

  Tessa Jowell
  £130 million has been allocated to the Space for Sport and Art Programme—£75 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund and £55 million from three lottery distributors, the New Opportunities Fund, Sport England and the Arts Council of England. As announced in March 2001, around 300 schools have been invited to develop detailed applications, which are due by the end of October. To date some £150,000 has been spent on: producing technical guidance; assessing initial bids; running regional workshops; and developing training packages for the 65 local education authorities involved in the programme.

  Sports Facilities (Audit)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if her Department has completed the audit of UK sports facilities; and if she will make a statement. [3179]

  Mr. Caborn
  Local authorities are best placed to assess the level of provision in their area as part of their development plans. Therefore, the Government's Plan for Sport encourages local authorities in England to carry out research of Sport England, and recommends that each local authority should develop a strategy for community sports provision 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.

  Local planning authorities will be encouraged by Sport England, through its regional offices, to consider both public and commercial provision when drawing up development plan policies for sport and recreation and

  451W
  also the role of planning obligations in providing and maintaining more socially inclusive community sports facilities.

  A new consultative body—the Community Sport Alliance—will encourage good practice in the development of community facilities and also identify best practice in ensuring the inclusion of community and social provision in alternative facility management models.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with representatives from the Commonwealth Development Corporation regarding the adoption of OECD guidelines for multinational companies; and if she will make a statement. [2283]

  Clare Short
  When CDC was transformed from a statutory corporation into a public limited company on 8 December 1999 a set of Business Principles was put in place concerning the areas of business integrity, the environment, social issues and health and safety. These confirmed CDC's commitment to best business practice. They were placed in the Library of the House during the passage of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the least developed countries that have been targeted for investment by the CDC in each of the last three years; and if she will make a statement. [2286]

  Clare Short
  In the last three years CDC has invested funds in the following countries classified as Least Developed Countries (LDCs).

  Laos

  Lesotho

  Malawi

  Mozambique

  Sierra Leone

  Solomon Islands

  Tanzania

  Uganda

  Vanuatu

  Zambia

  Bangladesh

  Lesotho

  Malawi

  Mozambique

  Tanzania

  Uganda

  Vanuatu

  Zambia

  452W

  Bangladesh

  Laos

  Lesotho

  Malawi

  Mozambique

  Tanzania

  Uganda

  Vanuatu

  Zambia.

  Under its operating framework CDC is required to make 70 per cent. of new investments (by aggregate value), measured over a rolling five year period, in poorer countries' listed in its Investment Policy.
  1 Defined as countries with a GNP per capita below the weighted mean for lower middle income countries, based on World bank data published in 1998.

  Montserrat
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in providing sporting facilities in Montserrat. [1305]

  Clare Short
  We have provisionally allocated a maximum of £72 million for Montserrat over the next five years, subject to our normal processes of resource allocation and review, in order to continue our work to restore the economic and social fabric of the island. This will bring our total assistance to Montserrat to some £207 million since the onset of the crisis. We have an on-going dialogue with the Government of Montserrat about their priorities for the use of these funds. This includes help for recreational facilities.

PRIME MINISTER

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the membership of each Cabinet Committee. [3617]

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what role he plans for the Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee; and if he has discussed this with the Leader of the Liberal Democrats; [351]

  (2) if he will list the policy areas on which he plans to (a) co-operate and (b) enter into dialogue with the leader of the Liberal Democrats; and if he will make a statement. [1991]

  The Prime Minister
  I have placed a copy of the current list of Cabinet Committees, their membership and terms of reference in the Library of the House. Details will also be updated on the Cabinet Office website.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of each Department of State in relation to the Dome. [3254]
  453W
  The Prime Minister
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is responsible for all issues relating to the future use of the Millennium Dome. This includes the sponsorship of English Partnerships, the Government's urban regeneration agency, which, as landowner and owner of the Dome Structure, is responsible for management and maintenance of the Dome and the Dome site.

  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport provides advice and support to the Shareholder of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), currently Lord Falconer of Thoroton.

  Incineration
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Lewes of 4 July 2001,Official Report, column 256, on what evidence he bases his statement that incineration is a cheaper option than recycling in terms of waste dispersal. [3133]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's overall strategy for waste is first and foremost to cut waste and, secondly, to recycle, and only then to consider incineration and other opinions lower down the waste hierarchy. We are purchasing a range of measures intended to support recycling. These include the £40 million Waste and Resources Action Programme to overcome market barrier to re-use and recycling, increase in the Landfill Tax, and increased financial support for recycling through Spending Review 2000 and the next round of the New Opportunities Fund.

  Relative costs of incineration and recycling are given in the Government's Waste Strategy 2000, Part 2 (appendix C), copies of which have been placed in the Library. This details the independent research which shows incineration is less expensive than recycling under a wide range of conditions.

  Public Services
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Prime Minister which teacher trade union representatives were invited to participate in recent discussions on the future of public services held at No. 10 Downing street. [3160]

  The Prime Minister
  I did not meet representatives from the teachers' trade unions on this occasion.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Chief Electoral Officer (Report)
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the report of the Chief Electoral Officer for 2000–01. [3532]

  Dr. John Reid
  I am pleased to announce that the annual report of the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland for the year 2000–01 has been laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Senior Salaries Review Body
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish the evidence submitted by her Department to the SSRB on returner bonus payments for teachers. [3020]

  Mr. Timms
  On 26 June the Government published the school teachers' review body's report on welcome back bonuses for returners to teaching. I am today placing in the Library copies of the supplementary evidence that officials from my Department submitted to the review body.

  Value-added League Tables
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will publish details of the basis of calculation for value-added league tables for the academic year 2001–02. [3023]

  Mr. Timms
  Our proposals in respect of value-added measures were set out in detail in the "Publication of School and College Performance Tables in 2001" consultation document issued on 30 March this year, copies of which have been placed in the Library. We are now working with some 200 volunteer schools on a pilot programme for the calculation of measures of progress made from key stage 2 to key stage 3 and from key stage 3 to GCSE/GNVQ. The results of the pilot will be published in the autumn, with a full explanation of the methodology used. The evaluation of this year's pilot, along with further consultation early next year, will inform final decisions on the publication of these two measures for all secondary schools in the 2002 performance tables.

  Private Sector Consultants
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the local education authorities where private sector consultants have been appointed to investigate the management and organisation of future service delivery following adverse Ofsted reports; if she will name the private sector contractor appointed in each case; and if she will publish the value of each of the contracts. [1786]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: The names of the local education authorities where private sector consultants have been appointed following adverse Ofsted reports are as follows:

  Bradford—PWC

  Bristol—Birmingham LEA/APS Keele

  Derby—Capita

  Dudley—OPM

  Hackney—KPMG and OPM

  Haringey—Capital and PWC

  Islington—PWC

  Leeds—PWC and CGEY

  Leicester City—OPM

  Liverpool—KPMG

  455W

  Redbridge—DBi

  Rochdale—KPMG

  Rotherham—OPM

  Sandwell—KPMG

  Sheffield—OPM

  Southwark—KPMG

  Walsall—PWC

  Waltham Forest—PWC.

  The total value of the contracts given is £6.1 million, including VAT on consultancy related to intervention.

  The cost of individual consultancy contracts for intervention work is commercial in confidence.

  Further Education Staff
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills of those students successfully completing a(a) BEd. and (b) teacher training course, how many found employment in (i) schools and (ii) the further education sector in (A) September 2000, (B) September 1999 and (C) September 1993. [2405]

  Mr. Timms
  Successful completers of ITT courses in England1 in 1993 who entered service up to 31 March 1994 and successful completers of ITT courses in England1 in 1998 who entered service up to 31 March 1999 (the latest date at which information is available) are as follows:

  Calendar year completed course

  Maintained schools

  Further Education2

  BEd

  19933

  5,510

  30

  19984

  6,440

  30

  PGCE

  19933

  9,910

  220

  19984

  10,820

  130

  Total

  19933

  15,410

  240

  19984

  17,260

  160

  As a percentage of all QTS completers

  19933

  71

  1

  19984

  70

  1

  1 Includes those trained through the Open University

  2 In addition there are part-time teachers in Further Education whose service is not recorded, as they are not members of the Teachers Pension Scheme

  3 Includes 163 teachers who trained in England and entered service in maintained schools or FE in Wales

  4 Includes 148 teachers who trained in England and entered service in maintained schools or FE in Wales

  Other teachers successfully completing a course of ITT will have found employment in the independent schools sector, the HE sector, or in Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the problems of recruitment and retention of lecturers in the further education sector; and what action she proposes to take. [2598]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: We have supported financially a project commissioned by the Association of Colleges, "National Review of Staffing
  456W
  and Pay in Further Education", which was undertaken in conjunction with the nationally recognised trade unions for further education (excluding sixth form colleges). We acknowledge that colleges need help to ensure that they have the right arrangements to recruit, reward and retain excellent teachers. Starting this year, significant extra resources amounting to an additional £300 million over the next three years have been made available to the further education sector to reward high calibre staff through our Teaching Pay Initiative, £44 million of which will be shared by sixth form colleges. The total figure is over and above the annual pay round. In addition, we plan to implement arrangements for FE teachers of shortage subjects to benefit from golden hellos comparable to those already in schools and from arrangements we are piloting to help new entrants to the profession to pay off their student loans.

  Further Education (Dorset)
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how the Government's commitment to increase the level of funding for the lowest-funded school sixth forms will be applied by the Learning and Skills Council to schools in the Mid-Dorset and North Poole constituency. [2851]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There is significant variation at present between the levels of funding given to school sixth forms by local authorities. The Government have given an unprecedented guarantee to school sixth forms that, when the LSC takes over the responsibility for funding them in April 2002, their funding will be maintained, in real terms, at 2000–01 levels, provided their pupil numbers do not fall. This means that convergence can only be upwards. The speed at which convergence can be achieved will depend on the overall availability of resources.

  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will take steps to increase the level of funding for post-16 school education in the(a) Poole and (b) Dorset local education authorities. [2852]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  From 2002–03 the funding of post-16 school education in these and other education authorities will be the responsibility of the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). Funds will be passed to schools by their education authorities. The overall total from which the LSC will calculate allocations for each school has yet to be determined, but will be announced shortly. School sixth forms will be protected by a real terms guarantee whereby their funding will not fall provided they maintain their numbers on roll.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers from(a) Hampshire, (b) Southampton, (c) Portsmouth and (d) the Isle of Wight local education authorities received training on teachers' pay thresholds at (i) Winchester, (ii) Brighton and (iii) Portsmouth; and how many teachers in total received that training at each location. [2929]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: Head teachers from (a) Hampshire, (b) Southampton, (c) Portsmouth and (d) the Isle of Wight local education authorities attended threshold training at Brighton and

  457W
  Winchester. 148 attended training at Brighton; 237 attended training at Winchester. The total number of head teachers trained at Winchester was 675, and the total number trained at Brighton was 655.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what range of payments is available to returning teachers as returner bonus payments; [3021]

  (2) what criteria are to be used for assessing the eligibility of returning teachers for returner bonus payments. [3022]

  Mr. Timms
  On 26 June 2001 the Government published the school teachers' review body's report on welcome back bonuses for returners to teaching and our response to this report. This response contains our proposals on eligibility for the bonuses and their value. I have placed copies of both the STRB's report and the Government's response in the Library.

  Connexions Service
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many advisers have been employed for the Connexions Service; and how many vacancies remain. [3019]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The 12 partnerships that went live on 1 April 2001 are in a transition stage, building up their personal adviser staff from partner organisations, including the Careers Service and Youth Service, and by recruitment of new staff. Preliminary figures reported by partnerships at the end of May 2001 indicate that 991 full-time equivalent personal advisers were in post.

  Education Committees
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance her Department has given to local authorities on the role of external members of education committees in authorities with a leader and combined structure. [3025]

  Mr. Timms
  Guidance on the role of parent governor and diocesan representatives on local authority committees dealing with education is given through "Replacement Chapter 3 (Overview and scrutiny under executive arrangements) of the Local Government Act 2000: Guidance to English district councils and London borough councils". This guidance was issued on 15 March 2001 by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in conjunction with the Department for Education and Skills.

  In addition, parent governor and diocesan representatives have access to the joint member training programme of the Department for Education and Skills and the Local Government Association. The programme includes a CD-ROM on school standards with guidance on council constitutions.

  Examinations
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance her Department gave to the QCA on the new Art A-level and AS-level syllabuses. [3026]
  458W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department does not offer advice on the content of individual specifications. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is responsible for the development of A/AS-level criteria and the accreditation of A/AS specifications.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list those who were consulted prior to the determination of the new Art A-level and AS-level syllabuses. [3027]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority consulted representatives from the awarding bodies, schools, colleges, Higher Education, subject association, examiners, Welsh and Northern Ireland regulatory authorities, local education authorities and a small number of employers in developing the A/AS Art and Design criteria and accrediting the specifications.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make public the remit letter of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority inquiry into AS-level examinations. [3120]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: A copy of the remit letter will be placed in the Library together with the report of the QCA's review.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many A-level exam scripts were returned to schools for checking following publication of the results for the academic year 1999–2000; and how many results were challenged. [3162]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  A total sum of 51,572 A-level examination scripts were returned to schools. 29,628 results were challenged, which represented 3.8 per cent. of the A-level examination entries. Out of that, 4,644 resulted in a grade change, representing 0.6 per cent. of all entries.

  Graduate Teacher Programme
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what changes have been made to the Graduate Teacher Programme since 18 January. [3028]

  Mr. Timms
  On 12 March my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State announced new funding to take the total number of Graduate Teacher Programme places available from 1,680 to 2,250 a year. Altogether, since 18 January 1,729 places on the programme have been allocated, 1,534 of those to schools outside London. In addition, my Department and the Teacher Training Agency have been working together on proposals to simplify the administration of the programme. The regulations needed to bring this about will be laid before Parliament in due course.

  School Inspection Review
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish the evidence submitted by her Department to Ofsted for its review of the inspection regime. [3029]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department will not be submitting evidence to Ofsted. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have discussed with HM Chief Inspector the need for the inspection regime to continue to evolve to meet the changing needs of teachers, governors, parents
  459W
  and other stakeholders. We welcome the consultation exercise which HM Chief Inspector will launch later this year.

  Departmental Awayday
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which Ministers and officials attended her Department's Awayday meeting; where the meeting was held; and what the cost of the meeting was. [3161]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department's Awayday was held at Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, Berkshire. Ministerial colleagues, senior civil servants and I undertook a review of current policies and strategic priorities. My ministerial colleagues at the Department for Education and Skills and I attended the Awayday along with the Department's board. The event was also attended by the Department's Whips and parliamentary private secretaries. The head of policy from No. 10 attended for part of the Awayday and the head of the No. 10 delivery unit was a guest speaker. Officials from the Department serviced the event and provided the secretariat.

  The provisional cost of the event is £4,000. Should the final total differ significantly from our estimate I will write to the hon. Member with the new information and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Classroom Sizes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average classroom size of state schools is within the Greater London area. [3210]

  Mr. Timms
  The size of the average maintained primary and maintained secondary class in Greater London in January 2001 was 27.0 and 22.1 respectively. Comparable figures for England are 26.7 and 22.0. The latest class data were recently published in a Statistical First Release "Class Sizes in Maintained Schools in England 2001" on 6 April, copies of which are available from the Library, or alternatively can be accessed from the Department for Education and Skills' statistical website www.dfes.gsi.gov.uk/statistics.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Ilisu Dam
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent consultations she has had with the Turkish Government about the building of the Ilisu Dam. [1549]

  Ms Hewitt
  Neither I nor my predecessor have had any discussions with the Turkish Government about the building of the Ilisu Dam. Officials at ECGD are in contact with the Turkish authorities regarding the project.

  Universal Bank
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government have to ensure that customers of banks and building societies which are not participating members of the Universal Bank are able to withdraw cash from post offices free of charge. [2361]
  460W
  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 5 July 2001]: We are continuing discussions with banks and building societies not party to the Memorandum of Understanding on universal banking services.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total of(a) premiums received and (b) claims paid by the Export Credits Guarantee Department was in each business area in each of the last 10 financial years. [2732]

  Ms Hewitt
  For the last 10 years the figures for premium received, claims paid and recoveries are as follows:

  Financial Year

  Premium

  Claims

  Recoveries

  Net Position

  1990–91

  158.5

  967.50

  477.70

  -331.30

  1991–92

  159.0

  954.10

  472.90

  -322.20

  1992–93

  140.0

  734.30

  484.00

  -110.30

  1993–94

  112.0

  512.00

  416.00

  16.00

  1994–95

  113.0

  422.00

  341.10

  32.10

  1995–96

  106.0

  295.00

  473.00

  284.00

  1996–97

  130.0

  231.00

  558.00

  457.00

  1997–98

  127.0

  165.70

  517.00

  478.30

  1998–99

  81.0

  145.00

  425.00

  361.00

  1999–2000

  102.0

  296.00

  343.00

  149.00

  ECGD does not maintain its records on a basis, which would enable it to provide a breakdown across business area as requested without disproportionate cost.

  Yorkshire and Humber Region (Exports)
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the overall value of exports was from the Yorkshire and Humber region in each of the last five years to(a) Europe and (b) the USA; and if she will indicate separately the figures for steel and related products. [2964]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information is given in the table:

  Exports of goods from Yorkshire and the Humber

  £ million

  EU

  USA

  1999

  4,946

  754

  2000

  5,508

  928

  Notes:

  1. Information prior to 1999 is not available.

  2. Separate figures for steel and related products are not available.

  3. Exports of goods to Europe below the Intrastat reporting threshold cannot be allocated to any region and are, therefore, excluded. Below-threshold trade accounts for some 2 to 2.5 per cent. of UK exports of goods to the EU.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she proposes to review the need for statutory action in respect of age discrimination in employment. [3093]
  461W
  Alan Johnson
  The Government intend, in line with the European Employment Directive (2000/78/EC), to introduce legislation to outlaw age discrimination in employment and training and will start public consultations later this year.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what operational targets she has set for the Small Business Service for 2001–02. [3665]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service was established on 3 April 2000 as an Executive Agency. It has had a successful first year and the first annual report has today been placed in the Library of the House.

  The vision of the SBS is for the UK to be the best place in the world to start and grow a business. Its purpose is to build an enterprise society in which small businesses thrive and achieve their potential.

  The objectives of the SBS are: to be a strong voice for small business at the heart of Government, ensuring that Government is aware of, and responsive to, the needs of all small businesses; to strive for a regulatory framework which minimises the burdens on business; to develop and maintain a world-class business support service to enhance businesses' competitiveness and profitability; and to champion the importance of entrepreneurship across society, particularly in under-represented and disadvantaged groups.

  The SBS will review its plans regularly in response to the needs of small business. In line with the requirement for Executive Agencies to be given operational targets, I have set the following targets for the 2001–02 year:
  Put in place a set of actions for reforming the regulatory environment for small businesses by March 2002.
  Customer satisfaction at least 80 per cent. for all services.
  Unprompted and prompted awareness of Business Link branded services among small businesses to rise to 20 and 80 per cent. respectively by March 2002.
  All advisers delivering BL services meet new standards by April 2002.
  Develop new funding streams to help plug the financing gap for start-ups and small growing firms; first investments for early stage financing of growth by December 2001.
  Launch new Business Incubation Fund, by September 2001, and announce first loans by December 2001.
  Increase accessibility of support, including loan finance, in under-invested areas, and have at least 105 projects, including 15 Community Finance Initiatives, covering all the English regions up and running by March 2002.
  100 per cent. of valid invoices to be paid within 30 days.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will decide which Regional Development Agency chairs and board members are being reappointed. [3666]

  Ms Hewitt
  I am pleased to announce that I intend to re-appoint the Chairs of the eight Regional Development Agencies in England (outside London) for varying terms. The new appointments, of periods of up to three years, will take effect from 14 December 2001.
  462W
  I particularly want to thank Lord Thomas (Chair of the North West Development Agency) for agreeing to stay on until March next year, allowing more time for a successor to be found and for Lord Thomas to complete his six-month term as Chair of the RDA Chairs which begins in October. I would like to thank Lord Thomas for his dedication and commitment to the North West Region over many years and to the dynamic and effective leadership he has given to the RDA since its creation in 1999.

  The London Development Agency Chair is an appointment of the Mayor of London and was made on 3 July 2000.

  As far as the RDA Boards are concerned, I have decided to aim to increase business representation. I hope to be able to appoint or re-appoint members with current or recent business experience to at least half of the places on board.

  I intend to honour the commitment given in Parliament during the passing of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 to have four board members with local authority experience and at least one with knowledge of rural issues. As before, the rest of the places will go to those with experience of relevance to the work of the RDAs, such as trade unions, further and higher education and the voluntary sector. I expect that most board members may have experience relevant to more than one area of the RDA's work and so hope the boards will reflect as wide a range of interests as before.

  Regeneration
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support her Department is giving to EMDA's involvement in regeneration in Warsop and Warsop Vale. [2222]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 5 July 2001]: The Department is working with the East Midland Development Agency on a range of initiatives to support the regeneration of Warsop and Warsop Vale including the Meden Valley Partnership Special Purpose Vehicle and the Malcolm Sargisson Community Resource Centre.

  Post Office
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Post Office on maintenance of rural deliveries in areas of foot and mouth disease. [2740]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been advised by Consignia (the new name for the Post Office) that Royal Mail and Parcelforce Worldwide are following advice from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about delivering letters and parcels during the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Guidelines have been issued to all staff about deliveries in affected areas, with advice on appropriate precautions.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many premises in Cumbria are not receiving a postal service to the door because of foot and mouth disease. [2741]
  463W
  Mr. Alexander
  I have been advised by Consignia that 3,733 premises in Cumbria are not receiving a postal service to the door as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak.

  Consignia is in constant contact with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The company is offering alternative arrangements to customers, and aims for the full service to be restored when the current outbreak has been eradicated.

  International Law
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what notice her Department has received of alleged breaches of(a) UK sovereignty and (b) international law in areas covered by her Department in the last six months; and if she will make a statement. [1952]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My Department is responsible for a wide range of areas of international law. I would ask the hon. Member to write to me indicating his particular areas of concern.

  Planning Laws
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations her Department has received in the last 12 months concerning reform of planning laws affecting business. [1429]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has had a number of representations from the business community about the planning system. We have been consulting widely over the last year with all key stakeholders interfacing with the planning system to explore its impact on business and competitiveness.

  The Government have recently announced a reform of planning and we are working closely on this with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Helmets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his Department's plans to redesign police helmets; and what criteria he proposes to use to decide on the future design. [1246]

  Mr. Denham
  There are no specific plans to introduce a new design for police helmets. Standards and specifications are constantly monitored to ensure that all headgear is fit for purpose and affords the appropriate level of protection, including complying with Health and Safety legislation, which has applied to the police since June 1998.

  Helicopter Accident, Leicestershire
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the coroner's inquest into those who died in the Lynx helicopter crash near Tilton on the Hill, Leicestershire on 17 May 1999 will be allowed to proceed. [1081]
  464W
  Beverley Hughes
  The inquest was adjourned pending receipt of a copy of the Ministry of Defence Board of Inquiry report. Although this has now become available, completion of the coroner's inquiries and the absence abroad of a prospective key witness delayed finalising arrangements for the next hearing. Having regard to the witness's availability and the need to make progress in the interests of the families, I understand that the coroner expects to hold the inquest by late September or early October.

  Oldham
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what remarks were made concerning Oldham in the UK periodic report to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination. [2278]

  Angela Eagle
  The United Kingdom's 15th periodic report to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (UNCERD) was published in July 1999. The report details the legislative, judicial and administrative measures undertaken in the United Kingdom to address racism. The report provided an overview of the situation in the United Kingdom and did not therefore detail the situation in local areas or towns such a Oldham.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further measures he plans to take to promote improved community relations in Oldham. [2279]

  Angela Eagle
  Shortly after the disturbance my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met representatives from Oldham metropolitan borough council and Greater Manchester police, as well as hon. Members representing Oldham, to discuss the situation in the town. As a result, an action plan for recovery, to be prepared in Oldham following a review which will encompass the contribution of all sectors of the local community, is to be prepared within the next four months. The Home Secretary made it clear that the Government, across all Departments, stand ready to offer whatever support and independent advice is needed to help towns such as Oldham (and Burnley, which has of course since suffered similar disorder) begin to heal their divisions and build a better future.

  I visited Oldham on 25 June to meet local people about the town's problems at first hand. However, the primary job of tackling the root causes of the complex social and specific problems that give rise to divisions and disturbances of this kind must be done at local level. We do of course welcome any local initiatives that help to address these issues in a constructive manner.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of progress in eliminating racial discrimination in Oldham. [2277]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have sought the views of our race advisers and the Commission for Racial Equality on the issue of racial discrimination in Oldham and the extent to which
  465W
  it can be seen as a factor behind the recent disturbances there. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has also met representatives of Oldham council, local police, young people and local hon. Members to discuss this and other aspects of the situation. The Home Secretary has also asked the Government Office for the North-West for its views as to how matters can be improved in this area. I hope that, with our support, those who want to tackle racial discrimination in Oldham and its associated problems will identify what needs to be done over the weeks and months ahead. At the Home Secretary's meeting with local representatives it was agreed that within four months a local action programme would be prepared. This will no doubt contain, among other things, proposals for combating racial discrimination in Oldham.

  Prisoners (Conditions)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much time was spent unlocked in(a) male local prisons, (b) male closed training prisons, (c) male young offender institutions, (d) female prisons and (e) female young offender institutions in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [2473]

  Beverley Hughes
  The average time out of cell per weekday in male local prisons, male closed training prisons, male young offender institutions, female prisons and female young offender institutions for the years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are listed in the table. Comparable data for 1996–97 are not available. Establishments are categorised by their main role only. Female young offender institutions are included in the relevant part of the female estate.

  1999–20001

  2000–011

  Category B

  10.7

  10.6

  Category C

  11.3

  10.8

  Dispersal

  9.5

  9.5

  Female closed

  11.2

  11.3

  Female local

  10.8

  9.1

  Female open

  18.5

  19.0

  Male closed young offender

  9.3

  8.4

  Male juvenile

  10.8

  10.8

  Male local

  8.8

  8.8

  Male open young offender

  12.7

  12.9

  Male remand centre

  8.1

  6.9

  1 Average time out of cell (weekdays)

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were(a) employed in industrial workshops and (b) employed in agriculture and horticulture, in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01; how many prisoners were employed as a percentage of the prison population in each of these periods; and if he will make a statement. [2470]

  Beverley Hughes
  The tables set out the number of prisoners employed in industrial workshops and in agriculture and horticulture, expressed as a percentage of the average prison population for the year from 1996 to the most recently available data.
  466W

  Industrial workshops

  Year

  Number of prisoners

  As a percentage of average annual prison population

  1996–97

  7,601

  13.41

  1999–2000

  9,527

  14.70

  2000–011

  10,429

  16.15

  1 Figures shown for 2000–01 are calculated from April 2000 and March 2001 figures. Workshop figures for 2000–01 include craft and charity workshops which were excluded from the figures for previous years

  Agriculture and horticulture

  Year

  Number of prisoners

  As a percentage of annual prison population

  1996–971

  1,395

  2,46

  1999–2000

  1,988

  3.06

  2000–01

  1,926

  2.98

  1 The figures provided are not entirely comparable because the figures for 1996–97 exclude amenity maintenance, included in later years

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total number of hours of educational study was in(a) male local prisons, (b) male open prisons, (c) male closed training prisons, (d) male young offender institutions, (e) female prisons and (f) female young offender institutions in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [2469]

  Beverley Hughes
  The total number of hours of educational study for male local prisons, male open prisons, male closed training prisons, male young offender institutions and female prisons in 1996–97, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 is listed in the table.

  Establishments are categorised by their main role only. Female young offender institutions are included in the relevant part of the female estate.

  Function name

  1996–97

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Category B

  1,282,248

  1,536,783

  1,637,976

  Category C

  6,038,900

  6,452,503

  6,681,851

  Dispersal

  805,420

  778,398

  799,868

  Female closed

  294,648

  382,229

  422,478

  Female local

  490,052

  472,973

  531,418

  Female open

  347,032

  300,732

  201,368

  Male closed YOI

  2,846,087

  3,147,571

  3,446,699

  Male juvenile

  94,480

  136,274

  125,254

  Male local

  4,171,057

  6,511,304

  6,600,486

  Male open

  1,620,819

  1,179,529

  1,196,511

  Male open YOI

  368,838

  358,905

  325,660

  Male remand centre

  67,699

  104,159

  117,943

  Criminal Case Reviews
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted prisoners have asked for a review of their cases on the basis of re-examination of evidential material for DNA proof; what the response to those requests has been; and if he will make a statement. [2731]
  467W
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  This kind of information is not readily available from the Criminal Cases Review Commission's current management information system, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prison Sentences (Women)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women have been sentenced to imprisonment for murder by courts in England and Wales during the last 12 months. [2527]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  12 women were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in England and Wales in 1999, the latest year for which figures are available. In addition,

  Number of women sentenced to imprisonment, by offence type, England and Wales 1999

  Indictable offences

  Sentenced to a young offender institution

  Sentenced to an unsuspended sentence of imprisonment

  Total sentenced to immediate custody

  Violence against the person

  Murder of infant under one year of age

  —

  1

  1

  Child destruction

  —

  1

  1

  Cruelty to, or neglect of children

  3

  42

  45

  Child abduction

  1

  1

  2

  Sexual offences

  Indecent assault on male person under 16 years

  —

  4

  4

  Attempted rape of a male aged under 161

  1

  —

  1

  Indecent assault on a female under 16

  1

  5

  6

  Other indictable offences

  Take or make indecent photographs, or pseudo-photographs, of children

  —

  1

  1

  Total

  6

  55

  61

  1 Rape and attempted rape offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, section 1, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 142

  Prison Population
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the prison population was in each year from 1989 to 2000 inclusive; what the expected totals are for 2001 to 2005; and what percentage in all years drug offenders represent. [2391]

  Beverley Hughes
  The average prison population in England and Wales from 1989 to 2000, and the percentage of these totals that were sentenced drug offenders, is shown in the table.

  The average prison population for 2001 to 2005 will depend on factors prevailing during those years. 'Projections of Long Term Trends in Prison Population to 2008', available in the Library, hypothesises time scenarios. The projected figures from the middle scenarios have been included in the table. However, the percentages that are expected to be drug offences are not available.

  Year

  Prison population on 30 June

  Percentage of total serving sentences for drug offences1

  1989

  48,610

  6.61

  1990

  45,636

  6.90

  1991

  45,897

  6.22

  1992

  45,817

  6.89

  1993

  44,566

  7.20

  468W
  three were sentenced to detention under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and one to custody for life.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women have been sentenced to imprisonment by courts in England and Wales during the last 12 months for abuse of children. [2526]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Those who abuse children can be charged with a number of offences. Some of these offences, such as assault causing actual bodily harm and common assault do not identify the age of the victim and it is not possible to provide details of all crimes where children are victims from Home Office statistics. The table shows the statistics for those offences where it is possible to identify a child victim of whatever age.

  Year

  Prison population on 30 June

  Percentage of total serving sentences for drug offences1

  1994

  48,794

  7.20

  1995

  51,047

  8.34

  1996

  55,281

  10.41

  1997

  61,114

  11.74

  1998

  65,298

  12.09

  1999

  64,771

  12.61

  2000

  64,602

  13.12

  20012

  65,900

  —

  20022

  67,300

  —

  20032

  68,900

  —

  20042

  70,500

  —

  20052

  72.000

  —

  1 Rounded to two decimal places

  2 Projected figures

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the UK prison population is expressed as a number per 100,000 population; and what the latest figures are for other Council of Europe member states. [2364]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: Provisional information based on the average population in England and Wales in 2000, and the average population

  469W
  in prisons in England and Wales in 2000, shows there were 113 people in a prison establishment per 100,000 of the general population.

  Provisional information is available for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland separately. It is shown in the table along with rates for those countries in Europe for which data are available.

  Country

  Rate2 per 100,000 population in 2000

  EU member states average

  England and Wales3

  124

  Northern Ireland

  60

  Scotland4

  115

  Austria5

  84

  Belgium4

  83

  Cyprus

  637

  Czech Republic7

  208

  Denmark

  61

  Estonia8

  330

  Finland7

  52

  France9

  689

  Germany8

  97

  Greece

  76

  Hungary7

  157

  Ireland (Eire)

  80

  Italy

  94

  Luxembourg

  690

  Netherlands10

  87

  Norway3

  n/a

  Poland2

  170

  Portugal

  127

  Russia7

  465

  Slovenia

  57

  Spain7

  114

  Sweden11

  64

  Switzerland

  79

  Australia4

  6108

  Canada12

  6123

  Japan3

  47

  New Zealand5

  6149

  South Africa4

  385

  USA13

  702

  1 At 1 September: number of prisoners including pre-trial detainees

  2 Based on estimates of national population

  3 At 31 August

  4 Annual daily population

  5 Annual averages

  6 In 1999

  7 At 31 December

  8 At 31 January

  9 Metropolitan and overseas departments

  10 At 1 September

  11 At 30 September

  12 Annual average by financial year (1 April-31 March)

  13 At 30 June

  n/a = not available

  Source:

  Statistical contacts in each country

  Version:

  18 June 2001

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his assessment is of the efficacy of drug treatment and testing orders in(a) reducing drug consumption and (b) reducing participation in criminal activity, expressed as a percentage of UK drug use and crime totals. [2383]
  470W
  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: It is too early for an assessment of the effect of the order on drug misuse and crime since roll-out in October 2000. Evaluation of the pilots run under the management of the Merseyside, south-east London and Gloucestershire probation services found that the average amount spent on drugs by offenders subject to drug treatment and testing orders fell from £400 per week in the period before arrest to £25 per week in the early stages of the order and the number of crimes committed by such offenders fell from an average of 137 offences in the month before arrest to around 34 per month after only six weeks on the order. A reconviction study will be carried out in due course.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his assessment is of the continuing effects of the drug treatment and testing orders pilot scheme undertaken in Croydon, Liverpool and Gloucester. [2384]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: The independent evaluation of the three pilot schemes found that those who had completed or were nearing the completion of the order at the end of the evaluation period reported that they had stopped offending and in nearly all cases were drug free, except for cannabis use. A reconviction study will be carried out in due course.

  Following successful pilots, the drug treatment and testing order was rolled-out to courts throughout England and Wales on 1 October 2000. Latest figures available show that between October 2000and May this year, over 1,750 orders have been made. The pilot evaluation has informed the development of a national standard and related guidance for the implementation of the order.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted offenders are being held in each young offenders institution, broken down by(a) average age, (b) average length of sentence and (c) category of offence; and if he will make a statement. [2111]

  Beverley Hughes
  Provisional data are in a table, which has been placed in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Occupied Territories
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on illegal settlements in the occupied territories. [1553]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government deplore all settlement activity in the occupied territories (including East Jerusalem). It is illegal under international law and a serious obstacle to peace.

  We continue to urge both parties to implement swiftly and in full the complete package of the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee report, which includes a freeze on all settlement activity.

  Nice Treaty
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings he has had with ministerial counterparts from the Republic of Ireland to discuss the Nice treaty; and if he will make a statement. [1554]

  Mr. Straw
  I met my ministerial counterparts from the Republic of Ireland at the 11 and 25 June General Affairs Council and at the Gothenburg European Council.

  As I explained to the House last week, member states have expressed their readiness to help the Irish Government find a way forward, taking into account the concerns reflected by the result of the 7 June referendum, without reopening the text of the Nice treaty.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his Irish counterpart regarding the treaty of Nice. [1520]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), UIN 1554.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will meet representatives of the Government of Sri Lanka to discuss human rights issues and the state's policy towards the Tamil people; and if he will make a statement. [1555]

  Mr. Straw
  We remain concerned by reports of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka, and continue to remind the Government of the need to respect human rights. We are also concerned about the plight of civilians affected by the conflict and have urged the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE to cease hostilities and work with Norway to conclude a peaceful settlement.

  I look forward to discussing a range of issues with the Sri Lankan Government in due course.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the peace negotiations in Sri Lanka. [1530]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We continue to give our wholehearted support to Norway's efforts to facilitate peace talks between the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE. We urge both parties to the conflict to intensify their efforts and work with the Norwegians to find a peaceful, negotiated settlement that meets the aspirations of all communities in Sri Lanka.

  Jews (Iran)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the treatment of imprisoned Jews in Iran. [1556]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Nine of the Jews sentenced in Shiraz on alleged espionage charges last year remain imprisoned. We understand that the prisoners continue to have access to newspapers, Kosher food, twice-weekly visits from their families and are held in a group cell. The sentences were reduced on appeal in September 2000.

  Israel
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet the Foreign Minister of Israel to discuss bilateral trade and the peace process; and if he will make a statement. [1557]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  On his first working day in his new role on 11 June, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Israeli Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, and discussed the situation in the Middle East. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, on 24 June. The Middle East Peace Process featured prominently in their discussion, as did bilateral issues such as trade.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about discussions which took place during the recent visit to the United Kingdom by the Prime Minister of Israel. [1521]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met Israeli Prime Minister Sharon during Prime Minister Sharon's short stop-over visit to the UK on Sunday 24 June. Much of the discussion focused on the present situation in the Middle East. The Prime Minister urged Prime Minister Sharon to take urgent steps in parallel with the Palestinians to implement in full the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee report.

  Death Penalty
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on campaigning internationally against the death penalty. [1518]

  Peter Hain
  The British Government oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. We have gained a reputation as a leading advocate of worldwide abolition, not least through the work of our Death Penalty Panel.

  The British Government also co-sponsor the EU resolution on the death penalty tabled at the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

  We shall continue to work tirelessly, both bilaterally and with the EU partners, to further the worldwide trend towards abolition of the death penalty.

  Zimbabwe
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the political situation in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [1519]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We remain concerned at the situation in Zimbabwe. We would like to see an end to violence and intimidation; positive steps by the Zimbabwe Government to create the conditions for free and fair election; economic reform; and the introduction of a sustainable land reform programme, in line with the principle agreed by the Government of Zimbabwe and the international donors at the 1998 Land conference.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the political situation in Zimbabwe. [1526]
  473W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are concerned by continuing violence and intimidation by the war veterans. The people of Zimbabwe must be allowed to vote freely, and without fear; and to live and work in a country governed by the rule of law.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit of Commonwealth Ministers to Zimbabwe. [1533]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There has been no Commonwealth ministerial visit to Zimbabwe this year.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to press for international implementation of the Kyoto protocols. [1522]

  Peter Hain
  Climate change is one of the most important global issues we face. It is the firm policy of this Government to press for a successful outcome to the Sixth Conference of the Parties (COP6) in Bonn and to work towards ratification and entry into force of the Kyoto Treaty in 2002.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on Gibraltar. [1523]

  Peter Hain
  The Government will continue to stand by their commitments to the people of Gibraltar as set out in the Preamble to the Gibraltar Constitution. We have agreed with Spain to resume ministerial level talks on Gibraltar under the Brussels Process, and aim to use these talks to re-establish a framework for dialogue with Spain on a number of issues concerning Gibraltar. The Government intend that the Government of Gibraltar should be fully engaged in this process.

  Nepal
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Nepalese Government. [1524]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our Ambassador in Kathmandu has had substantive discussions with the Nepalese Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Finance Minister since the beginning of June.

  Peru
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with Peru. [1525]

  Mr. MacShane
  We congratulate the Peruvian Government on the successful conclusion of their elections and look forward to working closely with the new President, Alejandro Toledo. I shall be representing my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the 474W
  inauguration ceremony in Lima on 28 July. We express again our sorrow at the recent earthquake in Peru to which we pledged £250,000 of emergency relief.

  World Service
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the work of the BBC World Service. [1527]

  Mr. MacShane
  The BBC World Service is the best known and most respected voice in international broadcasting, increasing respect for, and good will towards, Britain around the world. The Government aim to ensure that the World Service retains its pre-eminent position. That is why we are providing an extra £64 million for it in 2001–04.

  Kashmir
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects of self-determination for the people of Kashmir. [1528]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is clear that any solution in Kashmir must involve, and reflect the views of, the people of Kashmir. We have therefore welcomed the Indian Government's decision to engage in dialogue with Kashmiris. We hope that all parties directly involved will find a just and lasting settlement soon.

  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in allowing human rights monitors to enter Indian-occupied Kashmir. [1517]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have consistently urged the Indian authorities to allow access to Kashmir for international human rights bodies, including the UN Rapporteurs on Torture and on Extra-judicial Executions and the Working Group on Disappearances, and organisations such as Amnesty International. We are disappointed that, after repeated requests from the organisations concerned, such visits have not yet been authorised.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet with President Boris Trajkovski to discuss the situation in Macedonia. [1531]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary plans to visit Macedonia soon. He spoke to President Trajkovski on 3 July and repeated our full support for the President's efforts to bring about a political settlement through dialogue. The situation in Macedonia remains grave but is not beyond repair. Early signs of progress are now beginning to emerge with a ceasefire agreement and positive movement on a political settlement.

  European Council
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his priorities for the European Council meetings in the coming year. [1532]
  475W
  Peter Hain
  We want the European Council in its meetings in the next 12 months 10 help maintain the momentum in the enlargement negotiations, so that these can be completed by the end of 2002 with those candidate countries which are ready; and, at the same time, to do whatever is necessary to assist the process of ratifying the Nice treaty. The European Council should promote the open debate on the future development of the EU as part of the preparation for the 2004 Intergovernmental Conference. It should continue its work in promoting a liberal global trading system, and in modernising Europe's economy to create more and better jobs, as agreed at Lisbon in 2000. It should review progress in implementing the sustainable development strategy agreed at Gothenburg last month. It should continue to create an area of freedom, security and justice, as agreed at Tampere in 1999; and in developing the common Foreign and Security Policy and the European Security and Defence Policy, and the Union's external relations more generally, to ensure that Europe's interests and objectives are properly projected on the world stage.

  Kenya
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on bilateral relations with Kenya. [1535]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK enjoys strong bilateral ties with Kenya. The UK is Kenya's second largest export market and Kenya's largest source of imports.

  We strongly support Kenya's economic reform process. This should bring sustained economic growth, greater accountability and efficiency in the public sector, and improved services to the poor.

  European Parliaments
  Rosemary McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to strengthen relations between Parliaments in Europe. [1536]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has proposed that representatives of national parliaments be more involved in European matters through a Second Chamber of the European Parliament which could review the EU's work and provide democratic oversight at a European level of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

  The role of national parliament in the European architecture is one of the agenda items for the next Intergovernmental Conference in 2004. We welcome all contributions to the debate on this issue.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Western Sahara. [1537]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We fully support the efforts of the UN Secretary General, his Personal Envoy, James Baker, and the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) to find a just and lasting solution to the situation in Western Sahara.

  UN Commission on Human Rights (Voting Records)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the recorded outcome of the vote was, how his vote was cast, and which other states voted with him at the UN Commission on Human Rights in March and April on(a) statement 2001/3 submitted by Cuba on mercenaries, (b) statement 2001/16 submitted by the Czech Republic on Cuba, (c) statement 2001/26 submitted by South Africa on human rights unilateral coercive measures and (d) statement 2001/36 submitted by Cuba on popular participation and democracy. [2315]

  Peter Hain
  The Commission on Human Rights is one of the main forums in which international human rights standards are drawn up and monitored. We are committed to playing a major role at CHR, and ensuring that human rights violations, wherever they take place, are brought to the attention of the international community.

  The UK voted against the Cuban resolution on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination (2001/3). It was adopted by 35 votes to 11 with six abstentions. Japan, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Norway and the US also voted against.

  The UK voted for the Czech resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in Cuba (2001/16). It was adopted by 22 votes to 20 with 10 abstentions. Cameroon, Madagascar, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Argentina, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Uruguay, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain and the US voted with the UK.

  The UK voted against the South African resolution on Human Rights and Unilateral Coercive Measures (2001/26). The resolution was adopted by 37 votes to seven with eight abstentions. (Japan, Latvia, Poland, Germany, Norway and the US also voted against).

  The UK voted against the Cuban resolution on Strengthening of Popular Participation, Equity, Social Justice and Non-discrimination as Essential Foundations of Democracy (2001/36). The resolution was adopted by 28 votes to four with 21 abstentions. (Germany, Japan, and the USA also voted against).

  I will send my hon. Friend a full voting record, which shows how each CHR member voted on each resolution. A copy will also be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will respond to the Foreign Affairs Committee's Fifth Report of Session 2000–01: European Union Enlargement and Nice Follow-up, HC318. [2397]

  Peter Hain
  The Government's response to the Foreign Affairs Committee's report will be laid before the House rises on 20 July.

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received from the Government of the Russian Federation concerning Her Majesty's Government's recent proposals to the Security Council of the United Nations on Smart sanctions on Iraq. [2707]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  On 1 June 2001 the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1352, confirming its agreement to the principles which we and the US had proposed to change the sanctions regime against Iraq. Later this month, however, Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov sent a message to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in which he made it clear that the Russian Federation would not allow the adoption of our draft resolution detailing those new arrangements. There have also been regular discussions at official level both in New York and elsewhere in recent months. We will continue to try to resolve outstanding issues with the Council members in the hope of introducing our new approach as soon as possible.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of the recent proposals by Her Majesty's Government to the Security Council of the United Nations concerning Smart sanctions on Iraq. [2733]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have placed in the Library copies of the intervention made by our Permanent Representative to the United Nations during the formal Security Council debate on Iraq on 26 and 28 June and his Explanation of Vote during consideration of the oil for food rollover resolution on 3 July. These set out the proposals we have put forward for changes to the UN sanctions regime against Iraq.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent decision by the United Nations Security Council to delay a decision on sanctions against Iraq for another five months. [2671]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  On 1 June 2001 the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1352, confirming its agreement to the principles which we and the US had proposed to change UN controls on Iraq. The Council set itself 30 days to agree the details of arrangements to improve the flow of civilian goods to the Iraqi people while maintaining controls on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Despite widespread international support for these proposals the Council was unable to agree the details within that time scale. While we regret that we were unable to introduce the new system as early as we had wished, we remain serious about addressing the Iraqi people's needs and controls on Iraq's weapons. Work will therefore continue in New York to resolve the outstanding issues as soon as possible.

  Nuclear Material (Russia)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last reviewed the aid budget allocated to assist the former Soviet Union with a programme to contain then reduce the hazards from deteriorating nuclear material in the Murmansk region. [1513]
  478W
  Peter Hain
  In 2000 Her Majesty's Government carried out a comprehensive review of the nuclear safety and security problems in the countries of the former Soviet Union. This included an assessment of the hazards from deteriorating nuclear material in the Murmansk region. As a result of the review the UK pledged £84 million over three years to tackle a range of nuclear problems in the former Soviet Union, including that material in the Murmansk region. This budget is regularly reviewed by an inter-departmental committee, which includes officials from the FCO.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his Russian counterparts to agree a programme for disbursing aid to assist in containing and reducing hazards from deteriorating nuclear material in the Murmansk region; and when he expects that programme to commence. [1514]

  Peter Hain
  The Secretary of State has not yet had the opportunity to meet his Russian counterpart to discuss the hazards from deteriorating nuclear material in the Murmansk region. His predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), most recently discussed this issue with the Russian Prime Minister on 20 September 2000. There have also been regular and frequent contacts at official level to seek to move forward with disbursing our assistance. I hope such a programme will commence in the near future, once the Russian Government agree to provide adequate legal framework arrangements.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of(a) the extent of the hazards of deteriorating nuclear material (i) in the Kola Peninsula and (ii) at other military establishments in Russia; and (b) the costs of eliminating these hazards. [1515]

  Peter Hain
  In 2000 Her Majesty's Government carried out a comprehensive review of the nuclear safety and security problems in the countries of the former Soviet Union. This included an assessment of the hazards of nuclear material on the Kola Peninsula and at other military establishments in Russia. As a result of the review the UK pledged £84 million over three years to tackle a range of nuclear problems in the former Soviet Union. A top priority will be work to decommission radioactive waste from decommissioned Russian nuclear submarines: it is estimated that there are over 100 such vessels in and around the Kola Peninsula, and over 70 in the rest of the Russian Federation.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy on pledging support to the Russian Federation Military Plutonium Disposition Programme; if he will place in the Library copies of(a) all UK submissions and (b) other submissions relevant to UK policy to the G8 meeting this month in Genoa, in respect of the deliberation of the Russian Plutonium Programme. [3010]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK pledged £70 million over a 10-year period at the Okinawa Summit in July 2000 to support the Russian Federation Military Plutonium Disposition Programme. We have continued to play a full role in the programme through our membership of the G8 Plutonium Disposition Planning Group (PDPG), which has been dedicated to taking this work forward. The
  479W
  Group has met regularly since its formation in late 2000 and has produced a report for consideration at the Genoa Summit. An unclassified copy was placed in the House of Commons Library on 9 July 2001. We are aware of no other submissions to the G8 Summit in Genoa.

  Amnesty International
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking to assist Amnesty International in securing the release of(a) U Ohn Maung, (b) U Sein Hla Oo, (c) Dr. Than Nyein and (d) U Tun Kywe in Burma. [3259]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We take every opportunity bilaterally, through the EU and also the United Nations to press the Burmese regime to release all political prisoners.

  As my hon. Friend will be aware, all four people mentioned are MPs-elect for the National League for Democracy, which overwhelmingly won the general

  Family visit visa applications 2001

  Applications received

  Applications determined

  Applications allowed

  Applications refused

  April

  May

  April

  May

  April

  May

  April

  May

  1. Abidjan

  26

  29

  24

  31

  23

  30

  1

  1

  2. Abu Dhabi

  64

  102

  53

  89

  45

  79

  8

  10

  3. Abuja

  0

  27

  0

  15

  0

  9

  0

  6

  4. Accra

  1,969

  2,410

  1,294

  2,373

  302

  1,346

  992

  1,027

  5. Addis Ababa

  15

  10

  15

  11

  7

  4

  8

  7

  6. Almaty

  25

  13

  25

  13

  24

  10

  1

  3

  7. Amman

  11

  10

  12

  10

  11

  9

  1

  1

  8. Amsterdam

  48

  57

  48

  57

  43

  56

  5

  1

  9. Ankara

  27

  32

  27

  32

  25

  32

  2

  0

  10. Bahrain

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11. Baku

  13

  16

  13

  13

  13

  13

  0

  0

  12. Bangkok

  69

  197

  125

  145

  88

  111

  37

  34

  13. Banjul

  80

  104

  60

  67

  51

  59

  9

  8

  14. Beirut

  128

  183

  126

  181

  126

  181

  0

  0

  15. Belgrade

  146

  85

  146

  96

  140

  83

  6

  13

  16. Bogota

  103

  158

  103

  158

  95

  146

  8

  12

  17. Bombay

  2,429

  2,706

  2,430

  2,696

  1,999

  2,159

  431

  537

  18. Bratislava

  153

  198

  146

  176

  146

  175

  0

  1

  19. Brussels

  33

  18

  14

  7

  14

  6

  0

  1

  20. Bucharest

  111

  182

  112

  179

  106

  174

  6

  5

  21. Budapest

  8

  6

  8

  6

  8

  4

  0

  2

  22. Cairo

  193

  322

  186

  316

  179

  298

  7

  18

  23. Calcutta

  338

  450

  337

  449

  335

  445

  2

  4

  24. Canberra

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  25. Casablanca

  104

  106

  104

  105

  99

  98

  5

  7

  26. Chicago

  200

  368

  182

  356

  180

  355

  2

  1

  27. Colombo

  110

  130

  100

  130

  35

  93

  65

  37

  28. Copenhagen

  45

  53

  43

  49

  43

  49

  0

  0

  29. Dakar

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  30. Damascus

  50

  108

  49

  107

  45

  102

  4

  5

  31. Dar Es Salaam

  90

  123

  89

  130

  79

  116

  10

  14

  32. Dhaka

  521

  569

  421

  509

  246

  297

  175

  212

  33. Doha

  22

  45

  22

  45

  19

  43

  3

  2

  34. Dubai

  96

  178

  60

  143

  54

  118

  6

  25

  35. Dublin

  16

  37

  20

  32

  18

  30

  2

  2

  36. Dusseldorf

  331

  316

  302

  261

  301

  258

  1

  3

  37. Ekaterinburg

  20

  0

  20

  0

  19

  0

  1

  0

  38. Geneva

  65

  85

  62

  80

  61

  74

  1

  6

  39. Georgetown

  47

  74

  62

  74

  61

  67

  1

  7

  40. Guangzhou

  230

  234

  185

  167

  161

  152

  24

  15

  41. Hanoi

  4

  15

  6

  7

  1

  4

  5

  3

  42. Harare

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  43. Havana

  2

  1

  2

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  44. Hong Kong

  44

  95

  34

  72

  34

  72

  0

  0

  45. Islamabad

  2,994

  1—

  2,985

  0

  2,070

  1—

  915

  1—

  46. Istanbul

  389

  460

  278

  368

  247

  325

  31

  43

  47. Jakarta

  63

  119

  66

  127

  59

  122

  7

  5

  480W
  election in Burma in 1990. The latest information we have from the National League for Democracy is that only three MPs-elect remain in prison and that all those listed have been released.

  I very much welcome the recent release of over 30 MPs-elect from detention in Burma and hope this represents the start of an ongoing process leading to the early release of all political prisoners and national reconciliation.

  Family Visit Visas
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a breakdown, by entry clearance post, of the number of family visit visa applications(a) received, (b) determined, (c) allowed and (d) refused in (i) April and (ii) May. [3308]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our latest information from the 108 entry clearance posts which submit monthly statistical data is as follows:
  481W

  Family visit visa applications 2001

  Applications received

  Applications determined

  Applications allowed

  Applications refused

  April

  May

  April

  May

  April

  May

  April

  May

  48. Jeddah

  0

  0

  0

  10

  0

  0

  0

  10

  49. Jerusalem

  28

  72

  28

  68

  28

  68

  0

  0

  50. Kampala

  186

  116

  175

  108

  148

  93

  27

  15

  51. Karachi

  569

  1,251

  569

  1,251

  487

  1,021

  82

  230

  52. Kathmandu

  0

  152

  0

  117

  0

  98

  0

  19

  53. Khartoum

  100

  115

  51

  78

  37

  58

  14

  20

  54. Kiev

  128

  147

  108

  150

  97

  132

  11

  18

  55. Kingston

  118

  140

  113

  129

  103

  114

  10

  15

  56. Kuala Lumpur

  17

  22

  18

  22

  15

  17

  3

  5

  57. Kuwait

  42

  67

  42

  67

  35

  59

  7

  8

  58. Lagos

  2,436

  1—

  1,710

  0

  1,614

  1—

  96

  1—

  59. Lima

  21

  52

  21

  52

  21

  50

  0

  2

  60. Los Angeles

  321

  423

  321

  423

  321

  422

  0

  1

  61. Luanda

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  62. Lusaka

  66

  1—

  66

  0

  62

  1—

  4

  1—

  63. Madras

  656

  577

  671

  595

  652

  579

  19

  16

  64. Madrid

  29

  38

  29

  38

  29

  37

  0

  1

  65. Manila

  145

  223

  145

  223

  93

  155

  52

  68

  66. Mexico City

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  67. Minsk

  31

  39

  30

  31

  30

  30

  0

  1

  68. Moscow

  357

  438

  342

  400

  334

  386

  8

  14

  69. Muscat

  100

  96

  100

  92

  95

  89

  5

  3

  70. Nairobi

  238

  342

  238

  342

  211

  303

  27

  39

  71. New Delhi

  2,017

  2,991

  2,017

  2,991

  1,371

  2,160

  648

  831

  72. New York

  675

  985

  660

  969

  660

  968

  0

  1

  73. Nicosia

  156

  252

  153

  6

  148

  0

  5

  6

  74. Oslo

  73

  99

  72

  92

  71

  92

  1

  0

  75. Ottawa

  336

  522

  248

  431

  247

  431

  1

  0

  76. Paris

  339

  348

  328

  353

  326

  352

  2

  1

  77. Peking

  202

  355

  196

  345

  182

  337

  14

  8

  78. Port Louis

  373

  605

  373

  601

  356

  585

  17

  16

  79. Port of Spain

  3

  10

  2

  12

  2

  12

  0

  0

  80. Prague

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  81. Pretoria

  12

  19

  12

  11

  10

  9

  2

  2

  82. Quito

  18

  30

  18

  28

  18

  28

  0

  0

  83. Riga

  6

  1—

  6

  0

  6

  1—

  0

  1—

  84. Riyadh

  8

  11

  15

  31

  7

  19

  8

  12

  85. Rome

  99

  80

  86

  76

  82

  75

  4

  1

  86. Sana'a

  6

  1—

  6

  0

  4

  1—

  2

  1—

  87. Santo Domingo

  3

  4

  3

  4

  2

  3

  1

  1

  88. Sarajevo

  81

  86

  81

  86

  77

  82

  4

  4

  89. Shanghai

  144

  174

  144

  180

  125

  159

  19

  21

  90. Singapore

  36

  55

  32

  57

  31

  57

  1

  0

  91. Skopje

  1

  1

  1

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1

  92. Sofia

  144

  151

  143

  148

  143

  147

  0

  1

  93. St. Petersburg

  78

  114

  78

  114

  75

  109

  3

  5

  94. Stockholm

  106

  146

  129

  155

  126

  154

  3

  1

  95. Taipei

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  96. Tashkent

  24

  29

  24

  29

  23

  29

  1

  0

  97. Tbilisi

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  98. Tehran

  0

  1,099

  1,554

  1,063

  1,515

  1,018

  39

  45

  99. Tirana

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  100. Tokyo

  5

  11

  5

  10

  5

  8

  0

  2

  101. Tripoli

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  102. Tunis

  130

  155

  130

  155

  105

  116

  25

  39

  103. Vienna

  12

  9

  12

  9

  12

  9

  1—

  0

  104. Warsaw

  1

  5

  0

  3

  0

  1

  0

  2

  105. Washington

  0

  504

  0

  497

  0

  496

  0

  1

  106. Wellington

  0

  5

  0

  5

  0

  5

  0

  0

  107. Yaounde

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  108. Zagreb

  137

  131

  132

  131

  127

  128

  5

  3

  Total

  22,195

  23,727

  21,835

  22,673

  17,882

  19,106

  3,953

  3,567

  1 Information not yet received from Posts

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a breakdown, by entry clearance post, of the number of family visit visa refusals in relation to which(a) an appeal was received, (b) the refusal was overturned by an entry
  482W
  clearance manager after receipt of an appeal and (c) an appeal was despatched in (i) April and (ii) May. [3309]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our latest information from the 108 entry clearance posts which submit monthly statistical data is as follows.
  483W

  Family visit visa refusals 2001

  Appeals received

  Refusals overturned by ECM

  Appeals despatched

  April

  May

  April

  May

  April

  May

  1. Abidjan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2. Abu Dhabi

  1

  3

  0

  0

  1

  2

  3. Abuja

  0

  9

  0

  0

  0

  4

  4. Accra

  22

  36

  2

  0

  24

  17

  5. Addis Ababa

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  6. Almaty

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7. Amman

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  8. Amsterdam

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9. Ankara

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10. Bahrain

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11. Baku

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  12. Bangkok

  3

  11

  1

  0

  2

  9

  13. Banjul

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  14. Beirut

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15. Belgrade

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  16. Bogota

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  17. Bombay

  32

  42

  2

  4

  21

  32

  18. Bratislava

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  19. Brussels

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20. Bucharest

  0

  3

  0

  1

  0

  2

  21. Budapest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  22. Cairo

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  23. Calcutta

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  24. Canberra

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  25. Casablanca

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  26. Chicago

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  27. Colombo

  8

  10

  1

  2

  7

  8

  28. Copenhagen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  29. Dakar

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  30. Damascus

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  31. Dar Es Salaam

  3

  4

  0

  0

  1

  4

  32. Dhaka

  20

  22

  0

  2

  20

  18

  33. Doha

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  34. Dubai

  5

  0

  0

  3

  4

  6

  35. Dublin

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  36. Dusseldorf

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  37. Ekaterinburg

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  38. Geneva

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  39. Georgetown

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  0

  40. Guangzhou

  2

  2

  2

  0

  2

  0

  41. Hanoi

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  42. Harare

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  43. Havana

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  44. Hong Kong

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  45. Islamabad

  166

  1—

  6

  1—

  50

  1—

  46. Istanbul

  3

  5

  1

  0

  4

  5

  47. Jakarta

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  48. Jeddah

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  49. Jerusalem

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  50. Kampala

  1

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  51. Karachi

  17

  12

  0

  3

  5

  18

  52. Kathmandu

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  53. Khartoum

  0

  8

  2

  0

  2

  6

  54. Kiev

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  55. Kingston

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  56. Kuala Lumpur

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  57. Kuwait

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  58. Lagos

  47

  1—

  7

  1—

  45

  1—

  59. Lima

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  60. Los Angeles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  61. Luanda

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  62. Lusaka

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  63. Madras

  3

  1

  0

  0

  5

  2

  64. Madrid

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  65. Manila

  28

  15

  0

  0

  20

  4

  66. Mexico City

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  67. Minsk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  68. Moscow

  3

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  69. Muscat

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  70. Nairobi

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  71. New Delhi

  45

  51

  4

  8

  31

  24

  72. New York

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  73. Nicosia

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  74. Oslo

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  484W

  Family visit visa refusals 2001

  Appeals received

  Refusals overturned by ECM

  Appeals despatched

  April

  May

  April

  May

  April

  May

  75. Ottawa

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  76. Paris

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  77. Peking

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  78. Port Louis

  1

  4

  1

  0

  0

  4

  79. Port of Spain

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  80. Prague

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  81. Pretoria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  82. Quito

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  83. Riga

  0

  1—

  0

  1—

  0

  1—

  84. Riyadh

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  85. Rome

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  86. Sana'a

  5

  1—

  1

  1—

  6

  1—

  87. Santo Domingo

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  88. Sarajevo

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  89. Shanghai

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  90. Singapore

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  91. Skopje

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  92. Sofia

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  93. St. Petersburg

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  94. Stockholm

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  95. Taipei

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  96. Tashkent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  97. Tbilisi

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  98. Tehran

  2

  4

  0

  0

  1

  2

  99. Tirana

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  100. Tokyo

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  101. Tripoli

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  3

  102. Tunis

  1

  12

  0

  0

  1

  12

  103. Vienna

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  104. Warsaw

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  105. Washington

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  106. Wellington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  107. Yaounde

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  108. Zagreb

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  436

  274

  33

  24

  266

  190

  1 Information not yet received from Posts

  The Balkans
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the Balkans. [1548]

  Mr. MacShane
  The problems in Macedonia threaten the stability of the Balkans region. Following international facilitation, there appear to be early signs of progress: a ceasefire was agreed last week, and Macedonian party leaders are now in talks to agree a final political settlement. Regionally, we are working with partners and key international organisations to help foster peace and stability, focusing on regional co-operation, inter-ethnic reconciliation and economic reform through the Stability Pact and the EU's Stabilisation and Association Process.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Horticultural Research Site (Efford)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the future of the horticultural research site at Efford near Lymington. [1394]

  Mr. Morley
  The Chief Executive of Horticulture Research International informs me that its Efford site is very much part of the future of the organisation as set out in its restructuring plan approved by my predecessor last
  485W
  year. The new site manager is working closely with the horticulture industry to ensure that Efford carries out the research and knowledge transfer activities which can best support growers. HRI is also exploring the scope for collaborative work and joint ventures with Southampton University and Chilworth Science Park.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what genetically-modified crops are being grown at the horticultural research establishment at Efford near Lymington. [1395]

  Mr. Meacher
  HRI has informed us that a small number of genetically modified banana plants are being grown under Health and Safety Executive approved and licensed containment conditions under glass at HRI's Efford site. These plants contribute to a doctoral research project undertaken in collaboration with a UK University which is investigating the fundamental processes in the ripening of fruits.

  Whaling
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress with international agreements on whaling. [1534]

  Mr. Morley
  The next meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is to take place from 23–27 July in London. We shall take this opportunity to reaffirm our opposition to all forms of whaling other than some subsistence whaling by indigenous people. We shall also resist any attempts by those in support of a resumption of commercial whaling to lift the current moratorium. There will be further discussion on the Revised Management Scheme, welfare aspects of whaling killing, Whale Sanctuaries in the South Pacific and South Atlantic and on whale stocks.

  The Government will be making a statement shortly on the line we propose to take at the IWC meeting.

  Artificial Reef Project
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will announce a decision on the artificial reef project off Whitsand Bay. [2690]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: The application to place a vessel on the seabed in Whitsand Bay is currently under consideration and our decision on whether to issue a licence under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 will be announced shortly.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many CAP grants were paid directly into foreign banks in each year from 1997 to date; and how much money was paid in each year. [1401]

  Mr. Morley
  No CAP grants were paid directly into foreign bank accounts in any of the years from 1997 to date.

  Beef (Special Premium Claims)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the European Commission's proposals to(a) reduce the UK national ceiling for beef special premium claims and (b) reduce the stocking density limits. [1592]

  Mr. Morley
  The overall effect of the proposal to reduce the EU national BSP ceilings is to reduce the potential for expansion of production. Based on recent usage figures it does not imply an immediate significant reduction in production. As the UK has historically used the majority of its available ceiling we have not had to bear the more severe cuts imposed on some other member states, and suffer only a 4 per cent. cut in ceiling. Forecasts have predicted that production in 2002–03 will be almost the same level as that of 1997. This would mean that the UK would have a total number of claims below its revised ceiling and producers would not be subjected to clawback on their beef special premium claims.

  The overall effect of lowering of the stocking density limits on beef special premium and suckler cow premium claims, from 2.0 livestock units per hectare (LU/ha) to 1.9 LU/ha in 2002, is difficult to assess since the reduced limits will have different effects at the level of individual producers. In some cases it is possible that farmers might have to reduce claims in order to meet the stocking density limits. However, all assessments will be clouded by the restocking position of farmers who have been affected by foot and mouth disease controls.

  Over-30-months Scheme
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will reintroduce in areas which have been declared provisionally free of foot and mouth disease the over-30-months slaughter scheme for cattle; and if she will make a statement. [2599]

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment the Government have made of the need to reopen the over-30-months scheme. [2573]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 July 2001]: The over-30-months scheme has been suspended, other than in Northern Ireland and for casualty animals in Great Britain, due to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. As a consequence beef and dairy producers have had to retain eligible cattle longer than they would wish, incurring feeding and other costs and without income from scheme payments. The scheme will be reopened as soon as the processing capacity, which has been diverted to deal with the foot and mouth outbreak, can be made available to the scheme.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if energy suppliers can meet energy efficiency targets set under the Energy Efficiency Commitment scheme by expansion of the gas network. [2301]
  487W
  Mr. Meacher
  Under the proposed Energy Efficiency Commitment for 2002–05, gas and electricity suppliers will be required to meet energy efficiency targets. It is proposed that companies should be free to develop the most cost-effective schemes. The Regulator would be responsible for determining whether any proposed action qualifies towards a supplier's energy efficiency target and, if so, what improvement in energy efficiency should be attributed to it. I propose to issue a consultation paper on the commitment in the summer.

  Recycling
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to set higher targets for recycling. [1919]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government set out our programme for delivering sustainable waste management in "Waste Strategy 2000", published in May last year, and have set out statutory targets under best value for local authorities to double the amount of household waste recycled within three years and almost treble it within five years. We will keep the targets for household waste recycling and composting under review, and increase them as appropriate once these initial targets have been reached.

  Young Farmers
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what efforts are being made to encourage young farmers in the agricultural industry, with particular reference to family and livestock farming. [2174]

  Mr. Morley
  One of the key tasks for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is to work with all concerned to develop an economically viable, sustainable, diverse and dynamic farming industry. The enthusiasm and fresh ideas young farmers bring to the industry will be vital in helping to secure this aim, as are the skills of the many family-run livestock farms which are currently struggling to cope with the appalling difficulties caused by the foot and mouth disease outbreak.

  The Government are supporting the industry in many ways. These include the measures in the Agriculture Strategy launched last year and the food and mouth recovery programme announced on 8 May by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Work the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Together these measures will help create the economic conditions in which a restructured industry can flourish once foot and mouth disease has been eradicated. This will be of benefit to all farmers including young farmers and family-run farms.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to reply to the letter to her predecessor from the right hon. Member for Berkwick-upon-Tweed dated 8 February about genetically indexed flocks, to which a holding reply was sent on 12 February. [1486]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 July 2001]: I replied to the letter from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed on 4 July 2001.
  488W
  Mr. Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letters regarding Mr. Stephen Dorey of Norton Disney of 25 May and 12 and 18 June. [1980]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replied to the letters from the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) on 2 July 2001.

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many administrative staff were employed by the Intervention Board in each of the last 10 years. [1716]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Administrative staff employed by the Intervention Board between March 1992 and March 2001

  Permanent staff

  Casual staff

  Total

  March 1992

  972

  41

  1,013

  March 1993

  1,037

  66

  1,103

  March 1994

  984

  63

  1,047

  March 1995

  933

  116

  1,049

  March 1996

  902

  76

  978

  March 1997

  1,014

  184

  1,198

  March 1998

  1,143

  302

  1,445

  March 1999

  1,241

  230

  1,471

  March 2000

  1,280

  122

  1,402

  March 2001

  11,242

  199

  11,341

  1 March 2001 figures are not yet published

  Note:

  Figures are based on the staff in post as at 31 March and are published in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts

  Light Lambs
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the need for(a) a light lamb disposal scheme and (b) a light lamb storage scheme. [1692]

  Mr. Morley
  We estimate that there will be approximately 1.5 million light lambs (live lambs up to around 30 kgs in weight) born this year which, because of the foot and mouth disease-related export ban, cannot be exported to their traditional market outlets in Southern Europe. We are currently examining all possible options for dealing with the problems expected to arise as a result of the closure of export markets.

  Foot and Mouth
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations have been made by the farming community as to the use of foreign vets in efforts to eradicate the foot and mouth crisis. [2178]

  Mr. Morley
  No representations have been made by the farming community as to the use of foreign vets in efforts to eradicate the foot and mouth crisis.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment the Government have made of the possibility of foot and mouth disease being spread as a result of burning as a disposal method. [2194]
  489W
  Mr. Morley
  Veterinary advice is that once rigor mortis set in (approximately 24 hours after slaughter) the consequent fall in PH rapidly destroys foot and mouth virus present in muscle tissue. Carcases are soaked in approved disinfectant to destroy any virus on external surfaces and the conditions of cremation are such that any virus surviving in other internal organs (such as lymph nodes or bone marrow) is likely to be destroyed before it could be dispersed from the pyre. Any risk of spread of the virus from a pyre is therefore considered to be minimal.

  A collaborative study was carried out with input from the Institute for Animal Health (World Reference Laboratory for foot and mouth disease), the Met Office and DEFRA. The report was published in The Veterinary Record, 12 May 2001, pages 585–86 and concluded that disease outbreaks due to virus dispersion from pyres is unlikely to occur in general and that the data analysed showed no evidence that infection due to this cause has occurred.

  Contributors to the publication "Spread of foot-and-mouth disease from the burning of animal carcases on open pyres" were John Gloster, Helen Hewson, David Mackay, Tony Garland, Alex Donaldson, Ian Mason, Richard Brown.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action will be taken against the officer in Monmouthshire who attempted to shoot sheep in a field at long range. [786]

  Mr. Morley
  The marksman concerned was contracted to Monmouthshire county council, who have sent a report to the National Assembly of Wales. The Assembly is considering whether further action may be required.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment the Government have made of the need to protect hill flocks; and what plans there are to do so. [2558]

  Mr. Morley
  A number of measures have been taken to protect hill flocks while not jeopardising the primary objective of eradicating foot and mouth disease. Following consultation in April, the Government introduced a scheme on 3 May, providing for owners of rare breeds of sheep and goats and hefted sheep to apply for exemptions from the contiguous and 3 km culls. On 11 May exceptional arrangements were introduced for the movement of sheep, cattle and goats to common grazings in order to meet the problems affecting hill flocks. On 5 July special arrangements for sheep movement from common land to deal with shearing and other husbandry practices necessary for the welfare of sheep were also announced. We have also contributed to the establishment of the Heritage gene bank to ensure the retention of genes of sheep breeds indigenous to the UK.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many strains of the foot and mouth virus exist; whether vaccines offer protection against each; and if she will make a statement. [1982]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]: There are seven serotypes of foot and mouth disease, namely: types O, A, C, South Africa type 1, South Africa type 2,
  490W
  South Africa type 3, and type Asia 1. Vaccination against one of the seven serotypes protects against that serotype but not necessarily against the other six serotypes.

  Within the seven serotypes there are strains, some of which are sufficiently different from each other to provide little or no cross-protection. New strains of virus can and do arise in the field.

  Vaccines can be manufactured to contain several serotypes and strains of virus appropriate to a given epidemiological situation.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to remove all farms from D notice status within Gloucestershire. [1670]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: A substantial amount of surveillance work has already been done in Gloucestershire, but more remains to be carried out. We hope to be able to lift the remaining Protection Zones in Gloucestershire in the next two to three weeks, provided that there are no further outbreaks.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many animals have been slaughtered as a result of foot and mouth disease. [2184]

  Mr. Morley
  As at 2 July, 3,458,000 animals had been compulsorily slaughtered as a result of foot and mouth disease in Great Britain.

  This information can be found on the DEFRA foot and mouth disease website (www.defr.gov.uk/footandmouth/) and is updated daily.

  Source:
  DEFRA Disease Control System database—figures subject to revision as more data become available.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many animals have been(a) slaughtered and (b) disposed of in each day during the foot and mouth crisis. [2189]

  Mr. Morley
  The table shows details of the number of animals compulsorily slaughtered and disposed of on each day of the foot and mouth crisis in Great Britain. As at 2 July the cumulative total number of animals slaughtered and disposed of were 3,458,000 and 3,441,000 respectively.

  Thousand

  Day

  Slaughterings

  Disposals

  23 February 2001

  1

  0

  24 February 2001

  0

  0

  25 February 2001

  1

  1

  26 February 2001

  0

  1

  27 February 2001

  2

  1

  28 February 2001

  5

  0

  1 March 2001

  6

  0

  2 March 2001

  7

  2

  3 March 2001

  6

  4

  4 March 2001

  12

  3

  5 March 2001

  4

  3

  6 March 2001

  17

  8

  7 March 2001

  12

  8

  8 March 2001

  4

  17

  9 March 2001

  14

  9

  10 March 2001

  14

  9

  11 March 2001

  13

  11

  491W

  Thousand

  Day

  Slaughterings

  Disposals

  12 March 2001

  9

  5

  13 March 2001

  14

  13

  14 March 2001

  27

  22

  15 March 2001

  19

  15

  16 March 2001

  29

  26

  17 March 2001

  11

  15

  18 March 2001

  40

  23

  19 March 2001

  21

  24

  20 March 2001

  26

  27

  21 March 2001

  38

  27

  22 March 2001

  53

  30

  23 March 2001

  40

  31

  24 March 2001

  52

  51

  25 March 2001

  42

  33

  26 March 2001

  47

  37

  27 March 2001

  47

  29

  28 March 2001

  56

  46

  29 March 2001

  55

  55

  30 March 2001

  102

  75

  31 March 2001

  86

  70

  1 April 2001

  78

  57

  2 April 2001

  77

  83

  3 April 2001

  90

  75

  4 April 2001

  86

  88

  5 April 2001

  84

  110

  6 April 2001

  98

  79

  7 April 2001

  90

  85

  8 April 2001

  72

  84

  9 April 2001

  81

  82

  10 April 2001

  88

  86

  11 April 2001

  85

  76

  12 April 2001

  74

  74

  13 April 2001

  81

  70

  14 April 2001

  101

  76

  15 April 2001

  78

  109

  16 April 2001

  66

  71

  17 April 2001

  50

  63

  19 April 2001

  71

  70

  20 April 2001

  60

  103

  21 April 2001

  78

  67

  22 April 2001

  47

  87

  23 April 2001

  41

  43

  24 April 2001

  46

  67

  25 April 2001

  23

  34

  26 April 2001

  39

  41

  27 April 2001

  36

  56

  28 April 2001

  27

  36

  29 April 2001

  19

  25

  30 April 2001

  14

  41

  1 May 2001

  17

  28

  2 May 2001

  10

  17

  3 May 2001

  21

  15

  4 May 2001

  8

  22

  5 May 2001

  24

  11

  6 May 2001

  15

  16

  7 May 2001

  11

  17

  8 May 2001

  7

  10

  9 May 2001

  10

  12

  10 May 2001

  12

  13

  11 May 2001

  7

  6

  12 May 2001

  10

  8

  13 May 2001

  4

  6

  14 May 2001

  12

  9

  15 May 2001

  11

  10

  16 May 2001

  7

  13

  17 May 2001

  6

  2

  18 May 2001

  6

  5

  19 May 2001

  14

  9

  20 May 2001

  8

  15

  21 May 2001

  10

  12

  22 May 2001

  11

  10

  23 May 2001

  10

  12

  492W

  Thousand

  Day

  Slaughterings

  Disposals

  24 May 2001

  23

  15

  25 May 2001

  16

  19

  26 May 2001

  12

  11

  27 May 2001

  14

  15

  28 May 2001

  11

  8

  29 May 2001

  9

  14

  30 May 2001

  10

  12

  31 May 2001

  5

  6

  1 June 2001

  12

  11

  2 June 2001

  5

  9

  3 June 2001

  12

  5

  4 June 2001

  18

  15

  5 June 2001

  11

  19

  6 June 2001

  5

  7

  7 June 2001

  8

  7

  8 June 2001

  6

  4

  9 June 2001

  7

  7

  10 June 2001

  5

  6

  11 June 2001

  16

  7

  12 June 2001

  6

  15

  13 June 2001

  13

  13

  14 June 2001

  7

  6

  15 June 2001

  4

  1

  16 June 2001

  18

  11

  17 June 2001

  9

  11

  18 June 2001

  7

  12

  19 June 2001

  8

  6

  20 June 2001

  12

  9

  21 June 2001

  4

  7

  22 June 2001

  3

  2

  23 June 2001

  6

  7

  24 June 2001

  9

  3

  25 June 2001

  7

  15

  26 June 2001

  2

  2

  27 June 2001

  4

  2

  28 June 2001

  2

  2

  29 June 2001

  4

  3

  30 June 2001

  4

  3

  1 July 2001

  5

  3

  2 July 2001

  1

  2

  Source:

  DEFRA Disease Control System database—figures subject to revision as more data become available

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the duration of the current foot and mouth disease outbreak. [2181]

  Mr. Morley
  Because of its nature, the Chief Veterinary Officer has always said that the outbreak would have a long tail. Stock owners can assist by carrying out biosecurity measures as recommended.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what arrangements are being made to compensate farmers whose livestock passed the 30-month deadline but could not be sent to abattoirs because of foot and mouth; and if she will make a statement. [2943]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: I appreciate that producers of clean cattle which cannot be marketed at under 30 months of age by virtue of foot and mouth disease movement restrictions will suffer a significant loss of return when such cattle are eventually sold into the over-30-month scheme (OTMS). We are alive to this problem and are considering what action might be appropriate in the context of further measures.
  493W
  Our first priority must, however, be to isolate and eradicate the disease, so that normal patterns of marketing can be restored. Once this has been done, we will be in a better position to determine the extent to which producers have been obliged to retain cattle which would have been sold at under 30 months of age but which had subsequently to go into the OTMS, and the extent of resultant losses.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will order a public inquiry into the current outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. [2094]

  Mr. Morley
  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 as such be a matter for the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many sheep in upland areas her Department has tested for foot and mouth; how many and what percentage carried the foot and mouth antibody; and if she will make a statement; [1489]

  (2) which flocks of upland sheep and at what locations in the UK have been tested for foot and mouth disease; and how many and what percentage were found to be positive. [1981]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 and 4 July 2001]: The Department does not categorise sheep flocks sampled for serological testing as "upland" or "lowland". There has, however, been specific testing of hefted sheep which are all found in upland areas. To date, 1,727 adult sheep in 29 hefted flocks have been sampled.

  The distribution of these flocks by regional office is as follows:

  Carlisle: 14

  Exeter: 2

  Ayr: 11

  Leeds: 1

  Cardiff: 1.

  Regulation

  Section

  Consultation commended

  Date regulations in force

  Regulations regarding mapping of access land and consultation on draft maps

  Section 11

  March 2001

  October 2001

  Regulations regarding the establishment of LAFs and the appointment of members

  Section 94 (Part V)

  July 2001

  December 2001

  Regulations regarding issue of provisional maps, appeals, and issue of conclusive maps

  Section 11

  October 2001

  April 2002

  Regulations regarding dedication of land for access

  Section 16

  October 2001

  March 2002

  Regulations relating to exclusion or restriction of access under Chapter II, including appeals

  Section 32

  November 2001

  May 2002

  Regulations on removal or relaxation of restrictions on access land and to exclude access in emergencies

  Paragraph 7, Schedule 2; Section 31

  November 2002

  May 2003

  Regulations on appeals relating to notices

  Section 38

  February 2003

  August 2003

  Regulations regarding review of conclusive maps

  Section 11

  February 2004

  August 2004

  References to public places in existing enactments

  Section 42

  To review before general implementation of right of access

  494W
  No animal was found to have antibodies.

  Throughout England and Wales, 492,553 sheep and goats have been blood tested (as at 28 June). We have results from 471,746 animals (at 3 July) which indicate that 0.28 per cent. were antibody-positive.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many documented cases have been brought to her attention involving the slaughter of animals, as part of the programme of control of foot and mouth, which were carried out in inappropriate ways. [1491]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 July 2001]: No such cases have been brought to my attention since my right hon. Friend became Secretary of State in this Department. However, since the start of the foot and mouth outbreak six cases have been brought to the attention of Ministers, where it was alleged that animals had not been dealt with humanely. These incidents have been investigated and appropriate action taken.

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out the timetable for implementing part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, in order to achieve her Public Service Agreement target of opening up public access to mountain, moor, heath and down and registered common land by the end of 2005. [3154]

  Alun Michael
  Pary I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 requires various regulations to be made before the right of access is brought into force. The table sets out the provisional programme for consultation on proposals for regulations and for bringing the regulations into force in order to meet our Public Service Agreement target. We are firmly committed to the 2005 target although the exact timing of each of the intermediate stages in our programme may depend on responses to the various consultation papers which we shall be issuing. I shall consider the views of respondents carefully before laying regulations before Parliament.
  495W
  Progress in developing regulations has been delayed by the secondment of staff to undertake vital work in responding to the foot and mouth crisis. I now expect to lay regulations during the summer recess enabling the Countryside Agency to issue the first draft maps of open country and registered common land in November. I shall review the case for giving earlier access to mountain land and registered common land in the light of experience of the first mapping exercises. This would lead to the commencement of certain regulations earlier than the proposed timetable.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pension Payments (Post Office)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if it is Government policy to allow indefinitely those who wish to do so to collect their state pension in cash at a post office. [3180]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Yes.

  Occupational Pensions (Disabled People)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on access to membership of occupational pension schems for disabled people when they start employment. [3256]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government want to ensure that all employees take advantage of access to good occupational pension schemes. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 inserted a "non-discrimination rule" into the rules of all occupational pension schemes which prevents the general exclusion of disabled people from occupational pension schemes although schemes can apply different eligibility criteria for benefits if the costs of providing those benefits is substantially greater.

  Research undertaken in 1999 indicated that there was no evidence of systematic exclusion of disabled people from occupational pension schemes. There was evidence of the application of blanket restrictions on access to ill-health benefits. These restrictions were perceived to be difficult to challenge through existing channels.

  The Disability Rights Task Force made a number of recommendations on occupational pensions including access to complaints procedures. Our response to the Task Force—'Towards Inclusion', published on 5 March 2001—proposes, when legislative time allows, amending the Disability Discrimination Act to allow disabled people to complain to an employment tribunal about discrimination by trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme.

  Invalid Carers Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to implement the changes to the invalid carers allowance detailed in his Department's press release dated 3 October 2000. [2796]

  Maria Eagle
  We have already introduced two of the four measures announced last autumn. In April we increased the carer premium paid through income-related benefits by £10 per week, and raised the invalid care allowance (ICA) earnings limit by £22 per week. The 496W
  other changes announced enable claims to ICA to be extended to people aged 65 or over and to enable ICA to continue for up to eight weeks after the death of the person being cared for. We intend to introduce a regulatory reform order to provide for these changes shortly.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to extend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to cover private clubs. [3257]

  Maria Eagle
  The Government's response to the Disability Rights Task Force, "Towards Inclusion—civil rights for disabled people", issued in March 2001, noted that the Disability Rights Commission had been asked to develop a voluntary approach instead of legislating to reduce any problems disabled people may have in joining private clubs. Replies to that report are currently being analysed.

  Departmental Title Change Costs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the cost of the recent renaming of his Department, including(a) design costs, (b) stationery costs, (c) new name plaques and (d) other costs; and if he will make a statement. [3013]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on 26 June 2001,Official Report, column 772W.

  Recruit
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the nationwide implementation progress of the programme Recruit. [3017]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Recruit is a pilot initiative offering help to small businesses which employ people from deprived areas through New Deal.

  Pilots have been operational since April 2001 and will run until December 2001 when its impact will be evaluated.

  Recruit consolidates and simplifies the wage subsidy of the New Deal. The subsidy is currently paid weekly. Under Recruit, it will be paid in two lump sums, one on recruitment and the second to support retention after 13 weeks.

  No decisions have been taken on national implementation.

DEFENCE

  Defence Equipment Exhibition
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries from which buyers(a) have been and (b) will be invited to the defence systems and equipment international exhibition being held from 11 to 14 September. [2398]
  497W
  Dr. Moonie
  The full list of countries from which Official Defence Delegations will be invited to attend the defence systems and equipment international exhibition 2001 is still being completed. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as it has been finalised.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which days the defence systems and equipment international exhibition will be open to(a) overseas customers, (b) the press, and (c) the public; who will be opening the exhibition; if hon. Members will be invited to it; and which ships from (i) the Royal Navy and (ii) overseas navies will be participating in the exhibition. [2399]

  Dr. Moonie
  The exhibition is an international trade event organised by a commercial company. It will be open to overseas visitors and fully accredited members of the media from 11 to 14 September but will not be open to the public.

  I understand that the exhibition organisers will be inviting a number of hon. Members. A final decision on who will be opening the exhibition has yet to be made.

  It is planned, subject to operational constraints, for Royal Navy ships to be present. The organisers have also extended invitations to a number of overseas navies to participate.

TREASURY

  Child Benefit
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the average increase in the income of(a) lone parent families and (b) couples with children in each income decile, resulting from an increase of (i) £10, (ii) £20 and (iii) £30 in child benefit and the family premium in income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit for each family in which there is at least one child aged three or under. [1567]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the impact on the numbers of children in poverty in(a) lone parent families and (b) couples with children in each income decile, resulting from an increase of (i) £10, (ii) £15 and (iii) £20 in the rate of child benefit and the child allowances in income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit for each child aged three or under. [1571]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not possible to measure accurately the impact on child poverty of individual changes to the tax and benefit system. The margins of error surrounding these estimates are too large. Taken as a whole, the personal tax and benefit measures introduced over the last parliament are estimated to lift over 1.2 million children out of relative income poverty.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the average increase in the income of(a) lone parent families and (b) couples with children in each income decile, resulting from an increase of (i) £10,
  498W
  (ii) £15 and (iii) £20 in the rate of child benefit and the child allowances in income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit, for each child aged three or under. [1570]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information re quested is not available.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the impact on the numbers of children in poverty in(a) lone parent families and (b) couples with children in each income decile, resulting from an increase of (i) £10, (ii) £20 and (iii) £30 in child benefit and the family premium in income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit, for each family in which there is at least one child aged three or under. [1568]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not possible to measure accurately the impact on child poverty of individual changes to the tax and benefit system. The margins of error surrounding these estimates are too large. Taken as a whole, the personal tax and benefit measures introduced over the last parliament are estimated to lift over 1.2 million children out of relative income poverty.

  Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from organisations in Derbyshire concerning the proposed changes to the landfill tax credit scheme; and if he will make a statement. [2511]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have received representations from at least one organisation in Derbyshire about the proposed changes to the landfill tax credit scheme. The Government intend to consult interested parties on how the transition from the current scheme to any replacement regime can be managed to ensure that worthwhile projects continue to receive funding.

  Mortality Rates
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mortality rates are at age 55 to 60 years, broken down by(a) class, (b) sex and (c) socio-economic ranking. [2797]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Howard Flight, dated 10 July 2001:
  The National Statistician has asked me to reply to your recent question asking for the mortality rates at age 55 to 60 years broken down by (a) class, (b) sex and (c) socio-economic ranking. I am replying in his absence. (2797)
  I refer you to the answer given to Parliamentary Question 161050, which as indicated by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 11 May in Official Report. column 435, was given in private correspondence. A copy of this letter was placed in the House of Commons library. The table below repeats this information.
  (a) The table shows age-specific mortality rates for the three year period 1991–93 for men in England and Wales aged 55–59, by social class. Similar data are not available for women, because the occupation of women recorded at death is less reliable than for men. More recent figures by social class are not available,

  499W
  because calculation of rates depends on knowing the size of the relevant population groups, which is currently only available from the 1991 Census.

  Death rates by social class for the three year period 1991–93, England and Wales

  Social class

  Deaths per 100,000 male population

  I (Professional)

  2,057

  II (Managerial and Technical)

  2,148

  IIIN (Skilled Non-Manual)

  2,975

  IIIM (Skilled Manual)

  3,521

  IV (Partly Skilled)

  3,491

  V (Unskilled)

  5,534

  All classes

  2,966

  Source:

  Drever F, Whitehead M (eds). Health Inequalities. Decennial Supplement 15. London: The Stationery Office 1997

  The annual age specific mortality rate for all classes in 1999 for males aged 55–59 was 828 and for females, 407.

  (b) Social class based on occupation is the only socio-economic classification routinely used for the analysis of mortality.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average life expectancy is for those aged 60 years, broken down by(a) class, (b) sex and (c) socio-economic classification. [2798]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Howard Flight, dated 10 July 2001:
  The National Statistician has asked me to reply to your recent question asking for the average life expectancy of those aged 60 by (a) class, (b) sex and (c) socio-economic classification. (2798)

  £000

  Gross control area—Class/Departments

  Final RC limit

  Final outturn

  Final R/C under/over

  Class I

  Department for Education and Employment

  1,050,454

  1,027,011

  23,443

  Financed by the windfall tax

  163,896

  125,269

  38,627

  Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England

  34,226

  33,497

  729

  Class II

  Department of Health

  280,333

  275,600

  4,733

  Class III

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  671,812

  659,647

  12,165

  Health and Safety Executive

  170,898

  167,379

  3,519

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising

  12,577

  10,823

  1,754

  Office of Water Services

  11,591

  10,860

  731

  Office of the Rail Regulators

  12,241

  11,045

  1,196

  Class IV

  Home Office

  2,136,812

  2,044,836

  91,976

  Financed by the windfall tax

  163

  137

  26

  Charity Commission

  19,979

  19,531

  448

  Class V

  Lord Chancellor's Departments

  525,370

  503,694

  21,676

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  30,639

  29,595

  1,044

  Public Record Office

  28,750

  26,426

  2,324

  Crown Prosecution Service

  228,121

  227,004

  1,117

  Serious Fraud Office

  11,224

  11,630

  594

  500W
  These figures are not available by social class for those aged 60. The table below shows the life expectancy at age 65 for men and women in England and Wales based on data from the ONS Longitudinal Study (LS) for the five years 1992–96. The ONS Longitudinal Study is a one per cent sample of the population of England and Wales.

  Life expectancy by social class in the ONS Longitudinal Study, 1992–96, England and Wales

  Life expectancy at age 65 (years)

  Social Class

  Males

  Females

  I (Professional)

  16.8

  20.8

  II (Managerial and Technical)

  15.5

  19.5

  IIIN (Skilled Non-Manual

  15.1

  18.9

  HIM (Skilled Manual)

  14.2

  17.9

  IV (Partly Skilled)

  13.8

  17.1

  V (Unskilled)

  12.6

  16.4

  All LS sample

  14.6

  18.0

  Source:

  Hattersley L. Trends in life expectancy by social class—an update.

  Health Statistics Quarterly No. 2. London: The Stationery Office 1999.

  Figures on life expectancy by gender for the years 1997–99 have been produced by the Government Actuary's Department. Life expectancy in England and Wales for men aged 60 was 19.1 years and for women aged 60 it was 22.8 years.

  Social class based on occupation is the only socio-economic classification currently used for the analysis of life expectancy.

  Treasury Costs
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on Departments' final running costs outturn against their final running costs limit for 1999–2000. [3531]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The departmental final running costs limit under gross control area for 1999–2000 was set at £14,011,463,000 and Departments reported £13,614,958,000 as their final RC outturn, an underspend of £396,505,000 (2.8 per cent.). More information is given in the table.
  501W

  £000

  Gross control area—Class/Departments

  Final RC limit

  Final outturn

  Final R/C under/over

  Class VII

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  498,354

  475,221

  23,133

  Class VIII

  Department for International Development

  65,840

  65,831

  9

  Class IX

  Department of Trade and Industry

  388,600

  380,917

  7,683

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  30,000

  30,191

  191

  Office of Gas Supply

  13,830

  13,414

  416

  Office of Telecommunications

  12,296

  11,607

  689

  Office of Fair Trading

  23,784

  23,156

  628

  Class X

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  367,300

  356,220

  11,080

  Intervention Board-Executive Agency

  68,883

  67,076

  1,807

  Class XI

  Department for Culture, Media and Sports

  33,874

  32,426

  1,448

  Class XII

  Department of Social Security

  3,042,502

  3,002,994

  39,508

  Financed by the Windfall Tax

  11,959

  10,413

  1,546

  Class XIII

  Scotland Office

  4,215

  3,519

  696

  Class XIV

  Office of Secretary of State for Wales

  2,000

  1,139

  861

  Class XV

  Northern Ireland Office

  201,306

  172,674

  28,632

  Class XVI

  HM Treasury

  68,713

  65,354

  3,359

  Office for National Statistics

  106,645

  91,058

  15,587

  HM Customs and Excise

  801,116

  787,500

  13,616

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  2,400

  1,928

  472

  Inland Revenue

  2,174,503

  2,165,419

  9,084

  National Savings Department

  174,536

  166,463

  8,073

  National Investment and Loans Office

  1,562

  1,435

  127

  Class XVII

  Cabinet Office

  114,982

  104,586

  10,276

  Security and Intelligence Services

  410,982

  399,203

  11,779

  Privy Council Office

  2,315

  2,313

  2

  Total gross running costs limit

  14,011,463

  13,614,958

  396,505

  Offshore Financial Centres
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on offshore financial centres and the steps he has taken in respect of their regulation and taxation. [3030]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's policy is to encourage all offshore centres to meet the highest standards of regulation, supervision and to comply with international initiatives to eliminate unfair tax practices. To this end the Government have been working with international organisations such as the Financial Stability Forum, the Financial Action Task Force, the OECD, and also with EU partners.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his Department's assessment 502W
  of the extent to which other Government Departments are performing in relation to the targets set out in their public service agreements. [3012]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Departments published performance against their 1998 public service agreement (PSA) targets in their departmental annual reports, so that people can judge for themselves how well they are doing. It is too early to make an assessment against Departments' 2000 PSAs.

  Widow's Bereavement Allowance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much it would cost to allow widowers whose spouses have died in the past six years to claim widow's bereavement allowance. [3181]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not generally hold information on whether men are widowed and therefore any costing is very approximate. It is
  503W
  estimated that the cost of extending widow's bereavement allowance to men retrospectively whose wives died between 1995–96 and 1999–2000 could be about £150 million.

  Currency
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to the(a) retail business sector and (b) overall business sector of accepting both sterling and euro as a means of exchange. [935]

  Ruth Kelly
  No estimate of these costs has been made, and it would not be a simple task to carry out such an assessment. It is a commercial decision for each UK business to determine whether or not it wishes to accept the euro or, indeed, any foreign currency.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Family Visitor Appeals
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many family visitor appeals the Immigration Appellate Authority plans to deal with(a) at an oral hearing and (b) on the papers only in the financial years (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03. [3310]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Immigration Appellate Authority expects to deal with approximately 8,860 family visit visa appeals during 2001–02 and 10,000 such cases in 2002–03.

  Of these numbers, 60 per cent. of cases are expected to be for oral hearing and 40 per cent. for determination on the papers alone.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) oral and (b) paper-only family visitor appeals have been received by the Immigration Appellate Authority since 2 October 2000 in which (i) the Immigration Advisory Service and (ii) a Citizens Advice Bureau has been identified as representing the applicant. [3311]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Immigration Appellate Authority has identified 145 cases received between 2 October 2000 and 30 June 2001 in which the Immigration Advisory Service represented the appellant at the adjudicator tier. Of this number, 124 were for an oral hearing and 21 for paper alone.

  A Citizens Advice Bureau has been identified as representing the appellant in one oral hearing over the same period.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) oral and (b) paper-only family visitor appeals have been received by the Immigration Appellate Authority since 2 October 2000 in which (i) a solicitor or barrister and (ii) nobody has been identified as representing the applicant. [3312]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  All 1,807 family visitor cases received by the Immigration Appellate Authority record that the appellant has been represented. Of this number, 820 of cases were for oral hearing and 987 for determination on the papers alone. It is not possible to provide a breakdown between solicitor or barrister representation without incurring disproportionate cost.
  504W
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average time taken by the Immigration Appellate Authority to process, from receipt to determination(a) oral family visitor appeals, (b) paper-only family visitor appeals, (c) asylum appeals and (d) other immigration appeals. [3314]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The current average times, for this business year, by the Immigration Appellate Authority to process cases from receipt to determination, are:

  (a) 6.63 weeks for oral family visitor appeals

  (b) 3.66 weeks for paper only family visitor appeals

  (c) 21.79 weeks for asylum appeals

  (d) 19.6 weeks for other immigration appeals.

  Asylum Appeals
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time adjudicators are available to deal with asylum appeals. [3313]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are currently 78 full-time and 323 part-time adjudicators available to hear asylum appeals.

  Judicial Appointments
  James Purnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor will appoint a judicial appointments commissioner to oversee judicial appointments in Northern Ireland. [3616]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Pending a decision on the devolution of justice matters, which are expected matters under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and which would require primary legislation, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has decided to subject the appointment of judges and silks in Northern Ireland to supervision and scrutiny by a Commissioner. The Lord Chancellor has consulted the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and others on the necessary adaptations to the model suggested by Sir Leonard Peach for England and Wales, and the post will be advertised in the press from tomorrow.

  The early appointment of a Commissioner to audit, oversee and monitor all aspects of the existing appointments procedures is a practical step which will advance public confidence and provide strong reassurance about the integrity of the current system.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what further progress the Lord Chancellor has made in establishing a commission to oversee judicial appointments and Queen's Counsel appointment procedures in England and Wales. [3615]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Professor Sir Colin Campbell was appointed as First Commissioner for Judicial Appointments by Order in Council made on 14 March 2001. He started work immediately on developing the Commission's roles of auditing the judicial appointments and Queen's Counsel appointment procedures and
  505W
  investigating individual complaints. Sir Colin and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor are very keen to progress to the next stage in the establishment of the Commission, which will be the appointment of the first few Deputy Commissioners. There is also to be a
  506W
  Commissioner for Judicial Appointments for Northern Ireland, who will additionally serve as a Deputy Commissioner in England and Wales. The posts will be advertised in the press from tomorrow, with a view to the appointments being made around the end of the year.

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

Lord Ouseley
Sir Herman George Ouseley, Knight, having been created Baron Ouseley, of Peckham Rye in the London Borough of Southwark, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Rix and the Lord Dholakia.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Ilora Gillian Finlay, having been created Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, of Llandaff in the County of South Glamorgan, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Walton of Detchant and the Lord McColl of Dulwich.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to accompany Her Majesty the Queen on the state visit to the Channel Islands on Thursday, 12th July, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Asylum Seekers: Female Persecution
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Baberghasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to reports that some asylum seekers have left their home countries to escape female genital mutilation, and that some of their claims for asylum have been rejected on the ground that they are victims of persecution from individuals, not from the state.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the United Kingdom is quite ready to recognise as refugees those who have been persecuted by non-state agents as well as those persecuted by the state. In order to qualify for asylum, an applicant would have to show that female genital mutilation (FGM) is knowingly tolerated by her government or that the authorities are unable to offer effective protection.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that the threat of female genital mutilation should be a ground for asylum in that it constitutes torture and therefore breaches Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights? Is he aware that asylum has been granted by both the United States and Sweden to women who were threatened by female genital mutilation in their own countries?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we are satisfied that the issue of FGM constitutes torture under the Human Rights Act and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There is no question about that in our mind as there was no question in the mind of the previous government in that respect. I am aware that the United States and other countries have granted asylum to women based on their claim of the threat of FGM. In the UK we see very few cases based solely on such a threat; usually other factors are also taken into account. However, if noble Lords are aware of any specific cases of persons fleeing persecution with which the authorities are not dealing—it is a criminal offence in this country to carry out such barbaric practices—I hope that they will draw them to my attention.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can the Minister say how many African countries have banned female circumcision? If there are some who have not banned that loathsome practice, surely women have a case that those states are persecuting them?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is no question about that if the government have not outlawed it. On the other hand, all the states in the United Nations, except for Somalia and the United States, signed up to the convention in respect of children. Whether they have incorporated it into their domestic law is another matter. Among certain sections of the community in some countries in central, eastern and western Africa, including Egypt in the north of Africa, that barbaric practice still takes place. However, it is not necessarily done with the connivance or acceptance of the government. That is an issue that would be raised in any asylum application. Each case has to be taken in the round. There is no doubt that it is a barbaric practice which ought to be outlawed across the planet by every country and we will do what we can to assist women who seek refuge in this country.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords. I thank the Minister for his strong statement on FGM, which is welcome. However, repeatedly during the passage of the legislation, we on these Benches were assured that those who were subject to torture, whether FGM or other kinds, would be treated with particular care with regard to detention. Is the Minister aware that there are still some proven victims of torture who have spent many months in detention and will he be kind enough to look into the matter?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I certainly accept what the noble Baroness says. If she will give me the details of

1005
particular cases to which she is referring, I shall have them investigated immediately. Besides FGM, forced abortions also constitute torture. We recognise that there are such practices. The independent appellate authorities in relation to immigration in this country have accepted that it is important to categorise women who apply for refuge on that basis.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I support and welcome the strong words that the Minister has spoken on this subject. If possible, can he tell the House how many claims have been rejected recently on the ground set out in the Question? I believe that they number few, if any.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not aware of a specific figure. I have looked into the matter. Applications for asylum are not specific; they are not categorised in relation to a particular reason. Many reasons are given. FGM would be part and parcel of a normal asylum application in terms of fleeing persecution, but there may be other matters to be taken into account. However, if FGM does not fit within the specific rules of the 1951 convention, and it was proved that it was taking place, we would grant exceptional leave to remain, even if refugee status were not granted.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that when a country is in civil war, like many in Africa, there is no effective government to protect victims of FGM, whatever the laws may be on paper? Would such victims then be given consideration for asylum?
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, that is most certainly the case. Where there is a civil war in a country, it is difficult for anyone to argue that there are safe areas in the country. The nature of this barbaric practice may be that it does not take place across a whole country, but simply in an isolated pocket of a community. It may be argued that a woman, or usually a very young female, could be returned to another area of a country; but if the country is racked with civil war, it would be extremely unwise and inhuman to return a person to such a country.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is there any way of protecting girls who are taken from this country to African countries for this horrible mutilation?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the honest answer is no. Girls are removed from this country for forcible marriage and other practices under the guise of a holiday. A girl may find out the real reason for her visit only on arrival in another country. Passports are removed from girls and effectively they are locked away. Access to consular facilities is virtually non-existent and, of course, it is not practical for them to visit such facilities. One cannot sugar-coat this. The answer is no. If a young girl is removed from this country, she is removed from the protection of the UK authorities.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many countries are involved in this appalling practice?
Lord Rooker: No, my Lords, I cannot. I believe that it takes place in regions of eastern, central and western African countries and in a north-African country, Egypt. I do not believe that the practice exists all across those countries, but it usually takes place in isolated pockets of small communities. Africa is not the only place where it happens; it takes place in other parts of the world. The Government, through the Department of Health, are working with at least one NGO in this country to help and to facilitate a wider dispersal of information among professionals about this barbaric practice so that we can pick up the problem when people come into this country.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in the countries where FGM is practised it is usual for a girl to be pursued from her home village or town to other parts of the country by relatives determined to inflict this frightful torture on her? Therefore, in such cases, it would not be satisfactory to send a woman back to another part of the country from where she hailed originally. Does the Minister also agree that it is necessary to put on the Home Office country reports the fact that a country is not able to afford adequate protection so that that information is available to entry certificate officers and to others in the IND?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall take on board, in a positive way, the noble Lord's suggestion about the in-country reports. However, it is true that young females sometimes flee their villages, with the protection of their parents who do not want FGM to take place, when people in the community seek them out for that purpose. Each case and each claim will have to be judged on its individual circumstances and merits. It is not possible to give a blanket, global reply. However, I take on board the latter part of the suggestion made by the noble Lord.

Child Poverty
3 p.m.
Lord Northbourneasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their pledge to eradicate child poverty relates only to the financial poverty of families or whether they also intend to address the cycle of disadvantage and deprivation which affects many families.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, both. Our Opportunity For All report sets out our commitment to tackle child poverty in all its forms. Our reforms to the tax and benefit system will improve family incomes and we are also helping parents to move into work. In order to break

1007
the cycle of disadvantage we are also committed to raising educational standards, tackling health inequalities and supporting young people at risk.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that encouraging Answer and I congratulate the Government on all that they are doing. I agree that lack of money can be a serious impediment to overcoming other kinds of disadvantage, but does the noble Baroness agree that some forms of disadvantage are not associated with lack of money; for example, being a member of a nonfunctional family? Such a situation leads to lack of self-confidence, lack of social skills and lack of motivation to undertake education.
If those and similar problems are not addressed at the same time as addressing the financial problems of poor families, is there not little chance that such children will be able to pull themselves out of disadvantage? All the money that the Government are spending on defeating poverty in the short term will then be wasted in the long term.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said. It is the case that the poorest and most vulnerable children are those of lone parents. We know that the daughters of lone parents do well—they stay on at school, do not become pregnant and go into work—if their mothers are in work. The sons of lone parents do well—they do not get into trouble with the police, do not truant, stay on at school, gain qualifications and go into work—if they are in contact with their natural fathers. There is therefore a combination of family income and family support.
That is why I am so pleased, as I am sure is the noble Lord, that the Home Office is funding Fathers Direct to the tune of £250,000. That organisation was started by Jack O'Sullivan and Adrienne Burgess, highly reputed people in the sector, in particular to help further develop parenting skills so that we can ensure that deprivation and disadvantage are not handed down the generations.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, we all agree that it is important to tackle poverty in all its forms. The Government have expressed their main objective in quantitative terms and have said that, as a result of the Chancellor's measures, 1.2 million children will be lifted out of poverty by the end of the year. However, it may well be that many people do not understand the changes made by the Chancellor, which in some cases are extraordinarily complex. What assumption has been made about the take-up of the various benefits which are designed to achieve the Government's objective?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as regards the figure of 1.2 million, had the previous government's 1997 policies continued until today, and had this Government's policies of a minimum wage, working families' tax credit and increases in child benefit not come into play, 1.2 million more children would be in poverty.
1008
As regards the take-up of benefits, the minimum wage applies across the board, as do child benefit and income support rates. Furthermore, I am most pleased to be able to report that when we came into power a child of 10 received from income support £17 a week but today that child receives £34 a week. The sum has doubled in four years.
Noble Lords will therefore realise that we are tackling the problems of poverty and of disadvantage.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I welcome Her Majesty's Government's pledge to eradicate child poverty and I am aware that the Government are doing a great deal of work on appropriate levels of minimum income guarantees for pensioners and minimum wages for labourers and workers. However, will the Minister now encourage the Government to undertake the necessary research to achieve minimum income standards for those living in poverty to sustain healthy living? Such research has yet to be done.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as the right reverend Prelate will know, it is the Government's intention later this year to introduce a Bill which will allow us to develop the integrated child credit. That will bring together, both for adults and children, the support for children elements, the income support elements and what currently is working families' tax credit. As a result, families of working age will be able to move from a minimum wage to a minimum income. I hope that that will meet the right reverend Prelate's concerns.
Earl Russell: My Lords, further to the second half of the Question on the Order Paper, will the Minister give the House the latest available figures for unemployment among black males under the age of 25?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Earl was able to give me notice of his question so that I can share the information with the House. There will be a Statement later today on the situation, particularly in Bradford, but the figures are striking. Only 31 per cent of young ethnic minority men and women between the ages of 16 and 24 in Bradford, for example, are in work. Nationally, for ethnic minority young people the figure is 40 per cent. For the country as a whole, including people of all communities, the figure is 65 per cent. In other words, the figure in Bradford is less than half the national average.
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I welcome the money which the Government have given to help children, but does the Minister agree that it is very important to support the families and to encourage marriage? We have a situation in which nearly 40 per cent of live births are outside marriage and that creates a situation in which far more young people are likely to get into difficulties.

1009
In the light of that, does the Minister agree that it is important that the Government should support marriage as well as children?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the number of teenage unmarried mothers, to use the old phrase, has fallen by 4 per cent since 1997 and the number of those young women now in either education or work has risen from 17 per cent to 31 per cent in the past three or four years. Therefore, the situation in which children are having children has been improving for our society.
However, what matters to me is that children thrive. They can do so in a variety of relationships, which can be marriage ideally but also steady and robust cohabitation. What matters is that children thrive and families come in all shapes and sizes. It is important to the Government not only that we ensure a decent income for children through the new integrated child credit and that the parents have the opportunity for work through the new deals and so forth, but that the life chances associated with poverty in terms of education, health and well-being are also tackled. I hope that the whole House will join with us in that programme.

Party Political Broadcasts
3.7 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they will ensure that smaller political parties have access to free broadcasting time during general elections.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the allocation of free broadcasting time during general elections is ultimately the responsibility of the broadcasters and the broadcasting regulatory authorities; that is, the BBC governors, the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority and the Welsh Authority. It is their responsibility to determine the allocation of time in the light of their obligations to maintain due impartiality. They are also required to have regard to any views of the Electoral Commission.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is it not ultimately the responsibility of the Government, through Parliament, to ensure that democracy and elections in this country are fairly conducted?
Are they aware that during the previous election the Green Party of England and Wales was denied broadcast time on Channel 4, Channel 5 and independent radio and that part of that was tied up with a peculiar ruling which stated that they could not have it because they were not fielding candidates in Scotland? As it is the Green Party of England and
1010
Wales, and as there is a totally independent Green Party of Scotland over which it has no control, that is a most unfortunate expression of responsibility on behalf of the authorities. Is it not ultimately the Government's responsibility to ensure that time is given?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I recognise that the Green Party had a particular difficulty relating to national broadcast given the separate status of that party in Scotland. I understand that the broadcasters sought to accommodate it and that the ITC did not uphold its complaint about the refusal of Channels 4 and 5 to offer a broadcast. I believe that, quite properly, the allocation of air time is not the responsibility of the Government. It is for broadcasters to determine the allocations within their general duties and discretion in dealing with these rather difficult matters and for the court to uphold that.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the smaller parties would be much better advised not to press for party political broadcasts, which serve only to put off voters but, instead, for a change in our electoral system which means that if they get more votes they may start to get a few more people in Parliament?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I believe that that is a matter for the smaller political parties. I am sure that with imagination and creativity all political parties can make high quality party political or electoral broadcasts that attract voters.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there are rules to prevent political parties from inciting religious and racial hatred through their broadcasts?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes—the ordinary criminal law.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, while it is clearly right that the Government should not intervene in the allocation of electoral broadcasts, does the Minister agree that the rules as applied were somewhat unfair to the Green Party which, although it fielded candidates in more than one-sixth of constituencies across the United Kingdom as a whole, was refused the right to a broadcast on Radio 2 and Radio 4 simply because its associated party in Scotland fielded candidates in less than one-sixth of the constituencies in Scotland?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not believe that it is for the Government to pronounce on this matter but for the political parties to negotiate a sensible deal with the broadcasters. We have done it in that way in this country for a long time and we believe that that is the right way to do it, rather than that the Government should pronounce on an issue of this kind.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the strengths of our democracy has been that parties have not been able to purchase air time on either radio or television? Can the noble Baroness confirm that it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to resist any idea of political parties buying air time on either television or radio?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I strongly agree with the noble Lord. One of the reasons we have election broadcasts in this country is that we do not allow political advertising by the parties during general elections, and long may that last.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, according to Mr Peter Kellner's article in the Observer on 11th June, if the percentage of votes given to the Labour and Conservative Parties at the past election had been exactly reversed the result would have been Labour 301 seats and Conservatives 289 seats? In the light of that information, will the noble Baroness consider her reply that electoral reform is an issue for smaller parties?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am glad to say that I did not see Mr Peter Kellner's article. However, I believe that the question put by the noble Earl is rather a long way from the one on the Order Paper which is about the regulations for party electoral broadcasts.

Livestock: Movement Restrictions
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Byfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the 20-day standstill movement proposal for livestock animals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government are reviewing their proposals on the standstill movement in the light of responses to the consultation exercise. We have decided to make this issue part of a total approach for the exit from the current foot and mouth disease outbreak to future disease control which will also include biosecurity, animal identification and licensing. This will allow fuller veterinary and economic assessments to be carried out. In the mean-time, current movement licensing controls will continue.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am glad to hear the Minister's response. Presumably, there will be a public inquiry so that the Government can obtain the necessary information. This year, virtually all agricultural and county shows have been cancelled because of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. First, does the Minister appreciate the implications that any future 20-day standstill may have for those shows? Secondly, does the noble Lord accept the
1012
implications that that will have in turn for the trade and specialist stands, which get most of their business at those shows and need to plan now for next year?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness will appreciate that it is very difficult for the agricultural sector as a whole to plan for next year given that we have yet finally to eradicate the disease and that the process for movement beyond the disease has yet to be determined. Clearly, even if there were no further new outbreaks, there would still be some restrictions on movement. That will continue into the autumn. We need to use that period to assess the long-term restrictions on movement and whether the 20-day standstill period, or an alternative measure which achieves the same result in terms of the spread of the disease among animals, is appropriate. That is a matter that we need to address in the coming weeks.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that in this outbreak of foot and mouth disease the major problem has been the movement of sheep? If there is to be a 20-day standstill period, how do Her Majesty's Government intend to trace all the animals which have been moved from one premises to another, bearing in mind that one sheep looks very much like another? At the moment, sheep are marked only with the holding number of their birth rather than as individual animals.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I had always understood that the noble Countess was better than I at distinguishing one sheep from another. Nevertheless, I take her general point. Clearly, traceability and the way in which we manage the total national flock in future will need to be part of the long-term solution. The 20-day standstill period and what exemptions are appropriate in relation to shows or other areas where animals intermingle are matters that require long, hard thought and discussion with the industry. On the face of it, however, had there been a 20-day standstill period, the number of cases in the current outbreak of foot and mouth would have been halved. One cannot ignore that evidence, albeit that there will be other more damaging consequences to which the noble Countess has referred.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, can the Minister ensure that his department's reaction is proportionate and that the achievement of biosecurity does not threaten the future of livestock markets which are crucial? Is the Minister aware that the proposal to introduce electronic tagging will he a disproportionately high cost to smaller sheep farmers because start-up costs are the same whether one has 500 or 2,000 ewes?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the disproportionate cost to sheep farmers of all kinds has been the epidemic itself. Measures to ensure the long-term health of our sheep flock will need to take into account the fact that traceability and identification may need to be part of a future structure. All these matters need to be assessed

1013
in terms of proportionality, cost and practicability, including any restrictions on movement over and above those required to deal with the immediate problems.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have been to two conferences in the south of Scotland attended by all the farmers who lost stock in that area? Does the noble Lord accept that not one of them was in favour of the 20-day standstill and considered it to be quite impracticable and that they felt that there were many more important issues to be resolved by the Government, particularly relating to controls on imports from countries where foot and mouth is endemic?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I certainly accept that the vast majority of responses to the consultation indicated that there was severe disquiet, to put it at its mildest, about the proposals relating to the standstill. Nevertheless, the issue which the proposal is supposed to address needs to be resolved if we are to retain a healthy flock in the longer term. As to import controls, clearly both at national and European level there are some measures which need to be addressed.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that not all agricultural shows have been cancelled and that, for example, the Royal Lancashire Show is continuing? Is the Minister aware that that has been achieved by expanding the features of the show relating to horses and poultry? I am sure that my noble friend will join with me in wishing it every success.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am always happy to join my noble friend in wishing anything that happens in Lancashire success. I trust that the show will be a success, albeit that this year the show is, regrettably, deprived of its livestock features.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that about 300,000 hill lambs are due off the hills of Scotland and northern England in August and September? Many of these lambs are bought by dealers to distribute to other areas for fattening. What do the Government propose to do about that in view of the 20-day restriction?
Perhaps I may also ask whether the Government have any plans to restrict imports because the hill lambs are normally destined for export and they cannot be exported. It therefore seems to me that the Government should take some responsible action about imports.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this is a very difficult and complex problem. Across the country as a whole, there are rather more sheep and lambs involved than the figure the noble Lord used. We are looking very seriously at the matter. I had lengthy discussions with the NFU yesterday about possible ways of dealing with the serious problems that the movement of sheep in the autumn from the "highlands to the
1014
lowlands"—to simplify the issue—will cause. There will undoubtedly be some restrictions on movement; there will be some reluctance to take lambs on to the lowlands; and, in all probability, there will be no export market particularly for the lambs to which the noble Lord referred. All those matters need to be addressed. We are addressing them as a matter of urgency. I anticipate some announcements before the end of the month.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, immediately after the Second Reading of the British Overseas Territories Bill my noble friend Lord Rooker will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the disturbances in Bradford. After this my noble friend Lord Bach will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Type 45 destroyers.

British Overseas Territories Bill [H.L.]
3.22 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am delighted that one of my first tasks as Minister for the Overseas Territories is to introduce to this House the British Overseas Territories Bill. The Bill seeks to fulfil a commitment to grant British citizenship, and with it the right of abode in the United Kingdom, to British Dependent Territories citizens in qualifying overseas territories.
Many of your Lordships will be familiar with Britain's overseas territories. There are 14 of them. They are Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St Helena and Dependencies, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus and the Turks and Caicos Islands. They include some of the most prosperous and some of the most remote islands in the world. They range from the highly developed business, financial and tourist centres of some of the Caribbean territories and Bermuda to the pristine wilderness of Antarctica. They have many differences. But they have one thing in common: their link with Britain.
In March 1999 the British Government published a White Paper entitled Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories. The White Paper was the culmination of a wide-ranging review of our relationship with the overseas territories. It laid the foundations for a new relationship, built on the fundamental principles of self-determination, the acceptance of responsibilities on both sides and the

1015
greatest possible control for the people of the overseas territories over their own lives. It set out an agenda explaining what each side expected of the partnership in terms of support for good governance, sustainable social and economic development and protection of the environment.
Over the past two years, in close consultation with the territories, we have moved that agenda forward. The nature of our relationship has evolved in line with the principles in the White Paper, and we have made progress across a broad range of issues, including constitutional reform, human rights, the environment and financial regulation. An annual meeting of the Overseas Territories Consultative Council provides a forum in which Chief Ministers can to get to know their British ministerial counterparts and discuss with them, and with each other, common problems. The next meeting will be in September. Our relationship with the territories has changed, and continues to change.
A cornerstone of the new approach set out in the White Paper was the proposal to grant British citizenship to British Dependent Territories citizens in qualifying territories. to give proper recognition of their British connection and to lift the limitations which BDTC status carries with it. The Bill is a fulfilment of that commitment. The proposed citizenship provisions in the Bill apply to all territories except the sovereign base areas of Cyprus which are excluded by virtue of their special status as military bases.
We estimate that around 200,000 people could become British citizens on commencement of the Act. The number is an estimate because it is as yet impossible to tell exactly how many people will benefit. Nationality is a complicated area and beyond those who already hold British Dependent Territories passports will be others who will come forward after commencement on the basis of the naturalisation or registration criteria in the British Nationality Act 1981.
But I should make clear that there is no compulsion about acquiring British citizenship. We believe that most people will want it, but British Overseas Territories citizens, as the Bill proposes they be known in future, will have the option to renounce British citizenship, and to retain their current status, should they so wish.
The Bill at the same time formally changes the name of the territories to overseas territories, and British Dependent Territories citizens who live there to British Overseas Territories citizens. It is no longer appropriate to use terms such as dependent territory or colony, terms which are outdated and which fail to reflect the nature of our relationship and partnership with the overseas territories. The Bill alters those terms in the British Nationality Act 1981 and will add a new definition of British Overseas Territory in the Interpretation Act 1978 so that that term can be conveniently used in all future legislation.
Residents of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar already have or are entitled to British citizenship, and we do not expect all BDTCs in other territories to want
1016
to apply for new passports describing them as British citizens. I have already said that those who prefer to continue with their British Overseas Territories passports will be free to do so. We expect the "take-up rates" to vary from territory to territory and according to circumstance.
Let me explain more fully the effect of the Bill and the timeframe we envisage. Most people living in the overseas territories are currently British Dependent Territories citizens. As soon as the Bill has passed through Parliament and received Royal Assent, Clauses 1 and 2, which deal with the changes of name to British Overseas Territories and British Overseas Territories citizen, will take effect. At that point all references to the territories will be formally changed. I say "formally" because the description "overseas territories" is already in common usage. Clauses 1 and 2 deal only with changes of name and involve no substantive change of law.
Clause 3 explains how British Overseas Territories citizens will automatically become British citizens, with the right of abode in the UK, on commencement of the citizenship provisions of the Bill. In other words, they will not have to apply for citizenship although they will have to apply for a British passport to show documentary evidence of their new status and to facilitate travel. The date of commencement will be decided by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by statutory instrument, once we are satisfied that the practicalities for implementation of the citizenship provisions are in place. We need, for instance, to ensure that arrangements for passport issue are agreed and that the staff who will deal with passport and nationality questions are properly trained.
Clause 4 explains how British citizenship can be acquired by people living in the overseas territories after commencement of the legislation. There are of course many people living in the overseas territories who are not BDTCs. The provisions of the new legislation do not apply to them. To qualify for British citizenship they would first have to qualify for British Overseas Territories citizenship by connection with the territory in which they reside under existing nationality law as set out in the British Nationality Act 1981. If their application is successful they will thereafter be free to apply for British citizenship. There is no automatic entitlement to British citizenship for such people. The granting of British citizenship is at the discretion of the Home Secretary. That is the effect of Clause 4 of the Bill.
Clause 5 further amends the 1981 Act so as to provide for acquisition of British citizenship for future generations having the requisite connection with any of the qualifying overseas territories. British citizenship will mean that British Dependent Territories citizens will have the right of abode in the United Kingdom and the right of free movement and residence, and with it the opportunity to work in European Union member states. In short, my Lords, they will have the same rights as you or They will be able to visit friends and relations or travel for business or employment without being subject to immigration

1017
controls. I know that this has long been a bone of contention. BDTCs have never seen it as fair that they should be subject to immigration control and have to pass through the non-EU channel on arrival at UK ports and airports.
Some noble Lords may be wondering whether, after the passage of this legislation, they will have the right of abode in the overseas territories. I regret that the answer is no. The right of abode is non-reciprocal. The territories which fall within the scope of the Bill are for the most part small islands. In consultations on the content of the Bill the governments of the territories concerned made clear that granting British and European citizens the right of abode in their territories would risk fundamentally altering the social, cultural and economic fabric of the territories. They are simply too small to cope. The Bill does not mention reciprocity. I am therefore taking this opportunity to put on record, which may come as a surprise and disappointment to some noble Lords, that the provisions of the Bill on right of abode, for good reasons, are non-reciprocal.
This legislation is eagerly awaited. Ever since publication of the 1999 White Paper my predecessor, Patricia Scotland, and I have received a steady flow of letters from members of the public, from the people of the overseas territories. from the many friends and organisations that represent their interests in this country and from Members of both Houses urging the Government to deliver on the commitment to grant British citizenship. Many noble Lords and Members of the other place have put down Questions.
It has not until now been possible to make parliamentary time available in what has been, as I know noble Lords are aware, a busy legislative programme. But I am delighted that it has now been possible to do so. I hope that the support which noble Lords have shown in the past will now translate into support on the Floor of the House. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Amos. )
3.34 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the Minister for her clear and explicit description of the Bill. This is indeed a very busy time for those involved in international affairs. Next week your Lordships will be in Committee on the International Development Bill, and the European Communities (Amendment) Bill will be in Committee in another place on Wednesday. That Bill will no doubt be hotly debated. I do not imagine that this Bill will be as contentious.
Before I move to the main body of my speech, I would mention that we wish that the Bill had not been so long in coming to the House. It has been eagerly awaited, as the Minister said. The White Paper was published in March 1999. It has taken until July 2001 to appear as a government Bill. The Government cannot take any credit for that delay. We believe that
1018
an explanation is due. After two years and three months, however, we welcome the Bill. But there are issues on which we shall be seeking clarification. I shall come to those shortly.
As we heard from the Minister, the main thrust of the Bill concerns citizenship and the right of abode. We are not wholly concerned with the change of name from "British Dependent Territories" to "Overseas Territories" other than to say that I suspect the Government have bowed, as usual, to the political correctness agenda. I notice that the Government have also abandoned all the human rights issues that were raised in the White Paper. Does that not send mixed signals? Are there not several overseas territories that would find it hard to survive without the support they receive from the United Kingdom? Indeed, are not all "overseas dependent territories" dependent on the United Kingdom for defence? I do not recall the United Nations coming to the aid of the Falkland Islanders in 1982.
The islanders of St Helena are dependent on the United Kingdom for their transport links with the rest of the world. The Chagos Archipelago, better known as the British Indian Ocean Territory, is claimed by both Mauritius and the Seychelles. The US lease is due to expire in 2016. While that is some 15 years in the future, we may well be called to defend the rights of those people who may wish to return there. Only a few weeks ago a court here in London ruled that the inhabitants were illegally removed and have the right to return. Most were originally removed to Mauritius, which will strengthen that country's claim. The islanders of Montserrat were dependent on United Kingdom aid when nature took its violent course, spewing volcanic lava and ash over half the island and leaving its capital destroyed. We do not begrudge such military assistance or such emergency aid, but it does reinforce the dependency theory.
To return to St Helena, the current problem faced by the island is one of dependency which can, to a degree, be broken. As we speak, a decision is being made as to the future transport link, which I mentioned earlier. The Government, sadly, are set on providing the cheapest option. That will mean spending some £26 million on replacing a passenger/cargo ship and will involve, as at present, a yearly subsidy to operate the service. A recent recommendation, which will cost some £38 million in the short term but holds out the possibility of earning revenue in the long term, is to build an airport on the island. The White Paper recognised the problem when it stated:
"In 1997, 8,698 tourists visited St Helena; but without an airport, no safe anchorage for yachts in heavy seas, and the limited capacity of the passenger/cargo ship RMS St Helena, tourism is unlikely to develop rapidly".
In a Written Answer last week the Secretary of State for International Development stated:
"The St. Helena Leisure Company has held preliminary discussions with the St. Helena Government and my Department about its proposals to provide leisure facilities on the island. At the request of the St. Helena Government, we have made available to the Company a copy of the recent report of the 'Comparative Study of Air and Sea Access' for St. Helena. We understand that

1019
the Company wishes to take account of the study's findings in further formulating its proposals to the St. Helena Government".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/01; col. 264W.]
It does not take a genius to work out the way that the dice will fall. No airport equals no tourism. Give the islanders an airport and the significant boost to the local economy which ensues will be greatly appreciated, not to mention the much speedier transport link. The Government have the opportunity to give the islanders more economic independence. I can assure the noble Baroness that, for the sake of an extra £12 million, we on these Benches would not stand in the way.
The main issue of the Bill concerns the granting of citizenship. We welcome the move, as do the overseas territories. There are many benefits which will now be made available to those who are soon to become full British citizens. First, from a development perspective, we should all welcome the easing of the education restrictions currently endured by those wishing to study in the United Kingdom. Noble Lords may not be aware of the differences in the fee structure.
For example, King's College, London, offers a very good degree in medicine. I should declare an interest here as the Chairman of Council of King's College. For a UK or EU citizen, the fees for the first four years amount to some £4,300, a figure set by the Government. For other citizens, the fees for the first year alone are £10,000, after which they rise significantly. Noble Lords may be astounded to learn that the total sum of the fees amounts to some £54,200. Through the Bill we shall be promoting tertiary education at an affordable level and that is to be welcomed.
Secondly, in 1998, my noble friend Lord Waddington, a distinguished former Governor of Bermuda, informed the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that the vast majority of white Bermudians of Anglo-Saxon descent hold British citizenship, but that the vast majority of black Bermudians do not. He went on to point out that,
"At Gatwick the whites go through the British and EU Channel. The black Bermudians, even Premiers and Cabinet Ministers, are lumped in with the foreigners and queue to obtain leave to enter. It is scarcely surprising that this causes immense resentment and black Bermudians simply cannot understand why as a matter of common courtesy those for whom Britain has a responsibility [belonging as they do in a British Dependent Territory] are not treated as favourably as foreigners for whom Britain has no responsibility".
As the Minister said, this situation will no longer exist—and rightly so.
I said in opening that we welcome the Bill and would not seek to obstruct it. However, during its passage we shall be seeking clarification on several issues. They concern the fine detail of the Bill and I look forward to the Government providing the necessary assurances.
The Government claim that the number of people who will be eligible for UK citizenship is around 200,000. While that is the approximate population for the entire British Dependent Territories, does that figure include others who may qualify, for example, by rights of marriage?
1020
Perhaps I may put a number of questions to the Minister. What is the cost of bestowing British citizenship? The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that,
"The intention is that the costs of implementation will he recovered from the fees charged for nationality registration and naturalisation and passport issuing".
Will the price vary from territory to territory? What evidence will be required when applying for British citizenship? Will there be equality between the sexes? Will there be in place a framework for the settlement of disputes? To what will British citizenship actually entitle the holder? What voting rights will be acquired, both nationally and in Europe? How will the Bill affect the pension rights of those applying for British citizenship?
In the White Paper, much is made of human rights:
"Overseas Territory legislation should comply with the same international obligations to which Britain is subject, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN International Convention on Civil and Political Rights".
Can the noble Baroness assure the House that the Bill will comply fully with those obligations?
Judicial corporal punishment still exists in some territories, as does capital punishment. Indeed, the use of the death penalty in the Caribbean would appear to be on the increase. Have all the overseas territories removed from their statute books capital punishment for treason and piracy? Have the concerns over homosexual discrimination been addressed?
Furthermore, what of the financial concerns that were raised in the White Paper? Several of the territories rely heavily on offshore banking. Are there to be any implications for them? Will they be affected by EU legislation in this field?
As I said earlier, we very much regret the delay in bringing forward the Bill. Your Lordships' House and the people of the dependent territories deserve an explanation as to the reason for this unnecessary delay.
We on these Benches support the aims of the Bill and hope that the Government can provide the House with the assurances that we have sought and that this long-awaited Bill can proceed to the other place. We do not expect to receive answers to all the questions that have been raised, but we look forward to hearing the Government's responses and to debating them in Committee.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the first occasion on which I debated this issue was during the debate on a Private Member's Bill tabled by the late Lord Bonham-Carter who, from these Benches, tried to initiate a Bill strikingly similar to the Bill before us today. However, a few years ago that Bill was rejected under another administration—probably for the reason that, at the time, Hong Kong still came under the aegis of an overseas territory.
In contrast to the previous speaker, I should like to welcome the speed with which this Bill has been put forward, given how many other Bills have been dropped from the Queen's Speech. It is a positive move

1021
to have brought this Bill forward. Indeed, the speed with which it has reached this House has caused us a number of problems. I was hoping to be able to follow the lengthy debates in the House of Commons and then to read Hansard, thereby becoming an expert on the subject before it was brought before noble Lords, but that was not to be.
In the light of that, perhaps I may begin by thanking the Minister for our meeting, during which she provided the answers to many of our questions. That marked a positive way forward and has removed the need for us to table certain amendments.
Of prime importance is the fact that the Bill has been welcomed by the dependent territories. On that basis, it is clear that we shall have few difficulties with the Bill. Indeed, the Short Title of the Bill is tightly drawn, and it is those issues which have been left out of the legislation rather than those which are included that are causing us a degree of concern.
As an archaeologist, I know that citizenship has been a major issue in the past. I was reminded of the fact that, in 212 AD, Caracalla conferred citizenship on every person living within the boundaries of the Roman empire. However, the Roman writers of the time attributed this to the fact that it would increase the tax base of the empire. However, that is not the case with regard to the matter before us this evening.
I should like to raise one issue, which may be seen as slightly frivolous, although I did draw attention to it during my remarks on the gracious Speech. The Foreign Office has asked the dependent territories to pay for their governors' uniforms. At first I was tempted to leave the matter alone, but the briefing I have received informs me that, because of the terrible situation on Montserrat, the island is economically dependent on the largesse of DfID.
In her new role wearing two hats, can the Minister confirm that, if the governor requires a new uniform, he will have to approach the noble Baroness at DfID? However, the FCO is charging this amount of money, so what will be the situation in Montserrat if DfID is asked to pay for the uniform? I ask because there may be a slight conflict of interests.
I have a problem with the number of acronyms used in the Bill. The trend towards acronyms seems to grow exponentially with every Bill. It is something which started in the Army, and I must admit that I have a degree of difficulty with them. If Bills containing similar numbers of acronyms are to be brought forward in the future, perhaps we could have a foreword in the Explanatory Notes listing each and every acronym.
The Minister alluded to two areas of particular concern to us which lie outside the scope of the Bill. Our first concern relates to the issue of British overseas citizens, especially those in Uganda and Kenya. This matter has been on the boil for quite some time. Our major worry is that some children of British overseas citizens—especially in Kenya—are now stateless
1022
citizens. They are denied Kenyan citizenship under Kenyan law, and under our own rules they are denied the status of British overseas citizens.
Although it concerns only a small group of children, it is an issue which could be looked at in the area of human rights. I understand that a case may be going before the European Court. The matter obviously does not fall under the jurisdiction of the European Convention on Human Rights because it is happening outside Europe, but it is an issue of great concern. Kenya should be made aware of its responsibilities under the UN convention to reduce the number of stateless persons. However, if no other means can be found to achieve this end, will the Government bring forward a Bill to extend the right granted under this Bill to this small group of people? At the moment they are prisoners with no access to travel documents. They have neither a Kenyan passport nor a British passport.
The other area of concern relates to dependants in the British Indian Ocean Territories. When the ruling came about in November or December that the British Indian Ocean Territory (No. 1) Ordinance 1971 was unlawful, it raised a question in my mind. Under the law in Mauritius, those born after 11th March 1968 would become citizens of Mauritius. This affected the children of members of the Ilois tribe who were moved to Mauritius. However, if it turns out that they were moved illegally, does that not change their status? Would they not then be seen as dependent territory citizens? If such is the case, it is quite important because if they are to return to the Chagos Islands, they could be refused entry on the ground that they are Mauritian citizens rather than deported British dependent citizens. Those are the two issues I wish particularly to raise.
There are many positive aspects to the Bill. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that it will make life easier for many dependent territories citizens so far as concerns travel documents. I know that the citizens of Montserrat—3,500 of whom are resident in the United Kingdom at the moment—have had difficulty in travelling and have had to obtain a visa to go to France. This is because of the wording on their passports. The Bill will change that situation.
I have one final question—I promise not to ask any further questions—and that is: as the citizens of Montserrat have leave to stay in this country because of the natural disaster that is taking place there, will they be eligible to vote in this country? Obviously members of other dependent territories will not have the right to vote because their place of residence is outside this country. I merely wish to know because this Bill may very well change their status.
We on these Benches welcome the Bill. We very much hope that in the future there will be a Bill to correct the injustices and anomalies presented by the situation of some British overseas citizens.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and the Government on the introduction of the Bill, even though we have had to wait a long time

1023
for it. I am sorry that the Conservative government did not introduce a Bill on these lines, but, when I raised this matter during my time in Bermuda, I had to accept the argument that action was not possible in the run-up to the handing over of Hong Kong to China. At the same time, have to say that in those days officials and Ministers alike made it fairly plain to me that after 1997 they would still take a lot of persuading that action was necessary, which makes me doubly appreciative of what has been done by this Government.
I shall touch on one matter mentioned by my noble friend Lady Rawlings. When I was in Bermuda I was made acutely aware of the resentment felt by Bermudians who, on travelling to Britain, found themselves waiting in the foreigners' queue at London airport while EU citizens were whisked through immigration ahead of them. In fact, the situation was even worse than that because some Bermudians did find their way into the fast lane—Bermudians with British citizenship or the right of abode in Britain by virtue of ancestry—and they, of course, were white. Bermudians in the slow lane were for the most part black.
There are other and very much more important ways in which the law at present harms race relations and the efforts to achieve equal opportunity in a place such as Bermuda. If bright young people working in the banks on the island do not get work experience in a far wider environment—in practice, in England—it will be that much less likely that they will be able to equip themselves, through experience overseas, for senior management. In short, opportunities to get more black Bermudians to the top in business, to share economic power with the whites, are being lost. I am sure that that is still the case today. It is something that this Bill will help to put right.
Bermuda is a prosperous place. There are other overseas territories which are far from prosperous. St Helena, which I visited a year or two ago, is one such. I agree with my noble friend Lady Rawlings about the need to press ahead with plans for an airport. But it will still be some years before those plans can come to fruition, and in the foreseeable future, "Saints" will continue to travel abroad in order to seek work. As everyone knows, at present they go to Ascension, the Falkland Islands and some to Britain. The Bill will open up more job opportunities for them. Again, that is a very good effect of the Bill.
In the case of St Helena, the Bill will get rid of a long-standing sense of injustice, the "Saints" believing—with much reason—that the immigration Acts of the 1960s and the British Nationality Act robbed them of rights bestowed on them by Royal Charter in the 17th century, a point made very clearly in the White Paper produced by the Government two or so years ago.
There is one thing that all the dependent territories apart from Gibraltar have in common: they have all had, and still have, the right to become independent states, but instead they have chosen to remain British. Bermuda held a referendum on the subject in 1995,
1024
when the people voted overwhelmingly against independence. They remain loyal to Britain. The least that we can do is to repay that loyalty in some measure by giving them a common citizenship with us.
I have only two questions to put to the Minister. The first relates to the position that will arise if, after the Bill becomes law, one of the overseas territories decides to become independent.
The White Paper published by the Bermuda Government prior to the referendum on independence in 1995 stated that those enjoying Bermuda status would be Bermuda citizens on independence; however, it was silent on what would happen to their citizenship of the British Dependent Territories. What would happen to the British citizenship granted by this Bill? Would those who have been granted British citizenship lose it? At first blush, it would seem very unfair if they did, but, on the other hand, it might seem very unfair if a favoured few living in that little clutch of dependent territories were allowed to keep their citizenship with the right of free entry into Britain, while the mass of people living in former colonies continued to be denied that right. There seems to me to be a real problem here and I should like some guidance from the Minister.
I was told the other day at the meeting that the Minister was kind enough to hold in the Foreign Office that what happened would be a matter of consultation and agreement between the British Government and the government of the territory in question. In other words, no assurance could be given that the people would keep their citizenship. I should appreciate the Minister's comments.
My second question is easier. It relates to Clause 4. I gather that this provision covers the situation where someone comes to, say, Bermuda and after a number of years is granted overseas territories citizenship by the governor and then applies for British citizenship. But does such a person have to apply for overseas territories citizenship first? Why cannot such a person apply direct to the Secretary of State for British citizenship with proof of residence as required by the British Nationality Act? I am not sure why there will not remain an alternative route to British citizenship without having to go through the formality of achieving British Overseas Territories citizenship first.
Once again, I warmly congratulate the Minister and I wish the Bill speedy progress through Parliament.
4.3 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I wish to add a few words about St Helena, which has already been addressed by a number of speakers. A number of your Lordships will remember that, in 1997, a Bill was passed granting British citizenship to the people who live in St Helena and the dependencies. I regret that the Earl of Iveagh, who introduced the measure and guided it through this House, was the subject of the "cull". But the subject matter is, I think, fresh in your Lordships' memories and it is a pity that the Bill did not progress further at that time. The reason has been given, and I was very glad when the noble and learned

1025
Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on the first day of debate on the gracious Speech, said that this Bill would be introduced. It was, he said, a long-standing promise that would now come forward. I too welcome its appearance.
The people of St Helena and the dependencies have, of course, no voice in this Parliament; and I do not purport to speak for them. I do, however, commend to your Lordships, if I need to do so, the wisdom of consulting the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association if ever you visit any of the Commonwealth countries. I did this when I went in February this year to all the dependencies and to St Helena itself. I need declare no interest, because I paid for the visit myself. A very interesting and fascinating experience it was.
The result of the contact with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association was this. I was walking down the main street in Jamestown when I met the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, who said, "I hear you'd like to come and talk to the local branch of the CPA. When would it be convenient for you?". I said, "Tuesday afternoon next at 4.30". He said, "Right. I will lay it on". I turned up to find that there were tea and cakes; and, to my astonishment, in the council chamber were assembled the entire Executive Council, including the Governor, and the entire Legislative Council, sitting round the table. Their first point related to citizenship: when was this Bill going to come forward? I could only quote parliamentary Written Answers stating that it was ready, that the Government were waiting for parliamentary time, and so on. They, of course, were disappointed. Now, they will be delighted. The sooner Clause 3 comes into effect, the better.
They had other things to say as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, touched upon them. The result of this legislation is certainly not going to be that the entire population of St Helena and Tristan da Cunha, let alone Ascension, which has no indigenous population anyway, will arrive in this country. But it has been rightly said that this is the way to provide some employment. The noble Baroness is quite right about the malaise that presently afflicts not so much Tristan da Cunha but St Helena.
The problem will not be cured by tourism. There is simply not the scope for tourists to arrive or to enjoy themselves without absolutely wrecking the island. What the access agreements and the various steps that have been taken in this respect will lead to are opportunities for people from other countries to invest in the island. There are plenty of things to invest in. There are a number of enterprises which are not run as profitably as they might be; consequently, they do not provide employment. It is not for nothing that many St Helenians have to earn their living in the Falklands and Ascension because there is not enough to do at home. Indeed, tertiary education is a major problem. So there are still many items on the agenda for these islands which cannot be touched in this Bill. The noble Baroness was right to mention them. They are urgent issues upon which depends the welfare of the island.
1026
Of course, citizenship is a matter of a long-standing grievance. The Royal Charter of 1673 has been mentioned and it is a pity that, since 1962, there has been no progress until now. But, while welcoming the Bill, let us contemplate the fact that we cannot stop here. A sensible decision must be made about how to move forward for the welfare of the people particularly of St Helena and of those who work overseas in order to provide them with a prosperous economy in their own domain which will enable them to carry forward the wonderful British traditions that can be seen in that island. I do not overlook the wonderful British traditions that can be seen in Tristan da Cunha as well.
We are taking a bold step forward and one that is overdue. But I pray of the noble Baroness: do not let the process stop here, and do not let us take a cheese-paring decision as between DfID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the access agreement. Let us, for goodness sake, take account of what the St Helena Government have to say about this. They are the people who know, and they are the people who are going to have to endure the disbenefits of the wrong decision. I am glad that the noble Baroness mentioned that, but I add my word, on behalf of those to whom I talked, about the welcome that should be given to the Bill. I hope that it gets rapid progress through Parliament.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, although it has been much delayed, I, too, should like to welcome the Bill and to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, for introducing it to the House. I begin by declaring an interest as the president of the West India Committee, but I should hasten to add that that is in no way a financial interest.
It is right that these micro-states, for which, as my noble friend Lady Rawlings pointed out, we have a continuing responsibility, should have their position regularised following both a decision in 1981 to grant British citizenship to citizens of British Dependent Territories, and one made in 1983 in respect of citizens of the Falkland Islands. I, for one, welcome the new nomenclature "British Overseas Territories", which reflects a better relationship between the countries. I am glad to see that that is the Title to the Bill.
Before turning to the main points that I wish to make about the overseas territories in the Caribbean, I should like to say how much I agree with the remarks made about St Helena in particular. When I served as a Minister in the Foreign Office, I had ministerial responsibility for the overseas territories, including St Helena—although, alas, I never had an opportunity to visit the island. However, I was very conscious of the great disadvantages that the people suffer, particularly in employment and in education. These are important issues that must be addressed. As far as I am aware, a large proportion of the population have no proper employment. This must be a very unsatisfactory situation. I am pleased to think that the Bill will do something to put right that situation.

1027
Perhaps I may have the temerity to commend to the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, the possibility of an airport on St Helena. She would do well to read the comments of one of her late colleagues, Lord Shackleton, who was a great proponent of St Helena. He argued on many occasions in this House for an airport on the island. This is not a recent suggestion: it is a possibility that should be considered.
I began my remarks by saying that I welcome the Bill, and I do. However, like my noble friend Lady Rawlings, I believe that there are a number of matters that require clarification, especially as regards the Caribbean overseas territories to which I shall speak. I was, of course, glad to hear about the granting of the right of abode. That welcome applies also to the fact that we are to set right the particular problems about immigration, and to the clarification as regards passports.
The process of taking forward this legislation has been slightly erratic, with Chief Ministers first learning about such matters in 1998; and then in more detail when the Government published their White Paper in 1999. There has been very little in the way of further information since then. As a result, this Bill comes to the House with many questions remaining unanswered. There are a number of issues that I should like to raise, although I do not expect the noble Baroness to answer all of them this afternoon. Indeed, they are matters to which we shall return in Committee. I mention them today because they are questions that people have raised with me, and which require answers.
The Bill confers rights on the citizens of British Overseas Territories, but says nothing about obligations. To all intents and purposes, it implies that the people of the islands—I have in mind the Caribbean, in particular—will become more closely associated with the United Kingdom, but suggests nothing in the way of positive steps to achieve that aim. Citizenship entails rights and obligations. Some of those obligations have already been raised this afternoon; for example, the right to vote. But what about taxation? What about social security? What about standing for Parliament, or being represented in some way in Parliament? What about access to medical care under the National Health Service? All those issues have been raised with me, yet there is no explanation of how the Government intend to deal with them. The people have a right to know.
Only two weeks ago a respected and senior chief Minister from one of the Caribbean overseas territories, who had just read a copy of the Bill, told me that he was unable to discover what, if anything, the citizens of his territory might expect—or, indeed, have to give up—in return for the grant of citizenship. He suggested that it was less than fair that Britain should grant citizenship without recognising that it, too, had obligations towards its overseas territories. He felt, for example, that it should automatically follow from citizenship that matters such as the training of overseas territories' civil servants—he particularly singled out this point—should be undertaken in the United Kingdom. He suggested that, logically, citizenship
1028
should lead to the inclusion of a Caribbean overseas territories' civil servant in, for instance, the UK Permanent Representation in Brussels, so that he or she might look after the interests of the overseas territories in the European Commission. In view of the tremendous economic developments that will flow from the North America Free Trade Area. let alone from the WTO round, this has particular relevance to these small countries.
The Chief Minister also wanted to know whether students from overseas territories would now be treated as British students in respect of fees. Again, I was most interested to hear what my noble friend said on that point. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, also indirectly raised the issue regarding the training of people from overseas territories in our universities. Surely that suggestion should be welcomed. It is most important for the future of those people. More significantly, he wanted to know how the British citizens of the overseas territories might be represented either in the UK or in the European Parliament. These are not idle questions; they are very serious matters to which we must return in Committee. As I said earlier, I do not expect to receive full answers to all, or any, of the questions that I have raised this afternoon. However, for the sake of clarification, it would be helpful if the Minister could write to me on some of those points before we reach Committee stage.
The representative from the overseas territories stressed the point that to grant citizenship and to continue to treat citizens of the overseas territories as in some way being second class meant that Britain had still not understood that its relationship with overseas territories should be based on the principle of a partnership between equals. Like his colleagues, he remained concerned—this point has already been raised—that Britain had imposed European social legislation in relation to capital punishment and homosexuality on both the government and the opposition parties of the country against the wishes of the vast majority of the island electorate; and that Britain had offered nothing in return. To his mind, this indicated that London still understood little about the benefits that could flow from a more mutual relationship.
I raise those points because I believe them to be most important. I have visited many of the overseas territories in the Caribbean, and understand many of the problems with which the people are faced. I have great respect for those people. On such an occasion, I believe it right to raise the issues that those people have drawn to my attention. It is in that spirit that I offer them to the House this afternoon.
It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could tell the House whether any discussions have taken place with the overseas territories since the Bill was published with regard to the rights and responsibilities implied by the granting of citizenship. It would also be helpful if she could indicate what steps are being taken more fully to assimilate citizens in the overseas territories into the UK structure of bodies such as the Civil Service. I have always felt that it would help in

1029
terms of improving the standards of government in the overseas territories for civil servants in those countries to gain expertise serving in this country.
Finally, will the noble Baroness inform us of any discussions which have taken place with the neighbouring Caribbean governments on the implications of offering British citizenship to those who reside in our overseas territories in the Caribbean? These small dependent overseas territories are very much a part of the whole family—if I may so describe it—of the Caribbean, closely linked one with another. Clearly the measure will affect the relationship between the independent countries of the Caribbean and the overseas territories.
I end as I began, by welcoming this important Bill. I am pleased that the Government have introduced it. It will certainly have my support in principle but there are a number of detailed matters to which we shall need to return in Committee.
4.21 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am delighted to add my welcome to this long awaited legislation. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, so early in her career as a Foreign Office Minister and building on her success as a Foreign Office spokesman in your Lordships' House, is now able to introduce a Bill which gives satisfaction and security to many people who, in spite of being excluded from the provisions of the British Nationality Act in the past, have loyally always remained "British". I thank the noble Baroness for arranging the useful meeting in the Foreign Office to clarify some of the issues. Over the past 16 years I have had the pleasure and privilege of introducing and participating in a number of debates on issues affecting the dependent territories, now the overseas territories. The new name is a definite improvement. I had tabled a Motion on the future security and wellbeing of the overseas territories which was thwarted by the holding of the general election. However, I may well introduce it once the Bill has passed through its various stages as a number of issues, which are not included in the Bill, some of which have already been mentioned, remain outstanding.
A number of issues discussed in the 1999 White Paper also remain outstanding. One concerns the human rights convention. It is important to ensure that the provisions of the convention are enshrined in the constitutions of the overseas territories which are currently under review. I refer in particular to the principle of self-determination.
An issue of particular interest to me—it has been mentioned by my noble friends Lady Rawlings and Lady Young— concerns the educational status of university students who currently have to pay overseas student fees. As I understand the position, the Bill could affect that situation as, in granting the right of abode, it enables people to fulfil the necessary residence requirements and so avoid the fees imposed on overseas students which can be a great burden. I should be grateful for any clarification on those
1030
matters that the Minister can give. There is a definite danger, in particular as regards the Caribbean territories, that all the young people will go north to the United States where there are greater opportunities. If that were the case, the British flavour which we all hope will endure would be lost.
In previous debates in your Lordships' House the one message that came through loud and clear was that of citizenship and the right of abode. That issue will be resolved through the Bill. Many noble Lords will remember—the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has already mentioned this—the sterling work of Lord Iveagh who, sadly, is no longer a parliamentary Peer. In the past he represented strongly and consistently the wishes of the Saints—the people of St Helena—in relation to British citizenship in particular. He must be rejoicing over the publication of the Bill and regretting that he cannot participate on this occasion.
This is a short, simple Bill which was clearly explained by the Minister. I hope that it will remain a short and simple Bill as it is important that we get the issues of citizenship and right of abode resolved. However, as has been mentioned, there are other issues outstanding. I have some further questions to add to those already posed. The Explanatory Notes refer to the right to renounce the citizenship granted; in other words, people will not be forced to become British citizens. There is no reference to that in the Bill; presumably it is a provision of the British Nationality Act. As the Falkland Islanders have had that right since 1983, when they acquired the right to British citizenship, can the noble Baroness tell me, as a matter of interest, how many, if any, have renounced that right since then?
Further, what effect will the Bill have on the relationship with the European Union? My noble friend Lady Young mentioned that point. Presumably, citizens from the overseas territories, who will be British citizens and will have the right of abode in this country, will also have the right of abode in other European Union countries.
I seek clarification on the commencement date, to which the noble Baroness referred in her opening remarks. It would be helpful to be given a rough idea of the time-scale involved. I refer in this connection to the matters raised by my noble friend Lady Young to which she desires a response from the Minister. What consultation will take place between the passing of the Bill and its implementation?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I shall respond immediately to that point. Citizenship will be granted immediately the Bill receives Royal Assent. However, passports will be issued later because the relevant officials will need to be trained. That commencement date will be announced in an order presented to the House.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that speedy response. I was about to finalise my remarks by once again welcoming the Bill. I wish it a speedy passage.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I join the general chorus of welcome for the Bill which is one of the later steps in the disposal of our empire in the interests of its citizens. I thank the Government whose record in this matter has been exemplary. I have no complaints with regard to delay. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that on the whole we should be grateful for the speed with which the Bill has been brought forward.
If I am prompted to intervene, it is because I was the first person to raise the problems of St Helena in your Lordships' House after a gap of about 15 years. I was followed by many others, including Lord Iveagh. Of the speakers in this debate, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and I are the only two who have been to St Helena and talked to the people there. I have addressed the CPA in much the same way as he did.
I shall concentrate on the citizenship of St Helena. Citizenship was granted irrevocably by Charles I. It was taken away, quite wrongly, by Parliament in surrender to the largely racist opposition to immigration at the time. This Bill will by no means be the last legislation on the issue. I understand that discussions with St Helena and its dependencies will examine their constitutional future. The relationship of Ascension to St Helena is particularly fraught. On the one hand, although many of the inhabitants are Saints they do not want to come under the St Helena Government who are regarded as remarkably conservative in outlook—not in the best sense of the word. On the other hand, if one is to encourage tourism—it must be one of the economic developments although it has to be limited for various reasons—Ascension and St Helena as a package is more attractive than either territory alone.
We must now be expecting an even greater influx of Frenchmen to St Helena given the latest theories about the death of Napoleon, an issue which has always been a fairly large factor in tourism. Has the Minister anything to say about the status of Longwood, the house and gardens where Napoleon lived? I understand that it had some kind of consular status. Is there a problem there? Have the French Government been consulted on that?
I hope that the Minister will be in place to deal with the many future problems which may arise. A large number of species threatened with extinction exist in the overseas territories, in particular St Helena and Tristan da Cunha. The Foreign Office has already acted well with regard to sooty terns. The issue seemed to cause the noble Baroness some amusement on the first occasion although I think that she has since come to terms with it. We need to act to protect endangered species in those islands.
It is clear that the debate could have been far greater in length. St Helena, the Indian Ocean territories and Gibraltar raise major problems, quite apart from the Caribbean about which I am not qualified to speak. Noble Lords have been somewhat conservative in their approach. We have not raised too many issues. The Minister's attitude to the problem is welcomed by all
1032
noble Lords. I hope that the noble Baroness will still be in place to deal with the problems which will undoubtedly arise in the future. I look forward to her reply and to future action once the Bill has been passed. I and my party give the Bill the heartiest of welcomes.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister and the House for not being in my place at the opening of the debate. I confess that having had a knee operation I decided that I could not change my physio appointment. It seems right that there should be fit rather than unfit noble Lords in this Chamber.
I welcome the Bill. I do not criticise the Government for the time taken in bringing it forward. I welcome in particular the thrust of the Bill: that there should be a new partnership between the current dependent territories and the United Kingdom.
Two key elements arise from the Bill. The central element is that of British citizenship. Each of the territories mentioned in the Bill has its own form of local government, consultative council or whatever it may be. I am not expert enough to know whether it is appropriate to that territory's situation. The key element which will affect each territory is two-fold. First, every United Kingdom Bill which comes forward must be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I imagine—the Minister may have announced or will announce—that those provisions will apply to each dependent territory.
Secondly—this needs re-emphasising—the convention contains nothing about self-determination. Self-determination is wrapped up in a UN charter. It was confirmed recently by the International Court of Justice. That affects two of the territories—Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands—and we never know who else may be affected. But self-determination and the right of the people in any one of those territories to decide for themselves what they wish to do is crucial.
I do not know St Helena. Assisted by Terry Waite, I have in the dark teed off a golf ball on Ascension Island in order to reopen the Ascension Island Golf Club on my way to Gibraltar. I would welcome an opportunity to go to St Helena. I hope that there will be a response to the plea—it may well be supported by noble Lords on other Benches—from my noble friend Lady Young for progress on an airport.
I also take an interest in further and higher education. I hope that the Minister will address the points that have been raised by noble Lords across the House on that issue.
The key point on which I should like to spend a few moments is the voice of the people from those distant parts of the world. I had a quick look at the arrangements for the French overseas territories and départements. I had forgotten the scale of their territories. Independence has not moved as swiftly in the French départements and territoires overseas as perhaps it has in the British Overseas Territories. I asked the French Embassy how many people there

1033
were in Guadeloupe. The figure—422,000—rather dwarfs the population of St Helena, as do the figures for Martinique, at 381,000, and Réunion, now estimated at well over 600,000.
The principle is that all those places, some of which are very distant, send deputies to the equivalent of our Commons and senators to the equivalent of your Lordships' House. One of them—Guadeloupe—also sends a deputy to the European Parliament. Numbers should in some ways affect the eventual resolution to the problem, but individual UK citizens have a right to have their voice heard.
I suggested in my written submission to what we now euphemistically call the Wakeham commission that this House should have one or more person particularly nominated to look after the interests of the territories. I do not believe that the provision of an address at the Bar is an adequate safeguard for the people of the territories. The introduction of people's Peers and the opportunities and changes of forthcoming consultation provide a wonderful opportunity to address the issue of the voice of those people.
With the exception of Pitcairn, there are four spheres of influence: the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; St Helena; the West Indies; and Gibraltar. Cyprus is a slightly different issue. There is no reason why there should not be four nominated Members of your Lordships' House who have particular interest or knowledge—hopefully both—to take on that role. I am sure that there would be volunteers across the Chamber. I do not wish to compete with anybody, but I would certainly volunteer for the area of the Falkland Islands and others would volunteer for other parts. One volunteer is worth half a dozen dragooned Peers one way or the other.
There is a particular problem with Europe. The territories have to have access to the debates in Europe on an elected basis rather than an executive basis. One has only to look at the equivalent of Hansard for the European Parliament to notice how often the interests of those parts of the world are debated. It is fundamental that they should have a voice.
I greatly welcome the Bill. I wish it a fair passage and I hope that the opportunity will not be lost to give those important British citizens their voice in our Parliament. I hope that we shall welcome them to this Parliament.
4.44 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, this has been an interesting and extremely helpful debate. I am grateful to all those who have participated. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said, the Bill is relatively short, but nationality issues are always sensitive and often emotive. The Bill's citizenship provisions directly affect tens of thousands of people in territories as far apart as Bermuda and Pitcairn Island.
1034
The strong message that emerges from the debate is that the Bill commands widespread support across the Floor of the House. I thank noble Lords for their positive comments about the meeting that we had on the Bill and about my role in that.
The passage of the Bill will send a welcome message to the people of the overseas territories, who, as I said in my opening remarks, have waited a long time for its introduction. They will take a close and continuing interest in the progress of our debate.
I shall try to answer as many of the specific questions that have been raised as possible, but I shall write to noble Lords on some of the detail and put my answers in the Library of the House to allow all noble Lords to see what I have said.
I cannot agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, about the use of the term "dependent". The 1999 White Paper was called Partnership for Progress and Prosperity. I stress the term "partnership", because we want to reflect the reality of that partnership in the Bill. It is not about being politically correct. It is about reflecting the true nature of that partnership. I am pleased that other noble Lords have welcomed that change.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked about consultation with the overseas territories and whether our proposals had been fully discussed. The Bill was discussed at the annual consultative council meeting between Her Majesty's Government's Ministers from across Whitehall and the Chief Ministers from the territories. It was also discussed at a major seminar with representatives from all the overseas territories, which was held in the British Virgin Islands in September last year. I have sent all Chief Ministers a copy of the Bill and other information.
All those who have spoken have raised questions about rights, obligations and responsibilities. The Bill grants citizenship, and with it the right of abode. Other rights come into effect on the basis of residence. I shall write to those who have asked about education, social security and other provisions, because I have detailed answers in each case, but those issues relate to residence criteria rather than to citizenship. The points that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised about medical treatment and education fall into that category.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Rawlings and Lady Hooper, and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, specifically pressed me on education. Access to education and differential fees is based on residence, not citizenship. However, it is open to individual universities to interpret the regulations on fee status. In that sense, I welcome the King's College initiative, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, also pressed me on human rights. The issue has not been abandoned. Capital punishment has been removed from the statute books of the overseas territories.

1035
Judicial corporal punishment has been abolished in all overseas territories. Homosexual acts in private by consenting adults have been decriminalised by Order in Council. We are funding a broad range of human rights programmes in all the overseas territories. That includes looking at children's rights, women's rights and migrant workers' rights.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, asked specifically about the opportunity to work in the European Union. British citizenship will mean that British Dependent Territory citizens will have the right of abode in the United Kingdom and the right of free movement and residence, and with it the opportunity to work in European Union member states.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about costs. The change in citizenship status will occur automatically for most people and there will be no costs to cover. However, some cases may attract a fee. I shall write to the noble Baroness about that. I confirm to noble Lords that passport fees will be charged on the basis of the fees set by the Passport Agency world-wide. Therefore, the price will not vary.
With regard to numbers—a matter also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings—we estimate that approximately 200,000 people could become British citizens on commencement of the Act. The number is an estimate because it is as yet impossible to tell exactly how many people will benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, pressed me on points relating to the environment. In March this year, it was announced that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would make available £500,000 to support a project to be implemented by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the administration of Ascension Island to restore the sea bird breeding colonies. In the last financial year, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's environment fund for the overseas territories successfully disbursed more than £0.5 million to fund 30 different projects spread across almost every overseas territory.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, the noble Baronesses, Lady Rawlings and Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, all asked me questions in relation to St Helena. Particular concern was expressed about the welfare of the people of St Helena. I make it absolutely clear that the British Government make a substantial contribution in terms of supporting St Helena. We have made £29 million available over the current three-year period. That assistance includes £1.5 million per annum to subsidise shipping services.
In relation to proposals for a new ship or airport at St Helena, we have always made our position clear. We have agreed to provide funding equal to the least cost solution—that is, a new ship or a new airport—to maintain physical access. The options report is now under consideration by the St Helena Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked me about governors' uniforms—a point that I believe he made in his response to the gracious Speech. The number of
1036
posts which require a diplomatic uniform is now very small, although most governors of overseas territories are still expected to wear them. Many people regard the traditional image of a governor in uniform as out of date. However, the governments and people of the overseas territories generally regard uniforms as an important symbol of the link to the United Kingdom. Uniforms are still expected to be worn on ceremonial occasions, such as Remembrance Day and the Queen's Birthday. The current policy is for territories which want their governors to wear uniforms to meet the cost themselves. However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will consider meeting the cost of uniforms for governors of territories which receive UK budgetary aid. That includes Montserrat.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, asked me specifically about renunciation of citizenship. The provisions for renunciation of British citizenship are, and will continue to be, made by Section 12 of the British Nationality Act 1981. Statistics are not kept in such a way as to enable me to say how many British citizens from the Falkland Islands have renounced that citizenship.
I was pressed by many noble Lords on the issue of parliamentary representation. Overseas territories are not constitutionally part of the United Kingdom; they are separate legal jurisdictions. Therefore, it is not appropriate for them to be represented directly in the British Parliament and to take decisions on British legislation and internal UK domestic matters.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked me about public service. The public servants of the overseas territories are employees of the overseas territories' governments. We are in discussion with all overseas territories with a view to developing a programme of secondment and training for overseas territories civil servants from the FCO's good government fund.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked me about the situation in Kenya. In 1985 the citizenship provisions of the Kenyan constitution were amended. In consequence, since 1985 persons born in Kenya acquire Kenyan citizenship automatically at birth only if a parent is Kenyan. Where that is not the case, the possibility arises of statelessness. Existing provisions in the British Nationality Act 1981—in particular, Schedule 2—provide for the acquisition of British nationality by the otherwise stateless children of British parents. Those provisions satisfy our obligations under the 1961 UN convention on the reduction of statelessness.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, also asked me whether people in Montserrat have the right to vote. All existing British Overseas Territories citizens and Commonwealth citizens have the right to vote in UK elections if they fulfil the residence and registration requirements.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, asked what would happen if one of the territories became independent. The nationality consequences of independence would be dealt with in a separate Act of Parliament. In the past, the usual practice was to withdraw British nationality from the majority of

1037
those acquiring citizenship of the new state on independence day but to provide for its retention where the person concerned had a residual connection—for example, through a parent or grandparent—with the United Kingdom or with a place which nowadays would be referred to as a "British Overseas Territory". However, it would be inappropriate to speculate on how such matters might be handled in the future, and the British Overseas Territories Bill does not give voice to any assumptions in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, also asked me specifically about Clause 4. In some territories there are problems with regard to illegal immigration. Those problems are such that we wish to ensure that a filter operates to prevent illegal immigrants using the new legislation as a stepping stone to the United Kingdom. Registration or naturalisation as a British Overseas Territories citizen will act as such a filter. I shall write further to the noble Lord if he wishes to have further information on that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked me about the status of Longwood in St Helena. I have been passed a note by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, which I shall read and which I hope is accurate. I have been told by the noble Viscount that it is not consular territory. The land is owned by a foreigner; namely, the Republic of France, as is the site of Napoleon's empty tomb. The consul lives in his own house adjacent to Longwood. I thank the noble Viscount for that information. I can add that we have funded the establishment of the National Trust in St Helena. I believe that that organisation will take on some responsibility for the preservation of a major part of the heritage of St Helena.
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, asked me specifically about the right of self-determination. The Bill does not affect that right; indeed, the right is reflected expressly in the constitutions of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands.
I have been advised that, in my haste to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, my answer was not entirely accurate. The granting of citizenship will not be immediate as from Royal Assent. It will take effect when a commencement order is made by the Secretary of State once the passport issuing arrangements have been sorted out. We hope that that will be as soon as possible after Royal Assent. However, the change of name from British Dependent Territories citizen to British Overseas Territories citizen will take immediate effect.
I believe that today's debate will send a clear message to the people of the overseas territories that we have their interests at heart and that we are making progress towards delivering the commitment made two years ago to grant British citizenship. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Disturbances in Bradford
5 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, David Blunkett. The Statement is as follows:
"I believe that the response of the whole House will be to make it clear that we cannot and will not tolerate the wanton destruction and violence we have witnessed over the past few days.
"The message must be unequivocal and unwavering: whatever the debate about alienation and disaffection, attacking the police, destroying the well-being of the local community and playing into the hands of organised groups will simply not be tolerated.
"The facts can be recounted briefly. The banning order on all marches and processions in Bradford for three months had been in force since 4th July. The police were aware of reports of extreme right-wing elements seeking to defy the ban.
"Fighting began in the town centre in the late afternoon as efforts were made to disperse an Anti-Nazi League rally. The fighting shifted from the city centre to the Manningham area in the early evening, by which time the police themselves were the focus for attack.
"Missiles, including petrol bombs which had clearly been prepared in advance, were thrown at the police by a mob numbering 400 to 500 at its peak. One hundred and sixty-four police officers were injured. Thirty-six people were arrested, only two of whom were from outside Bradford.
"On Sunday night and Monday morning the Manningham area was quiet. Subsequently there was a serious attack on a restaurant in the Ravenscliff area and I regret to say that there was further disorder last night, involving youths throwing missiles in the Ravenscliff and Holmwood areas of the city. There have in total been 34 more arrests arising from the disorder in the city since Sunday.
"The police commander at the scene spoke of senseless violence and criminality. I endorse his judgment and applaud the courage shown by the police themselves in dealing with the situation.
"The damage to local businesses and the prosperity of the area will not be made good quickly. As always, the people who suffer in the long run will be members of the local community. We will wish to work with the people of Bradford to restore calm and look to the future.
"However, let me make it clear that a prerequisite for dealing with social ills or rebuilding confidence within the community must be to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that order is restored.

1039
"Following the disturbances in Oldham and Burnley, I asked my right honourable friend, the Minister of State responsible for crime reduction, policing and community safety, to draw together an inter-departmental ministerial group. That has met twice already. He will today be publishing preliminary results of wider action proposed by that group in addressing the concerns in a range of communities across the country and how, in conjunction with local people, the Government can do more to minimise the risk of further disorder.
"I wish to stress that we are not seeking to impose solutions from Whitehall or to lift the responsibility that must rest at local level, but we are seeking from local communities possible ideas on how young people can be further aided in taking up opportunities for recreation and other activities over the summer months—in particular, measures to bring different religions and racial and community groups together.
"I now propose to take that work a stage further. The ministerial group will undertake an urgent review over the summer of all the relevant community issues. It will be supported by a small, dedicated review team of people with the right skills. That team will seek views from people on the ground in the areas which have suffered violence, as well as in other places with similar social and demographic features which have not. The aim will be to draw lessons that can inform future policy at national, local and community levels.
"That group will continue its work and be complemented by the development of longer-term proposals from the Performance and Innovation Unit based in the Cabinet Office.
"There are many lessons to be learned from past as well as present events. The intelligence of practical planning issues for the police is one such challenge. We now need to ensure that the professionalism and experience of our police service is made available quickly and effectively to prevent further disturbance.
"The Association of Chief Police Officers has already held one meeting of commanders under the auspices of the "national operations faculty" to establish what lessons can be learnt not just in preventing, but also in bringing to a rapid conclusion, the kind of disorder that we saw on Saturday evening.
"I shall wish to discuss with ACPO how we might build on that initiative, pooling such experience and ensuring that operational commanders can find sources of advice immediately in helping them to deal with these exceptionally difficult situations.
"The vast majority of people in our society, regardless of their ethnic background, want the same things for themselves and their children. As we share common goals, it has to be to find a way of working and living together successfully.
"Our aim is to create an inclusive society, local communities which meet the needs of all groups, and a dialogue that transcends differences.
1040
Organised thugs from whatever background or standpoint undermine that possibility and that is why the threat from them must be met head on.
"The message from today is that we will not accept the destruction of hard-won improvements in the most difficult areas of our country; nor would local people forgive us if we do not provide them with the protection that they deserve."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Statement. Your Lordships' House contains quite a number of Peers who have great experience of race relations matters, including, from today, the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, who is most welcome. We all look forward in particular to seeing his report on the situation in Bradford, which was written before these outrages but which is, nevertheless, very up to date, important and relevant.
Does the Minister recognise that we fully agree with the Home Secretary that there are no excuses for that violence and destruction, and that the restoration of order is a pre-requisite for dealing with any social and economic ills?
As the Statement made clear, the outrages fundamentally involve criminal violence, which must always be resisted. Of course, we must also try to understand the causes of the start of the violence and the reasons why it spread so fiercely and lasted for so long. Those reasons undoubtedly lie partly in the difficult economic and social problems in Bradford, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred earlier.
It appears that the violence was launched by a small minority of extremists. Everyone supported the ban on marches and the National Front march appears to have been successfully stopped. Can the Minister say how far extremists from the Anti-Nazi League were responsible for starting the trouble, as the Statement hinted?
Can the Minister also say something about police numbers in West Yorkshire? I refer not to police numbers during these difficult times—there appears to be an entirely sufficient number of police dealing with the situation—but to the numbers required to carry out normal police duties and to ensure that relations between the police and the public are improved.
On water cannon and other strong measures that have been mentioned in connection with this matter, can the Minister confirm that their adoption would be a decision for chief constables and not primarily a matter for the Home Secretary? It is unacceptable for our police to have to stand and be bombarded hour after hour with petrol bombs, bricks and worse missiles, until 164 of them and several police horses are injured. We would support any chief constable who thought that water cannon or other measures would be of use in such situations. The police have the relevant experience and responsibility and they should take that decision.

1041
Our sympathy is with the injured police and with the citizens of Bradford whose lives have been so appallingly disrupted.
5.10 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, on occasions such as this we want to do more than just go through the motions of applauding the courage of the police when faced with such a situation. When one is on the front line it must be extremely frightening, and the way the police behaved on that night shows the discipline of our forces. We also express sympathy for the wider community.
We welcome the intention to further co-ordinate government action and to review community policy in these matters. But I confess that I worry a little about the tone of some of the statements that have been made since this riot. An American observer once said, "It is possible in a democracy to build your support on the un-young, the un-poor and the un-black. But do not be surprised if your cities burn". Policies have to go beyond middle England to areas of real deprivation if the police and other authorities are not to be faced with the problems that were faced last weekend.
We must therefore go beyond the ritual condemnation of senseless violence and criminality —"We will not tolerate wanton destruction and violence"—that is the given in any society. We must look to our new Home Secretary for the imagination to go beyond those stock responses. And does the Minister agree that this is a good time to place on record the immense contribution that our Asian community has made to our society over the past 30 or 40 years, from the virtual saving of our corner shop by numerous Mr. Patels, to some of our most successful job-creating entrepreneurs?
That is why the statistic given earlier today was all the more shocking. Was not the Minister truly appalled at the statistic that only 31 per cent of the 16 to 25 year-old male ethnics in Bradford are employed? Is not that the kind of issue that really demands indignation and immediate action? Have the Government ruled out a Scarman-type inquiry that would allow a broader look at the issue in Bradford and other northern cities?
While on the question of support for the police, does the Minister worry, as I do, that yet again this is a white police force trying to provide law and order? This is a city which has had a substantial ethnic community over a long period, yet so far as I can see—it would be interesting to see the statistics—I would guess that less than 3 per cent of that force come from the ethnic community. The police must take on board the reality that they have to recruit from the ethnic communities if they are going to be able to police effectively.
The noble Lord mentioned our latest recruit, the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, and I hope we are able to use his experience and expertise. Even the leaked parts of his report show what a deep and fundamental problem needs to be tackled here, both in education
1042
and housing, and the virtual apartheid that is taking place in Bradford and other communities. Those are the seeds of disaster and violence.
We must look at how we deal with this problem that has occurred in the north of England. It is a community brought up to work in a textile industry that no longer exists. That generation may have brought with it the usual passivity of an immigrant community, grateful for the opportunity to work, but the sons and daughters who see themselves as Britons are not going to tolerate second-class citizenship; constant jibing of "Paki"; the sport of "Paki-bashing". We must deal with bringing those communities into our society and we will not do it if we only employ 31 per cent of them.
Finally, in relation to the activities of the extremist groups, in such a tinder box both the far right and the far left will make mischief. So is the Minister aware that we believe that all the democratic parties should stand shoulder to shoulder at these times and resist the damage to our communities done by those extremists? There is a sense of urgency and we must move beyond the soundbites of how tough we are going to be to a real programme to deal with some of the underlying problems. That will give a greater sense of confidence, not least to those communities themselves.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the overall tone of the two responses from the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord McNally. We have tried to go beyond the soundbite—I do not believe it was a criticism, though it is easy for people to slip into that.
But there will not be any excuses and the restoration of law and order is a pre-requisite for doing the other works. That is fundamental; otherwise the public at large will feel that they are being deserted or held to ransom and we are not prepared to accept that.
I do not know and have no information to share with the House regarding the precise nature of the Anti-Nazi League demonstration. It is quite clear that the march ban was accepted. But there is evidence from other parts of the country which shows that those who wish to oppose the far right from the far left seek to have their demonstration even though the other one was banned. That has led to difficulties, as was said by one of the newly-elected Members of the other place in a newspaper yesterday. That happened in his constituency before the election. There have been difficulties throughout the year. It is not wholly related to the past few weeks.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about police numbers in West Yorkshire. He is absolutely right. To the best of our knowledge on the evenings and days in question, as indeed as I speak now, there is no issue in regard to adequate numbers. The numbers were supplied. They had been requested under mutual aid and the police were out on the street. But I believe that the noble Lord was asking a wider question and he deserves an answer.
I can give figures for Greater Manchester and Lancashire if required. In West Yorkshire the police had 4,815 officers on 31st March this year, which is

1043
seven fewer than in March 2000 and 394 fewer than in March 1997. There does not seem to be a reason why West Yorkshire has experienced such a large drop compared with the Lancashire constabulary, which has eight more than in 1997, and Greater Manchester with only 13 fewer than in 1997. There is no budgetary reason and nothing untoward about the money that has been allocated. I understand that there will be an extra 92 recruits from the Crime Fighting Fund allocation and probably a net gain of 200 this year. But in response to the disturbances and the current situation there is no shortage of police.
I confirm also, in respect of water cannon and other police equipment, that they are operational decisions for the chief constable. They are not matters for Ministers. Ministers do not police cities; the police police the cities. That is the way it has been and will continue to be. It is our job to provide the resources for the chief constables, but those are wholly operational matters. I share the views of the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, that he expressed when answering questions in relation to baton rounds. They kill people. But no one is raising that issue.
In respect of our attempts to co-ordinate, Whitehall has produced a large number of programmes. Neighbourhood renewal programmes are taking place in some 80 inner city areas of the country, divided up based on the enumeration districts. Therefore, we are attempting to target those areas as well.
Among 12 major English cities, Bradford has below average rates of violent crime, burglary and vehicle crime, but surveys show that the perception of crime and disorder is increasing. There is no doubt that drug misuse is a major concern and heroin is a rapidly increasing problem. There has also been a steady increase in racially-motivated incidents reported to the police.
I regret that I was unable to remain in the Chamber for the whole of Question Time today, but I am aware of the figures given by my noble friend Lady Hollis. They are appalling. The greatest asset of any country is the capacity and willingness of its people to work. If that asset is wasted, people's lives and economic advancement are thrown away. Therefore, getting people into work—sometimes with a carrot-and-stick approach—is fundamental. Part of the direction of many of the social security benefit changes in the past four years were made so that people can no longer say, "I am better off not working". However, there are still pockets of concern and those pockets can be split in terms of the ethnic origins of people. However, that is outwith the mainstream of policy and we must certainly do more in that area.
I regret that I do not have figures on the make-up of the police force. I do not argue with the assertion in the question. The numbers of those in the police force from ethnic minorities are extremely low. However, I do not necessarily accept that in order to do a professional job we need to have a mixed police force, although a mixed force would send out the right signals in a mixed community that is segregated by housing policies.
1044
In many of our inner cities there is a completely false market in housing costs. Houses that are worth twopence-halfpenny sell for thousands of pounds. Those in the ethnic communities want to live together, not just for reasons of safety, but to be near to their families, near to the mosque or the temple and near to schools. That results in segregation in our cities. Certain areas are almost nominated de facto for certain communities, which is not good for multicultural living in this country. In many of our inner cities there is a complete distortion of the housing market which becomes a real problem when one tries to carry out housing regeneration programmes. However, I do not have an answer. People can ask questions about this matter, but, as the Home Secretary said, it would be better if people came up with a few answers.
It is important that democratic parties stick together. It is now July and before long we shall be into the local elections for next year. There is no time to waste. Democratic parties must come together and work with their respective supporters to push forward the democratic credo: votes in ballot boxes, mature argument, good investment in the communities, in education, in the economy and in health, and a fundamental head-on meeting of the anti-democratic forces. We do not need to snuff out or to ban antidemocratic forces, but we need to meet them head-on with the arguments. If that is carried out in a mature and a responsible manner, backed up with all the programmes that government, both local and national, are carrying out, we have a reasonable chance of achieving wider support from the community to protect and advance itself.
5.24 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford regrets that he is unable to be present today. As noble Lords will understand, he is fully engaged. He sends his apologies to the House and trusts his brother from across the Pennines to speak the truth on his behalf. That is quite an undertaking when one remembers the red rose and the white rose.
In the Manchester diocese we have experience of recent difficulties in Oldham. Burnley is just up the road and now we have Bradford. I understand that I must ask questions and not make a speech. I hope that the Minister will take seriously the complexity of the situation. I mention "complexity" in two or three different contexts. One is that the young people involved in the Bradford riots were not simply Asians, but a mixture of Asians, Afro-Caribbeans and white Brits. In other words, we are talking about young people as well as ethnicity.
Secondly, the experience in some of the other communities has been that young people may want to live next to the mosque, with people from their own country, but this generation of young people, who were born in Britain, no longer feel obedient to their parents and grandparents or to the imams in the mosque, as did previous generations of people from Asia or the Afro-Caribbean. Having put up with much

1045
racism from white people over the years, they are now sufficient in numbers to exert their strength and to copy the yobbish behaviour of some of our white teenagers. We must admit and own that.
As to the complexity of the situation, the leaders are condemnatory of the violence, but feel equally powerless to exert leverage on young people in the way in which we, miles away from Bradford, may imagine. Do we understand the complexity of the young people? Do we understand the complexity of acquiring new jobs for Asian and other young people in Oldham and in Bradford?
Yesterday we were discussing shareholders and millions of pounds and I had come from a hearing on debt and poverty. But will people invest in Oldham and Bradford now? Local authorities and government must take the initiative to help in relation to unemployment.
Thirdly, there is the complexity of the police. We hope that the police will be able to recruit many ethnic young people. Having lived and preached in Manchester and having met regularly with senior police officers and chiefs of police across the North West, I ask whether people are aware of the complexity of attracting young people of ethnic groups into the police force.
Finally, comments have been made about the tone. Any talk about ethnic relations in England now is fraught with difficulty and tension. Having recently listened to the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, lecturing in Salford about the brittleness of community relations and sensitivity, we need an inquiry that goes beyond the sound-bite, deep into our young people's anxieties, despairs and alienation. Who will do that and how will it be done? I am glad to hear that the Government have in mind how it will be done and which young people from local communities in Bradford will be involved.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I respect what the right reverend Prelate has said on his own behalf and on behalf of his colleague. He is quite right about the pressure on young people these days. Unfortunately, some of their elders believe that the villages that they left 30 years ago are still the same, whereas young people today know that they are not. Within the families and the communities there are massive internal pressures as people come to terms with the situation. They want to maintain their culture and their heritage. They do not like being lumped together by their ethnic origins. There may also be a religious factor. Some of them say, "I was born here; call me British". It is a complex problem. We shall seek to do our best to involve young people in some of the programmes. However, positive local leadership is required and not the empty barrels of the sometimes self-appointed leaders in the various communities who, in the past, have spoken up loudly but have not actually spoken for anybody other than themselves.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, perhaps I can remind the House of a question that I asked 12 days ago on preventing these riots spreading to other towns. At the
1046
weekend I saw on television my old home town of Bradford burning and with riots in the streets. I felt a sense of despair, although I did not feel a sense of surprise. Unless a huge amount of work is carried out on preventing more riots in other towns—we all know where they are—there will be more.
Do the Government understand that it is not only necessary to talk to all the usual organisations, all the community leaders—usually middle-aged men—and all the local agencies, but that they must also talk to the young Asian people concerned, who, utterly misguidedly, go on to the streets to "defend their areas and to defend their families"? All that they are doing, in fact, is wrecking their communities and fighting the police. Those young people must be involved in the discussions locally to find solutions, not just in the long run—I welcome everything in the Statement about that—but also in relation to what will happen next week or the week after if a gang of white thugs, whether or not linked to the BNP or the National Front or just tanked up out of the pub, come out on to the street and start a riot.
My experience of talking to such young people is that there is a great deal of unfocused anger among young Asian men, many still teenagers, and that they are unable to focus that anger in a positive direction. However, unless it can be appeased and they can take part in the plans and agreements reached about what will happen if the spark ignites in their community we shall have more such occurrences.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we shall seek to involve representatives of the younger community so that other than middle-aged men are involved. As was touched on in the Statement, we have set up a group to examine "best practice" in other cities where there has not been a problem. We want to see how they are coping so that we can learn what they have done that is different from the cities in which there have been difficulties in the past few days and weeks. This is not a widespread, national issue. Some areas with large ethnic minority groups have good community relations and there is no rioting. There is participation and community relations are good. We want to examine those good points and discover why the situation is different in some of the other cities. We need to learn that lesson fast in the next few days and weeks; it is not an issue for next month or next year.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I welcome the Statement, in particular the intention to set up an interdepartmental ministerial group. I appreciate that my noble friend is not responsible for education but perhaps for the sake of clarity I may ask him to feed in one proposition. Will the group examine the structure of education in those towns which have had difficulties, not only Bradford, in order to see whether we are failing by having educational segregation—in other words, racial segregation—insofar as some schools are mainly white and others are mainly Asian? One has only to think about Northern Ireland to see what the consequences may be if that is the case. This may be one element in the difficulties we have experienced.

1047
That leaves a responsibility on the Government, on local education authorities and, as regards Church schools, on the Churches. I hope that the ministerial team will examine the issue as part of their scrutiny.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the best thing I can do is to ensure that my noble friend's question and comments are drawn to the attention of my ministerial colleagues. However, as the Home Secretary made clear, we are not going down the road of bussing. Wherever that has been tried it has not worked. There is a problem as regards catchment areas. If in these cities there is a false market in housing, by definition the catchment of local schools will result in segregation. There is a difficulty and there is no easy answer. Nevertheless, what my noble friend said will be taken on board.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the Minister made the grave statement that the dangerous weapons used by the rioters were obviously prepared for the occasion. Is there to be an investigation as to how they were manufactured; how their manufacture was financed; how they were procured; how their procurement was financed; and where they were stored?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is what policing is about. In inquiring into what happened, the police will look at the causes of the incident and how it began and at the weapons and how they were put together. Molotov cocktails were used, so clearly the bottles and the fuel were obtained and the weapons prepared. There will not be a special inquiry but the police will carry out their normal duty of discovering the cause and that will cover the very points the noble and learned Lord raised.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, picking up on the high rate of unemployment among the young in Bradford, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and following on the anxieties of the right reverend Prelate about the reluctance of business to invest in such a city, will the Government consider following the excellent example of my former right honourable friend Michael Heseltine after the Toxteth riots some 20 years ago? He personally made an enormous effort to interest investors, industrialists and others in investing in the city of which Toxteth is part and did so with considerable impact.
I followed Michael Heseltine in the job he had occupied and found myself opening facility after facility. Those had been directly inspired by the positive action by the then government to encourage businesses to recognise that they had a responsibility for some of the very deprived areas. Is that an example that might be followed?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I recall that the White Paper prepared by the then Secretary of State was entitled It Took a Riot. He had a different approach which the previous government and the present Government continued. Solving the problem is not a
1048
policing matter—it is not about containment. That is the by-product of some of the issues but we will not solve the problem by having more police and a greater containment of people. These issues transcend that. They are about investment, jobs, education and health opportunities. A great deal of investment has been planned and has been made in Bradford. Some of that has been wasted and will have to be repeated as people have destroyed part of their own community. There was £114 million from the single regeneration budget alone, Bradford having nine successful bids at various times. Indeed, £10.5 million went in to the health action zone.
The noble Lord is right in saying that there is a case to be made but, as he well knows, the task of government in approaching business is not made easier after the event. It must be done before. However, the lessons will be taken on board. I visited the area many times in my former role as shadow Minister and saw what had been achieved following the visit, initiative and commitment of the former Secretary of State.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, does the Minister agree that more than 95 per cent of the Asian communities in Bradford, Oldham and elsewhere have been horrified to see the events of the past few weeks? Does he also agree that there have been low educational achievements in Bradford because, for instance, less than 19 per cent of young Asian men achieve five grade A to C passes at GCSE level? Therefore, is it not necessary to examine the educational achievements of the Asian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi children particularly in Bradford, Oldham and northern towns where problems have occurred? In the long term, the job opportunities and the training which follows must be preceded by a proper education at school.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, in agreeing with my noble friend all I can do is repeat the words of the Prime Minister: it is a matter of education, education, education. Clearly, given the low level of attainment by so many young people there has been an abject failure in the recent past. Without qualifications there will not be any progress. My noble friend is absolutely right that this point must be taken on board in the work that is to be taken forward.
Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may commend to the Minister and the House as a whole, if he or other noble Lords have not already read it, today's in-depth and extremely informative report in the Yorkshire Post about the background to the riots. First, does the Minister agree that if the outdoor temperature in Bradford last weekend had been 20 degrees cooler than it was the disturbances would have been on a much smaller scale? Historically, rioting tends to take place when the nights are hot. Secondly, does the noble Lord agree that there are few things that young males of all backgrounds, and in all eras, enjoy more than the sound of breaking glass and the sight of leaping flames? Certainly, in the part of the East Midlands where I live, one of the favourite pastimes of

1049
adolescent males is to steal cars and set them ablaze. Does the Minister agree that to a large extent it is perhaps a problem of youth rather than race?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am aware that the matters described by the noble Lord do happen, but his observation does not apply to the majority of young people in this country. We are talking here about the involvement of a minuscule number of young people. I am aware that in our cities windows are broken, cars are stolen and so on, but the vast majority of young people lead a decent quality of life. Therefore, we are dealing with a minority, the effect of whose actions on communities is totally disproportionate, and, therefore, we must not ignore it. I am not sure I accept the noble Lord's point about temperature. If one accepted it one might go for a low temperature all year round. Would that direct us to greater efforts to look at disadvantage and discrimination in our communities and ensure that we pursued our policies at a faster pace? I accept that the temperature was up, but I do not believe that that is the reason. Issues such as deprivation, non-achievement and lack of investment must be tackled as much in the winter as in the summer. This incident brings matters to a head. I regret that I have not read the report in the Yorkshire Post but I shall do so.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, while I welcome my noble friend's approach and am gratified that the Government are aware of, and are attending to, the causes of this problem, does he also agree that the symptoms are not acceptable and that to maintain police morale a fairly firm view should be taken of practices such as shining bright lights into the eyes of policemen so they cannot see the bricks that are being hurled at them? Does my noble friend agree that there must be responses from the courts which provide a discouragement while one seeks advances in education, employment, investment and so on which may eventually relieve the problem?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for my noble friend's question. I saw one news broadcast on Sunday night about those lights; it was the first time I had heard them mentioned. I have not read any press reports or seen photographs of them. No one can say that this was a spontaneous uprising because of disadvantage and so on; clearly, it was planned. To use hand-held devices which look like car headlights deliberately to frustrate the forces of law and order is quite outrageous, and that must be looked at by both the police and the prosecuting authorities.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the Minister agree that citizenship education is a relatively new concept which deserves a much higher priority in view of recent events? What is being done in relation to that within the Department for Education, which I know is a separate matter as far as concerns the Minister?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Earl that citizenship education should apply to
1050
everybody, whether they are newcomers or indigenous. We debated last night in this House, albeit briefly, one of the latest reports on young people. From 2002 in key stage 3 citizenship will be a compulsory part of the education programme. Therefore, planning is now proceeding within the education system for the implementation of that programme.

Type 45 Destroyers
5.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the procurement strategy for the Type 45 destroyer.
"It is almost a year to the day since I announced to the House the decision to procure the first batch of three Type 45 destroyers as part of a planned class of up to 12 ships. The Type 45s will be the largest and most powerful air defence destroyers ever ordered for the Royal Navy.
"Since that announcement we have made good progress. The contract to complete the design and build of the first three ships was placed with BAe Systems on 20th December last year. Design work is also progressing well. An integrated design team—covering the prime contractor, BAe Systems, and the two shipbuilding companies, BAe Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft, has been established at Scotstoun for the past six months. A number of key subcontracts, such as that for the Rolls-Royce WR21 engine and much of the combat system, have now been placed. There have been a number of successful test firings of the Aster missile, the ship's main armament, which is being developed with France and Italy.
"Progress, however, towards the shipbuilding subcontracts has been more challenging. The procurement strategy for the Type 45 was based on the allocation of shipbuilding work for the first three ships between the BAe Systems Marine yard at Barrow and on the Clyde and Vosper Thornycroft. Thereafter, it was assumed that both companies would compete for the assembly of batches of follow-on ships.
"At the end of last year, however, BAe Systems Marine put forward an unsolicited proposal for the construction of all of the Type 45 destroyers. We have been examining this proposal carefully to establish whether it offers better value for money for the taxpayer. We have also called on the services of Rand, a highly respected independent consultancy experienced in this type of issue, to take a fresh look at possible procurement strategies for this programme in the context of the future warship programme as a whole.

1051
"For the current procurement strategy to work, the shipbuilding companies need to work closely together during the development and manufacture of the first batch of ships already on order. Co-operation of this kind has not been encouraged by the existence of the unsolicited proposal or by the prospect of having to compete against each other for the second hatch of ships.
"We have been keen to resolve these problems, as has industry. Working with the companies, we have developed a revised strategy which allocates work on the ships between the two shipbuilders for the whole class of Type 45 destroyers. The first of class ship would be assembled and launched at Scotstoun. The focus of design support to the whole class will remain there, with continuing participation by both shipbuilders. The remaining ships would be assembled and launched at Barrow.
"Vosper Thornycroft at Portsmouth and BAe Systems Marine on the Clyde and at Barrow-in-Furness would both build and outfit substantial sections of each ship. The yards would continue to build the same sections throughout the programme to increase efficiency and produce better value for money for the taxpayer.
"The strategy also involves a commitment now to six ships of the planned class of up to 12 ships, doubling the number on order. This larger volume of guaranteed work and stable foundation to the project will allow industry to make long-term investment decisions.
"Subject to the completion of satisfactory negotiations, I propose to adopt this revised approach. We are confident that we can secure demonstrable value for money through this revised approach. We are seeking demanding efficiency improvements from industry. The initial findings of the Rand study support this new approach. It reflects the best features of the BAe Systems Marine bid in terms of learning from experience from one ship to the next, but also preserves the possibility of competition for a number of subsequent defence programmes. The new strategy gives a welcome level of stability to our warship-building industry and, above all, offers the best prospect of achieving the in-service date for the Type 45 destroyer, with deliveries starting in 2007. Any delay would have significant operational and cost penalties.
"Turning to the companies, this approach gives Vosper Thornycroft a defined and significant role in the Type 45 programme. The company will be able to move its operation, as planned, into the Portsmouth naval base and invest in new shipbuilding facilities there. It also provides a solid foundation from which to sustain its export business and enter competitions for future naval programmes. The company estimates that the substantial level of high quality Type 45 work should sustain a high level of some 650 jobs well into the current decade.
"Type 45 work, together with the first three Astute Class submarines and the order for two Alternative Landing Ships Logistic (ALSL)
1052
announced last year, should support BAe Systems Marine shipbuilding for the rest of the decade. Based on the company's own estimates, once the construction programme is up and running, work on Type 45 should sustain a steady level of some 1,200 jobs on the Clyde and around a further 900 jobs at Barrow-in-Furness. I understand that, in the light of this package of work, the company has no plans to close any of its yards.
"This revised procurement strategy for the Type 45 destroyer is a further example of the benefits of smart acquisition, involving an integrated team approach by the key industrial partners. The companies involved welcome this new approach. I commend it to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. We welcome incontrovertibly the announcement for which the Navy has been waiting for far too long. The latest delay has been from December to July. Perhaps I may ask what, in the event, was the use of having the Rand Corporation's report as we have gone back to square one? However, will that report be put in the Library of the House so that we may see and evaluate it?
In the Statement the Secretary of State, with regard to construction, said:
"Progress, however, towards the shipbuilding sub-contracts has been more challenging".
What that means in English is that they have been unnecessarily delayed. I hope, therefore, that the Government will guarantee that the in-service date will not slip any further from 2007. Originally it was 2002. Can the Government give a cast-iron guarantee, not only of this date but also that the Ministry of Defence will build 12 ships? Having said that, I congratulate British Aerospace and Vosper Thornycroft on finally receiving an order, and I wish them well.
In allocating this contract the Government have abandoned all notion of competition. With the Type 23 this brought about major savings. The current policy is a complete U-turn on government policy over the past four years. In May 2000, Sir Robert Walmsley, Chief of Defence Procurement, told the Defence Select Committee that,
"competition does in many ways stimulate innovation. We have learned from that and we will insist on competition for the Type 45".
He also said that,
"if we do not compete the follow on production order there will be very little incentive for shipyards to improve their performance".
With today's announcement, what incentives is the Minister now putting in place?
Only British Aerospace will assemble and launch the first six ships. What is the estimate of the cost savings of operating in this manner over the lifetime of the programme? It seems to me that these savings will be nil; indeed, there is likely to be an oncost.

1053
Perhaps I may turn to the ships themselves. Can the Minister confirm a number of points with regard to their armaments? First, there is no anti-submarine capability when the Lynx helicopter is not operational. Secondly, the Type 45 cannot carry the Merlin helicopter. There is no platform which will allow it to operate from the Type 45. Thirdly, the Type 45 has no close in-range weapons. It has no system such as Phalanx which one might have expected to see. Fourthly, there is no anti-surface capability such as Harpoon. Fifthly, the Type 45 has no land attack capability.
It would seem, therefore, that this contract adds new meaning to the phrase "built-in obsolescence". However, does this not confirm that the Type 45 cannot defend itself and will need protection? Surely, that must be short-termism and very undesirable. Is this not yet another instance of financial micro-management by the Treasury, saving money in the short term but being in the long term extremely expensive and undesirable?
Having made those criticisms, to which I would be grateful for a reply from the Minister, we wish Vosper Thornycroft and British Aerospace well. I hope that both companies will now be allowed to get on with the job.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, we, on these Benches, also welcome the announcement that has been made today. We are glad that progress will now be undertaken.
The announcement is an extremely important one, not only in terms of the size of the order, now up from six to a potential 12 ships of the class—I have a question on that matter in a moment—but also, and perhaps more importantly, on the new approach to procurement which it represents and its implications in the longer term for the whole competitive base of British shipbuilders.
The new approach which has been set out today, as I understand the matter, is that instead of dividing an order by ships and allocating some ships to one yard and others to another, is to section individual ships and allocate certain sections throughout the whole of the class to one yard and others to another yard. That is an important development. As the Minister has said, it will perhaps lead to efficiency gains. It does, however, have serious implications for competition policy and the maintenance of a competitive capacity in this country.
There is a reference in the statement to,
"preserving the possibility of competition for a number of subsequent defence programmes".
That seems to me to be critical. Unless we have more than one lead yard able to tender in the future, how will it be possible for subsequent classes of ships to engage in competition?
I am glad that the Government have had the benefit of the independent report from the Rand Corporation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, I hope that,
1054
subject to questions of commercial confidence, it will be deposited in the Library, or, indeed, published when it is available. Does that report indicate the costs and benefits of the new approach, because there are clearly both? Can the Minister give us the current estimate of the total cost of all 12 ships? Furthermore, can he tell us the estimated amount which will be saved by proceeding with this new approach to ordering?
In view of our recent discussions following a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on ballistic missile defence for individual ships, can the Minister tell us whether any plans are being examined to introduce some missile defence for these extremely valuable and critical vessels?
While recognising that the Type 45 is primarily being acquired for air defence purposes, will there be an option to introduce a land assault cruise missile capability if that is desired? Instead of there being "built-in obsolescence", as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, how much built-in flexibility is there, so that during the building period of these ships it may be possible to introduce the appropriate weapon systems?
Finally, how far is the increase from six to 12 vessels, as mentioned in the Statement, contingent on the Government going ahead with the decision to order two aircraft carriers?
6 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support for the Statement. A number of points arise from their questions. I shall not be able to answer them all in the time available. If I do not answer all of the major ones, I shall reply in writing.
I want to make it absolutely clear that the Statement referred to the first six ships and not to the 12 ships. The hope is that in due course there will be 12 ships, but for the moment the Statement refers not to the three ships that were talked about a year ago but to the six that are to be ordered.
I was asked about the Rand report. It is an initial report at this stage. Subject to commercial confidentiality, we see no reason why—the Secretary of State said so in another place earlier today—it should not be placed in the Library of both Houses. Rand has been of considerable assistance. It is an independent organisation and is not attached to any of the interested parties. Overall, its figures support the course the Government have decided to take.
Both noble Lords asked about competition. There is no question of changing policy in this field. What matters always is value for money. In almost every case, competition is the best way of finding value for money. But that is not so in every case. We have come to the judgment, supported by the companies and, I think, by the House, that the way to ensure that these vital ships are built, on time—the first ship in 2007—is to take the course that we have set out. Far from being anti-competitive, there will be keen competition, not least for the two aircraft carriers to which the noble Lord, Lord Roper, referred. There is a precedent for not having strict competition in this field. I need refer

1055
only to the Astute submarines that were ordered under the previous government without, as I understand it, a full competitive process. We have to accept that, more often than not, competition is right; but occasionally what we have set out is the better way.
I was asked about the armaments. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, was right. Sometimes in the past there has been a tendency to design ships with too much on at the first stage so that by the time they actually come into service we find that reality has moved on and the situations they have to face have altered. The watchword here is flexibility. While the ships continue to be designed and when the first ones are in service there will be provision for the ships to have different armaments. Indeed, it would be possible to have on the ships provision for land attack missiles. There is immense flexibility. That is the way we want it and that is the way the Navy wants it. That seems eminently sensible.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of Vosper Thornycroft. As a consequence, I have been heavily engaged in these negotiations in recent weeks. I hope the Minister is aware that we at Vosper Thornycroft welcome the announcement. We will do everything we can to make a success of building the ships for the Navy, on time and to budget.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. We are also grateful for the part he has played in making sure that I could make the Statement today on behalf of the Government. It has needed both of these eminent companies—both are very important in this field—to have weighed up the advantages and disadvantages for them. We are delighted that they have come to the view that they have. I thank the noble Lord and also his opposite number.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I welcome the statement that we are to proceed with six ships. It is a pity that we have perhaps lost some momentum by delaying the initial order for the first three ships. I still remain a little unclear on the competitive, or noncompetitive, approach. I shall not quote from the Statement but there appears to be a conflict within it. The Minister attempted to answer the two Front Bench spokesmen, but I wonder whether he can be a little more explicit about the MoD's reasons for deciding against a competitive approach. Normally, competition is the right way. The Minister suggested that there were special reasons in this case. Can he be explicit about what the special reasons were in this case?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for his welcome to the Statement. I shall do my best to answer his questions. There were difficulties with the strategy that arose from the continued problems that industry was having in finding a co-operative way forward. As the Statement says, the significant cause of the difficulty was the impact on the companies of the approaching
1056
competition and the existence of the unsolicited offer from BAe Systems Marine. Those two factors together made it somewhat awkward from time to time for the joint work that was necessary to be completed. All that—this is the real reason why we have come to our view—was endangering the in service date of 2007. Any delay to that date would have not only disappointed the Royal Navy but would have disappointed many people who sense that we need these destroyers to come on line as quickly as possible. For those reasons negotiations were gone into between the various parties in order to ensure that the in service date stayed the same.
It was also important for us that both the companies—BAe Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft—continued to play an important part in the future building of warships in this country. In order to achieve that, and in order that there can be competition in the future—perhaps between them and others—it seemed to us sensible, given that we wanted to keep the in service date of 2007, to make the arrangement that we have, which will also have the benefit of ensuring that there is employment for both companies well into this decade. For those various reasons, we decided that this was the best policy to follow. But we could not have followed it if either of the companies had said "no". They said "yes"; and that is why I have made the Statement today.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement and I should remind the House that I have a very peripheral interest. The Statement referred to,
"substantial sections of each ship".
What does that mean? Does this refer to a few compartments of a few hundred tonnes, or does it mean a full longitudinal section of each craft?
As regards helicopters, I understand that the Type 45 destroyer will not be able to accommodate the Merlin helicopter. That strikes me as, first, rather a weakness of the ship. Secondly, we know that it will not be possible to bid competitively for subsequent batches of Type 45 destroyers. If, later on, a decision is made that it is essential that Type 45 destroyers should be able to take the Merlin helicopter, that will result in major modifications being made to the ship. However, we shall not be able to use the benefits of competitive tendering for that modification.
Finally, it is worth noting that the first of the class is to be built at the Scotstoun yard, which is a traditional yard and is not covered, whereas the yards at Woolston and Barrow-in-Furness are covered. How will construction be undertaken in the winter? Is the construction to follow the lines of traditional shipbuilding or will it follow a high-tech line?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we are confident that the first class of craft built at Scotstoun will not only be completed on time, but also will be well put together. We have no doubt about that. That was, of course, part of the policy as set out at this time last year. So far as concerns helicopters, in due course there may well be a facility for Merlin helicopters on these ships.

Greyhounds
6.11 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, we are not quite as numerous in the Chamber tonight as perhaps we would be if we were debating the matter of foxhounds; we are debating only greyhounds. However, the quality more than makes up for the quantity.
My choice of subject for debate has caused a certain amount of jocularity in some quarters. It appears that some noble Lords believe that it is not quite appropriate for a Peer of the realm to talk about greyhounds. However, that may be because I am associated more often with genuinely crowd-pleasing subjects such as electoral reform and the long-term care of the elderly. Perhaps I may take a moment to defend my choice of subject.
I concede readily that there are more important subjects to discuss than the welfare of greyhounds: AIDS in Africa, civil war in Macedonia and world poverty come to mind. Of course those matters are more important and it is right that we debate them. I have even heard noble Lords, in their passion, say that our voices reach to the four corners of the earth. I have my doubts. The subject before us tonight is less important globally, but it is one that noble Lords have the power to influence—and to do so greatly for the better. That influence may have the effect of greatly improving the lives of thousands of dogs of this magnificent breed.
I shall begin by recounting a tale of two dogs, both of which were mine. The first racing dog I ever owned was one called Park Laddie. In his day he was a good dog. He was two spots off the track record at Wimbledon and won his Pall Mall heat at Harringay; he was even quoted in the Derby betting. Unfortunately, however, Park Laddie broke a hock and had to retire. At that point the head kennel lad approached us and said that this meant that Park Laddie's career was at an end. He said, "We'll look after him for you". At the time we did not have a large house and I chose to take the kennel lad's word for it; he seemed a nice enough man. I hope that his word was true. I hope that Park Laddie, who was a lovely dog, was rehomed or that if, for some reason he was not able to be rehomed, he was painlessly put down. I hope so, but to my eternal shame, I do not know that. Furthermore, I believe that thousands of greyhound owners are in the same position.
The second dog that I wish to introduce is our current retired greyhound, Zak. To our great pride, Zak is the current Westminster Dog of the Year. In his racing days, Zak was also a good dog who won minor open races. But at the age of five he was disqualified from a race. Then there is a six-month gap in his history. He was found wandering the streets, in a very poor condition, by workers from the Battersea Dogs Home, bless them. Soon after that, he adopted us. At this point I should tell the House that greyhounds make the most wonderful and trouble-free pets. They do not even need to be walked all that far.
1058
Perhaps some 10,000 greyhounds are retired from racing each year. Of those, a number under 2,000 are rehomed through the industry's Retired Greyhound Trust, although I have been told that presently there is a six-month wait before a dog can be taken by the trust. Some 1,500 dogs are rehomed through voluntary efforts. I can see sitting below Bar some of the very fine men and women who dedicate their lives to this task. Broadly speaking, that then leaves 6,500 dogs which are unaccounted for. Some may be lucky, but some are unlucky. They may be shipped to Spain, where often they are kept racing until they can no longer put one foot in front of the other. Others are abandoned, as was the case with Zak. Some are murdered, their ears cut off so that they cannot be identified and their owners brought to book.
Most greyhound owners and trainers are caring people. They would not want their animals to suffer. However, a minority are not, and I strongly believe that if the leadership of this industry would take its responsibilities seriously in regard to retired greyhounds, that minority problem could be dealt with relatively easily.
It gives me no pleasure to say that I am not impressed with the industry's performance in this regard. Perhaps I may illustrate that statement from my own experience. Before launching this campaign I called Mr Geoffrey Thomas, a pleasant and able man who runs the British Greyhound Racing Board, to request a meeting to discuss the matter. I telephoned four times, but I received no reply. I then wrote to him. Eventually I received a letter promising a call as soon as the Budget was out of the way. I still await that telephone call.
Many noble Lords have been in this House for longer than I. In my short experience, every responsible industry—every firm and every pressure group—is only too eager to meet us and to put their case. Sometimes the trouble lies in trying to keep them away. That is not the case with greyhound racing, which appears to regard itself as a law unto itself.
This is not an isolated example. Shortly before the general election, the then Minister responsible for animal welfare, Mr Mike O'Brien, wrote to the main industry players in polite terms asking what they planned to do about the welfare of retired greyhounds. I have seen the reply the Minister received from Mr Frank Melville of the NGRA. I shall not detain the House by reading extracts from his long letter, but civil servants who saw that letter can recall few occasions when a letter from a responsible Minister had evinced in reply such a piece of whining bombast.
Sadly, this is an industry divided between its various ruling bodies and between registered and unregistered "flapping" tracks. That makes the task all the more difficult. It is unfortunate that it is also led by an unaccountable and self-regarding oligarchy which simply does not understand the necessity to take on board and react to considered criticism from outside. I think that it speaks for itself that the industry's contribution to rehousing retired greyhounds totals only £250,000 a year.

1059
What should the industry do? The National Canine Defence League undertakes sterling work in this field. It has set out a four-point plan: first, that the industry conducts research to find out the scale of the problem; secondly, that sufficient funds are made available to the Retired Greyhound Trust to enable it to cope with the numbers; thirdly, that there should be high profile prosecutions of owners or trainers who abandon their dogs—name and shame; and fourthly, that there should be better governance of the sport—one overarching body to take responsibility.
I think that the priority here is money. Greyhound owners, with some Croesus-like exceptions, are not rich; nor are most trainers, who these days must struggle to make a living. In 1991 the Home Affairs Select Committee pointed out that the most obvious source of finance is the bookmakers. Here I speak as a bookmaker because I am a member of the board of the Tote. Bookmakers take well over £1 billion on dogs each year. Greyhound racing is an essential component of the betting shop product—it kept the industry going during the foot and mouth outbreak when there was no horse racing. There is even 24-hour dog racing on TV now, believe it or not, courtesy of barkingmad.com. I am ashamed to say that I watched several hours of it over the weekend. It is an experience. Money is required. I say no more today other than that I believe that progressive forces in bookmaking are prepared to put up the necessary money to deal with the problem.
I turn now to the terms of the Unstarred Question and to ask the Government about their plans. I know all about the pressures of the legislative programme. My noble friend the Minister will be glad to hear that I am not asking for a commitment to legislation on this matter from him today. He will be even gladder to know that I am not even asking him for more money from the taxpayer today. I should much prefer that the industry puts its own house in order without legislative intervention. But I do ask the Minister to make it clear to the industry that it is on probation. If it does not do what is necessary to tackle these scandals, it will be for the Government to ask Parliament to act.
We want a healthy greyhound racing industry of which we can be proud. "Behind our backs", say those of us who campaign on this subject, "the industry whispers that we have a secret agenda: the abolition of dog racing". In my case, and in the case of most of the people that I know, it is the reverse. We want something done to save this sport, not to destroy it. Yes, there are people who would ban greyhound racing. I have a paper in my folder from a group called Greyhound Action. It states:
"Greyhound racing inevitably leads to massive killing and suffering. The only solution is abolition".
Lest your Lordships think that that is a fantasy, we should remember how quickly hunting went from something that was totally accepted everywhere to the edge of abolition; we should think of Huntingdon Life Sciences. Those who are complacent should think again.
1060
We want greyhound racing to thrive. But it cannot do so while the abuse continues and the authorities in their complacency connive at it. I ask the Government and the House today to demonstrate to greyhound racing that Britain, a civilised society and a society of animal lovers, will not continue to tolerate the continued abuse of these magnificent creatures.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I declare an interest. I am a member of the Kennel Club, as are a number of other Members of the House.
I profess not to be a devotee of greyhound racing but I strongly support the right of millions to enjoy it. I wish the industry well. But I think it is perfectly possible to support an industry such as greyhound racing and the enjoyment it brings to many and also to be acutely concerned about the welfare of the animals. We are a civilised nation. I believe that in many ways the touchstone of civilisation can be expressed by our attitudes towards not only our fellow human beings but animals.
An appropriate parallel can be drawn with horse racing. Not for one moment would we, as legislators, permit a situation where perhaps half the number of retiring greyhounds and half the number of retiring racehorses would be put down or abandoned. It is unthinkable. We value our horse racing industry. Although its structure is different, the way in which it breeds is different and the life-span of the animals is somewhat different, nevertheless there are no criticisms—few—in this country about the welfare of retired racehorses. The same should apply to greyhounds.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, because the debate will help to ventilate, once again the importance of the welfare of retired greyhounds. I am not aware of any of your Lordships having a hidden agenda to abolish the industry. I differ with the noble Lord in regard to legislation—I shall deal with the issue in my concluding remarks—which I am more inclined now to favour than voluntary control. But I am aware of no one in your Lordships' House who is advocating the abolition of the industry because of the problems which lie within it—which are, in my judgment, capable of solution.
It is rather nice for the noble Lord—whom I always associate with erudite political comment in the Economist—suddenly to sprout up like a distinguished retired greyhound himself and to ventilate this issue. I am delighted that he has given us this opportunity.
The noble Lord referred to approximately 10,000 dogs being registered each year, but, of course, no one knows the number of unregistered dogs. It is a voluntary system. Bearing in mind the tremendous number of greyhounds coming in from abroad, particularly from Ireland—and one pays tribute to some of the great racing greyhounds and their progeny which have come from Ireland—I would not be at all surprised if we are talking about 15,000 to 20,000 new dogs each year coming into the industry.

1061
After four years, a dog may be too old for a registered track, and after six years too old to race on an unregistered track. But then, it is to be hoped, it will have 10 years of life left. A 16 year-old greyhound is by no means uncommon. Greyhounds live for about the same length of time as spaniels.
As the noble Lord indicated, part of the problem of the structure of the industry is that many amateurs breed and train greyhounds. It does not cost them much. It does not cost much to register a dog and it certainly does not cost much to train a dog if one is doing it as an individual for entry and enjoyment in racing, particularly unregistered racing. The real money is with the betting industry as opposed to the greyhound owners themselves, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, rightly said.
I find it unacceptable that any number of retired greyhounds have to be put down once their racing days are over. I suspect that I am in a minority among some of those who take an interest in the subject at the Kennel Club. Some may argue that that is the humane way to conclude the life of a sporting greyhound. I do not share that view. I believe strongly that if greyhounds are to be bred and trained for the racetrack, their owners and the industry have a responsibility to provide for a life after racing and not cut it short.
As the noble Lord said, they are marvellous animals. I do not have the same familiarity with them as the noble Lord hut, although greyhounds certainly need space—and they certainly need to be muzzled in certain circumstances when you take them out—they are "couch potatoes", if I can borrow a phrase from one of the excellent briefing papers that I have recently read. Greyhounds are easy going. They like television. I am told that they particularly like watching party political broadcasts, so they must be a breed apart.
I suggest that we need three things. First, we need more education. Those who are buying or breeding greyhounds and entering them into racing should always be reminded of their responsibilities when their dogs' racing careers end. I know that a lot is being done but more should be done. Secondly, some of the international issues to which the noble Lord referred need further reflection. Are European Union grants for diversification of agriculture and farming being inappropriately used in some cases to expand breeding—certainly of greyhounds and I believe of other dogs—without the necessary controls and without the necessary understanding of the obligations of breeders? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that more resources are needed.
I conclude by looking at the financing and structure of the industry. The noble Lord referred to a six-month waiting list with the Greyhound Trust. I pay tribute to what it has done in placing in happy homes each year approximately 2,000 of the minimum of 10,000 greyhounds which retire. That is a marvellous achievement. But, frankly, the trust receives only a modest proportion of the funds available to the industry—certainly from the voluntary levy, which I believe still runs at 0.4 per cent of bets placed.
1062
We need to do a number of things, and at some further stage this House needs to consider approaching the matter on a statutory basis. I know that such an approach was rejected by the government in which I served about 10 years ago; however, unless we can see an improvement, we should not shirk from approaching the problem via legislation. In that way we could broaden the levy and make it compulsory on bookmakers; the registration fee could be increased, thereby ensuring that a higher proportion of funding comes in to the provision of welfare, good homes and, if necessary, kennels for retired greyhounds. In the industry we should see fewer greyhounds bred, fewer entered for racing and, therefore, fewer to look after satisfactorily in retirement.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I readily admit that, until I saw that my noble friend Lord Lipsey had been successful in securing this debate, I was not an expert on the plight of retired greyhounds. Indeed, my knowledge of greyhounds was very limited, relating to greyhound betting, being a member of the All-Party Greyhound Racing Group and an occasional visitor to the Wimbledon track.
Fortunately, in preparing for this debate I was put in touch with one of the founders of Greyhounds UK, Annette Crosbie—I hope that she will not mind my naming her and referring to the fact that she is probably best known as a distinguished actress whose thespian skills bring pleasure to millions of television viewers. She is also a key member, with many other members of the acting fraternity, of Greyhounds UK. They have done a marvellous job in drawing public attention to the plight of retired greyhounds.
I have read the evidence prepared by Greyhounds UK for the Gambling Review set up by the Home Office, which is to report shortly. It is memorably entitled: Fat Cats, Dead Dogs. I have read some letters from Ms Crosbie to Wembley PLC, as owner of the Greyhound Racing Association. In addition, I have read some horrific case histories of ill-treatment of greyhounds, illustrated by some distressing photographs, and some cuttings from the Racing Post. From all this information it is evident that there is much wrong with the way in which greyhounds, particularly those whose racing careers have ended, are treated.
Ten years ago, the Home Affairs Committee in another place said in its report:
"The most pressing concern … was the care of retired greyhounds.
The Greyhound Racing Trust … is 'grossly underfunded' and can only find homes for 1,500 greyhounds out of a total of 10,000 retiring each year. With extra revenue the Trust could be in a position to establish sanctuaries for those retired greyhounds which cannot immediately be placed in suitable homes.
We believe that track owners and both on- and off-course bookmakers should be required to donate a part of their profits to the Retired Greyhound Trust".

1063
In its Gambling Review evidence, Greyhounds UK claimed that since 1991 nothing had changed. It says that the bookmakers and track owners have kept their profits for themselves; that an additional 9,000 greyhounds a year become surplus to racing—there may be as large number coming off tracks which are not properly registered, giving a possible figure of 19,000 or 20,000 a year; and that the industry-controlled Retired Greyhound Trust, set up in 1974, remains grossly under-funded and finds homes for no more greyhounds than it did nine years ago.
The Retired Greyhound Trust has no kennels of its own, but pays for a limited number of greyhounds—at present 120 at any one time. The industry admits that it takes six months to find a dog a home and that only 240 dogs a year may be funded. People have to use their own money to provide homes. Many hundreds of people around the country are doing that with great dedication.
So what happens to the great majority of greyhounds which can no longer race? Some become household pets. Others are rescued by such organisations as the Celia Cross Greyhound Trust. But the trust has long waiting lists and has to turn dogs away through lack of space. With proper funding, the various greyhound charities could become regional centres and take in more dogs. But a very large number come to an unhappy and tragic end.
One of the problems is the absence of information. There are no records on any kind of track about the length of a dog's racing career. When a dog leaves an NGRC track it goes out of the consciousness of the NGRC altogether. There are no records kept of dogs that are destroyed during the schooling period or of the number of dogs destroyed during their racing career. There are no records kept of injuries incurred while on the track; and there are no records kept of the number of greyhounds abandoned by their owners which are picked up by dog wardens and end up in all kinds of rescue kennels, ranging from the excellent National Canine Defence League kennels to council dog pounds where, if they are lucky, they may live for a further seven days. One vet told the World Greyhound Federation conference that he destroyed nine greyhounds every week—450 a year. Many dogs are dumped from moving cars; others are killed and thrown into ditches.
Greyhounds UK provided evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, with photographs, of dogs that suffered abuse. The worst case was one in Scotland: 19 greyhounds were found dead, all but one drowned, in a quarry near Airdrie. All were young and of racing age. It appeared that when the local track at Wishaw had closed down the owners decided that instead of paying vets' fees to have their dogs humanely destroyed, they would get rid of them themselves. First, they cut their ears off to get rid of the tattoos that would identify them and the owners. Some dogs then had bags weighted with bricks tied around their necks. Others had their skulls smashed. The result of one post-mortem indicated that one dog had not been
1064
drowned but had been strangled by a wire tied to its neck and then to a railway sleeper. When that hit the bottom of the quarry the wire tightened.
These facts are not disputed by the industry, and its members argue that they do produce funds to find new homes for greyhounds. This comes from the voluntary levy on punters' winnings deducted by the bookmaker and produces over £4 million a year. However, the bookmakers themselves pay nothing. As my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, only a very small amount of levy income goes to the Retired Greyhound Trust, which is under the control of the British Greyhound Racing Board, which is in turn made up of representatives of promoters and bookmakers.
The Home Affairs Committee recommended that there should be greyhound sanctuaries where retired dogs may end their days, funded by the industry, and that track owners and both on-course and off-course bookmakers should donate a part of their profits to the Retired Greyhound Trust. The committee's recommendations have been ignored, and I support my noble friend in his call for action.
There is to be a change in the way in which betting duty is to be collected in future. That could provide the opportunity to put the funding of the greyhound industry on to a more secure footing and for the first time provide adequately for the thousands of dogs which leave the track every year.
At the same time, there should be an independent inquiry into the welfare of greyhounds surplus to racing. There is enough evidence of appalling ill-treatment to justify urgent action to stop these animals from suffering.
6.40 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I should begin by declaring in interest in that I am a member of the Labour Animal Welfare Society. I sincerely thank my noble friend Lord Lipsey for tabling this Question. I do so particularly because he has opened my eyes to an aspect of cruelty to animals about which I have to say—to my shame—I was unaware until I began to look into the subject more closely.
Coming from Market Rasen, as noble Lords will observe from my title, I have some knowledge of horseracing and have enjoyed many days visiting such courses. However, I have never been to a greyhound track; nor witnessed racing, which I know gives great pleasure to thousands of people, being the second most popular spectator sport in the country. I have to say that I am not particularly attracted to greyhounds with their lean and hungry looks. Having never been a Twiggy look-alike myself, nor having been able to run very fast, those in the canine breed to which I am more attracted are slower and more rounded, like myself. However, since my daughter drew my attention to a recent television programme in which the horrors of what happens to some greyhounds after their racing days are over were highlighted—either because of injuries received, or their age—I have begun to look upon these gentle and tender creatures in a different light.

1065
I believe that this Question is part of a wider debate about the whole greyhound industry. It would appear that the welfare of the dogs themselves, the safety and design of the tracks, the question of vets' attendance on all racing tracks—which is the case in Ireland but not in this country—are matters that require further consideration. A number of organisations are already putting forward ideas for improvements in the industry, including, as we heard, the Retired Greyhound Trust, the Greyhound Forum, Greyhounds UK, the National Canine Defence League, the League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPA. They are all interested in improving the greyhound industry and in stopping some of the worst practices that it has produced. In particular, as has already been mentioned, the Retired Greyhound Trust, which was established to ensure the welfare of retired greyhounds, is appealing for increased funding so that it can fight for the removal of any cruelty and for an improved status for greyhound racing. Those efforts must be supported.
Greyhounds retire relatively early. This can be due to the fact that they are burnt out or injured, though sometimes they have become victims of drug abuse through injections designed to increase their speed on the track. Life, while racing, is miserable for those greyhounds; but, for some, there are more horrors to come. I shall not repeat the stories that we have already heard in that respect: the dumping of dogs by the wayside, the clubbing to death and, indeed, other deaths too awful to contemplate, have been itemised.
That brings me to the question of responsibility—the responsibility of those in the industry to put their own house, which, at present, is rather rickety in some areas, in order. As I mentioned earlier, many in the industry have been pressing for improvements in animal welfare and in the safety and design of the tracks, as well as the involvement of vets at all race tracks. Both the National Greyhound Racing Club and the British Greyhound Racing Board are on record as wanting to see improvements in those areas. Let us hope that that is true. We must not, of course, assume that all greyhounds suffer such horrors. Indeed, as we have heard, many are family friends. They are pets and loved by all; they are looked after well into retirement and are greatly missed when they die.
The real money in greyhounds relates to the betting that is intrinsic to the whole industry. This can be off-course, through betting shops, telephone betting or betting on-line—or on-course involving bookmakers at the track, who pay the track promoters a fixed fee for a pitch. I understand that most of this money is placed on the Tote, whereby all bets are pooled and then shared by the winners. On average, promoters deduct 25 per cent from the Tote bets at each track. The total turnover in 1988 was estimated to be £79 million, and the industry winnings from the betting public amounted to almost £20 million
Having thought about this, I, too, began to consider the possibility of a betting levy. It seems to me to be the best way forward for improving greyhound racing.
1066
I believe that it could work in a similar way to the horseracing levy. If there were to be such a levy, money could be ploughed back into the industry for its betterment and that of the dogs. Surely greyhounds—the animals at the heart of the pleasure and the profit—deserve that consideration. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will say something about the cruelty element involved, about which we heard from all speakers tonight. This, surely, can be tackled at once.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gibson who has clearly undertaken a great deal of homework on the subject. Her speech complements the introductory remarks made by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. Like the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, I should declare an interest. I am a member of the Kennel Club and have been involved in the breeding, showing and judging of dogs for decades. However, I had never had—I should say "we" had never had—a racing greyhound. I had heard so many stories about them that, it seemed to me that they would be very different from the deer-hounds and wolfhounds which we had owned until recently. Therefore, when we acquired a racing greyhound, I wondered what it would be like. In fact, he is the most docile, affectionate and gentle dog I have ever owned.
I should point out that he is actually my wife's dog. I bought him for my wife when I retired from the House of Commons in order to persuade her to carry on typing for me, the House of Lords allowances for secretarial work being rather less than those for the other place. Indeed, the difference between the two is even more marked now. So I bought Jet from a trainer whom I had got to know in my constituency. I telephoned him just last night and asked him how many bad tempered dogs had figured among the hundreds of greyhounds that he and his son, the trainer Barry Draper, had cared for over decades. He could recall only one that had had a vicious temperament.
However, many people believe that greyhounds are vicious. Therefore, I began to worry when the race track at Owlerton, Sheffield, brought in a new hare bearing a remarkable resemblance to the Norwich terrier. As Jet was going to join the company of two Norwich terriers when he retired, noble Lords will understand that I was rather worried about what would happen when we let him off the lead. We knew Jet well. Like many owners, we had visited him every weekend, taken him for a walk and given him some pilchards to eat—this was perfectly in order. Of course, trainers have to be very careful on NGRC tracks about additions to the dog's diet in case it enhances performance; but pilchards were all right. We went quite frequently to watch Jet race and rejoiced when he won. Unfortunately, those race meetings often fell on Tuesdays. As I am on "roster nights" in this House on that day, I could not always attend. I should add that my noble friend Lady Farrington just turned round and smiled at me with approval when I made that comment.

1067
Our trainer always knew that Jet was going to join us when he retired from racing. However, when the time came, he advised us to take Jet home a few times beforehand; and this we did. I put a muzzle on the dog, thinking that he might bite the two Norwich terriers. But they quickly asserted their "power", and the pecking order was established from the first moment. Now that Jet has been retired for quite some time, he is still number three in the pecking order. Indeed, if he wants to drink from the terriers' bowl, they carefully consider whether or not they will allow him to do so. There is no vice in the dog.
I live near a lake and am on very friendly terms with its swan and the ducks of long residence, but Jet walks round them. The ducks and the swan take no precautionary measures because they know him quite well. They are well aware that he is not a ravening beast; he is under control. I have not put a muzzle on him since the first day that he arrived. Even though he suffered serious injury caused by some cut glass that had been dumped by an irresponsible litter-dropping person—who should be made to eat it!—and subsequently required a great deal of veterinary attention, I did not have to use the muzzle during the whole of that period. It was a pretty nasty wound.
Like other sight hounds, the greyhound is easily civilised, obedient, biddable and utterly affectionate. I recommend greyhounds as pets. The Government wish to promote health in the community. I suggest that obese people would benefit from owning a greyhound and giving it a lot of exercise. However, there are problems in this area and I am deeply concerned by some of the points that have been made. It is not just greyhounds which are treated badly and are thrown out of vehicles on to motorways, kicked and brutalised. The Kennel Club has sought for a long time to maintain high standards as regards the treatment of dogs. It does not shrink from taking condign action against people falling within its jurisdiction who treat dogs cruelly. I applaud its efforts to maintain high standards. It is for the National Greyhound Racing Club and those involved in the sport we are discussing to introduce regulation and practice to match the standards of the Kennel Club.
If one wishes to show a dog one has not bred, one buys it and must transfer the relevant details so that the Kennel Club knows the name and address of the person who owns the dog. There is no earthly reason why the computer held records of the greyhound industry cannot include the information I have mentioned when the ownership of a dog changes hands. That step could be undertaken at relatively modest cost.
Change must be initiated by those who run the industry, own it and profit by it. Two changes are especially essential. First, it is obvious that the prize money offered in the vast majority of races is relatively small. Trainers are not affluent. Some trainers I know keep substantial numbers of retired dogs. However, they receive relatively small sums in terms of fees or prize money. A trainer who keeps retired greyhounds is often badly out of pocket. However, the bookies are not out of pocket. The prizes offered at greyhound
1068
races in Ireland dwarf the prize money on offer at the NGRC tracks in Britain for all but the great classic races. We need to consider the level of prize money that is on offer. An increase in the amount of prize money on offer would enable trainers to keep more retired dogs or keep them until a home could be found for them.
The sport is beginning to prosper. If it is properly and humanely run, the sport can constitute an attractive family activity. Track owners can make large profits and not merely from the gambling that takes place. The restaurant at the Owlerton track in Sheffield is hooked up three months ahead. That makes matters difficult for owners who have only one week's notice that their dog is to race. Much profit is being made but not enough of it is ploughed back into the industry to endeavour to secure high standards of treatment for dogs, to enable trainers to survive economically and to give owners an incentive to provide the number of dogs the sport needs. I refer to the figure of 1,000 imported dogs. My own dog was born in Tipperary.
The industry needs to understand that animal welfare standards are rising. To meet those standards, and public expectations with regard to those standards, the industry must reconsider its priorities to ensure that it can hold up its head in a modern world. I see nothing wrong in the industry's conduct or in its standards of security or as regards veterinary inspections at NGRC tracks. I can only hope that the standards at NGRC tracks are emulated at flapping tracks, although several of those are in danger of closing, if they have not closed in recent years. Standards at the NGRC tracks in terms of security, honest practice and fair competition are high. One hopes to see those standards extended more widely, as many noble Lords have suggested.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lipsey for introducing the Question. I envied him when his dog won the Westminster dog of the year award. My dog was entered in that event a couple of years ago but he had just left racing kennels at that time. The weather was appalling on the day in question. It absolutely poured with rain. A greyhound in training is carefully cosseted and is not used to being exposed to heavy rain. My dog tried to ensure that I was between him and the oncoming rain. I was wetter than him but he looked even more miserable than I. We were present on Millbank on that occasion to demonstrate that racing greyhounds are not savage beasts, but some of those who are cruel to them are.
6.56 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who introduced the debate tonight needs to defend himself for introducing a subject as important as this one. He follows in an honourable tradition in this House of debates on animal welfare, particularly dogs. Those who recall the contributions of Lord Houghton of Sowerby miss his presence here tonight, even though the debate might have been somewhat prolonged by his contribution. It would be churlish of me not to remember also the

1069
contributions of the late Lady Wharton who, until her untimely death, made great contributions in your Lordships' House on animal welfare subjects. Lady Wharton and Lord Houghton of Sowerby would have contributed to the debate had they still been alive.
This morning I telephoned the British Greyhound Racing Board and talked to authoritative people on that board. I can understand the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, faced. If I knew that the noble Lord was on the warpath, I would not make myself readily available to meet him. However, the people I spoke to did not associate my name with any problems and I was given full replies to my questions although they may have appeared somewhat naïve to them. Many of the subjects we discussed have already been covered in the debate. There is undoubtedly a problem here. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, mentioned horses. I understood him to say that there was less of a problem with horses than with dogs. I am not so sure about that. Many horses, particularly from the lower levels of racing, disappear when their racing days are over. There is great anxiety about what happens to them after they are exported or if they disappear in this country or are perhaps sold to be made into petfood. That problem has existed for some time.
I agree with those noble Lords who have suggested that we need legislation to govern greyhound racing and the welfare of dogs when their racing days are over. That legislation needs to cover racing on authorised tracks and on "flapping" tracks. It also needs to cover those events which are probably not well known to your Lordships and which I compare to bare knuckle fighting in the boxing world. Events such as illegal and unregistered coursing occur in outlandish places. Heaven knows what goes on. Those events often take place on racing gallops of training establishments in the late evening or early morning. When horses are taken for early morning gallops, they encounter debris left behind by groups of people racing dogs. When they are tackled, those people are extremely vicious and aggressive.
I should like to see legislation introduced for the welfare of animals involved in competitive sports. Betting is an inevitable part of these issues. The best time for us to address this problem will be when the gambling review body produces its report. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, spoke of a betting levy. The trend at present is away from betting levies. The Home Office believes that racing industries should run their own show. The Home Office has distanced itself from gambling by passing the subject over to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I am somewhat relieved because I shall not be treading on the toes of my colleagues in the Home Office when we discuss these issues.
However, public interest matters have to be addressed. The Government cannot absolve themselves from the responsibilities of gambling in relation to events involving animals. Those discussions will arise later. I had the great pleasure of working with the late Lord Houghton of Sowerby on the dangerous
1070
dogs legislation. Unhappily, he died before seeing the success of his work on the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill—legislation which I had the privilege of introducing in this House. I have always favoured a dog registration scheme. During the former government's tenure of office, we could get no movement from them on any subject unless we gave an undertaking that we would not hammer on about a dog registration scheme. Horror stories have been described graphically by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and others. We know that such things exist not only within greyhound racing but also in all areas of dog ownership. We must know the number of dogs in this country and have greater control over their ownership. A principle of dog ownership in this country is that someone is responsible for each animal.
The National Greyhound Racing Club has detailed, comprehensive documentation and computerisation about dogs in order to combat fraud. I am not sure whether that applies with regard to the "flapping" tracks. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, mentioned the use of tattooing rather than a chip. I understand that the technology is not yet advanced enough to place a chip in a racing dog with the certainty that it will not shift in the dog's body. A chip is also tampered with easily by persons wishing to commit fraud.
We have heard horrifying stories about ears with tattoos being removed. Although rare, that does occur. It is one of the reasons that we are debating the matter. The National Canine Defence League produced an excellent brief. The secretary of the National Canine Defence League supported and informed us throughout the dangerous dogs legislation. Many good points were made in its brief, as other noble Lords have mentioned. The RSPCA produced a very full brief. It believes that changes in law should apply to all events which involve dogs in competitive sports, not merely the NGRC-run tracks; and that vets should be independently funded. That is another good point. Vets are present at races under the NGRC rules but that does not apply generally around the world. In Australia it is not mandatory for vets to be present.
Many aspects of dog racing and animal welfare must be dealt with notwithstanding the fact that a great deal is already being done. The Retired Greyhound Trust does an excellent job. Dogs are not necessarily easy to look after when they have finished racing although, compared with horses, there is a higher rate of success when bringing them into a domestic environment provided that they do not suffer from the results of long-term injuries. Some do not lend themselves easily to a domestic environment. However, generally speaking, greyhounds are good pets. Many people enjoy having a greyhound after its racing days are over—that is, from the age of four onwards.
The costs of greyhound racing may be too low. It costs on average £3,500 to buy a dog and about £6 a day to keep it in training. The British Greyhound Racing Board issues videos and documentation to educate people on the ownership of dogs, advise on trainers and so on. That part of the sport is well

1071
regulated. We are concerned with other areas. I have not heard any suggestion of banning dog racing although I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said. There are people who want to ban steeple chasing. But events which are banned go underground and I am sure that dog racing would do so too.
This year is the 75th anniversary of racing dogs on oval tracks. It started in the 1920s in Belle Vue, Manchester, after the limited success of racing in a straight line. The RSPCA believes that dogs racing round an oval track are subject to unnecessary injury. Racing round an oval track does not put a premium on the absolute speed of the dog but on other characteristics. That makes it a more interesting spectacle and betting event. It is not realistic to talk about making bends easier because that would have a detrimental effect on the sport.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for bringing this subject before your Lordships' House. The noble Lord was not sure that such a debate would reach the four corners of the world. Your Lordships will know that the most unexpected things occur. I was told that a modest contribution from me turned up in an airport in Spain when people were waiting for a delayed flight. I cannot believe that it helped them to enjoy their air travel! But issues are picked up. I am sure that your Lordships' remarks and the undoubted response by the Minister will ensure that in the follow-up to the debate some questions will have to be answered.
The conditions for animals in the sport are not perfect. More money and more legislation are needed. I hope that the Minister will have something encouraging to say.
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue. I suspect that the majority of those who have spoken are dog owners. We find the dumping of dogs repugnant, particularly when those dogs have earned their living as racing greyhounds. I have never owned a racing greyhound, but in my youth I greatly enjoyed attending race meetings. At the time I never considered what happened to the dogs at the end of their racing life or to younger dogs that did not make the grade. I know a little more about the horse world, but I do not know so much about greyhounds.
As others have said, we know of 9,000 to 10,000 retired greyhounds. We have no idea how many more unregistered dogs there are, as my noble friend Lord Freeman said, but the total is too great and something needs to be done.
Dogs are retired because they do not make the grade or because they reach old age and their ability to win races diminishes. The way in which dogs are abandoned appals us all. I shall not repeat the stories that other noble Lords have told. I have been sent those stories too.
At home we have a rescue labrador who failed to make the grade as a gun dog. Fortunately for us, she was taken on by someone who was very kind and
1072
loving and I subsequently got her from that person. She has ended up in a good home, but I suspect that many others do not. She has become a special member of our family. Before her, we had a series of red setters, which are similar to greyhounds in some ways. They are not raced, but they are larger dogs. Some people who take them on as puppies do not realise their exuberance and the exercise and space that they need. As others have said, greyhounds need space and exercise, although not as much as setters. They are much more akin to my labrador. I am always delighted to hear when greyhounds are found homes.
The debate has highlighted the time and money that is needed to put greyhounds in homes. It is not just a question of finding them homes, but a question of quietening them down after they have been involved in racing, vaccinating them to ensure that they can settle into homes and, in some cases, spaying or sterilising them.
The plight of retired greyhounds is not a new phenomenon. Back in 1991 the Home Affairs Committee said that track owners and on- and off-course bookmakers
"should be required to donate a part of their profits to the Retired Greyhound Trust".
I believe that the trust currently gets 60 per cent of its income from a voluntary levy supported by the majority of the larger bookmakers. However, it has to raise the remaining 40 per cent of its income from normal fundraising events. As other noble Lords have said, the trust remains grossly under-funded and, sadly, it finds no more homes for greyhounds today than it did nine years ago. That is a sad situation, although it is not a reflection on the trust's efforts.
The trust also works closely with organisations such as Battersea Dogs Home and the RSPCA, but even with all that extra work many retired greyhounds end up being destroyed, abandoned or exported to Spain, where they endure worse conditions than many animals in this country. I understand that homes are often found in Belgium. It is strange how dogs end up going to different countries. Belgium is apparently very helpful in finding homes for retired greyhounds.
About 2,200 retired greyhounds are placed each year. On average, it takes six months to find suitable homes for the dogs and time to calm them down. I understand that in Spain it takes up to a year before such dogs are suitably placed.
The Greyhound Forum includes the National Greyhound Racing Club, the British Greyhound Racing Board, the National Association of Greyhound Owners, the Retired Greyhound Trust, Battersea Dogs Home, the National Canine Defence League, the Blue Cross and Greyhound Rescue. That is a lot of people doing a lot of work, but we still have a problem.
On 16th February last year in another place, Jim Fitzpatrick introduced a Private Member's Bill on the welfare of retired greyhounds. Sadly, it did not go any further, but he said:
"I am aware that the BGRB is actively seeking agreement to increase the funding to the trust by £1 million".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/2/00; col. 952.]

1073
His Bill did not proceed, but I should like to know whether further talks were held and, if so, what progress has been made.
It has also been suggested that a levy on greyhound betting similar to that which applies to horse racing should be introduced to provide funds for improving tracks, veterinary support and greyhound welfare. Some £2 billion a year is bet on greyhound racing. Have the Government come to any conclusion about that idea? I understand that the trend is away from that, but what will go in its place? The situation is dire.
Another suggestion is the establishment of an independent authority to address the questions, complaints, criticisms and concerns that are expressed in the industry. Has such a forum been established or are the Government thinking of doing so? Does the Minister believe that the Greyhound Forum is a sufficient body to deal with such matters? If so, have the Government given a steer to the forum's deliberations and what timetable has been set for its response?
I also understand that there is currently a voluntary levy of 0.4 per cent from punters' winnings. That amounts to £4 million a year. The British Greyhound Racing Fund takes the bulk of that money to support the capital and revenue expenses of its leisure business. Only £175,000 goes to the industry's own charity, the Retired Greyhound Trust, which is struggling to meet the demands for help. As I have already said, it has to raise extra funds from the public.
Funding is crucial to secure improvements for retired greyhounds. At the moment, costs are unnecessarily borne by local authority dog warden services and other animal charities because of the industry's failure to take its responsibilities seriously. Surely it is time for the industry to put its house in order.
Providing a suitable safety net will not be easy. The National Greyhound Racing Club has 33 registered tracks. In addition, I understand that there are about 35 independent tracks, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, said, some of those are under pressure and closing. They give greater cause for concern than the registered tracks.
We all acknowledge that there is a problem. We know that improvements could be made for greyhounds during their racing lives, but this evening we are focusing on what happens to greyhounds once their racing days are over. I, too, have received many briefings. I shall not repeat the comments from Greyhounds UK that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, quoted earlier. However, later in its submission it says:
"The NGRC, the controlling watchdog of the industry, has made rules, which it implements to serve its priority. Trainers who withdraw dogs from a race because the rate of injuries that night suggests the track is dangerous are heavily fined. Owners who are proved to have abandoned their dogs with no thought for their well-being are rarely, if ever, disciplined".
Some of the examples that we have heard tonight suggest that, while there is much good practice, others are failing the dogs and the industry.
1074
The industry must accept that it has a duty to reform and to govern itself better. Many issues need looking into. There are also many areas where, as other noble Lords have suggested, there is simply a lack of information.
It is hoped that at the end of tonight's debate we shall have some solutions. The one matter on which I believe we are all agreed is that to take no action is not an acceptable option.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter. I have heard other noble Lords say that the board is on probation. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Freeman suggested that at the end of the day legislation may be needed. We look forward keenly to hearing what the Minister has to say. All of us who are present in the Chamber tonight are very concerned about the welfare of retired greyhounds.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Lipsey for providing the opportunity to discuss this issue. Clearly, a number of well informed Members of your Lordships' House and many people outside have taken a deep interest in this subject.
Many noble Lords have expressed their appreciation of the animal itself. In that regard, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to Lord Houghton of Sowerby. But many years even before Lord Houghton's time, greyhounds were the favoured animals of the Egyptian pharaohs. They have been good friends to mankind for a great many years. As my noble friend Lord Hardy indicated, it is certainly true that not only is the greyhound an aesthetically splendid and athletic animal, it is also for the most part extremely good natured.
I must admit that I was not entirely aware of the problem before I saw the subject tabled for debate. Until the last election, responsibility for the matter rested with Home Office Ministers. It came as a slight surprise to my new department to learn that we were to take over those responsibilities. However, we relish them because they fit in very well with our other responsibilities in relation to animal welfare.
The issue was brought home to me personally only last Saturday when, quite fortuitously, I entered the market square in Salisbury and saw someone with, I believe, four greyhounds of about four or five years of age. Two had shawls with the words, "I need a home". The gentleman in question was spelling out that these were lovely, docile and good-natured dogs. Only one of them needed a muzzle in a crowded market square. However, he could not afford to continue to keep the dogs, which potentially had a long life ahead of them. I hope that he was able to find a home for them.
As has been indicated, good work has been done within the industry by the Retired Greyhound Trust and similar groups in promoting the welfare of retired racing greyhounds. However, as noble Lords have said, they do so within fairly tight financial constraints. According to my information, the Retired

1075
Greyhound Trust now rehomes approximately 2,000 retired greyhounds every year. That is a substantial achievement. However, the trust would like to rehome many more dogs. It is important to put across the message to the general dog-loving public that greyhounds make very good pets and that no particular problems are presented in taking them on as pets.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey and many other noble Lords argued that we need to spend more money on the welfare of retired greyhounds. I fully accept that. The greyhound industry has achieved much in that area, and it tries to set the highest standards of greyhound welfare and integrity—probably more so than in any other part of the world. The industry currently spends some £5 million a year on the welfare of racing greyhounds. That figure includes £1 million contributed by the betting industry to the British Greyhound Racing Fund. However, the provision for retired greyhounds is not sufficient.
As my noble friend Lady Gibson and others pointed out, a great deal of money is being made in this industry—not so much by the dog owners and those who win but by the betting industry and promoters. Concern exists with regard to the financial contribution being made. The argument has been put forward this evening that the Government should encourage the bookmaking trade to contribute more substantially to the cause. I agree with that. I believe that the off-course betting industry already encourages support for the greyhound industry, and a voluntary levy exists to encourage members to pay 0.4 per cent of bets to the British Greyhound Racing Fund. When my former colleague, George Howarth, was the Minister responsible for controls on betting, he wrote to the bookmakers' trade associations encouraging their members effectively to pass on greyhound racing's share of duty cuts in order to meet some of the wider problems.
I recognise that a substantial increase is required in the amount of money available in this field. We need to find a mechanism for raising such money. I do not agree with the noble Viscount that legislation is required. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lipsey that this is not a matter for government money; nor is it an issue in which a statutory levy should be imposed. I believe that the authorities within the industry have a responsibility to develop a proper mechanism and procedures by which they can ensure that sufficient money comes through them for the welfare of greyhounds and, in particular, for the trusts and others who provide homes for retired greyhounds.
The parallel with horse racing is by no means exact. The problems that arise are different in nature. However, we are of course moving away from a statutory levy in that field and looking to the racing and bookmaking industries to negotiate directly a commercial arrangement to replace a levy. It is hoped that such an arrangement will provide money for welfare concerns.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked me to give a steer tonight. I do not believe that regulation, government money or legislation are appropriate.
1076
However, the steer that I would give is that this Government believe that the industry should face up to its responsibility, as has been acknowledged on all sides of the House, and try to develop mechanisms for raising more resources in order to deal with the problem of retired greyhounds.
For the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, and others, it is difficult to put a finger on the exact size of the issue. Nevertheless, it is clear that a significant number of dogs—both those which are registered and those which race less officially—should benefit from better welfare provisions when they retire.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, and the noble Baroness suggested the creation of a registration system. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, suggested that a system of tattooing and chipping might be developed over time. I do not believe that we have quite reached that point. My department is considering the possibility of a voluntary scheme, but at present we are some way from moving into that area.
Reference was made to the need to tighten up regulation of the industry more generally and, in particular, of greyhound tracks, which are outside the mainstream of flapping tracks. It is true that local authorities are already required to carry out checks on the suitability of all tracks, but it is possible that we need to examine that area. However, the gambling review body has been looking at the controls on betting, gambling and lotteries, and will make recommendations for reform. I shall not pre-empt the findings of that review this evening in so far as they relate to the topic of our discussion.
Reference was also made to the export of greyhounds and, in particular, to their export to Spain. Again, it is difficult to obtain figures on that matter. Some anecdotal evidence on numbers exists, but the total number of health export licences for dogs of all kinds to Spain is just over 2,000. Of those, one would assume, although the records are not detailed, that only a small proportion would be greyhounds. I am not sure whether there is a tremendous trade—the UK is not a major breeder or exporter of greyhounds. The vast majority of greyhounds that race here are bred in the Republic of Ireland, which also exports to Spain. I note the concern about the treatment of greyhounds, wherever they come from. It is appropriate to pass on details of the views that have been expressed in this debate on the potential treatment of those greyhounds in Spain to the authorities in Spain, and probably in Ireland as well.
Several initiatives that the industry has taken are hopeful. The British Greyhound Racing Board, for example, employed independent consultants to examine the safety of racing surfaces and therefore the propensity for injury to occur among racing greyhounds that would cause them to retire prematurely. That initiative should reduce the number of greyhounds that have to retire prematurely and probably with a disability.

1077
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to the board's discussions and the work done by the RSPCA, the Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs Home and the National Canine Defence League. All those bodies have a role to play and all perform a stalwart service. However, at the end of the day—this is the steer that I give tonight—the industry needs to face up to its responsibilities and provide, from its own resources,
1078
more resources for the welfare of greyhounds, which have given such pleasure to the many people involved in the industry and some profit to some—not everyone who goes to a dog track makes a profit but somebody always does. Some of that money—a relatively small amount—should be recycled and used for the welfare of these magnificent animals when they retire.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eight o'clock.

  Football Banning Orders
  Football Banning Orders
  House of Lords Reform
  House of Lords Reform
  Cabinet Committees
  Cabinet Committees
  Children Act: Responsibilities of Fathers
  Children Act: Responsibilities of Fathers
  Judicial Appointments: Northern Ireland
  Judicial Appointments: Northern Ireland
  Judicial Appointments: England and Wales
  Judicial Appointments: England and Wales
  Autism
  Autism
  Healthcare Provision: Number of Doctors in France
  Healthcare Provision: Number of Doctors in France
  Healthcare Provision: Comparisons
  Healthcare Provision: Comparisons
  General Practitioners
  General Practitioners
  Prevention of Torture Committee Report
  Prevention of Torture Committee Report
  Prime Minister's Envoy
  Prime Minister's Envoy
  Postal Voting
  Postal Voting
  Rail Franchises
  Rail Franchises
  Saver Tickets: GNER
  Saver Tickets: GNER