Sitting of 11 July 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks for the speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  GREENHAM AND COOKHAM COMMONS BILL.
  Motion made,
  That the promoters of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill which originated in this House in the last Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present session of Parliament; and the petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That the Bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office no later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;
  That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the Bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the Bill presented in this House in the last Parliament;
  That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the Bill on the Table of the House;
  That in the present session of Parliament the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it had passed in the last Parliament, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
  That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.℄[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be further considered on Wednesday 18 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State was asked—
  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Better Regulation Task Force
    Paul Clark: What plans he has for the future operation of the better regulation task force. [1869]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for his absence today. I know that he has written to you and to the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). He is currently undertaking a series of meetings abroad on climate change on behalf of the Prime Minister and is today meeting the Japanese Prime Minister.
    We are determined that regulation should be necessary and fair and should impose the minimum burden on business. The better regulation task force will continue to provide Government with high quality, independent advice on how to achieve this aim.
    Paul Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for her response and welcome her and the Parliamentary Secretary to their new posts on the Front Bench and wish them all the best. I draw her attention particularly to regulations that impact on public services. She will know from visiting schools and the police service in her constituency the common and justifiable complaints about the burden of form filling, paperwork and unnecessary bureaucracy. What steps does she plan to take, and when, to reduce that burden on the teachers in our classrooms, the nurses on our wards and the bobbies on the beat?
    Mrs. Roche: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words of welcome; we are very pleased to be here. When we talk about regulation, we do not discuss frequently enough its impact on public services. That is why the Government have responded positively to the task force report on the effect of red tape on head teachers, for example. The public sector team in the Cabinet Office has produced real cuts in public sector paperwork and bureaucracy that will save GP hours. It will save 200 hours a year in a typical school and will save the police 187,000 hours a year. It is very important that we reduce the burden of form filling on our police, our teachers and our doctors, enabling them to deliver the service that all our constituents need.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I, too, congratulate the hon. Lady and her ministerial colleague on their new appointments. Although nobody can accuse the Deputy Prime Minister of discourtesy to the House this afternoon, it is a pity that he did not reorganise his priorities because it is the prime duty of a senior Minister

    777
    of the Crown to be in this House and respond to questions. What is the precise target for the reduction of regulations? What figure does the Minister have in mind?
    Mrs. Roche: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, of Course my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister takes very seriously the absolute duty to be accountable to the House, as do all members of the Government. The opportunity to meet the Japanese Prime Minister came up at the last moment. The Opposition and Mr. Speaker were informed and, given the importance of climate change, it was felt that the House would understand why the meeting was necessary.
    As for targets, we aim to reduce regulation where we can and to make sure that there is a proper framework for business so that it can remain competitive. Of course, a very good benchmark of that is today's announcement that inward investment into this country is at record high levels.
    Miss Anne Begg: I add my congratulations to the Ministers on their new posts.
    I am glad to hear that the task force is to continue its work. Recently, a small business in my constituency complained that it could not take on graduates and give them the necessary training because of the stifling effect of regulations. I seek an assurance that the task force will investigate that and ensure that it does not happen in future.
    Mrs. Roche: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Small businesses are the life-blood of this country. I was formerly the Minister responsible for the small business sector and I retain an active interest in it. Small businesses now employ a record number of people and we must give them every support. It is very important for them to be able to recruit highly skilled, highly motivated graduates, and I will certainly bring that to the attention of the task force and the unit.
    Mr. Mark Oaten: Government regulations over the past five years cost businesses about £10 billion. Is the Minister in a position to say that the figure will come down in the coming five years?
    Mrs. Roche: I have seen many very different figures from different organisations, so I would dispute that figure. Most regulation does not add to the burden—quite a lot of it is there to ease administration. It is important to scrutinise every extra piece of legislation to ensure that it is helpful. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not criticising some of the measures that we introduced to improve people's pay and working conditions, such as the minimum wage.

    Government Policy (Co-ordination)
    Hugh Bayley: What initiatives are being taken by Government offices for the regions to improve the co-ordination of Government policy. [1871]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Government offices bring together in the regions the activities and interests of many different Departments.
    778
    They work with a wide range of local organisations involved in regeneration, competitiveness and social inclusion.
    Hugh Bayley: York suffered major problems during the flooding last November, but a major catastrophe of water breaking through the defences was avoided because of good planning by the local authority and excellent leadership by the police of the Silver command, which brought together the local authority, the emergency services, the Army and other bodies involved in York's flood defences. I pay tribute to the role that the Deputy Prime Minister himself played, coming to York twice in those 10 days and responding within an hour at the weekend to my phone call asking for more sandbags—he arranged for 50,000 extra sandbags to be delivered.
    Will my hon. Friend ensure that the Yorkshire regional office uses York's success in averting catastrophe as a case study of what planning and the good co-ordination of Government and private agencies can achieve, and further ensure that those lessons are learned and used by others facing major disasters?
    Mrs. Roche: I am certainly aware of the effects that the winter floods had on York, and I absolutely agree that Government offices throughout the country have a very important role to play in coping with emergencies. Co-ordination between local authorities and the police is extremely important.
    I thank my hon. Friend for the support that he gave to the defence team. It is very important, when emergency workers are dealing with such situations on the ground, that local Members of Parliament—I know that this applies right across the House—take part and provide support. That is why we are spending a further £51 million on flood defence aid. We definitely need to see what lessons can be learned, as my hon. Friend said, to see how we react and to spread good practice through the rest of the Government offices and other agencies as well.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: I, too, welcome the Minister to her new responsibilities.
    The regional context of policy is of course set by the Government's intentions in relation to regional government, and throughout the last Parliament the Government had a manifesto commitment to legislate on referendums for directly elected regional government but at no stage timetabled any such referendum or introduced any associated legislation. Is it the Government's intention to legislate for referendums on directly elected regional government in this Parliament?
    Mrs. Roche: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in welcoming my appointment and that of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Front Bench. That is greatly appreciated. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister answered a written question on 2 July, saying that a White Paper would be produced on this issue.
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister, and I have seen that reply, but it does not even tell us whether the Government intend to repeat their commitment from the 1997 manifesto, which was to legislate for

    779
    referendums on directly elected regional government. Perhaps the hon. Lady will answer that point. Further to that, the Government said in the manifesto that referendums should go ahead in regions where people supported directly elected regional government or where predominantly unitary local government was established. Does she know where the latter requirement has been met? Are there any regions, in her view, where predominantly unitary local government has been established? If not, where is she proposing to make changes in local government to make that so?
    Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman raises genuinely interesting questions about issues that will be the subject of the White Paper. They will need to be addressed, but the purpose of having a White Paper is to ensure that issues are considered and, in due course, presented to the House for consideration.

    Teenage Pregnancies
    Helen Jones: If he will make a statement on the recent social exclusion unit report on teenage pregnancies. [1872]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The social exclusion unit report published in June 1999 set out our plan to halve the number of teenage pregnancies and help more teenage parents into education, training and employment. Implementation is progressing well. The latest figures show a 7 per cent. fall in pregnancies among girls under 16.
    Helen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and add my welcome to her to her new post. Can I assume from her answer that she agrees that one of the keys to breaking the cycle of poverty and disadvantage associated with teenage pregnancies is education, and that the current situation, where many young mothers get only a few hours of home tuition a week, is not satisfactory? Will she ensure that there is some joined-up government on this issue so that we have proper education and child care policies in place to keep teenage mothers in education and to allow them to move into work, which will benefit them and their children?
    Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend is right to say that this is a key issue. The best possible way of breaking the cycle of deprivation and helping those young women is to get them either into work or into education. We are making good progress. I do not pretend that it is an easy matter or that there is some magic solution, but there are a number of things that we can do. For example, we are testing how best to provide child care for teenage parents to help them return to education or work. We are also targeting the 48 local education authorities with the highest teenage pregnancy rates in order to enable young mothers to get back into education. Currently, 31 per cent. of teenage mothers are in education, employment or training, compared with only 16 per cent. in 1997.
    Dr. Evan Harris: The Government accept that the teenage pregnancy strategy will have to operate alongside the strategies on HIV and sexual health. However, the HIV strategy was announced in 1998 for publication the following year, and the sexual
    780
    health strategy was announced in a press release in 1999 for publication the following year. The proposal to integrate them was announced last year, with a view to publishing something in the spring of this year, but nothing has emerged. The Department is responsible for joined-up government and delivery, but unless it gets a move on, the deliveries in terms of teenage pregnancy are not those that any of us in this House would want.
    Mrs. Roche: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He will be pleased to know that the strategy is going out for consultation.
    Vernon Coaker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue of teenage pregnancy too often focuses on teenage girls, and that we ought to focus also on teenage boys and the part that they play? If we want to tackle teenage pregnancy, we have to encourage greater responsibility among not only teenage girls but boys who too often just walk away from their responsibility.
    Mrs. Roche: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is a serious matter. One issue is the role models that we present to young women and young men to show them the need to care for themselves, their partners and their families. We need to present a model that young boys can look up to and respect, and that is part of the strategy that we are adopting.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Surely the report underlines the failure of sex education, which has perhaps focused too much on the mechanics instead of engaging young people of both sexes in a dialogue, giving them valid reasons for postponing sexual activity and concentrating on the importance of stability in relationships. Will the Minister consider the reasons why Holland has been more successful in its sex education policy, admittedly against a background of greater family stability? Does she agree that parents have responsibilities and need to be involved in that?
    Mrs. Roche: Of course, and I will certainly look at the information to which the hon. Lady refers. Parents have an absolute responsibility in that regard and should be fully involved. However, the stakes are high indeed, and factors of poverty and inequality are also involved. The risk of becoming a teenage mother is almost 10 times higher for girls from the poorest backgrounds than for girls from the richest backgrounds. That should give us all pause for thought and I am sure it will be common ground across the House that it is time to act now.

    Departmental Services
    Helen Jackson: If he will review the way in which Government Departments publicise their services. [1873]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Ministers are responsible for the information output of their Departments. The Government are constantly looking at ways of improving the overall information strategy for the public.
    Helen Jackson: I am sure that the very welcome new boy to the Cabinet Office will agree that Government

    781
    achievements are so satisfactory that they need no spin. Will he, with the new Information Commissioner, institute a new drive to ensure the growth of a culture of openness in every Department about the information it puts out? That information should be freely and easily accessible to the public, as well as easy to read and simple to understand.
    Mr. Leslie: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind comments. It is nice that so many people have turned up for my first Question Time. I agree with my hon. Friend about the principle of freedom of information, and that is why the Government have introduced for the first time a statutory right of access to information held by all public authorities. However, there is a wider principle involving the need to promote proactively the rights and benefits that Government policies have introduced, including the pensioners minimum income guarantee, the working families tax credit and the national minimum wage.
    Virginia Bottomley: I congratulate the Minister and endorse the question asked by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), but I ask the Government to be much more modest in their claims. I congratulate the Government on failing to produce their annual report this year. In areas such as mine—the Minister of State will know this because she cut her political teeth there in 1984 fighting in a by-election with me—one in 10 people now wait more than a year for in-patient care, the schools are warned that they will have to move to a four-day week and we have the lowest police funding in the country. The spin and rhetoric lead to great disappointment. Is the Minister aware that in areas such as Surrey we see public squalor amid private affluence?
    Mr. Leslie: I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments. She might not have noticed that we have just had a general election, which probably rendered publication of an annual report this year something of a duplication. She mentioned several other matters, of which some at least were a little subjective. It is important to have good, independent and audited information, and that is what the Government Information and Communication Service is all about.

    e-government
    Mr. Michael Connarty: What assessment has been made of the potential for using the JANET project in the e-government project. [1874]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government are making good progress in getting services online, and with 42 per cent. already available electronically we are on track to meet our target of having all potential services online by 2005.
    The joint academic computer network, known as the JANET project, connects higher and further education institutions across the UK, and is a good example of how modern broadband technology can improve co-operative research.
    Mr. Connarty: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and commend him for his swift learning curve. I know
    782
    that he has read the submission to the former Department for Education and Employment on the use of JANET. The network stretches from the south-west of England to the university of the Highlands and Islands, and is already reaching into the community in places such as Telford and Wrekin. The use of broadband technology is expected to grow this year, and the United Kingdom Education and Research Networking Association recommended that we should consider that technology as the natural platform for services such as the People's Network or the NHS Net. Should we not be thinking about using the highway to expand existing services, rather than trying to reinvent an e-government highway that already exists?
    Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend makes a number of important points. The university and college broadband network could be employed by other services, and we are considering that. There are clear practical and logistical problems with broadband that must be resolved, but perhaps it would be more useful if I were to write to my hon. Friend on this matter
    Mr. Richard Allan: I welcome a fellow Yorkshireman to the Government Front Bench, but does he agree that, when he speaks about the percentage of Government services that are available online, he should recognise that many of those services are online only to the extent that they involve a telephone, rather than the internet? The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) spoke about fast broadband access, and I urge the Minister to take on board what he said. Such access is vital if Government services are to be properly available via the internet, 24 hours a day and seven days a week.
    Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman makes some important points about broadband, but I believe that the UK is doing reasonably well in that respect. As for getting Government services online, what is important is to ensure that services are available to the public in the easiest way possible, regardless of the technology involved. However, we must keep bearing down on all Government Departments to ensure that they modernise their services. In that way, we will fulfil the promise that all services will be online by 2005.
    Mr. Colin Challen: I add my congratulations to my Front-Bench colleagues on their appointments, and draw their attention to early-day motion 85, which relates to the Post Office. It is very good that the Government are addressing the digital divide, but the local sub-post office will still be the main source of information—Government leaflets and so on—for the vast majority of people. Will my hon. Friend ensure that more attention is given to that fact, and that we are not caught up by too much talk of Government online?
    Mr. Leslie: I thank my hon. Friend. The Post Office network is, of course, extremely important, which is why my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced, in the previous Parliament, measures to protect and enhance it. We are not putting services online for the sake of it; we are trying to make sure that we are responsive to consumers and to the public at large.

    Regulatory Reform
    Mr. John Bercow: How many draft regulatory reform orders have been published since the passage of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001; and if he will made a statement. [1875]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The first proposal in the form of a draft order was laid before Parliament for scrutiny on 28 June. It will relax licensing in pubs and clubs for the forthcoming new year's eve.
    During the passage of the Regulatory Reform Bill, the Government also published six consultation documents on other proposals for regulatory reform orders. There are more to follow.
    Mr. Bercow: I shall not get too excited about that, but I warmly congratulate the Minister on her appointment. Will she confirm that, of the seven proposals made by the Government so far, only the one relating to gaming is deregulatory? Does she not understand the widespread suspicion and anxiety that much of the Government's activity in relation to the 2001 Act will be not deregulatory but re-regulatory? When will the Minister do her homework and study in detail the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996, both of which were passed by the Government of our good friends the United States of America?
    Mrs. Roche: It is always good to hear from the hon. Gentleman. We would make a lot more progress if the hon. Gentleman's colleagues were not blocking the establishment of the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee. Our record on regulatory reform, particularly with regard to small business, compares very favourably with that of the last Government.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Graham Brady: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 July.
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I have been asked to reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently engaged in the talks about Northern Ireland in Shropshire. I know that the whole House—with few exceptions—will want to support the Prime Minister in his efforts to find a way forward at this critical time.
    Mr. Brady: Will the Leader of the House guarantee that all AS-level results will be published on 16 August?
    Mr. Cook: I am not in a position to give such a guarantee. However, the review by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has concluded that the new changes
    784
    have been warmly welcomed and should be supported. There is support throughout schools for the principles of the new changes. The new system has also encouraged a retention rate among pupils. On that basis, we can conclude that we have introduced a system that tackled a problem that was ignored by the last Government. For generations, people have complained that post-16 education is too narrow. We have tackled that. It is a shame that the Conservative party did not do so in its 18 years in office.
    Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a new state-of-the-art private finance initiative hospital has opened recently in my constituency? Apart from the main worry that there may not be enough beds, is he aware that patients, staff and visitors to the hospital have to pay high parking charges, resulting in mayhem in the surrounding streets? Is he also aware that patients are being ripped off by the consortium, with extortionate charges being made for television and telephone usage, and that they even have to hire vases for flowers? Unbelievably, many patients suffer the indignity of having to walk from their ward to the theatre for their operation, because the private consortium charges £30 for a portering service. Is that—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I will let the Leader of the House answer.
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful question. Of course I understand the concern that some charges cause. I have seen the same happen in my constituency, where car parking charges have been introduced by a hospital that has nothing to do with the private finance initiative. I would have hoped that my hon. Friend and his constituents welcomed the fact that they have a new hospital. Half a dozen other towns in Britain also have a new hospital, built in record time, as a result of the PFI. Owing to the involvement of private finance, we are now in a position to offer the NHS the largest hospital building programme in its history, and of that we are proud.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: We all wish the Prime Minister well with the talks on Northern Ireland.
    Are the Government happy in principle to see the United States withdraw from the anti-ballistic missile treaty if that is what its missile defence plans require? Yes or no?
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that we invited the United States Administration to enter into dialogue with Russia on the future of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. She will be aware that both presidents met recently in Slovenia and have started discussions on a new strategic framework. Our own view has always been that there may be a way forward, but that it is a way forward that should be sought by agreement between the two who are parties to the anti-ballistic treaty—as we of course are not.
    Mrs. Browning: But now that Poland, Spain, Italy and the CDU in Germany have given their support to the American plans, is it not time the Government published the Ministry of Defence threat assessment in respect of

    785
    both the deployment of British troops and the UK mainland? Is it not true that the Government's position is that they continue to sit on the fence? In one week alone, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman have faced a series of hostile questions from the Benches behind them. Indeed, 197 Labour MPs have now signed early-day motion 23 opposing the American scheme, so the Government do not dare take a firm position.
    The Prime Minister's press secretary said that the president's plans were broadly a good idea. Does the Leader of the House think that they are broadly a good idea?
    Mr. Cook: It is impossible for the Government to express support for plans that do not exist; nor could those countries express support for plans that do not exist. At present, the only specific proposal is to provide missile interceptors and radar in Alaska—that is a long way from our ministerial responsibilities.
    John Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the views of the overwhelming majority of my constituents about Finningley airport and its development? The majority are not NIMBYs but YIMBYs—yes in my backyard, please. Can we hope for a fast-track public inquiry on behalf of the YIMBYs in my constituency and on behalf of the regeneration of the area and the aviation industry generally?
    Mr. Cook: I am pleased to assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is considering measures that can be taken to expedite the public inquiry. My hon. Friend will understand that we have to go through the full procedures, and as the Government will act in a quasi-judicial capacity I cannot comment on the case at present. I assure him, however, that the Department is considering how we can hold a public inquiry as soon as possible in order that my hon. Friend and his constituents can make their views known.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Prime Minister has the support and good wishes of my party in seeking a satisfactory outcome to the Northern Ireland talks?
    To refer back to the question put by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), does the Leader of the House agree that when the Government consider the role of the private sector in public services, especially the private finance initiative, they must look at the full range of evidence so that no individual PFI ends up costing the public more than a publicly funded alternative?
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to tell the right hon. Gentleman that value for money is one of the two major aspects that are examined when any scheme is considered. All schemes are evaluated against that. One of the issues that has introduced risk and unpredictability to the cost of hospitals is the time in which they are delivered. So far, all six PFI hospitals that have been constructed have been delivered on time, within time, and thus without the risk of the additional costs that have previously caused problems in the health service.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has apologised to my hon.
    786
    Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) for appearing to cite in a written answer a non-existent report by the National Audit Office and a selective appraisal of PFI projects in order to try to put a better case than actually exists for the funding of those projects? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that that illustrates the danger that, when Governments become committed to a policy such as PFI, the Government machine starts to put before Parliament and Ministers only those facts that fit the policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it his business as Leader of the House to ensure that Parliament can get at all the facts that it needs to scrutinise the Executive, so that we do not get hospitals and schools that cost more than they should, or other policy disasters?
    Mr. Cook: I am all in favour of Parliament having access to all the information and all the facts. Indeed, it is my broad impression as Leader of the House that the PFI is not an issue that has gone unexplored and unventilated in the Chamber. On the specific point to which the right hon. Gentleman refers—the answer from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—it is true that there was not one NAO report that led to those figures but seven different ones. The figures quoted were absolutely accurate.
    Mr. Derek Foster: May I tell my right hon. Friend what immense personal pleasure it gives me to see him in his new role? Does he agree that our instruction to deliver from the people of the north-east, including high standards in schools and health, also involves full employment, revisiting the Barnett formula and a directly elected regional assembly?
    Mr. Cook: I am sorry to disappoint my right hon. Friend, but my current role expires in 20 minutes' time. I hope that he will give me a pass mark if I can agree with him on only two of the three points that he put to me. We have no plans to revisit the Barnett formula, but on the other two matters I fully agree with him. Unemployment is the lowest it has been for a generation, with 1 million more people in work than at the previous general election, and we have put forward proposals by which regions such as the north-east can have their own regional assembly, which will enable local people to decide how best to deliver local services.
    Dr. Bob Spink: May I say, but with great sincerity, what a great pleasure it is to see the Leader of the House in his new role? Will he join me in congratulating all who work in or raise funds for hospices, particularly the children's hospice movement? There are 24 children's hospices in this country and they get an average of about 5 per cent. Government funding, but the children's hospice, Littlehaven, in Castle Point, receives only 2 per cent. Government funding.
    I make no political point in this at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Sincerely, I ask simply that we can work together to review the funding mechanisms for all hospices so that we can get the balance right between voluntary sector funding and Government funding.
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman in the tone and spirit in which he asked his question, and fully to acknowledge and recognise the excellent work that is done by the hospice movement,

    787
    which is able to provide care and attention not just to patients but to relatives at a very difficult time. I believe that the whole House shares my admiration for that patient work.
    On funding, we have made a commitment that we shall look to support the hospice movement in the course of our NHS plan. In the particular case of the hon. Gentleman's health authority, it is for it to decide how much to provide to Littlehaven hospice. We believe that it is right that local decisions should be taken by the local health authorities, which is why we shall carry forward a programme of further decentralisation within health service funding. However, I would record for the hon. Gentleman and the House the fact that, this year, his health authority has had an increase in funding of over 8 per cent., and I hope that that will enable it to meet the demand to which he refers.
    Kevin Brennan: Would my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister to look again at the proposal in the Queen's Speech to legislate to allow positive action such as all-women shortlists in parliamentary selections? Would he consider extending that provision more widely to include other selections, and would not that have the merit of allowing the Conservative party to have an all-women shortlist instead of an all-loser shortlist?
    Mr. Cook: I share my hon. Friend's concern to see more women on shortlists, and that is why we shall seek to bring forward legislation as soon as we can. In the context of the current election, I do hope that it is not too late for the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) to come to the aid of her party. I see that the press have been comparing the Tory leadership elections to "Big Brother". That, I think, is unfair—to "Big Brother". At least when they have a vote in "Big Brother", someone gets kicked out.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when I try to raise the issues of falling police numbers, low police morale and poor detection rates in Sussex in the House, I am fobbed off by Ministers with the assertion that it is a matter not for them, but for the chief constable, yet only a few days ago his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took it upon himself, in effect, to sack the chief constable of Sussex by means of a press release?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Cook: I am very happy to answer. The fact of the matter is that, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware and as I am pleased to report and repeat to the House, police numbers in England and Wales have gone up by more than 1,300 in the past year. I am also pleased to say that we can expect even larger increases in future years, as in the past year the number of those entering police training is up by no less than 75 per cent.
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: The PFI developers in this country are quite rightly under attack for renegotiating the loans associated with building schools and new hospitals and for getting cheaper loans and taking the profits. I fully support the PFI, but I do object to those large companies making a substantial
    788
    profit on the back of public sector investment. Will the Minister take this opportunity to renegotiate the PFI guidelines to ensure that, if profits are being made, they are redistributed to the public sector which financed those initiatives in the first place?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a valid concern. There are only a few cases where there have been refinancing deals, but I am pleased to say that we have changed the rules so that 30 per cent. of any gain will return to the health service. Let us also not lose sight of the fact that we would not be able to sustain our present hospital building programme if we had not shown innovation and imagination in involving more private finance. The previous Government, under the Conservatives, spent £30 million examining private finance initiatives and never launched a single one.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: Last week the Prime Minister told us that he made no apology for the Government's proposed changes to incapacity benefit. Are not vulnerable people being caused unnecessary anxiety in this country because of the bungled, bureaucratic way in which the Government currently manage incapacity benefit applications? Are not the Government really responsible for that? The Government should tidy up and improve the systems that they use, not force vulnerable people to be subject, every three years, to a medical assessment.
    Mr. Cook: As I told the right hon. Lady last Thursday—I am very happy to repeat it again on this occasion as I obviously failed to convey my meaning clearly—the new scheme will not apply to present claimants. Therefore, none of those currently claiming incapacity benefit need have any anxiety on that score; nor need new claimants, as it is a clear commitment of this Government that we will help those who can work into work and provide security for those who cannot work. That has to be the right principle, and I rather wish that it had been the principle followed by the Conservative party in office; its current leader introduced the medical tests for incapacity benefit, as a result of which thousands of our constituents lost their incapacity benefit.
    Mrs. Browning: It is not the principle of medical testing someone's application for incapacity benefit, but the way this Government administer it that is the problem. In a report that does exist—it was published in March this year—the National Audit Office shows very clearly that the Government's incompetence is causing public money to be misused in incapacity benefit applications. It said that £12 million could be saved for every week that the process was speeded up, but the Government pay the money, the medical assessment takes place months later and the money is never reclaimed by the Government if the person concerned does not qualify. Because of that incompetence, the Government will now force sick people to be subject to yet more tests, with more bureaucracy and more problems for people who will have to keep reapplying to justify the fact that they are disabled or have an incapacity. That is where the problem lies—not with sick people.
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is looking for

    789
    ways to speed up the system. It is a bit rich to express concern about alarm among claimants and then suggest that it is regrettable that the Government do not pursue current claimants when the benefit is removed. I can think of nothing that is more likely to alarm and dismay claimants. Her Government used incapacity benefit as a means of disguising the high levels of unemployment. Now that we have got unemployment down to its lowest level for a generation, we can ensure that we target disability benefits on the disabled so that they get the security they need.
    Mrs. Browning: The problem is the way in which the Government administer the scheme. If the right hon. Gentleman will not take my word for it, what does he think of the words of Lord Ashley of Stoke, who knows a bit about disability? In a letter in The Times today, he says:
    "The Government has the power to repeatedly reassess if it wishes, and it undoubtedly uses it. The proposed changes are unnecessary."
    Mr. Cook: The test was introduced by the leader of the hon. Lady's party and caused many people to lose their incapacity benefit. The proposal of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will ensure that we approach the problem systematically, to avoid the outcome that she mentioned in which people have to wait a year before they are assessed. The genuinely disabled will get the benefit that they need and continue to get it without pressure being placed on them not to.
    Mrs. Browning: In the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, the Government took powers for themselves that they have failed to use. It is because of that failure that they are going to subject disabled people to the tests. Last week, the Prime Minister also reassured us that people who are genuinely disabled would be supported. Indeed, he said that the Government would go further. What did he mean by that?
    The disability living allowance was introduced by a Conservative Government and awarded for life to people with lifelong disabilities. We can all recall that they lost that recognition of lifelong disability at the hands of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). When the Prime Minister says that people with lifelong disabilities are going to be helped, does he mean the way in which the Government helped them in the previous Parliament—by reducing and removing the lifelong recognition of people who were clearly born with a disability and are going to die with it?
    Mr. Cook: I cannot accept the hon. Lady's characterisation of what the Government have done for the disabled. We introduced the disability income guarantee and have ensured that children as young as three and four have access to the mobility element of the attendance allowance. In all those ways, we have put money into helping the disabled, which the last Conservative Government never did.
    I remind the House that it is not our intention to bring in additional medical tests to penalise people on incapacity benefit. The measure aims to provide help, which they did not receive when the hon. Lady and her partners were in government, for those who want to find work. Let us not
    790
    lose sight of the fact that 1 million people on disability benefits say that, given the opportunity and assistance, they would prefer to be in work.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Only this morning, I attended the launch of the neighbourhood management programme in my constituency, which is yet another example the Government tackling social exclusion. Indeed, the begging bowl that we have been holding out from Hastings and Rye for some time has been filled over and over again, and we are very grateful. However, my constituents now want a hand up rather than a handout. Will my right hon. Friend impress on the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions the need for an early and positive decision on the access to Hastings study, including the bypass?
    Mr. Cook: I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement very soon. He is well aware that the Hastings bypass raises complex issues and differing views have been expressed on it. I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to his concern.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Leader of the House confirm that next week the Government will lay before the House an order that will take back the powers vested in the new Policing Board and recall the old police authority, because at the talks that he has mentioned the SDLP and Sinn Fein/IRA have refused to put nominees on to the board?
    Mr. Cook: On the question of what we will do next week, decisions have yet to be made, so I cheerfully invite the hon. Gentleman to join us at business questions tomorrow. I stress that to achieve a stable and peaceful outcome in Northern Ireland it is important to have an efficient police force that commands the support and confidence of all parts of the community in Northern Ireland, and the Government will not be deflected from that objective.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: Yesterday, Edgware school in my constituency was given the go-ahead to become a city academy. That presents an exciting challenge to the school, which serves many disadvantaged children. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that children from disadvantaged areas continue to have priority for places at the school, so that they benefit from the magnificent extra investment that the school will receive in the next few years?
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome to the new city academy in Barnet, and I am sure that his constituents are grateful for the new facility. It is important that we develop education in a way that provides diversity and specialisation and responds to the special needs of the area that my hon. Friend represents. The school will be publicly funded and therefore be part of the state sector, so I hope that it will be able to respond to my hon. Friend's plea to continue to give special priority to those who live in the area.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a

    791
    potential disaster in west Wales? The Ministry of Defence wants to withdraw £750,000 of public funding from the apprenticeship scheme at Aberporth following privatisation. Not only will that endanger 80 jobs in my constituency, but it threatens an objective 1 bid for a high-tech technology park at Aberporth that would offer precisely the sort of job creation opportunities that I am sure the Government welcome. The decision rests wholly with the MOD and the Secretary of State for Defence. Will the Leader of the House make sure that the proposal to withdraw is rejected and that high-class training—the best in the United Kingdom—continues at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, Aberporth?
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to offer the hon. Gentleman reassurance. First, the MOD has given an undertaking that all apprentices currently at the school will continue to be funded and will therefore be able to complete their apprenticeship. Secondly, the MOD is discussing with the trade unions future intakes of apprentices in the area. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the whole point of the MOD proposals is to provide long-term stability and a future for the facility; and where possible to extend, not narrow, the opportunities for young people in his area.
    Fiona Mactaggart: After the recent appalling events in Bradford and elsewhere, what is my right hon. Friend's assessment of the state of race relations in Britain today, and what are the Government going to do to ensure that everybody from every community in Britain has equal access to opportunities and the ability to contribute positively to our society?
    Mr. Cook: I entirely share my hon. Friend's concern about the recent riots in Bradford. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement to the House
    792
    yesterday, and we all agree that there is no justification or excuse for the violence we witnessed there; it must not be accepted.
    I do not, however, want the impression to be given that the events in Bradford are typical of race relations in Britain. The Government have taken many steps to improve race relations: we introduced the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 precisely to address the issue that my hon. Friend raised, which is to put an obligation on all public service providers to provide their service in a way that treats the races equally and reaches out to minorities. If there is one issue on which I hope all parties in the House are united it is that we must defend democracy against those racist organisations that have helped to foment violence and now seek to profit from it. We must not allow their poisonous message to succeed.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Is the Leader of the House aware of the sheer despair that has led nearly all the junior hospital doctors in east Kent to talk of an impending catastrophe because of undercapacity? Does he realise that they have been issuing hand bells to people waiting on trolleys in our three accident and emergency units to draw attention to their problems? Does he really think it right that our local health authority wants to spend £100 million on a bureaucratic reorganisation that is opposed by both local community health councils and which will not provide one single extra bed or nurse?
    Mr. Cook: I am very pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that funding for his health authority in the current year is up by almost 9 per cent. on last year, and that throughout the lifetime of this Government the average increase in funding for his health authority has been double the average increase under the Government whom he supported. If he had pressed that Government at the time, his hospital might be in a better position than it is now.

Point of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Speaker, you are the guardian of the rights of all Members of Parliament, so will you consider the position in relation to a note from the Electoral Commission that has been sent to many, if not all, hon. Members about the treatment of parking passes from BAA plc for Members at airports? Hon. Members have expressed concern that the commission in its early days may not fully appreciate the position of Members of Parliament. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, will be anxious to talk to both sides of the House through the usual channels, and particularly, perhaps, to Home Office Ministers, under whose remit the Electoral Commission comes. Will you consider carefully the letter that hon. Members have received and whether the matter relates to MPs' privileges?
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. I am aware of the problem and shall look into it.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
3.32 pm
The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the resolution of the Programming Committee of 10th July and pursuant to the Programme Order of 4th July 2001 (proceedings in Committee of the whole House, on consideration and on Third Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill),—

(1) proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 p.m. on the third allotted day (or, if that day is a Thursday, 7.00 p.m.);

(2) those proceedings shall be taken on each of the allotted days as shown in the second column of the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown, and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at the times specified in the third column of the Table.

Table

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

Amendment No. 1

8.00 p.m. (or 5.00 p.m. if a Thursday)

Remaining proceedings on Clause 1 and proceedings on Clauses 2 to 4

—

Second day

Remaining proceedings on Clauses 1 to 4 (so far as not previously concluded)

10.00 p.m. (or 7.00 p.m. if a Thursday)

Third day

New Clauses 4 to 6

7.00 p.m. (or 4.00 p.m. if a Thursday)

Remaining New Clauses

10.00 p.m. (or 7.00 p.m. if a Thursday)

(3) any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 p.m. on the fourth allotted day (or, if that day is a Thursday, 7.00 p.m.).

I am pleased to move the motion for the first programme drawn up by the Programming Committee. The purpose of changing our method of programming is to move the initial debate on the size of the time envelope for debate on a Bill from the Floor of the House to Committee, where there will be less grandstanding and more opportunity for sensible discussion. I hope that the programme will prove the wisdom of that approach.
Now that the detailed programme proposed by the Programming Committee has been published in the Order Paper, it is for the House to decide whether to agree to it. I hope that it agrees that it reflects the Opposition's priorities and ensures that all matters of concern to Members are properly debated. That was certainly my intention when the Committee met yesterday. Some 276 amendments have been tabled, not all of them by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). It is important that all the key issues are fully debated, and three full days in Committee will give ample time to address them. The arrangements will allow us to tackle properly each substantive clause, and will enable the House to address various proposals for new clauses—a point of some importance to the Opposition.

795
It is proposed that the first substantive debate on qualified majority voting take place today until 8 pm. For the rest of the day and the second day in Committee, we shall cover other amendments to clauses 1 to 4. On the third and final Committee day, we shall address proposals for new clauses 4, 5 and 6 until 7 o'clock, and then the remaining new clauses. I commend the motion to the House.
3.34 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: The Bill raises fundamental questions about the future development of the European Union, and the issues are extremely complex.
In Committee, we shall discuss comprehensively such matters as the extension of qualified majority voting in 31 articles and 35 provisions; European defence policy outside NATO and its effect on the Western European Union and NATO; enhanced flexibility and the loss of the emergency brake veto; Eurojust and its effect on United Kingdom criminal and judicial procedures; detailed reforms of the European Court procedures; the extension of EU competence in areas such as common commercial policy; the social chapter, European political parties and several other institutional reforms; structural funds and the effect of the extension of QMV on the United Kingdom's regions; and a possible referendum in Britain to address the lack of democratic accountability and the disconnection with the structures of the EU.
Given the Government's contention, which we hotly contest, that the treaty and the Bill are essential for enlargement, presumably they, too, believe that the Bill's contents are fundamentally important. That makes their attitude disappointing.
We believe that the issues require four days of debate in Committee. That is more important than any more general debate after the Committee stage. It would be a matter for regret if the Government were to curtail the opportunity for us to analyse these important changes in full. I unequivocally put our sentiments about that on the record.
3.36 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I am slightly surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) seems to know as well as the Minister how long the Bill will take in Committee. The difficulty that we confront is the apparent ability of hon. Members on both Front Benches to foretell with great accuracy and precision how long it will take a Committee properly to scrutinise a Bill, without necessarily knowing the totality of amendments and new clauses that will be tabled, as that process can continue during the Committee stage. Perhaps the Government, and even my hon. Friend, expect the Committee to take not a dynamic approach, but a rather static approach, whereby we freeze the item at the beginning, take a view of it, or a snapshot, and say, "Well, that's your lot."
That is not good enough. It is the ultimate absurdity that, in relation to a Bill of such magnitude and importance, the Government say that they not only know exactly how long deliberations will take in totality, but, with their huge majority, are laying down the detailed timetable for the consideration of the Bill in Committee, regardless of the magnitude of the matters under
796
consideration and without any knowledge—by definition—of the number and nature of the amendments that may be tabled. There may, however, be partial knowledge of the amendments at this stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has already tabled a number of extremely important amendments, which merit substantial debate and consideration.
Of course, the Government are not interested in that. They see it as their task to get rid of legislation as quickly and as conveniently as possible—not for the Government or their Members any delay or prolongation of deliberation. That is apparently unacceptable to people who—I concede this even about Government Members—dedicated considerable time and effort to being elected as Members of Parliament, but who, as soon as they arrive here, cannot wait to get out of the building as quickly as possible. They do not want to be delayed by the inconvenience and superfluity of consideration of the details of Bills.
Oh no, such matters are not for the Government or their Members. They regard what they choose to call "the mandate" as sufficient. If the mandate given to them by the electorate at the time of an election states that they are entitled to certain legislation, the Government seem ready to override the deliberative processes developed in the House over many centuries, which may, I concede, occasionally cause inconvenience to the Government and their Members. Yes, they may be delayed in this place a little longer than they would have chosen. Perhaps they want more time out of the building to dispose of the increase in pay that they all voted themselves just last week.
Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He is addressing the House with that combination of charm and understatement for which he is renowned in all parts of it. Does he agree that there can never be any justification in any circumstances for the abandonment of self-government by legislative default and by what amounts to parliamentary truancy from the Government Benches?
Mr. Forth: Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every time we consider a programme motion, we see that it provides excuses for hon. Members not to be present, rather than any reason for them to be here attending to their duties. It seems that the point of the exercise is to shrink to the minimum the time that we commit to the scrutiny of legislation.
That is a bad principle in itself, but it is underlain by the assumption that the Minister knows so much about the mood of the House and about what hon. Members have in mind that he can foretell with great precision how long it will take the Committee properly to consider the details of the Bill, notwithstanding the number, scope and importance of the amendments that have been tabled. Surely it is possible for further amendments and new clauses to be tabled during the Committee stage, unless we are to be denied even that right. Of course, such amendments would require further deliberation, so almost by definition we cannot know at this stage how much time we will require properly to consider the detail of the Bill.

797
The motion is yet another step on a road that the House has taken; at least, the Government have taken it, but I hope that my hon. Friends have not done so. The Government seem determined to minimise or dispose of all opportunities for proper scrutiny of legislation.
Roger Casale: If I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he is saying that there should be greater time to debate the treaty of Nice in this place. He speaks from the Back Benches, but the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who spoke from the Front Benches, would like the matter to be decided by a referendum. Which of the two deliberative processes should it be?
Mr. Forth: I should certainly be intrigued about the possibility of a referendum on the Nice treaty, as on any matter of profound constitutional importance. If we can have a referendum on a matter as utterly trivial and irrelevant as the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor, there should be ample scope for one on something as important as our nationhood. I would not shrink from that possibility.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing the programme motion.
Mr. Forth: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I know that you would not want me to pursue such matters.
I concede that the great danger in programme motion debates is the appearance of repetition on the part of Opposition Members. I make no apology for that, as the underlying principles to which we object remain the same in each case, although the detail is different. The principle is even more important in respect of this Bill, not only because of its scope and enormity, but in the light of the number and scale of the amendments that have been tabled, to say nothing of those of which we cannot yet even be aware.
I oppose the programme motion, just as I hope that I shall continue to oppose all such motions—on principle and in relation to their application, detail and the terms in which they are presented. For me, they demonstrate all too well the Government's attitude, as they seek constantly to diminish the role of the House of Commons, its Members and its Committees, whether Upstairs or on the Floor of the House. I hope that hon. Members will oppose this and all other such motions.
3.43 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I support the principle of a programme motion where it is demonstrated that adequate time has been provided to ensure that all parts of a Bill are properly scrutinised and that all those who have realistic amendments can speak to them and gain a response from the Government. In respect of the motion before us, which allots three full days in Committee, I say respectfully that it seems to me that those criteria have been more than satisfied.
Interestingly, the contributions that we have so far heard from the official Opposition suggest that they would prefer a wholly open-ended arrangement. The Bill would thus become the Marie Celeste of the legislative
798
programme, travelling hither and thither, with no clear destination. That is because the official Opposition believe that delay equals scrutiny. I have never been persuaded by that argument. Anyone who has faced 50 minutes of cross-examination by the late Mr. George Carman QC realises that delay does not necessarily equal scrutiny, and that a point of any substance can be made succinctly, effectively and in a short time.
I am convinced that the official Opposition are anxious not to scrutinise the Bill but to ensure that it never reaches the statute book. [Interruption.] That is a perfectly legitimate position. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) must calm himself.
Mr. Campbell: The Opposition's position is legitimate, but it should not be given spurious respectability, as if their determination to scrutinise every provision line by line, phrase by phrase lies at the heart of their objections.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that, however succinctly a point is made, elements of the Bill that we have not previously considered will come before us. Their consideration will take time, and anything that is introduced later will inevitably be denied that time. We experienced that difficulty time and again when a programme motion was agreed for the Scotland Bill. Many clauses were not discussed, to the great frustration of Labour Members, simply because provisions that were not expected to take much time did so.
Mr. Campbell: It would have frustrated the people of Scotland if the Bill had been considered in the way in which the Opposition are urging upon us this afternoon. Their position would be legitimate if many Conservative Members who are present had not been party to guillotine motions in the 18 years that they were in government. Some of us remember legislation that was pushed through on a three-line Whip. Guillotines were used to ensure its passage because the Conservative Government believed that it was in the national interest and perhaps in their political interest to do that.
Protestations in support of endless delay whereby intellectual scrutiny can somehow be achieved carry little conviction from those who have in the past used every device available to a Government to ensure that their legislation reached the statute book.
Mr. Forth: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Campbell: No.
Mr. Forth: What is the problem?
Mr. Campbell: I am about to sit down so that we can get on to the real business of the Bill.
The programme motion is reasonable and sensible. We should adopt it and proceed to the substance of the Bill, about which the Opposition claim to be worried.
3.48 pm
Mr. William Cash: I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on the point that delay does not equal scrutiny. I have never believed that. However, legislation, especially on the scale of the Bill, which incorporates a treaty into our domestic law, requires rational analysis and proper examination. It cannot be done in the limited time available under the programme motion. It is frankly impossible, and the Government know it.
The relevant early-day motion and the Parliament First group received support from all parties. This afternoon, we are considering proper scrutiny and the independence of Back-Bench Members. I make no apology for tabling 250 amendments and new clauses because the treaty requires proper examination. I do not believe that there is the slightest chance of that in the parameters of the programme motion.
We need to get on and, in the interests of brevity, I shall simply add that I am slightly surprised, though not offended, that I was given no opportunity to participate in the Programming Committee, despite tabling so many amendments. Perhaps that is because the procedures do not allow it. The Prime Minister himself has suggested that he would like to see my pamphlet, along with the amendments and the arguments, and I have sent them to him. I am glad to see that the Minister, with whom I have had perfectly amiable relations over a long time, is holding up my pamphlet.
I have told the Minister in advance that, because of the shortage of time and because we do not have an opportunity to go into all the matters in the depth required, I will send him my briefing papers, which are also being supplied to certain Conservative colleagues of mine. He can then respond to them in writing. I should simply like to know, before we start these proceedings, whether he would be glad to follow that as an alternative procedure to the proper examination of this matter on the Floor of the House.
3.50 pm
Mr. John Bercow: It is a crying shame, and no great tribute to the Minister for Europe that he should come to the House this afternoon to commend to it quite the most draconian truncation of debate on an important constitutional measure that we have seen for some considerable time. [Interruption.] People may chunter from sedentary positions in evident disapproval of my expression of that opinion, but I am bound to say to Labour Members that if they wish to cite recent examples of a more severe truncation of debate, I shall be happy to listen to all comers. We are discussing a treaty of the greatest moment for the future of this country. It has profound implications for the future of this nation, and for the question of whether we ultimately remain a nation at all in any meaningful sense. That is not a matter about which people should joke or skit. It is of the first importance.
I want to say to the Minister for Europe, with whom it is always a pleasure to joust in the House, that it is especially insulting that the Government have proposed to proceed with such a severe circumscription on the time for debate in the light of the decision of the people of Ireland. [Interruption.] The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin)—who does not, I hope,
800
have an opinion to express on these matters—seems to regard my reference to the verdict of the people of Ireland with a sniffy disdain that is both unworthy and a regular feature of the Government's attitude. The verdict of the people of Ireland is directly relevant to, and should have implications for, the attitude of the House to whether the process of ratification should proceed at all.
Mr. Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bercow: I am anxious to develop my argument, but it is always irresistible to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hendrick: The hon. Gentleman seems extremely concerned about the wishes of the people of Ireland. Will he tell us what concerns he has about the wishes of the people of the other 14 member states of the European Union?
Mr. Bercow: I am very interested in their—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very interested, too, but not at the moment. We are debating the programme motion, and hon. Members should not develop that argument.
Mr. Bercow: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am naturally very well behaved, but just occasionally I need a prod from you and I am always exceptionally grateful to you for it. I shall not be tempted down the path of unvirtuous behaviour by the hon. Gentleman.
The people of Ireland have made an important decision, and we should treat it with respect. There is a real argument as to whether it is constitutionally proper for the House to proceed with consideration of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill at all. I subscribe to the view, which has also been enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), that we should not consider this measure at this time. It is disrespectful to the people of Ireland and a violation of the principles that govern consideration of these matters. If one country chooses positively not to ratify the treaty, the ratification procedure should not proceed. Eminent lawyers are of that opinion, as well as many politicians.
If we are to proceed, however, let me be characteristically generous-spirited and accept that there is an argument for proceeding, although it is not an argument that I accept. Surely Labour Members can see that there is at least as strong an argument for proceeding more cautiously, for allowing more time, for recognising the case for greater reflection and for acknowledging—and thereby paying tribute to—the fact that hon. Members might wish to table more amendments as the debate proceeds.
Mr. John Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Will he address the issue raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) about delay? Does he agree that delay is the precursor of detailed scrutiny, because as the Bill continues its progress through the House, ideas develop and further amendments arise as a result of discussions?
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is both right and eloquent in equal measure. I cannot resist his tempting offer that I

801
should respond to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). Indeed, I shall deal briefly but with relish with the rather contemptuous speech that he delivered a few moments ago.
Of all the observations that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made, I thought that the most offensive was the description "realistic amendments", which tripped effortlessly off his tongue. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a distinguished parliamentarian and a distinguished lawyer, but it is not for him to decide what constitutes a realistic amendment. I do not recognise the accuracy of that description save in one particular, and that is your judgment, Mr. Speaker, that an amendment is in order. If that is your judgment, Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly reasonable for hon. Members to hope that there will be a chance to debate it. It is not for the right hon. and learned Gentleman breezily to dismiss amendments that he does not like as unrealistic.
I am a little worried about my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, who is an exceptionally diligent parliamentarian, because so far he has tabled only 250 amendments. That is a magnificent performance, but he is capable of a great deal better. As he observes the progression of the debate, it is very likely that he will decide to table further amendments.
The Minister for Europe is a brainy fellow. He can make the calculation quite readily. Let us suppose that on each of the three days of parliamentary debate that we are to be permitted—these crumbs from the table which have been flicked in our direction by an arrogant and supercilious Government—there are seven hours to debate the Bill. Let us assume that there will be approximately 20 hours or 1,200 minutes of debate.
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is very rarely in error in these matters, but I fear that on this occasion he may be because the proposed programme measure sets an absolute end time for each period of deliberation. My hon. Friend does not know—and nor do any of us, including the Minister—what other business may precede our deliberations on the Bill before that absolute end time to which we are now invited to agree. So does my hon. Friend agree that whatever calculations he has made may already be in error because the allocated time could be encroached upon and reduced by as yet unknown business?
Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend is entirely correct in that observation. I was offering my own surmise of what we are likely to get from the Government. It is perfectly true that I might have erred on the side of optimism and generosity towards Ministers. It is perfectly possible, and indeed quite likely, that although the Government have chosen not to make any statements today, there may be statements on one or other—or both—of the two remaining days set down for considering the Bill in Committee. If that were the case, my calculation would be that we would have fewer than 20 hours of debate.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bercow: I shall give way in a moment, but I am itching to get this point out and I know that the hon. Gentleman will not hold that against me.
802
If we are to have 1,200 minutes for debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone has tabled no fewer than 250 amendments on massively important matters, and if the bulk of those amendments are open for debate, it logically follows that there will be fewer than five minutes to debate each of them, on the extremely generous and unlikely assumption that there will be no Divisions. If we have a completely uninterrupted debate, that is how much time we shall have.
Do Labour Members really think that that is an adequate allocation of time, when we are talking about matters of profound significance such as enhanced co-operation, the future of European defence, the arrogation of powers by the European Union and the extension of qualified majority voting? If they consider that adequate, and most of them do not bother to turn up to debate the issues at stake, I do not know why they troubled themselves to go grovelling to their electors, begging to be voted in, when as soon as they are here they are only too happy to denude the House of its remaining powers.
Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend take this argument a little further, but not necessarily to its ultimate conclusion, by reflecting on the fact that the important thing is not that we are debating the issue here, albeit with so few Members in the House, which I deplore, but that we are providing information for people outside, to enable them to make a decision about the merits of what is before us? It is a disgrace that such a programme motion should prevent those people from knowing.
Furthermore, on Second Reading, there was no reference whatever, to my knowledge, to the fact that the principle of the Bill was being acceded to by the House of Commons on the BBC. There was no reference either to the speeches that were made, or indeed—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very long intervention.
Mr. Bercow: It might have been long but it was both valid and pertinent, as usual. My hon. Friend is entirely correct. All the evidence demonstrates that the public are broadly Eurosceptical, but we delude ourselves if we suppose for a moment that the mass of the British public are knowledgeable about or have yet developed an interest in the detailed contents of the treaty of Nice. It is our responsibility fully to debate the issues, to set out the arguments and to demonstrate to the public what the implications are and what the irrevocable loss of the power of self-government that the Bill inevitable entails will mean. That is what we want to do, and it is from that that Labour Members seem so suspiciously anxious to shy away.
Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman log on to his server and dig into the massive database that he carries around with him to advise the House when the Conservative Government allowed approximately 40 minutes per line for debate on a Bill? We are dealing with a 34-line Bill.
Mr. Bercow: That is an entirely spurious point, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. He has tossed me a bone, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I intend to maul it. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Bill contains 31 extensions of qualified majority voting; that

803
there are issues of institutional reform at stake; and that the treaty entails consideration of our future defence arrangements. He recognises that there is nothing in the treaty to atone for the inadequacies of the treaty of Amsterdam in respect of the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. For the hon. Gentleman, who is well informed, knowingly to seek to skew the debate and give the impression to people following our proceedings that this is a minor, tidying measure is unworthy of him. There are major issues at stake.
Mr. Miller: Answer the question.
Mr. Bercow: I am answering the question with alacrity and gusto, and I intend to continue to do so.
Of course there is scope for difference of opinion on the subject and it is perfectly honourable to be, as the hon. Gentleman is, a Euro-federast. There is nothing dishonourable about his position—it just suffers from the demerit of being wrong. He is entitled to his view. However, we ought to be open and honest about the contents of the treaty. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that just because a shell Bill is all that is required to give effect to the contents of the treaty—that measure itself is just a shell—is unworthy of him.
I will go one stage further and, in the process, I will probably be slapped on the wrist by the Opposition Whips, and possibly by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). It is no good the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) deploying arguments about what happened in relation to previous treaties. I was a parliamentary virgin in the last Parliament, but I am not quite a parliamentary virgin now. It is no good the hon. Gentleman chuntering about the allocation of time, for example, for the consideration of the treaty of Amsterdam or the treaty of Maastricht. I am on the record on many occasions as objecting in the greatest detail not only to the treaty of Amsterdam, but to the treaty of Maastricht. I took great risks with my chances of getting selected as a prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate at all because I thought that the Major Government were profoundly mistaken to ram through the treaty of Maastricht. I am not apologetic about that; that is my view, and I am entitled to it.
Above all, I believe passionately—more than in any other principle—in the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and national self-government. It pains me deeply whenever I see any Government—be it of the left or of the right—compromising, devaluing or discarding that principle. That is what the Minister is proposing to do today. He ought to be ashamed of himself.
4.6 pm
Peter Hain: It is tempting to reply in detail to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and others. He spoke with his usual eloquence and parliamentary skill. It is tempting because those listening to the debate may think that some horrendous crime is being committed by the Government, given the gusto with which he spoke.
The fact is that the House agreed overwhelmingly to the procedure to have timetables and programme motions for Bills such as this, so that there is sensible and serious debate on all the issues. I want that debate to take place and I want the amendments of the hon. Member for Stone
804
(Mr. Cash) to be discussed. He shows considerable diligence and expertise in tabling the amendments, and he is entitled to have them debated. Virtually the whole of the second day will be devoted to his amendments, and quite right too.
At yesterday's meeting of the Programming Committee there was a great deal of consensus. The Conservative Opposition—rightly, from their point of view, but wrongly in principle—said that they wanted an extra day for consideration. That point was registered and the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) has repeated it. However, I remind him that the Amsterdam treaty—a much more complex, far-reaching and fundamental treaty—took four days in Committee. It is appropriate and proportionate that this treaty, which is much less significant, should take three days in Committee. I did not say that it was an insignificant treaty; it is very important.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) implied that there was a detailed timetable; there is not. There is plenty of scope and few end times for the debates. If it were seen that time was running out, obviously it could be in the power of the Chairman of Ways and Means to reconvene the Programming Committee. That facility is within the rules, as decided by the House.
I say to the hon. Member for Stone that the Opposition leadership could have put him on the Programming Committee. It was not my decision, but theirs. I would have loved to see him there.
Mr. Cash: If I send the Minister the briefing amendments and the reasons for them, and if there is no opportunity to discuss them, will he get someone to reply in writing to me?
Peter Hain: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not responding to that point. I will happily do as he asks. I will be interested in the extra overtime required from the Foreign Office to deal with his points. He may want to table a parliamentary question. [Laughter.] On the other hand, he may not. I will read his pamphlet with great interest.
Mr. Bercow: We will test the Minister on it.
Peter Hain: I will not rise to that challenge. I look forward to receiving the briefing from the hon. Member for Stone.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 362, Noes 141.

Division No. 21]

[4.9 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Barrett, John

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Battle, John

Alexander, Douglas

Bayley, Hugh

Allan, Richard

Beard, Nigel

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Begg, Miss Anne

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Atherton, Ms Candy

Benn, Hilary

Atkins, Charlotte

Bennett, Andrew

Bailey, Adrian

Benton, Joe

Baird, Vera

Berry, Roger

Baker, Norman

Best, Harold

Banks, Tony

Betts, Clive

Barnes, Harry

Blears, Ms Hazel

805

Blizzard, Bob

Efford, Clive

Borrow, David

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Ennis, Jeff

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Ewing, Annabelle

Brake, Tom

Farrelly, Paul

Brennan, Kevin

Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

Brooke, Annette

Flint, Caroline

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Flynn, Paul

Follett, Barbara

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Foster, Don (Bath)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Browne, Desmond

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Bruce, Malcolm

Foulkes, George

Bryant, Chris

Francis, Dr Hywel

Buck, Ms Karen

Galloway, George

Burden, Richard

Gapes, Mike

Burgon, Colin

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Burnham, Andy

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Burstow, Paul

Gerrard, Neil

Cable, Dr Vincent

Gibson, Dr Ian

Cairns, David

Gidley, Sandra

Calton, Patsy

Gilroy, Linda

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Goggins, Paul

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Cann, Jamie

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Carmichael, Alistair

Grogan, John

Casale, Roger

Hain, Peter

Caton, Martin

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Cawsey, Ian

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Challen, Colin

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hancock, Mike

Chaytor, David

Hanson, David

Chidgey, David

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Harvey, Nick

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Heath, David

Coaker, Vernon

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Coleman, Iain

Hendrick, Mark

Connarty, Michael

Heppell, John

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

Corston, Jean

Heyes, David

Cotter, Brian

Hill, Keith

Cousins, Jim

Hinchliffe, David

Cranston, Ross

Hoey, Kate

Crausby, David

Holmes, Paul

Cruddas, Jon

Hood, Jimmy

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Cummings, John

Hope, Phil

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Howells, Dr Kim

David, Wayne

Hoyle, Lindsay

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

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

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Dean, Mrs Janet

Hurst, Alan

Denham, Rt Hon John

Hutton, John

Dhanda, Parmjit

Iddon, Dr Brian

Dismore, Andrew

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Dobbin, Jim

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Donohoe, Brian H

Jamieson, David

Doran, Frank

Jenkins, Brian

Doughty, Sue

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Dowd, Jim

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Drew, David

Drown, Ms Julia

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

806

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Munn, Ms Meg

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Joyce, Eric

Norris, Dan

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Oaten, Mark

Keeble, Ms Sally

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

O'Hara, Edward

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Olner, Bill

Keetch, Paul

O'Neill, Martin

Kelly, Ruth

Öpik, Lembit

Kemp, Fraser

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

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

Owen, Albert

Palmer, Dr Nick

Khabra, Piara S

Pearson, Ian

Kidney, David

Perham, Linda

Kilfoyle, Peter

Picking, Anne

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Pickthall, Colin

Kirkwood, Archy

Plaskitt, James

Knight Jim (S Dorset)

Pope, Greg

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Pound, Stephen

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Lamb, Norman

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Price, Adam

Laxton, Bob

Primarolo, Dawn

Lazarowicz, Mark

Prosser, Gwyn

Leslie, Christopher

Pugh, Dr John

Levitt, Tom

Purchase, Ken

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Purnell, James

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

Linton, Martin

Quinn, Lawrie

Lloyd, Tony

Rammell, Bill

Llwyd, Elfyn

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Love, Andrew

Rendel, David

Lucas, Ian

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Luke, Iain

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lyons, John

Ross, Ernie

McCabe, Stephen

Roy, Frank

McCafferty, Chris

Ruddock, Joan

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McDonnell, John

Ryan, Joan

MacDougall, John

Salmond, Alex

McFall, John

Salter, Martin

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Sanders, Adrian

McIsaac, Shona

Savidge, Malcolm

McKechin, Ann

Sawford, Phil

McKenna, Rosemary

Sedgemore, Brian

Mackinlay, Andrew

Shaw, Jonathan

McNamara, Kevin

Shipley, Ms Debra

McNulty, Tony

Simon, Siôn

McWalter, Tony

Skinner, Dennis

McWilliam, John

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Mahmood, Khalid

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Marion, Mrs Alice

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Mallaber, Judy

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

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

Mann, John

Soley, Clive

Marris, Rob

Southworth, Helen

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Squire, Rachel

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Steinberg, Gerry

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Stevenson, George

Martlew, Eric

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Meale, Alan

Stinchcombe, Paul

Merron, Gillian

Stoate, Dr Howard

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Miller, Andrew

Stringer, Graham

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Stunell, Andrew

Moore, Michael

Tami, Mark

Moran, Margaret

Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

Morgan, Julie

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Mountford, Kali

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Mudie, George

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mullin, Chris

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

807

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Whitenead, Dr Alan

Thurso, John

Wicks, Malcolm

Timms, Stephen

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Tipping, Paddy

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Touhig, Don

Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

Trickett Jon

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Truswell, Paul

Willis, Phil

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Winnick, David

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Wishart, Pete

Wood Mike

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Woolas, Phil

Tyler, Paul

Worthington, Tony

Tynan, Bill

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Wright, David (Telford)

Ward, Ms Claire

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Wareing, Robert N

Younger-Ross, Richard

Watson, Tom

Webb, Steve

Tellers for the Ayes:

Weir, Michael

Mr. Ivor Caplin and

White, Brian

Angela Smith.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Greenway, John

Amess, David

Grieve, Dominic

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Hague, Rt Hon William

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Hammond, Philip

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Hawkins, Nick

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Hayes, John

Bacon, Richard

Heald, Oliver

Barker, Greg

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Beggs, Roy

Hendry, Charles

Bellingham, Henry

Hermon, Lady

Bercow, John

Horam, John

Blunt, Crispin

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Boswell, Tim

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Hunter, Andrew

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Jenkin, Bernard

Brady, Graham

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Brazier, Julian

Key, Robert

Browning, Mrs Angela

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Burns, Simon

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

Burt, Alistair

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Butterfill, John

Lansley, Andrew

Cameron, David

Letwin, Oliver

Cash, William

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Clappison, James

Loughton, Tim

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Collins, Tim

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Conway, Derek

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Cormack, Sir Patrick

McLoughlin, Patrick

Cran, James

Malins, Humfrey

Curry, Rt Hon David

Mates, Michael

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Djanogly, Jonathan

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Dodds, Nigel

May, Mrs Theresa

Donaldson, Jeffrey M

Mercer, Patrick

Duncan, Alan

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Duncan, Peter

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Evans, Nigel

Norman, Archie

Fabricant, Michael

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Flook, Adrian

Ottaway, Richard

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Page, Richard

Fox, Dr Liam

Paice, James

Francois, Mark

Paisley, Rev Ian

Gale, Roger

Paterson, Owen

Garnier, Edward

Pickles, Eric

Gibb, Nick

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Goodman, Paul

Robathan, Andrew

Grayling, Chris

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

808

Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Roe, Mrs Marion

Tredinnick, David

Rosindell, Andrew

Trend, Michael

Ruffley, David

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Tyrie, Andrew

Selous, Andrew

Walter, Robert

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Waterson, Nigel

Simmonds, Mark

Watkinson, Angela

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Whittingdale, John

Soames, Nicholas

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Wiggin, Bill

Willetts, David

Spicer, Sir Michael

Wilshire, David

Spink, Dr Robert

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Spring, Richard

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Yeo, Tim

Steen, Anthony

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Streeter, Gary

Swayne, Desmond

Tellers for the Noes:

Swire, Hugo

Mr. Peter Luff and

Syms, Robert

Mr. James Gray.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That, in accordance with the resolution of the Programming Committee of 10th July and pursuant to the Programme Order of 4th July 2001 (proceedings in Committee of the whole House, on consideration and on Third Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill),—

(1) proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 p.m. on the third allotted day (or, if that day is a Thursday, 7.00 p.m.);

(2) those proceedings shall be taken on each of the allotted days as shown in the second column of the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown, and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at the times specified in the third column of the Table.

Table

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

Amendment No. 1

8.00 p.m. (or 5.00 p.m. if a Thursday)

Remaining proceedings on Clause 1 and proceedings on Clauses 2 to 4

—

Second day

Remaining proceedings on Clauses 1 to 4 (so far as not previously concluded)

10.00 p.m. (or 7.00 p.m. if a Thursday)

Third day

New Clauses 4 to 6

7.00 p.m. (or 4.00 p.m. if a Thursday)

Remaining New Clauses

10.00 p.m. (or 7.00 p.m. if a Thursday)

(3) any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 p.m. on the fourth allotted day (or, if that day is a Thursday, 7.00 p.m.).

Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  1ST ALLOTTED DAY
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 1

  INCORPORATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY OF NICE
  4.24 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraphs 2, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 30, 32, 36 subsection (b), 37 sub-section (b) as it relates to qualified majority voting, 41, 42 as it relates to qualified majority voting, and 44.'.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 2.'.
  No. 4, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 3.'.
  No. 5, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 5.'.
  No. 6, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 9.'.
  No. 7, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 12.'.
  No. 8, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 13.'.
  No. 9, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 14.'.
  No. 10, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 15.'.
  No. 11, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 16.'.
  No. 12, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 18.'.
  No. 13, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 19.'.
  No. 14, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 20.'.
  No. 15, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 21.'.
  No. 16, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraphs 22 and 23.'.
  No. 17, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 29.'.
  No. 18, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 30.'.
  No. 20, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 36, subsection (b)'.
  810
  No. 21, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than in the final line of Article 2, paragraph 37, the words "acting by a qualified majority.".'.
  No. 22, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 41.'.
  No. 23, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than in Article 2, paragraph 42 the words "acting by a qualified majority".'.
  No. 24, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 44.'.
  No. 25, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 4.'.
  No. 26, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 6.'.
  No. 27, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2, paragraph 7.'.
  No. 57, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 2 paragraph 10'.
  No. 80, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 3, paragraph 2'.
  No. 81, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 3, paragraph 3'.
  No. 82, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 3, paragraph 4'.
  No. 106, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 4, paragraph 6'.
  No. 107, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than Article 4, paragraph 7'.
  No. 233, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
  'other than in Article 2 paragraph 4 the words "with the exception of aspects relating to family law".'.
  No. 28, in page 1, line 12, after "occasion", insert—
  'other than the Protocol on Article 67 of the Treaty establishing the European Community'.
  New clause 11—Implications for regions of amendment to Article 161 TEC—
  'Prior to 2007, Her Majesty's Government shall lay before Parliament a report assessing the implication for the regions of the United Kingdom of the changes provided for by Article 2, paragraph 14, of the Nice Treaty, amending Article 161 TEC.'.
  Mr. Spring: Today, we start our detailed discussions on the provisions of the Bill, which indeed are wide ranging. It is fitting that our proceedings should start with the issue of qualified majority voting, as its extension is a dominant theme throughout much of the Bill and the treaty.
  Amendment No. 1 is a catch-all provision covering extensions of QMV in the treaty establishing the European Community, over which the United Kingdom does not have an opt-out. The extensions are covered in separate amendments tabled for discussion today, although right hon. and hon. Members may be reassured to learn that I do not intend to speak to all of them.
  During all our discussions in the Committee, we shall try to measure this and other provisions against one yardstick: will they assist in the development of a modern, enlarged, diverse Europe that enhances the security and prosperity of the peoples of Europe? It is important that we consider the effect of the Bill on Britain itself, but the

  811
  treaty is for the whole of the European Union. The effect of the treaty on the whole of Europe must be our dominant consideration.
  We contend that while letting Britain down in the Nice negotiations the Government also let down the rest of Europe. The approach taken at Nice is no more in the interests of people elsewhere in Europe, especially those in the applicant states, than it is in the interests of the people of Britain.
  A little more than three months ago, the Foreign Affairs Committee produced a report on European enlargement and the treaty of Nice. It concluded:
  "The Treaty of Nice has proved to be much more substantial than the United Kingdom Government and others initially envisaged."
  Does not that encapsulate the result of the Government's lack of leadership at Nice? Is not it inevitable that when our Government fail to put the case for reform, other Governments will fill the vacuum? Do Labour Members take pride in the fact that it was their Government who were taken by surprise by an agenda set by others? What does that say about the negotiating skills of the Ministers who represented us?
  The remainder of the Select Committee's conclusion should be to the forefront of our minds as we consider the future:
  "The 2004 IGC looks certain to be very much more substantial still, going to the very heart of the balance between the EU's governmental and parliamentary institutions and those of the member states."
  Whenever the Government look as though they are about to repeat the mistakes they made at Nice—playing down the likelihood of a substantial agenda, refusing to show leadership and being taken by surprise by the leadership shown by others—we shall endeavour to remind them of the Select Committee's conclusion. It is crucial that Britain is proactively involved in the debate leading up to the intergovernmental conference.
  Today, we are examining a particular result of the Government's lack of leadership: the extension of qualified majority voting in 31 articles or 35 areas. As I said, we should assess every measure taken at Nice against one main yardstick: is the measure right for a diverse, enlarged Europe that will be acceptable to the citizens of member states?
  Mr. Andrew Miller: For the sake of clarity, will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether he opposes the extension of QMV in principle or only in specific areas?
  Mr. Spring: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. He may not be aware that in our 1997 general election manifesto we made it plain that we would not extend QMV and that we would not be in favour of it. That principle remains. We also want to draw a line to enable a movement back to national Parliaments and to their authority. The main threat to the EU is the disconnection of the peoples of Europe from the EU's institutions and structures. If that disconnection persists, that is the route the EU should take—not the one-way route to integration.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Are we to understand from what the hon. Gentleman has just said that if it were demonstrated that it was in the interests of
  812
  the United Kingdom and of the European Union that there should be an extension of qualified majority voting in a particular area, the hon. Gentleman would still not be in favour of it?
  Mr. Spring: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has obviously misunderstood me. We want to draw a line to say that powers must be returned to national Parliaments, and we wanted that line to be drawn at Nice. I am sure that is difficult for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to understand, given the almost unbelievable attitude of Liberal Democrats to the whole political integration process in the European Union.
  Mr. Doug Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Spring: I shall make some progress.
  We must assess every measure proposed at Nice against the yardstick of what is acceptable to the citizens of member states. That is a huge challenge for us all, and if we do not address it the success and viability of the European Union will be in peril. I hope that the Liberal Democrats in particular understand the difficulties of that.
  The wide extension of QMV is one of the Nice provisions that fails that test most graphically. Some of the items in the list have the potential to be particularly damaging in themselves, but all of them, even the ones characterised by the Government as relatively minor, indicate a direction towards uniform integration that is absolutely the wrong one for a Europe on the verge of enlargement to take.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) pointed out on Second Reading, the idea that harmony and unity in a diverse, enlarged Europe can be increased by extending
  "the areas in which the majority can ride roughshod over the wishes of a minority"
  only has to be stated to be seen to be completely ludicrous. As he said,
  "That is a recipe for discord, not harmony. It is a recipe for division, not unity."—[Official Report, 4 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 279.]
  The central and eastern European applicant states are among those who have the most to lose from a centralised approach and a lack of respect for diversity.
  We are told—wrongly, of course—that the areas in which QMV is being extended are relatively minor: for example, nothing but the pension arrangements for the Court of Auditors, to use the Prime Minister's mistaken example that he gave in December in the House. If that were true, they would hardly be essential prerequisites for enlargement and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) brilliantly and accurately pointed out in the House last week, the two arguments used for the Nice treaty—that it is, at the same time, essential and inconsequential—are mutually exclusive and utterly contradictory.
  I turn to a couple of specific aspects of QMV to illustrate our concerns; I will return to them in more detail later if there is the opportunity to do so.
  First, I should like to address the extension of QMV in article 13, relating to incentive measures in the area of anti-discrimination. That is covered by amendments

  813
  Nos. 1 and 3. The agreed wording makes it clear that any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of member states is excluded, so what precisely is meant by "Community incentive measures"? Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us, although his predecessor certainly could not. When asked at the European Scrutiny Committee, after the Nice treaty had been agreed, what the new incentive measures on anti-discrimination would amount to, the then Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), replied,
  "I do not know. It has just been agreed".
  Is not that precisely the problem? Why do Ministers persist in agreeing to open-ended extensions of qualified majority voting without having the first idea about what proposals might follow? It is an extraordinary way to negotiate on behalf of the peoples of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. John Bercow: Would my hon. Friend care to cast his mind back to our exchanges on Second Reading last week? He will recall that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) believed that it was right that QMV should apply on anti-discrimination measures and that there should be a formal European Union position. Would my hon. Friend, by contrast, not agree with me that important though anti-discrimination policy undoubtedly is, it is pre-eminently a matter for democratically elected members of the British legislature and is no business whatever of the European Union?
  Mr. Spring: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but we must accept that the position of the Liberal Democrat party, of which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) is a member, is to have a written constitution for the European Union, to remove further the powers of national Parliaments and to have much greater centralisation. The Liberal Democrats have consistently pursued that theme whenever the issue arises.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Spring indicated assent.
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned me, after all. It is just as well that I do not have a persecution complex, because he does not seem to be able to complete a sentence without mentioning me or my party. The purpose of a constitution would be to ensure that the rights, roles and responsibilities of EU institutions were set down clearly and unequivocally, enabling people to understand what the EU is about. The hon. Gentleman ought to be in favour of such clarity.
  Mr. Spring: I am perfectly satisfied that the laws on discrimination, and so on, that govern the people of the United Kingdom adequately protect them. If we continue to centralise the structures of the EU, the process of alienation of the people of the EU from its structures and
  814
  institutions will only grow worse. I find it extraordinary that that is not understood, particularly after the Irish referendum.
  Mr. Doug Henderson rose—
  Mr. Mark Hendrick rose—
  Mr. Spring: I propose to make to a little more progress.
  The treaty of Nice extends qualified majority voting in article 100, which covers measures to be taken in the event of severe difficulties in the supply of certain products and Community financial assistance to member states in severe difficulties. That is covered by amendment No. 5, and it is also included in amendment No. 1. Perhaps the Minister would now like to explain what that provision does. What are the benefits for Britain of that extension of QMV?
  On the face of it, that extension allows fairly sweeping powers. Subsection (1) of article 100 allows the Council of Ministers, now by QMV, to
  "decide upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products".
  When asked, the Minister's predecessor said that that did not, for example, extend competence over North sea oil reserves. We can be grateful for that, but the provision was used for Council directive 1998/93/EC, which amended a directive imposing an obligation on member states of the EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and petroleum products. Whatever the merits of that decision, and without the article extending competence over the supply of a particular reserve, could it not nevertheless be used to pass further legislation on such issues in future—this time by QMV?
  Will the Government list which products fall under the scope of article 100? Who will measure the so-called severe difficulties, and how will they be measured? The second subsection states:
  "Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Community financial assistance to the Member State concerned".
  Will the Minister tell us what was in Ministers' minds when they agreed to abandon the veto on that? Who will define what constitutes an exceptional occurrence beyond the control of a member state?
  On Second Reading, the Minister made great play of the fact that article 100, as revised, will be subject, under declaration 6, to the 2000–06 financial perspective and the "no bail-out rule" laid down in article 103, which states that a member state shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of other member state Governments or other member state public bodies, except in the case of mutual financial guarantees.
  The fact that the Government have to defend their decision to extend QMV on the basis of what it does not do rather than on what it does says a great deal about the measure. If decisions that are made under the article are meant to respect budgetary ceilings, does that not still provide large room for manoeuvre? If the article is not meant to be used to bail out the commitments of other

  815
  member state Governments or public bodies, what about non-public bodies? If the events are so truly exceptional, why is this extension of QMV essential for enlargement, which is the stock reason for the Nice treaty? Are we expecting more exceptional occurrences in an enlarged Europe? Will the decision-making process grind to a halt without QMV?
  Roger Casale: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that it was right to extend QMV when the Conservatives were in office, but that it should not be increased in future. The structure of his argument is familiar because it was deployed when the Conservatives opposed increases in tobacco tax and the fuel duty escalator. The difference is that his resistance to extending QMV now is ideologically driven. He has given no practical justification for his argument. Is he really saying that even if there is practical merit in extending QMV, he will resist it?
  Mr. Spring: I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. I have been trying to establish the fact that there is no basis to extend QMV in this case without a considered Government view, and all we have heard is multiple contradiction.
  If we have a policy of one size fits all in an enlarged European Community and larger countries gang up on smaller ones by using QMV, the huge increase in EU member states will put fresh strains on administration and structure. If we do not seek protection we will increase the strain that we are under and land ourselves in considerable difficulties. I would have been much happier had the hon. Gentleman stood up and said that the Government fought to return powers to the national Parliament where there can be proper scrutiny to connect us once again with the British people. The fact than the Government have not done that is what is wrong in principle.
  Roger Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether he and his party refuse to accept any extension of QMV in principle?
  Mr. Spring: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not here when I cited our manifesto commitment, which made it plain that we would not seek any extension. In the process of constant negotiation in the EU, we would want to return powers to national Parliaments. That is the crucial objective. If Labour Members who want the European Union to survive and prosper do not accept that the democratic deficit will undermine the structures and success of the EU, they do not understand the fundamental problems.
  Mr. Doug Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Spring: In a few minutes.
  Several appointments will be subject to a qualified majority vote, and some are far from minor. The high representative for common, foreign and security policy will be subject to QMV under article 207(2) TEC, which is covered by amendments Nos. 1 and 14. That raises the possibility of the EU's two permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—Britain and France—being outvoted on the appointment of the EU's foreign policy representative. Article 214 TEC covers the
  816
  appointment of the Commission President, which is the subject of amendments Nos. 1 and 16. Does the Minister not agree that that appointment is vital? Without the veto, for example, Britain under the Conservatives would not have been able to prevent the appointment of Jean-Luc Dehaene.
  4.45 pm
  Article 214, as revised by Nice, states that the Council shall act by qualified majority in adopting the list of commissioners. That is meant to be
  "drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State",
  but that provides no guarantee that the list will be submitted to the Council. Will the Minister tell the House why it is necessary to extend QMV on that matter, or will he give the House a guarantee that no vote on future commissioners will be taken by QMV on the basis of the ideology of the commissioners concerned and against the wishes of the member states that are appointing them?
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale), the hon. Gentleman appeared to argue that it was necessary not to allow an extension of QMV because it would allow large nations to gang up on small ones, yet with his current example he appears to be making the opposite argument—he opposes extension because it would allow everyone else to gang up on a couple of the large nations, namely Britain and France. Will he make clear which of the two reasons worries him most, or is it the case that he is opposed to any extension of QMV and any old argument will do?
  Mr. Spring: Again, I am disappointed—the hon. Lady does not understand the principle that we are trying to establish. We want a line to be drawn about the remorseless process of political integration that is occurring under the EU, to which the Government appear to subscribe in the absence of any clear alternative. We Conservatives, on the other hand, have set out a clear vision of a much more flexible and diverse EU wherein the one-size-fits-all policy—an ossified example of 1950s and 1960s thinking, frozen in time—is finished for good. Ours is a conception of an EU that should work and our amendments to the Bill represent part of that vision.
  Later, I shall speak in detail to new clause 11, which deals with extensions of the social chapter to structural fund issues. For now, does the Minister accept that the loss of the veto would leave Britain powerless to stop British regions losing out under the provision? The amendment merely asks the Government to be open and honest about the effect of the proposed change on the regions of this country.
  Originally, the Government clearly opposed measures such as those on enhanced co-operation, but they gave way on QMV while offering contradictory justifications, saying that the matters given away were either necessary for the smooth functioning of the EU or unimportant.
  I hope that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will speak in this afternoon's Committee consideration of a highly important series of issues. I conclude by saying that the confusion arises from a Government who, unlike the Governments of so many of our European partners,

  817
  have no clear view of the architecture of the EU or of what it should be in the next few years and decades to come.
  Mr. Doug Henderson: As several Members observed on Second Reading, the Conservatives are clearly in some difficulty. I expected the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) to say that, given that difficulty, he would be guided by his party's 2001 manifesto, but he told us at the start of his speech that he was still being guided by the Conservatives' 1997 manifesto.
  Mr. Miller: More like 1897.
  Mr. Henderson: If my knowledge of history serves me, right, that slightly predates the establishment of the European Union.
  My electors, watching this afternoon's debate on cable television, will see the hint of hypocrisy that tinges the Conservative party's position on qualified majority voting. Avid watchers of such debates will remember that under the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty, many extensions were made to QMV. I hate to repeat a point that has been made many times in the Chamber during debates on these matters, but it needs to be said that in the Single European Act, Conservative Members agreed to 12 extensions of QMV. They knew at the time that if those extensions were not included, the Act would not work because countries would just say, "We're sorry, this issue is not in our interest, bang bang." At the same time, Conservative Members do not say that the Single European Act is the most important thing in the EU, but that it is the only thing that matters in the EU. They therefore recognise the need for QMV in the only thing that they regard as a virtue of the EU.
  Mr. Hendrick: My hon. Friend said that the Conservatives agreed to 12 measures on QMV in the Single European Act. I remind him that they agreed to some 30 such measures in the Maastricht treaty. Does that not smack of hypocrisy?
  Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful for his foresight of my next point. The Conservative party was not unanimous about the Maastricht treaty but, to be fair, most Conservative Members recognised that the treaty was essential if Europe was to hold together, be stable and develop, and accepted that obligations were involved. One obligation was that Parliament could not have exclusive control over decisions on certain issues and that sovereignty had to be pooled on issues where an EU view was needed to prevent a country from vetoing any proposal that it found to be against its interests or that it did not want.
  Electors in my constituency and elsewhere who are watching our debate will say that there is at least some hypocrisy in the Conservative position. If there was hypocrisy in the past, there is neanderthalism today. Opposition Members have their heads in the sand. Even when the tiger is coming up behind, the ostrich is still bending down. Essentially, in their proposals, the Conservatives are saying, "We don't care how practical a
  818
  proposal is; we don't even care if it's only in Britain's interest. Under no circumstances will we agree to QMV on any issue at any time."
  Mr. Bercow: I am exceptionally grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because he has blood on his hands from piloting the treaty of Amsterdam in 1998. I am increasingly frustrated by his contribution. Will he confirm his recollection of 19 January 1998, when we debated in detail some of these matters, including subsidiarity and proportionality, that many of us made clear our consistent opposition to QMV in both the treaty of Maastricht and the treaty of Amsterdam?
  Mr. Henderson: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, who has reminded me of the divisions that were apparent in the Conservative party three years ago on this very subject. I do not think that the position has changed; if anything, the divisions have become deeper and Conservative Members connect less to the real issues.
  I come back to my earlier point: even if there is a proposal that is clearly in Britain's interest, the hon. Gentleman is against any extension of QMV, even if it wipes out an industry in Britain or causes enormous environmental damage to part of our country. He is prepared to lay waste to industry and the environment in defence of his political and ideological position. He is entitled to adopt that position, but the public have a right to know exactly where he and some of his hon. Friends are coming from.
  Someone said to me, "The Conservative party is finished if it cannot persuade parts of the financial services industry that it is in their interest to have a Conservative Government in Britain." There is clear evidence of that in some of the attitudes that the Conservative party has struck on QMV, and it is apparent to any operator in the City of London or any British operator elsewhere in the EU or in other parts of Britain.
  If a position makes sense and is adopted by consensus in the EU, one country should not be able to block negotiations with other major players in the financial services industry, probably in the United States or the far east. That is tantamount to destroying the Single European Act as it relates to financial services. With the enlargement of the European Union, all sorts of prospects appear on the horizon. Surely one country should not be able to block a sensible proposal.
  When EU negotiators enter into talks with other countries on financial services, they should have a clear mandate that has been agreed, after discussion, by QMV. If we adopted the position advanced from the Conservative Front Bench, such negotiations would not take place at all, as there is every likelihood that the proposal would be vetoed by one country that did not stand to gain as much as the others or that would perhaps lose a little. That would undermine the operation of the Single European Act in respect of financial services.
  Mr. Mark Francois: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Henderson: I am happy to give way to the successor to my pair.
  Mr. Francois: The ostrich is about to counter-attack. The hon. Gentleman argues that if any matter is subject

  819
  to QMV, negotiations may lead to some agreement, but that if a veto is retained there may never be agreement. Is it not an odd argument that we cannot be involved in negotiations unless QMV operates? Surely we can be involved in negotiations, and if there is a proposal to which we object, we can use our veto, although most of the time we may not choose to do that. His argument is daft.
  Mr. Henderson: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that the financial services industry in the EU will understand my argument. We will not even get to the starting gate for negotiations with the Americans or the Japanese unless we can firm up a European position. If Latvia or Germany—any country, regardless of size—did not support a particular piece of trade liberalisation, there would be no negotiation whatever. That is the point that I have been trying to establish.
  Mr. Hendrick: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Henderson: I do not want to hog the field.
  Mr. Hendrick: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. Does he consider, as I do, that the view of the Conservative party is extremely unpatriotic? Under the Conservative Government, markets in this country were liberalised and opened to companies from other countries. We are considering a measure that would push through the liberalisation of financial services across Europe. British banks and financial institutions are vulnerable to those in other countries, but because of the intransigence of one or two member states we cannot push through agreement to ensure that British companies can acquire French or German companies, particularly banks and insurance companies. Is it not unpatriotic of the Opposition to block the mechanisms that would allow that?
  Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. What matters is not what I think, but what the electorate think. The electorate made their judgment in 1997 and in the last general election about which political party was patriotic.
  Mr. Graham Brady rose—
  Mr. Henderson: I have been more generous than others were towards me when I tried to intervene. I shall see how we go on the next point, then I may be tempted to give way again.
  The hon. Member for West Suffolk made a silly and jingoistic point when he said that if the veto was removed in respect of the rules and tasks of the structural and cohesion funds, some of our regions could lose out. That is a misunderstanding of how the structural and cohesion fund industry works. We are not the main recipients, and that will remain the case, quite fairly, because others need more help than we do. Higher aggregate demand in the economies of those other countries encourages our exporters, so it is in our long-term trading interests for countries in the eastern part of the European Union to develop their economies.
  820
  5 pm
  The motivating force for establishing QMV in respect of such funding was the negotiating attitude adopted by the Iberian countries and Greece. They said, "Unless we get our way on structural and cohesion funds, everything else will be disrupted, not only in this negotiation, but in others, whether in Council meetings or in relation to particular treaties." I have been a negotiator in my time, so I know that that card can be played sometimes, but not for ever. Anybody who plays it for too long will be shut out and left without influence.
  If one wants to be part of the building of a European ideal and the European economic and political process, one must make a positive contribution. The Iberian countries have understood that, which is why they have been tempted to accept a QMV decision, even though changes are occurring and they will not continue to be the main recipients of such funds. Once enlargement occurs, for the foreseeable future, other countries will receive a substantial part of the funding. The hon. Member for West Suffolk should reconsider the matter before he makes another point about it.
  Mr. Spring: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Henderson: I do not see why I should, but I shall be more generous to the hon. Gentleman than he was to me.
  Mr. Spring: I apologise if I did not give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will agree that I gave way a great deal to many other Labour Members.
  The hon. Gentleman may have slightly misunderstood the point that I was trying to make. We are calling for openness in the Government's approach so that the facts can be established. The Library has concluded that, on all available evidence, a significant number of areas in the United Kingdom that currently have objective 1 status would lose out. We should know what the Government's view is, and that is the basis of our proposal. It has nothing to do with jingoism; we merely seek some openness and honesty from the Government for a change.
  Mr. Henderson: The precise terms that have been used refer to that aim, but the hon. Gentleman raised this issue: some British areas might lose if the veto is removed. We cannot continue to proceed on that basis. If we want a sensible system to disburse social funding, there must be some fairness and an understanding that fairness must be taken into account. One has to make progress, but one cannot do so if all participants veto every little bit that they do not like. Enlargement would not happen if that attitude prevailed, and anyone who has ever been at such negotiations or acted on behalf of potential recipients in their constituencies knows that that is so. There must be give and take on all such issues.
  The hon. Gentleman also suggested that small countries would be discriminated against if QMV were extended, but I do not think that that is correct. If small countries are discriminated against by QMV, discrimination must already be occurring under the Single European Act before extension. He suggested that abolition of the veto means that small countries will be discriminated against. That is not how it works. People in the European Union with common interests put together a proposition, whether

  821
  it is an environmental one from the Scandinavian countries or an industrial one from the French and British. They then try to persuade other countries to accept it. There are big and small countries that have an interest and take part, but others say that the matter does not affect them and that they will flow with the decision that is reached. The idea that this extension discriminates against smaller countries while the 42 extensions to which the Conservative Government agreed do not is silly. The hon. Member for West Suffolk has been coaxed into adopting that stance because of his position.
  Mr. William Cash (Stone): The hon. Gentleman draws a distinction between different sorts of treaties without paying heed to their contents. The Single European Act is primarily about increasing trading opportunities and competition. The Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties are primarily about European government. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who has just walked in, again displays his complete ignorance of the treaties' contents by shaking his head. I am glad that the Minister for Europe understands those matters.
  Qualified majority voting makes a substantial difference in the context of the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties. That is one of the main reasons why the Irish people voted against the Nice treaty, which is about QMV and larger states bulldozing smaller ones.
  Mr. Henderson: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. The Under-Secretary should know about the treaty because he was well coached in the past. I am confident that he knows a lot more about it than me.
  I do not accept the point of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). The Single European Act provided for extensions of QMV and dealt with economic issues such as building a single market. The Amsterdam, Maastricht and Nice treaties cover some similar issues. Financial services negotiations with third parties are a matter of single market economics. Some aspects of the treaties did not cover economics, but that is the case with all treaties. I understand the point that he tried to make, but I do not accept that it is empirically correct.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Henderson: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already; I should give somebody else a chance.
  Joyce Quin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Henderson: I cannot resist giving way to my right hon. Friend.
  Joyce Quin: The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) pointed out that he voted for the Single European Act. Perhaps he will not mind my reminding hon. Members that during the debate on that measure, he said that the dangers of QMV were exaggerated.
  Mr. Henderson: I am always glad to give way to my right hon. Friend, but I am especially glad this afternoon. She made an important point.
  822
  If enlargement is to happen, the Nice treaty must be adopted. Those who have examined it know that without QMV, there is no treaty. As we move towards enlargement, QMV is essential for all the reasons that have been given in the debate.
  The treaty will not be the end of extending QMV, but I believe that many existing provisions will be used more often. They will form the bulk of QMV in future. However, some modification and development will be required and further proposals will be made. I am not ashamed to say that, and I do not hide from it. As information technology and environmental issues develop, the Community may believe that decisions should be made through majority voting so that no individual country has a veto.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech. Does not it appear on the surface that majority voting favours the larger nations, especially Germany?
  Mr. Henderson: No. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think that that is the case. The large nations such as France, Germany and Britain might say, "We must be able to block a proposal under qualified majority voting if we feel it is against our collective interest and the European Union's interest." However, that situation hardly ever arises; indeed, I do not know whether it has ever arisen. I need to check the history books.
  More normally, countries with a common interest ask the Commission to initiate a proposal or to respond to a proposal from the Commission. They then build support for their case, and if they do not get it, they usually back off and have another go, review, modify or whatever. If they get the support that they need, they try to reach unanimity before QMV is raised. However, if it proves difficult to establish unanimity, one member state will rely on QMV. Member states will try to build support among small and large countries. I do not think that small countries are discriminated against.
  Proposals such as the measure to review the rules on the tasks of the structural and cohesion funds are an important development for the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I can foresee a situation in which there could be quite a ganging-up against the Republic and Northern Ireland—because they have both been heavy recipients of funding in the past—to support a particular distribution of structural funds elsewhere. If there were a veto, it might mean that there would be no agreement, or that the UK and Ireland had to give way to protect their position. With QMV, there will be a more balanced approach in which a largish group of nations will make decisions on the distribution of structural funds. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will gain from that process.
  I have made the points that I wanted to make, and I shall leave it to others to speak further.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The speech by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) was pretty brave stuff. He was reflecting on what we were invited to understand was his party's clear and unequivocal position. However, any reference to the views of that apostate, as we might describe him, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who is currently a candidate for the leadership of the official Opposition, was absent from any part of the hon. Gentleman's speech.

  823
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude towards the Nice treaty is, I fear, a long way away from that expressed on behalf of the official Opposition by the hon. Member for West Suffolk—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not the only one of whom that is true. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) made it clear last week in a most illuminating article in the newspaper of record, The Times, why he was supporting the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, and evinced a certain amount of embarrassment about the arguments that he had had to advance about the Nice treaty during the election campaign.
  The hon. Member for West Suffolk frequently said how disappointed he was, and I confess that I, too, am pretty disappointed, that we have not heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe—or from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), because he was the Whip charged with the responsibility of taking the legislation on the Maastricht treaty through the House of Commons. That shows that gratitude rarely lasts long in politics. All the way through that process, the Liberal Democrats supported the then Government, assisting them in getting the legislation on the Maastricht treaty on to the statute book. There were no accusations at that time from the Conservatives that the Liberal Democrats were overly committed to European integration. Indeed, they were happy to exploit our commitment towards Europe.
  The hon. Member for West Suffolk has made a brave statement of the case that he would like the Opposition to put forward, but in truth it is a case sustained neither by history nor by contemporary events in his party.
  Mr. Spring: Bearing in mind the comments of many Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidates in the recent general election, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not suggesting that there is any unanimity of view among Liberal Democrats. There certainly is not. The issue of how we approach our relationship with the European Union produces different views and attitudes right across the political spectrum, and right across the breadth of the political parties in this country. There is nothing new about that.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. A little while ago he was accusing the Liberal Democrats of being hell-bent on further integration. Now he says that we are split on the topic. If we are split on the topic, we can hardly be hell-bent on it.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. John Redwood rose—
  Mr. Campbell: I do not propose to give way at the moment.
  Mr. Cash: The Liberal Democrats will be smashed to atoms by going in different directions.
  Mr. Campbell: If I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to try to push me in a different direction, I would be pretty confident that I could hold my own course.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell: I shall not give way to the right hon. Gentleman at the moment, although I may do in due course.
  What I find difficult to understand in the attitude of the official Opposition, as evidenced by the amendment, is their argument that there should be no extension of qualified majority voting in any circumstances, because it is time to bring powers back from Brussels to domestic Parliaments. I could understand it if they proposed to approach the issue of qualified majority voting on a case-by-case, merit-by-merit basis, and said that when they examined the treaty of Nice and the extensions of QMV therein, they objected to one, three, five, six, seven or any other particular number of the extensions
  I thought that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) put the question very clearly indeed. On matters such as the liberalisation of financial services and transport, how can it possibly be in the interests of the United Kingdom to oppose qualified majority voting when our economy would benefit and our interests would be served? Arguing against a particular provision on the ground that it does not serve those interests seems entirely logical, but I do not find it easy to understand the necessity to argue against qualified majority voting in all circumstances, even when it is demonstrably in the interests of the people whom we represent.
  Mr. Francois: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell: Not for the moment.
  What lies behind that is the suggestion that with qualified majority voting, the interests of the United Kingdom are irreparably damaged on a regular basis. The fact is that in the past two years Britain has been outvoted in the Council of Ministers on only five occasions, while in the same period Germany was outvoted 20 times and France eight times. Those statistics do not suggest that the rest of Europe is somehow ganging up on us and damaging our significant domestic interests so much that we cannot consider the extension of qualified majority voting in future on a case-by-case basis.
  Mr. Redwood: I do not understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman failed to understand my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who speaks for the official Opposition with great clarity. He put forward the proposition that we do not wish more powers to pass to Brussels. That was agreed by every Conservative Member present—a goodly number of us—because we believe very strongly in that case. Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman understand that the United Kingdom has not been outvoted recently because we have such a craven Government, who never stand up for the British national interest because they do not want to test the system, as they know that they would lose the vote?
  Mr. Campbell: There may be still be time for another leadership candidate, Sir Alan.

  825
  The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view that the Government are craven. I think that they have demonstrated timidity over Europe, and that the case for a single European currency should have been argued with much more vehemence than it has been so far. However, the position that the Opposition seek to adopt on qualified majority voting simply does not stand up to any logical scrutiny.
  Reference has already been made to the Single European Act, and I have referred to Maastricht. It is interesting to consider the attitude of the Government of the day—a Conservative Government—to some of these issues. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) is not present. I understand that he has other responsibilities, but it is notable that when talking about the process of signing up for the Maastricht treaty, he said that
  "qualified majority voting has enabled us to get some liberalising measures through against protectionist resistance by some of our partners."—[Official Report, 11 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 103.]
  I cannot think of a better way of encapsulating the value of qualified majority voting. It allows us to seek, so far as we can, and as quickly as we can, the kind of liberal Europe that is in our interests, and enables us to overcome protectionist resistance from those who may believe that they have some special interest that must be defended to the death by the exercise of a veto. If we have an enlarged European Union, which we all apparently want, qualified majority voting will be necessary to ensure that it functions, and that it does so in a way that accords with our domestic interests.
  Mr. Bercow: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is a clear conceptual difference between the acceptance of qualified majority voting for the purpose of creating or bolstering a single market and dismantling barriers, and for the adoption of policies that interfere with the autonomy of nation states in relation to the labour market? The two are radically different.
  Mr. Campbell: I would accept that the hon. Gentleman's argument had some force if he were not supporting shadow Ministers who say that there should be no extension of qualified majority voting in any circumstances, and that a line must be drawn in the sand. If there are circumstances in which it can be shown that it is in our interest to cross that line, I cannot understand why it is necessary to maintain a blanket ban on any extension.
  It is perfectly reasonable to have an argument, as we did on Second Reading, about whether it is appropriate to have QMV with regard to discrimination, but I part company with the Conservative party, and in particular with its Front Benchers, over the idea that we should take a blanket approach and not have an argument on the merits.
  Mr. Cash: As on the programme motion, I find that I am in agreement with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although on a limited point. Amendment No. 233 deals with the incredibly important question of child abduction. Under the treaty—at the specific behest
  826
  of Germany and Austria, as I understand it—family law is subjected to unanimity. There are certain cases that lead me to believe that in this particular instance, qualified majority voting is the only way of breaking the stranglehold, and that is why I tabled that amendment.
  Mr. Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but he will forgive me if I ask why he did not make it to the hon. Member for West Suffolk, because it drives a horse and cart through the position adopted by the official Opposition.
  Qualified majority voting is now extended to 31 articles, over half of which refer to technical portions of the treaty, dealing with appointments, rules of procedure and the management of the European Parliament and European committees and courts. A further four of the articles refer to areas that Britain has opted out of. Of the remaining 10, the extensions are in such areas as anti-discrimination practice, support for industry and environmental measures. Exercising my best judgment, I cannot believe that those are matters of such fundamental constitutional importance that the United Kingdom's interests can be properly regulated only if we maintain our veto over them. That is why I cannot support the amendment.
  Mr. Miller: I am following the theme started by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) was a little cruel to suggest that the Opposition were being hypocritical. I think that they are simply so confused that they are facing several ways at the same time. That seems to be the case with everything on which we have to deal with the official Opposition in this House.
  I had the pleasure of being in Nice the week before the treaty negotiations, speaking at a conference involving a wide range of groups from the applicant countries. The only negative point is that to get to Nice, I would certainly advise hon. Members never to fly Sabena, which seems to leave things around Europe, including my luggage.
  Interesting points were raised at the meeting by a number of the smaller countries, which were represented by people from outside the main political arena, and by people representing businesses and aspects of industry in their respective nations. They did not see how it would be possible to make the new Europe work effectively without some change in the voting patterns,
  There was some merit in the earlier arguments of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), but that slipped away. As I understood him, he argued that, as a matter of principle, no extension of QMV could make sense. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said, it is blindingly obvious that within the future evolution of the European institutions, in some circumstances it will be easily agreed that there are matters to which it would be beneficial to extend QMV.
  I am totally confused by the Opposition position. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said, they rely on the 1997 manifesto rejection of any extension of QMV. The hon. Member for West Suffolk said that the Government did a bad job in Nice, but did not go on to explain the logic by which, on a case-by-case basis, the extension of QMV was a bad thing. If there is an ideological principle I have yet to hear

  827
  it. If the case is based simply on dogma, perhaps nothing has changed in that wing of the Conservative party, as represented by Mrs. Thatcher all those years ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] Conservative Members are trying to erase their memories. If Mrs. Thatcher is being airbrushed out, the Conservative party really is moving to the right.
  Last week I referred to earlier negotiations involving Peter Carrington and Ian Gilmour, and to their conflicts with the then Prime Minister. The dogma has now reached a point of total and utter absurdity. Now the official argument seems to be that, as a matter of principle, QMV is a bad thing. That is all we have heard from the official Opposition.
  5.30 pm
  The Opposition have not recognised that in Nice the British Government insisted that certain issues should be decided by unanimity. Britain has, of course, a veto over such issues as taxation, social security, border controls, defence, the financing of the EU and future changes to treaties. That is a good, solid, principled position because in all those areas no new rules can be introduced unless the British Government agree.
  Let us start with what the Nice treaty actually says. If the hon. Member for West Suffolk had presented to the House a logical reason why the Government should not have given ground on any of the articles in the Nice treaty, perhaps the House would listen more readily to the Conservatives.
  Mr. Spring: I did.
  Mr. Miller: Frankly, I did not follow the hon. Gentleman's logic. He started by saying that he was opposed to the extension of QMV as a matter of principle.
  Mr. Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the rejection of qualified majority voting in respect of taxation, by this Government as by the Conservative Government, is not of itself a guarantee of the retention of sovereignty in relation to tax matters? That is transparently obvious to most observers. As proof of that point, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the Paymaster General has voluntarily chucked away no fewer than 85 tax advantages that this country enjoyed, simply to satisfy the Europe in Union.
  Mr. Miller: We could get into a deep philosophical argument about definitions of sovereignty here. Perhaps it is time that the nation became engaged in such a debate and we moved away from some of the trivial nonsense that the Conservative party seeks to portray as definitions of sovereignty. The hon. Gentleman and I will, I am sure, agree on one thing: Britain still has a veto over taxation.
  Mr. Bercow: That does not get us very far.
  Mr. Miller: If we can also agree on the day of the week, that will be two things we can agree on.
  The Government have spelled out the key areas on which they have not given ground, and it would be helpful to hear in detail—point by point—from the Opposition their reasons why the Government should not have given ground on the other measures. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) mentioned
  828
  31 articles that comprised 35 measures. The Opposition therefore have many opportunities to find a flaw in the arguments of my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe. However, that will be difficult because 11 of the measures deal with the streamlining of appointments and procedures, four deal with international negotiations and agreements, to give Europe a stronger voice in the world, and six deal with improvements in the effectiveness of EU spending—perhaps the Opposition are worried about those. A further five will help business to complete the single market, and three more will help individuals. All the measures have specific phrases associated with them in the treaty and the supplementary text. Perhaps if the official Opposition could leave dogma behind and deal with the principles, the nation would be better served by them.
  In conclusion—
  Mr. Bercow: Yes.
  Mr. Miller: I see that the hon. Gentleman and I agree about something else.
  In conclusion, I return to the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. He said that in some sectors—he cited the example of information technology—we may have to reach agreements with our European partners. Those agreements would be for the benefit of Europe's competitiveness, as they would enable us to move faster than, for example, the Asiatic countries or north America.
  Although we have a broad idea of what will happen to the IT industry over the next few years, none of us can predict its future exactly, and we cannot envisage what its long-term structure will be. As Europe may have to move faster than its competitors to maintain its edge over them, it would be absurd for a Government not to leave the door open to the possible extension of QMV.
  Yet the Opposition appear to believe that, as a matter of principle and irrespective of what might happen in the future, their 1997 gospel that there should be no extension of QMV must be adhered to. That is an absurd position, and it cannot be logically sustained. It merely typifies the naive view of a very split Opposition.
  Mr. Cash: Amendment No. 1 focuses on qualified majority voting, which covers a series of articles. That puts me in a quandary, as each of those articles merits discussion on its own account. QMV has two aspects. On the one hand, there is the problem of its practical application, which requires changes to domestic British legislation; on the other, there is a matter of principle.
  As I pointed out in my interventions on the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), QMV raises a matter of principle with a difference. I certainly voted for the Single European Act, and Britain adopted QMV on a variety of matters when it joined the European Community in 1972.
  There are a number of amendments to which I need to speak, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I deal with them all in this speech. I shall be as brief as possible, but I do not want to jump around from one subject to another. I shall try to deal with the amendments in the order in which they have been selected for debate.

  829
  I shall begin with the general point that debates such as this are hugely important to people outside the House. It is the duty of hon. Members to do their best to make them intelligible, so we must be careful to distinguish the wood from the trees.
  In that connection, I am reminded of the White Paper published in 1971, which clearly stated that Britain would retain the veto, because to relinquish it would damage our national interest. The White Paper went further, stating that relinquishing the veto would damage the very fabric of the European Community.
  The point being made in that White Paper was simple. It was that the members of a harmonious community do not railroad and bulldoze each other by the use of qualified majority voting. They allow discussion to take place and understandings to develop; they do not push people up against a wall and say, "We will shoot you with qualified majority voting if you don't agree." That is particularly relevant when it comes to government.
  There is a distinction between arriving at a degree of understanding and compromise and changes in legal processes in an arena such as the European Union in which there is a degree of co-operation, with which I agree. My party is conscious of the advantages that can come from greater co-operation—as am I—but not at the price of giving up our own government. That is the key point. Therefore, the Single European Act is, as I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, distinguishable from the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and now Nice, because those are, with qualifications, primarily to do with the creation of a European Government.
  The Irish vote has a lot to do with this. The application of qualified majority voting in relation to the enhancement of the powers of the larger states caused great concern in Ireland. My travels with the Select Committee on European Scrutiny around eastern and central Europe have shown that there is deep concern there as well. Those countries do not make too much noise about it because they see certain advantages in being in a European union. Even so, they hope that the Government and the Opposition—or the unofficial Opposition, if I can put it like that—will help them to maintain their democracy, acquired at the "springtime of nations". That is an important message for the Government.
  The European Union will not survive if it creates tensions as a result of qualified majority voting, which alienates the populations of the countries concerned. It is primarily devoted to getting through whatever technocratic decisions may be taken by the lego-wonks of the European Commission and the politico-wonks that exist in some parts of the European elite.
  The extension of the use of qualified majority voting, which reduces the need for unanimity and the value of the national veto, has had a serious detrimental effect on the confidence that member states have in the European Union, full stop.
  Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the converse of what he has just described? For example, Jean-Luc Dehaene was rejected because of the use of the veto and Jacques Santer eventually became head of the European Commission. We found that the Commission
  830
  was badly managed and had to persuade the College of Commissioners to resign. In terms of quality, the appointment of President Santer was, in effect, the lowest common denominator rather than the highest common factor.
  Mr. Cash: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that instance. It was Mr. Jens-Peter Bonde and the Eurosceptics who led the campaign to get rid of the Commission, despite the fact that the MEPs in the Labour party and my own claimed rather more influence over what happened. The bottom line is that the Commissioners went because they were no good. The tragedy is that they were reappointed.
  The blocking minority is in jeopardy under these arrangements, which is detrimental to the interests of the harmonious working of the European Union.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to his intervention during my speech and pick up the theme of what he has just said? Am I right to understand that he believes that there are circumstances in which qualified majority voting is essential? If so, on what principles does he base his view? He gave an illustration with regard to the abduction of children, but perhaps he could go a little further and tell us the principle upon which he holds that view.
  Mr. Cash: I shall indeed. The principle is that the whole of the European Union needs to be renegotiated. If we reached a point at which we had to reduce the functions of the EU and that was done properly and we continued to accept the principle of political co-operation—as we should—we could get down to the business of deciding the arenas within which it should apply. We do not have the time or the disposition to go into that at present, although I tabled a new clause on the subject that was not called, much to my chagrin—to use a French expression. However, everything has grown like Topsy and the bottom line is that we developed qualified majority voting on a continuous escalator with no discrimination.
  My principle is that we should go back to the drawing board: save Europe, as Edmund Burke once suggested about the depredations of the French revolution, and get the thing right. That is the principle on which we should operate. It is in the interests of democratic nation states not only that they should have their say but that they should not be bulldozed by this monumental leviathan.
  Mr. Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a possible logical consequence of his argument would be a constitution for Europe that laid down the very principles that he describes?
  Mr. Cash: I also tabled a new clause on that subject, which I regret was not selected. I see the twinkle in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's eye. The irony is that, under the arrangements leading up to 2004, the constitution that would emerge by then would produce an epicentre—thanks to the acquis communautaire, the existing legal framework and the crazy idea that there will be enhanced co-operation in eight member states even if the total number of member states rises to 27. There will

  831
  be a core or a centre of gravity that will take that European constitution along a line, together with QMV and enhanced co-operation and the so-called flexibility that goes with it. That, too, is a wood-for-the-trees point because the line will go in only one direction. I therefore dispute the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition, because I take the contrary view about a constitution that would work properly and that I would consider safe or desirable for the EU. That is the key point.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Hooray!
  Mr. Cash: I shall try to deal briefly with the question of Britain's influence. Much has been made of that by Ministers and by the Secretary of State in his Second Reading speech. As I pointed out in the Select Committee during my cross-examination of the former Minister for Europe, Britain's influence is not only on the wane, it is being fundamentally reduced as more vetoes are abolished by the Council of Ministers.
  At Nice, about 43 vetoes were lost—the exact number depends on how the tally is made. In the 1971 White Paper, when the House was so badly misled, such matters were described as imperilling the fabric of the Community. That is happening at present. The Community is in peril because of those mistakes. Only 19 vetoes were lost at Amsterdam. They were largely negotiated by the previous Conservative Government, although I was not enthusiastic about that, and inherited by the Labour Government. I wrote a blue paper—a 25-page hatchet job—on that.
  Forty-one vetoes were lost at Maastricht. In conjunction with many of my hon. Friends, I opposed that. Many of those hon. Friends are on the Opposition Benches at present. Some hon. Members who have recently arrived on these Benches would most emphatically have been with us during those great and heady days when we held the Government to ransom, fighting for the interests not only of the United Kingdom but also of Europe as a whole.
  Thirty-seven vetoes went in the Single European Act—I have dealt with that—and 38 went in the treaty of Rome.
  Although those are demonstrations of the emasculation of our democracy, the standard justification for the proposed massive extension of QMV at the Nice intergovernmental conference is that the veto would
  "imperil the single market in an enlarged European Union".
  So the official line from the EU is that these 43 vetoes would somehow prevent enlargement or lead the Union to grind to a halt.
  It is argued that the single market has come to be understood, quite conveniently from the Brussels perspective, as including virtually every aspect of European Union business. The removal of barriers to trade and obstacles to the free movement of people has become a convenient excuse to centralise more and more powers at the EU level. That is where the concept of subsidiarity is upturned.
  As I said at the time of the Maastricht treaty in 1990, the first time that I heard the word "subsidiarity" I realised, having been brought up by the Jesuits and recognising it as a concept that comes from Catholic
  832
  theology, that the concept of subsidiarity was a con trick. It is based on the assumption that there will be a hierarchy of norms—a hierarchy of government—and in jurisprudence that is perfectly well understood. The only problem is that one should not apply religious theological concepts to matters of politics. I think that that is all I need to say on that.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend and I agree entirely about the risible concept of subsidiarity, but would he care to recall the verdict of the celebrated Lord Mackenzie-Stuart on the subject of subsidiarity, for was it not that great man who described subsidiarity as
  "a prime example of gobbledegook"
  and said that those who regarded it as a constitutional safeguard were showing
  "great optimism"?
  Mr. Cash: Yes indeed, and after he had been challenged he had the good sense to repeat it—in one of the great Hamlyn lectures, I believe. I very much appreciate that intervention. It is a reminder that some very eminent jurists know what rubbish subsidiarity is. It is not just rubbish as a concept; its practical application causes changes in domestic law that are bad for the people who must live under it. That is the key point.
  I return to the subject of the effects of the new voting system. I know that there are those who disagree with me in this respect, but I have made my case in very many publications and articles and no one has taken issue with me about it. It would be easy to try to do so and I wish that people would. However, I simply make my proposition, which is that the elite of Germany has increased its influence. It is the unspoken word; I cannot imagine why. One need not be at loggerheads with everyone to point out the truth or the facts. It is a fact and, to my mind, not standing up to it, not explaining it and not dealing with it is simply walking away from reality.
  Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cash: No; I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman did himself no good with his previous intervention, so I will not allow him this one.
  The new voting system, which is called double majority voting, was introduced in the Nice treaty and it will especially benefit the German Government. First, it is useful to recall how the qualified majority voting system worked until Nice. A decision required a 71.26 per cent. share of the vote to be approved: 62 of 87 votes in the Council of Ministers. That meant that the votes of countries accounting for 58.16 per cent. of the EU' s population would constitute a majority.
  Following Nice, the new procedures for QMV are very much more complex. Whenever a decision goes to QMV in the Council of Ministers, a country can demand—the Minister knows it—that double majority voting be used. Double majority voting requires two conditions to be met for a decision to be adopted.
  First, in a 27-member EU, a proposal must gather 258 of 345 votes, or 74.78 per cent. of the votes in the Council of Ministers. In other words, a significantly higher threshold is required, making it easier to block a proposal, although it would be harder for existing member states to block it as their share of the vote would be lower.

  833
  Secondly, the proposal must be backed by countries representing 62 per cent. of the EU population—the so-called population safeguard. But thanks to that second clause, the so-called safeguard, Germany and two other large countries, such as France or Italy, will be able to block anything that they do not like, whereas Britain will need more than two other countries to vote with it to oppose undesirable decisions from its point of view.
  The blocking minority is 88 votes in the Council, which means that Germany would not have been able to block decisions so easily in the absence of the population requirement. Therefore, many EU observers are calling Chancellor Schröeder the victor of Nice. It was all over the papers at the time and it was the German papers that were saying it. Following Nice, Germany will start to lose its traditional deference to the EU. As I pointed out on Second Reading, a fundamental geopolitical shift in the balance of power in Europe is taking place, but it is being done through lego-political power play.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. Many across the country—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should remember to address the Chair.
  Mr. Shepherd: My hon. Friend is recognised as one of the greatest authorities, in the legal sense, of the understanding of these treaties and constitutions developed through the European Union—he probably has greater understanding than revealed in anything that the Foreign Office has produced. The burden of my hon. Friend's argument is that the transference by the proposed limitation on the veto is such that it changes the constitutional order within Europe. Therefore, many of my constituents are asking why the Danes do not require a referendum in this instance. They ask me whether it is because the corruption of the Danish constitution is now so great that this further transference of power to the Community or the European Union is such that the Danes no longer have the scope for a referendum on such important constitutional issues.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend raises an important point, again on the matter relating to a referendum and its impact on qualified majority voting, because the referendum is the safeguard for the electorate where the elite, through qualified majority voting, has been taking decisions that, as a result of the scrutiny processes throughout the European Union, are nothing less than a farce.
  The bottom line is that the Irish, with their tremendous good sense, voted against the elite, as did the Danes in their referendum on the euro, when every single radio and television programme and newspaper was against them. The people know best, and if I may say so, as a Tory, it follows that great dictum of either Lord Randolph Churchill or Disraeli: "Trust the people." I put more trust in the people than I do in the House or the Council of Ministers. The plain fact is that it is for the people to take that decision, and they need to be properly informed about it.
  Mr. Shepherd: Have the Danish given away, as a result of a previous referendum, the right to take a decision on this treaty? Why is there not a referendum in Denmark on this treaty?
  Mr. Cash: There certainly should be. The answer to that question is that the Government, the elite, in Denmark are not prepared to hold another referendum, just as, for example, there is a reluctance—
  The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that he is being led astray by his hon. Friend.
  6 pm
  Mr. Cash: There are many roads to the treaty of Nice, and my hon. Friend suggests one that I shall have to avoid, just for the moment. We shall have ample opportunity to consider it later.
  Basically, my main proposition is that the smaller states will lose out, and the effect will be that they will be bulldozed, which is one of the reasons why they are so concerned. Indeed, their voting shares will decrease even in the absence of enlargement, which is one of the main reasons that Ireland voted against the treaty of Nice.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman take the time to mention the number of Members of the European Parliament, which will be affected by the change? Is he aware that, given the drastic cut in the number of Members for the south of Ireland, Northern Ireland, which has three Members, will not retain that number in future? Indeed, Northern Ireland might not even have one Member in the new Parliament.
  Mr. Cash: I understand why the hon. Gentleman makes that point, but I must not be diverted down that path either. Suffice it to say that there has been a substantial change in the number of MEPs, and—surprise, surprise—it turns out that Germany has the most, although some may say that that it because of its population. That is all part of the real problem. Some may dispute this, but those countries dependent on Germany economically or politically, or in coalition with it—in the European Parliament, with the new co-decision procedure, or whatever—will vote with it, so we shall have a greater Germany, and in the words of Thomas Mann, will it be a European Germany, or a German Europe? I am confident, but concerned that it will be a German Europe. We need to face those questions in a responsible and, I hope, sensible and friendly manner, but we must point out that we do not like such things and we will not have them. That is my message on that key point.
  It has been said that QMV will lead to a two-speed Europe. I wrote a paper for the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Hurd of Westwell, at the time of the Maastricht treaty. I shall not repeat any part of that paper, other than to say that it was published in 1993, in the appendix to a book called, "Visions of Europe", in which I gave my reasons for objecting to QMV. I said that the movement toward majority voting and a two-speed Europe would put us on the sidelines, whereas that was what we were accused of doing.
  When we deal with the clauses relating to enhanced co-operation, I shall have a good deal more to say about the relationship between that and majority voting because

  835
  that, in itself, creates an extremely deep black hole. As I said on Second Reading, those who have advocated variable geometry have made a very profound strategic mistake—in fact, a strategic mistake of such enormous proportions that it is incapable of being described. That monumental mistake in foreign policy is based on the idea that, if words such as "flexibility" and "subsidiarity" are used, the proposal means what it appears to say. "Through the Looking-Glass" and "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" have a lot to say about such things.
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sylvia Heal): Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is moving on to what will be a debate on a subsequent date.
  Mr. Cash: It is a seamless treaty, and I can assure you, Mrs. Heal, that in this context enhanced co-operation cannot be treated separately. The Clerk of Public Bills, to whom I am not supposed to refer, knows well enough that QMV and enhanced co-operation go hand in hand. If I have to try to explain the inner workings and the entrails of the treaty, it is difficult, given the fact that we started out with the dilemma that I described at the beginning of my remarks, to separate the vast number of articles dealt with under amendment No. 1 and its incidental application to individual parts of the treaty as we proceed. If it were possible to disentangle this Heath Robinson business and produce a workable and sensible treaty, I wish we could do so. The problem is that the proposal has been deliberately devised as a mechanism for unbelievable complexity, which is completely beyond the man in the street, but thank God people see through it when they vote.
  Ms Gisela Stuart: As I have a simple mind, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would clarify something for me. He says that we are about to create a European Union dominated by a greater Germany, which was the great victor of Nice, but Germany's population is 82 million and its new vote is 29—the same as that of the United Kingdom, France and Italy. Earlier on, if I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he accepted that QMV was needed on certain occasions, and that smaller countries need to be equally represented. I should be grateful if he could tell me what weighting he would think it fair to apply. Could he explain why a country of 82 million people, which now has the same number of votes as a country with 57 million, is still seen as the victor? I simply do not understand the logical sequence of his argument.
  Mr. Cash: That is simple—the treaties and the concept of political union are hopelessly illogical. The problem is that the anomalies that arise cannot be got rid of without having total political union, which is the objective. The problem is a simple one for me; I simply say that we must renegotiate the treaties and take them back at least to the Single European Act, so that we do not go down the route of political union. Yes, Germany has certainly increased in power. The day that the Berlin wall came down—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now wandering very wide of the amendment.
  Mr. Cash: I am afraid that I have been diverted by the eloquence of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), which is difficult to resist.
  836
  Having said that, I shall now speak to amendment No. 233, which I tabled, and which deals with child abduction. I am jumping into that amendment, but I want to deal with other amendments, and I shall do so as quickly as I possibly can. Child abduction is a horrifying business, so much so that, notwithstanding the fact that I wish to see the EU framework renegotiated, it warrants the application of QMV to that aspect of family law that deals with it.
  Many hon. Members will know that the wife of our ambassador to the United States, Lady Meyer, has children who were taken from her by her husband. They have not been returned to her, primarily because the German courts will not allow it. Indeed, the problem seems to be peculiar to the German jurisdiction. I have not the time to go into every detail, but Germany and Austria are primarily involved because their laws effectively prohibit the return of children who have been abducted by their natural parents in the EU.
  The number of cases of abduction has increased every year. According to the Belgian Ministry of Justice, 221 children were abducted from Belgium in 1998, and 562 in 2000. In France, a fourfold increase in abductions was recorded between 1997 and today. That is pretty horrendous stuff. As far as I am aware, none of the parents—who are mostly American and French, but some are British—has been able to regain access to their children if they are held in Germany. I shall send the Minister details of two particularly difficult cases.
  In one case, the gentleman concerned has managed to see his children for only a few hours since he finally traced them seven years ago. In another, an Australian lady is unable to get her daughter back from Germany although the German father died last October. She has seen her for only a few hours in the presence of the social services youth authority, the Jugendamnt, and the grandparents are suing for custody.
  A Franco-American father, Maurice Elfeke, recently went to Germany when he heard that his children's name was going to be changed without his consent. They were abducted two years ago and since then he has had no contact whatsoever. He was arrested last week and put in jail because he sprayed his mother-in-law's garden with black paint. He is now on hunger strike in jail and several parents will meet in Berlin on 14 July for a hunger strike demonstration. Lady Meyer saw her sons for 10 minutes outside a court room in 2000, has no access rights and has managed to see them for 25 hours in total.
  A Franco-German commission has been established, but it has produced no results. A US-German Commission was established last year at the behest of President Clinton. The proposed reforms have been backed by Hillary Clinton and, most recently, Colin Powell. Although the initiatives have not resolved a single case, the main problem is the lack of enforcement of orders in Germany, Austria and, I believe, Sweden.
  The French have produced proposals for the recognition and enforcement of actions and the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children has been set up to protect children. The problem is serious. The ICMEC is preparing a written paper, which I can supply to the Minister, and in early September the European Commission will present the draft regulation. The main problem is that although justice and home affairs have

  837
  moved to the first pillar, unanimity is still required in family law. We have the European Court of Justice and I hope that the Committee will understand why, in such exceptional circumstances, it is essential to change the law in the interests of those children and their parents. The Prime Minister's wife is also deeply engaged in the problem. She understands it and gives full support to those who advocate change.
  This is not the first time that I have taken a slightly unusual view. As a realist, I put the interests of those children and their parents ahead of any other concerns. It might be best to change The Hague convention. Failing that, we need to change the qualified majority vote. I intend to press the amendment to a vote. I want to know what the Government are going to do about those children and their parents. There is enough time before we finish our deliberations on Wednesday for the Minister to give my concerns careful consideration.
  Mr. Miller: I am listening carefully and it seems that the hon. Gentleman's argument underlines what I said about it being wrong to rule out in principle an extension of QMV in the circumstances. Although we are at different ends of the telescope in terms of the development of the EU, he makes a powerful case on this subject.
  Mr. Cash: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the temperate way in which he phrased his intervention. I object to QMV in many arenas for the reasons that I gave. We must make a decision: do we want a European Union or not? That is the difference between my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and me.
  6.15 pm
  By that, I do not mean that I do not want a European Union; it is just whether I want this one. The principle of renegotiation comes into that. To say that in principle we are against QMV hardly sits well with the fact that we passed the Single European Act. Incidentally, I wrote to the Prime Minister a few days ago and ended the letter by explaining, a little cheekily, that I voted for the Single European Act and he voted against it. We must remember that issues of principle are extremely important when applied in particular circumstances.
  Other issues also concern me. Amendment No. 3 deals with anti-discrimination and article 251 as it applies to the new provision. It is the usual combination of QMV in the Council and co-decision with the European Parliament. We should attack the implicit argument that member states will be racist in the absence of EU-wide anti-discrimination laws. We have seen what is going on in Bradford and Burnley. I am chairman of the all-party committee for the reduction of third world debt and am devoted to ensuring that there is no racism in this country. However, we are talking about a quasi-constitutional way to deal with an extremely sensitive issue. To assume that member states will be racist in the absence of EU-wide anti-discrimination laws is a difficult and dangerous route to take.
  Mr. Hendrick: I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman how he can possibly argue for QMV on, for example,
  838
  child welfare, about which we heard powerful arguments, yet allow member states in modem western civilised democracies, which believe in humanity, to let employers and organisations discriminate on the grounds of race without legal redress in the EU?
  Mr. Cash: The answer to that probably lies in the Race Relations Act 1976. In fact, I was one of the first people to sign the equality declaration because I believe that we must ensure that there is no discrimination, but that should be achieved in a national context. My prime concern is with quasi-constitutional issues that apply to the EU as a whole. Race is a matter for nation states and is a good example of subsidiarity. Indeed, I could go into the problem of the Turks in Germany and similar issues, but I would probably take up too much time. Cross-border abductions are another matter.
  I recommend an interesting article by Professor Roberto de Matei on the charter of fundamental rights and the totalitarian spirit. No doubt you will pull me up sharply, Mrs. Heal, if I dwell on that, much as I should like to. I cannot understand why we are not allowed to debate the charter because it is a monumental shift in the juridical and jurisdictional nature of the EU and thus of this country.
  Amendment No. 4 deals with freedom of movement. Frankly, it boils down to my objection to the fact that decisions will be taken by QMV because of the move towards an arrangement that we would do best to avoid at this juncture.
  Amendment No. 5 covers article 100 on Community financial assistance, which deals with emergency relief for accidents, disasters and supply problems. Aid can now be given to member states in the event of "natural disasters", rather than solely in connection with "exceptional occurrences". I believe that that increases the probability of misinterpretation and what I call EU functional creep. Again, QMV is extended and the veto abolished. The attached non-binding declaration restricts the subsidies available for the next few years, but I regard the article as highly dangerous because it opens the door to extensive intra-EU redistribution of wealth.
  Amendment No. 6 deals with social provisions. The remit of the EU is being expanded to encompass the combating of social exclusion. I cannot imagine why that effort should be carried out on a European scale. The provision opens a book of blank cheques that will increase the sums of money made available on European scale, but does not answer the question of how those sums are to be provided. The modernisation of social protection systems is mentioned, but who knows what such vague terms mean? Again, everything is subject to QMV with the exception of four matters: protection of sacked workers, representation and collective defence of workers and the conditions of employment of third-country nationals, which remain subject to unanimity for the time being.
  In the final analysis, it is likely that the EU will use QMV in that context to meddle extensively with national security systems, which will threaten British interests. We noticed that during the general election the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that he does not believe that the EU would start to play around with our national security system, but I regard the provision as an open

  839
  door. It will be an Achilles' heel: the consequences of adopting such a route will be to make EU economic growth even more difficult.
  Roger Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it is possible for the EU to spend as much money as it wants on anything when its member states have just agreed that there should be an absolute ceiling on EU spending of 1.27 per cent. of European gross national product?
  Mr. Cash: Skilful characters are trying to tempt me down all sorts of routes that would not meet with the Chairman's approval, but let me give an example by way of a quick response. Creating functions inevitably takes us closer to a tax regime, as Mr. Hans Eichel suggests. Romano Prodi calls for 60 billion euros. There is the problem. A gun is put to people's head: they are told that they have created the functions, so they must now pay for them. That equals taxation. I should like to refer to an article that I wrote, "The Paradox"—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman said that he would deal with these matters rapidly.
  Mr. Cash: Indeed, I am doing so, Mrs. Heal, but questions remain regarding unfunded pensions, and other issues crop up in that context.
  Amendment No. 7 relates to QMV and codetermination with the European Parliament, which is now introduced for industrial policy. A necessary consequence of that is a further increase as socialist policies are imposed on countries such as the United Kingdom, or those with right-of-centre Governments. I object to the provision on those grounds.
  Amendment No. 8 relates to social cohesion and structural funds. After a massive fight at Nice in which the rearguard action was led by Spain, it was decided that structural funds are to be determined by QMV only from 2007. The problem for countries such as Spain, and the cause of the battle, is that enlargement reduces their relative degree of poverty and so deprives them of handouts, with the money going instead to eastern European countries. I have no doubt that they are truly poor and need the money, but the bottom line is that the eastern European elites have, in effect, been blackmailed and that is one of the reasons why they agreed to the extension of QMV. The problem is a serious one.
  Amendment No. 10 relates to environmental policy. QMV is introduced for recycling and waste management and a non-binding declaration adds that the EU is to take the lead in environmental issues, including sustainable development. That will, of course, not be accompanied by the necessary abolition of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy.
  Amendment No. 11 relates to economic, financial and technical co-operation with third countries, which raises serious problems. Again, QMV is attached, as are measures that allegedly reinforce democracy and the rule of law, which strikes one with my interest in third-world countries as a bit rich, considering the EU's record. That record causes me to doubt that the provision is liable to achieve its objective.
  Amendment No. 12 relates to the statute for Members of the European Parliament. Unanimity for the determination of the general conditions of MEPs is abolished,
  840
  which means that the regulations and general conditions, including salaries, of Britain MEPs will no longer be determined by the United Kingdom. Article 190(5) represents the first step towards making MEPs wholly independent of member states. No doubt that is why the leader of the Conservative group was telling us to change the rules on our leadership on this morning's "Today" programme.
  Amendment No. 13 relates to article 191, which deals with "political parties at European level". The implication appears to be that restrictions will be placed on the way in which political parties are funded, which jeopardises free speech—an issue that affects us all. The article on regulations governing political parties could be interpreted as giving the Council powers to ban political parties that it dislikes. That must be watched extremely carefully. In my view, it should not be in the treaty.
  The original article was purely declaratory and quite vague about what was meant by "European political parties", but the article now gives the Council a role, a regulation and funding from EU funds. Decisions are to be taken by QMV with European Parliament co-decision. All in all, the article represents an important and unacceptable extension of EU power. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Parties in the European Parliament should be funded by national parties.
  Article 191 is followed by so-called declaration 11. It is intended to soothe Eurosceptic fears, but is legally non-binding. In addition, its first paragraph is factually incorrect. The whole point of the provisions added at Nice is to give more powers to the European Union.
  Amendment No. 14 relates to the appointment of the Secretary-General of the Council, which is to be made by a qualified majority vote. I could spend some time exploring that, but it is not necessary to do so. Suffice it to say that I disagree with it.
  Amendment No. 15 relates to salaries, pensions and allowances. I do not believe that the officers of the Court of First Instance should have their salaries determined by qualified majority vote.
  Amendment No. 7 relates to the European Court of Justice. Member states are to appoint judges and advocates by common accord. The replacement of judges is to be determined by the statute of the ECJ, and a new provision is included to determine the ECJ's rules of procedure by QMV. That is extremely dangerous, given that body's increasing importance.
  Amendment No. 18 relates to article 224 of the treaty, which deals with the Court of First Instance. Again, QMV is introduced. I do not agree with that. Amendment No. 22 deals with the Economic and Social Committee, whose numbers are to increase from 222 to 350.
  Amendment No. 24 deals with financial controls. Arguments have been advanced to show that from 2007 accounting procedures will be determined by QMV; it seems incredible that they should be dealt with in that way.
  6.30 pm
  Amendment No. 25 deals with articles on immigration and asylum policy, which are extremely opaque; there are many arguments against them but time does not permit me to develop them. Amendment No. 26 deals with the representation of the EU at international level on

  841
  monetary union, which again is determined by QMV. Amendment No. 27 deals with special measures for the introduction of the euro, but I shall leave it and other amendments in the group for consideration in writing by the Minister. There are many amendments on matters amounting to an abrogation of the powers of the House.
  I shall return briefly to my opening remarks about not being able to see the wood for the trees. I have various objections to many aspects of the clause. Child abduction has to be dealt with; we must remedy the position of not being able to see the wood for the trees; in a nutshell, we must renegotiate the treaties. Until we do so, we shall continue to go in the wrong direction in the Europe Union.
  Denzil Davies: I shall be brief. Our debate has been a kind of Second Reading—I do not criticise it for that—on qualified majority voting. I have a few points that I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with in his reply. First, I want to make sure that I have the right treaties with me. I have been looking at some of them, but I cannot find certain things that perhaps I should be able to find.
  Amendment No. 1, the lead amendment, seeks to exclude article 2, paragraphs 2, 3, 5, 9 and others from the Bill. Looking at article 2, paragraph 2—this is no criticism of anybody, it is just me—I see that it relates to enhanced co-operation. It also states:
  "Article 11 shall be replaced by the following Articles 11 and 11a".
  As I understand it, article 11 is article 11 of the treaty establishing the European Community. It is cited on page 3 of the treaty of Nice, which says that it is in treaty series No. 29 (1996) Cm 3151.
  I went to the Vote Office and asked for Cm 3151, which—again I am not making any criticism—contains the treaty on European Union. That treaty is not terribly relevant to our discussion, as it does not create the rights and obligations that may impinge on domestic law. Cm 3151 also contains, conveniently, the treaty establishing the European Community; again, that is perfectly all right. That treaty is amended by the treaty of Nice; I hope that hon. Members can follow me. Article 11 of the treaty establishing the European Community is, as I understand it, being replaced by new articles 11 and 11a of the treaty of Nice. Fine; I looked up page 51 of the treaty establishing the European Community and found article 11.
  Until that point, I was deliriously happy; at least I had got that far. I found that the original article 11 is about enabling
  "governments to carry out … obligations with regard to customs duties".
  I looked at the top of the page, which is headed "Part Three: Community Policies". The new article 11, however, has nothing to do with customs duties; it is about enhanced co-operation and various other matters. Well, fine. Looking at page 51 of the treaty establishing the European Community, I found the heading "Community Policies" and thought, "Well, that is all right too." Title I under that heading is "Free movement of goods". I am not sure what that has got to do with enhanced co-operation or, indeed, all the other matters
  842
  that are being amended or repealed. I am not going to complicate matters further but, looking further ahead in the treaty, I found the same problem again.
  I only want to ask the Minister. "Is it me?" I am prepared to accept that it is; perhaps over the past few years I have not followed certain treaties as closely as I should. Now that we are in a world of transparency for the EU, we are going to have a committee like the rather ridiculous tax rewrite Committee for Finance Bills. Apparently, we are now going to have an EU treaties rewrite committee. I do not particularly want to serve on that committee, and I am sure that it will take a long time to establish. However, I should like to know where I can find the article 11 that is being replaced by new articles 11 and 11a; the original article 11 is not in my copy of the treaty establishing the European Community. It may be in someone else's, but the Vote Office does not seem to have it, I do not know which copy the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is working from; I am not suggesting that it has a secret treaty, but perhaps it is working from different drafts
  Mr. Shepherd: Different language.
  Denzil Davies: The treaty is in different languages, but presumably the problem is still in the French version and every other version. Where do I find the article 11 that is being replaced by new articles 11 and 11a in the treaty of Nice? Or is article 11 in the treaty establishing the European Community, which has nothing to do with the new articles, being replaced? The Bill is important, so I hope that we will know which treaties we are talking about when we insert them in the European Communities Act 1972.
  I want to ask a few brief questions about the substance of some new articles that are incorporated by the treaty of Nice. Paragraph 5—if it is a paragraph—on page 16 says:
  "Article 100 shall be replaced by the following".
  I have not had the energy to check whether article 100 in the treaty of Nice is completely different from article 100 in the treaty establishing the European Community, or only a little different; I do not know whether the problem that applies to article 11 applies to it. However, we will let that go. Article 100 deals with paying money out or providing financial assistance to member states with difficulties caused by natural disasters. It refers to a member state
  "threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters"—
  I think that we probably understand what is meant by natural disasters—
  "or exceptional occurrences beyond its control".
  I do not know what is meant by "exceptional occurrences". Perhaps the Minister will give us, if not a definition—that may be asking too much of such a wide phrase—an example of exceptional occurrences that are beyond a state's control. I am sure that they exist and, no doubt, were discussed.
  The problem with incorporating treaties in statutory legislation—in effect, that is what we are doing—is that we do not have many definitions. Hardly ever do we find definitions in the treaty of Nice or in any of the other treaties, as one would expect in a statute, yet we are incorporating the treaty into the statute law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Bercow: I understand how curious the provisions seem. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is,

  843
  at least potentially, a clear conflict between the provision for qualified majority voting in respect of what are opaquely described as "exceptional occurrences", and the general European prohibition on state aids?
  Denzil Davies: I assume that the prohibition on state aids was a prohibition on aid from the state—its own Government—to an entity within that state. The treaty of Nice deals with supranational aid from the centre to the state, I suppose. Perhaps that is because there is a prohibition on state aids, but I am not sure.
  The measure goes on to state that
  "the Council, acting by a qualified majority … may grant, under certain conditions, Community financial assistance".
  May we be told what those conditions are? The person who drafted that must have had some idea of the kind of conditions that were meant; otherwise the word "certain" would, presumably, not have been inserted. It probably limits the relevant conditions, in the mind of the draftsman. What conditions would be imposed on the member state by the centralised body—the Council of Ministers or the Commission—in granting such aid?
  At the top of page 17 of the treaty of Nice, sub-paragraph (7) states:
  "Article 123(4) shall be replaced".
  I had a sneak preview of the original article 123(4) in my copy of the treaty establishing the European Community. I do not know what is stated in the Foreign Office copy, but in my copy that paragraph has nothing to do with what is contained in the amendment to the treaty. It has nothing to do with that extremely important article, which deals with the third stage. I remember something about the third stage from years ago, when we discussed the treaty of Maastricht. No doubt the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) remembers it well.
  Mr. Cash: The beginnings of flexibility.
  Denzil Davies: I am not sure about flexibility. The third stage is not very flexible in respect of the amendment.
  What is being replaced by sub-paragraph (7)? It is certainly not replacing what I have in my copy, but it may be replacing what the Foreign Office has in its copy. Why is the change necessary now? Is the new article 123(4) substantially different from that which it replaces?
  The article deals with unanimity and the fixed rate at which a member state's currency is translated into ecus. I thought that the ecu had gone, but apparently we still have ecus, at least in the paragraph to which I refer. It states that
  "the ECU shall be substituted for these currencies"—
  that is, the member states' currencies. The fixed rate becomes the rate for the ecu, as I understand it.
  The article continues:
  "This measure shall by itself not modify the external value of the ECU."
  I have no idea what that means. I hope that we will be told. We are incorporating the new article, which refers to fixing rates irrevocably. Would that apply if and when the United Kingdom joins the single currency? Will new article 123(4) then be applicable to us? I should have thought so. It refers to fixing the rate and converting that rate into ecus. What happens to the preceding two years
  844
  and the need for sterling to float? I do not understand. I hope that the Minister can tell us whether the article will affect us.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Shepherd: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he is behaving like Mr. Gradgrind? Such detailed questions are outrageous. The thrust of the treaty is surely to consolidate a European state. It is therefore outrageous to discuss the mere detail, as he is doing. We should accept the intent, which is clear to most of us. The treaty drives towards the consolidation of a state in which the United Kingdom is a subordinate constituent.
  Denzil Davies: That has been my view ever since the European Communities Act 1972. I do not want digress and be out of order, but being a Celt, I could smell an Act of Union in 1972. The English are not very good at smelling Acts of Union, because they have never had such Acts imposed on them, but that is coming. That was the hon. Gentleman's point, I think.
  The detail of the single currency is important, and I hope that the Minister will explain why we have new article 123(4) and what the old one was, as it is not in my copy of the treaty establishing the European Community.
  Finally, there is another extremely important amendment in paragraph 5 at the bottom of page 17. It deals with GATT—the general agreement on tariffs and trade—trade in services, intellectual property, the Uruguay round and all that went with it, and the surprising decision of the European Court of Justice in favour of the competence of the nation state. That must be one of the few cases in which that political court came down in favour of the nation state against the Commission, which was particularly angry at the time. Now, that is being overturned. The competence of the nation state is being taken away. Whether that could have been called a veto, I do not know.
  The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): In case I cannot deal in my reply with all the details that my right hon. Friend raises, I shall write to him. He may wish to know that there was a mistake in the Command Paper containing the treaty of Nice. Two footnotes were later corrected. I want to be sure that he has that correction.
  Denzil Davies: I do not, although I studied the footnotes carefully. Perhaps I should not refer to the footnotes in the treaty establishing the European Community, as that might confuse the Foreign Office even more. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the intervention. It is my fault that I did not understand a word that he said, but I am sure that he will deal with the matter at greater length when he winds up. If not, no doubt he will, like all Ministers, resort to a letter. I am sure that I shall get a learned letter, which will be placed in the Library.
  The trade in services negotiation will be difficult and important. There are fundamental views on all sides about it. I am sorry that the Government have given up the competence of the member state—of this member state, which is my concern. Whatever view one takes of the agreement on trade in services, the effect of multinational companies and so on, I am sorry that my Government have given up their competence on that and handed it over

  845
  to qualified majority voting. This is not a trivial veto on a matter such as the registrar of the European Court. Who cares who the registrar is? That, apparently, is the Foreign Office view, but I do not agree with it.
  The veto is extremely important, as it goes to the heart of trade in services and its effect on this country and others. Of course, the French have protected their culture and have obtained a derogation. Where negotiation deals with French culture, they have got a veto, but the Brits gave that right up. Perhaps we are not as interested in culture as the French. I am sorry that we have given up the veto, which is not trivial or minor. Will my hon. Friend the Minister explain, in what might be a rather lengthy reply, the rationale behind giving up the power of the House in a matter that is as important as international trade in services?
  I think that I had better stop there. I am sure that I could speak about many other aspects of the treaty, but I have made a few points with which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal.
  Mr. Redwood: I have made my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests.
  I follow the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), who has done the Committee a great service by pointing out a problem that I, too, have discovered. I thought that I had come to the Chamber well prepared for this detailed debate in Committee. I brought the treaty with me, but when I tried to pursue the amendments and the Government's proposals in the documentation, I encountered exactly the same problems that he faced. I shall not repeat what he said about them, but I hope that the Minister will deal with them. We appear to be amending and introducing legislation for a treaty under the heading of articles that bear no relation to the documentation that is available to hon. Members for this debate. I shall proceed on the basis that the Government should know what they are doing and in the light of the other documentation that I have read, even though it is not within the correct frame of reference for this debate.
  I want to return to the main issue with which the amendments deal—the question of how much qualified majority voting is desirable—and to consider whether it would be better to join my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) in saying that we do not want any of the proposed extensions of qualified majority voting, or whether the Government have a point. Their argument is that, because modest powers over trade and commerce were surrendered to qualified majority voting under a previous Conservative Government, it is clear that we must surrender a range of other powers, some of which are more serious, dealing with a range of other matters that are in no way connected with the single market or trading. Similarly, one could suggest that, if one drink makes someone happy and shows that they are clubbable, that person should get stoned out of their mind by drinking everything that they can lay their hands on. According to the Government, they would have no problems whatever with a hangover or a headache.
  Although it is the official Conservative case that a few drinks of qualified majority voting are all right, but a lot would make one completely drunk, I take the view, having negotiated under QMV, that it should be a
  846
  prohibited substance. I do not believe that, even in our new inclusive spirit, we should seek to remove it from the list of prohibited substances, because it is closer to a hard drug than anything else that might be up for review.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that qualified majority voting is infinitely more damaging to health than cannabis?
  Mr. Redwood: I think, Mrs. Heal, that I am being drawn wide of the subject of the debate.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I would be interested to hear my right hon. Friend's view on one specific increase in qualified majority voting—the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) mentioned in relation to child abduction. Does he agree that such a move would be a step too far? Should the issue be covered by multilateral and bilateral negotiations, or was my hon. Friend the Member for Stone right to table his amendment?
  Mr. Redwood: I usually find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on European matters, but I fear that I cannot follow him on that specific issue. His usual cogent arguments against qualified majority voting relate to issues on which we wish to develop international agreement as well as to those on which we do not want to develop any such agreement. He should bear in mind the fact that if the leading continental countries are against his proposal, they can block it under qualified majority voting. If they favour it, however, he can obtain what he seeks by negotiation with the veto in place. The veto is an important guarantee even in that respect, as it can prevent this country from being forced into doing things with which he would not agree.
  Mr. Cash: As my right hon. Friend and I are going to disagree—we can agree to disagree—I must remind him that when the Maastricht treaty was considered, there were many matters on which we voted differently. I leave that as a matter of record.
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. He might like to remember my record on qualified majority voting. I was the chief policy adviser to Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven when she was negotiating the Single European Act as Prime Minister. My advice was that we should not surrender the powers in perpetuity, but make the surrender extremely limited for the specific purpose of the few directives needed—as we saw it—for the single market, and let the powers revert. Unfortunately, the Baroness did not accept my advice on that occasion, although she did so on many others. I did my best to prevent surrender of the powers, as I thought that that was wrong then.
  On the Maastricht treaty, my hon. Friend will know that mine was one of the few voices—often the only voice—in the Cabinet to say that it was wrong to surrender the powers. After I resigned from the Government, I was able to make my view public. I can assure him that I never agreed to the proposals in the Cabinet Committee, but I obviously could not make that known to the general public until I had resigned. Perhaps I fought on too long, but I felt that somebody in that Cabinet had to put the case against QMV and other measures that I thought were leading too fast towards European integration.
  Roger Casale: After some of the interventions by Opposition Members, the right hon. Gentleman's

  847
  argument seemed to take a more frivolous turn. I am not sure whether we have now returned to serious debate. There is a difference between what he and Opposition Front Benchers seem to want. Those on the Front Bench would like to rule out in principle any further extensions of QMV in future, but he would like to end all the qualified majority voting procedures that already exist, too. How does he propose to negotiate with our partner states an end to all the qualified majority voting procedures that currently exist in the European Union? How would he achieve that?
  Mr. Redwood: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has leapt to conclusions that my comments did not justify. I explained that I had in the past consistently opposed extensions of qualified majority voting, but I fully support the Conservative Front Bench position, which is to say no to the further surrenders in the treaty. Furthermore, I support my Front-Bench colleagues in saying that we should get powers back over a wide range of matters, including agriculture and fisheries, in respect of which the surrender has gone too far.
  I accept that there has to be a renegotiation and that we will not get all the powers back, but if we do not ask for some of them back, we will not get any. I object strongly to what the Government are doing, not only because they fail to try to get powers back when we are clearly at a disadvantage after surrenders by Governments of all persuasions, but because they then frivolously give away the powers under discussion without understanding how that undermines their position and that of future Governments. They do not understand how their actions are undermining the position of United Kingdom voters and our democracy, or how they will come back to haunt this country in future.
  Labour Members suggest that the measures are needed for enlargement, but that is one of the most misleading points that has been made in this debate. We know that the Irish people wisely voted against the whole treaty. It is difficult to see why we must rush through this discussion on qualified majority voting, when they have said that it is not important for enlargement, and they do not want it to be foisted upon them in larger measure, so they have vetoed it and other important parts of the treaty.
  7 pm
  When the Danish voted no in the original referendum on the Maastricht treaty and the single currency, mine was a lager. I am now more attracted to stout. It is good that two smaller European countries have shown their independence and a democratic will that can be expressed in referendums. I wish that the Government would give us a referendum on QMV and the Nice treaty, which has fundamental constitutional implications. I do not understand why they need to rush the Bill through when the Irish people have said no, and there is no immediate prospect of reversing their decision. The British Government believe that in the case of a no vote, they should keep balloting, in the hope that people will vote yes through exhaustion. That does not augur well for any referendum for which they may provide.
  Government amendments to the treaty and the Bill are required to allow us to renegotiate the common agricultural policy. That issue is not being solved and it is crucial for member states and applicant members.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is going wide of the amendment by referring to that subject.
  Mr. Redwood: I was trying to put QMV in context. It is at the heart of the amendments that I support.
  More QMV will lead directly to more Community activism, orchestrated by the European Commission. A European government already exists; it is unelected and powerful. The measure that we are considering manifests that government's wish to gain more and more power over the aspects of our lives that are detailed in the documents we are discussing. Those aspects range widely from product markets through discrimination to control over political parties. A powerful executive Government might take such powers in a democracy, with voters' approval—but they should not be given to an unelected. undemocratic government, which usually meets behind closed doors and is not subject to the same scrutiny and exposure as a proper democratic regime.
  Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend is right. One does not need to look into the crystal ball when one can read the book. Does he realise that there was a dramatic extension of QMV in the treaty of Amsterdam? Since its ratification, 4,995 European Union directives, regulations and decisions have had an impact on this country. That precisely illustrates my right hon. Friend's point.
  Mr. Redwood: I knew the general point, but I am grateful for my hon. Friend's repertoire of statistics, which illustrates it with great clarity and precision.
  Enlarging the Community does not require a super-active or hyperactive government, which generates more and more laws. Indeed, that makes enlargement more difficult. If more regulations and laws are imposed not only on richer members, but on poorer states at a different level of economic development, they may not be able to catch up with such intrusive government and expensive regulation. More power for the Commission to legislate through QMV is the last thing an enlarged Community needs.
  We are told that the Community will come to a halt without qualified majority powers—but if, as a legislature, it slows down, that is not bad news; it is good news. We have too many laws. Some are generated by our Government, but at least they can be democratically removed when people believe that the position has become insufferable. If we allow QMV to advance ever more strongly, we cannot control the massive volume of law from Brussels. That will be damaging to applicant members. The poorer the country, the more damaging it will be; it will create an impenetrable barrier for poor countries.
  Roger Casale: The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to renegotiate the treaties on the European Union. Which other Governments of member states would like a European Union in which the veto was restored and powers were repatriated? What would the right hon. Gentleman offer in return? Does he believe that his negotiating stance is such that he could achieve something for nothing?
  Mr. Redwood: That is a little wide of the debate, but I have set the facts out elsewhere. Baroness Thatcher

  849
  was 11:1 down when she sought repayment of our colossal contributions. That did not daunt her, and her negotiating skills were sufficient to gain unanimity in favour of a rebate for us. We need such a negotiating power, and a Conservative Administration could provide it. We would offer our partners many things, such as our presence, our trade and our good will. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that they sell us far more than we sell them. They have every interest in our remaining part of the trading club; there is no reason for us to join their common government.
  Jim Knight: Which of the five candidates for the Tory leadership has the negotiating skill of Baroness Thatcher and could achieve the aims that the right hon. Gentleman has outlined?
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That is very wide of the discussion.
  Mr. Redwood: I thank you, Mrs. Heal, for respecting the secrecy of the ballot.
  We have been told that the Government are committed, as the previous Administration claimed to be, to subsidiarity. We are also told that subsidiarity flourishes and is alive. It is difficult to understand how it can develop or flourish when so much extra QMV is to be introduced. That is a contradiction. If we lose our veto over more subjects, more will be decided in Brussels. More decisions will be made against our will. Far from letting power percolate back to member states and their democratically elected Parliaments, the Bill constitutes a massive extension of state power at the European level by the unelected government of the Commission, aided and abetted by the absentee Ministers who occasionally attend lunches in Brussels and rubber-stamp the Commission's plans.
  The democratically elected constituent parts of the European government cannot even propose a draft law or regulation. The Commissioners of the unelected government in Brussels have to do all the drafting. The British Government are incapable of setting an agenda, negotiating in favour of a British position and changing the Brussels agenda. The current British style of negotiation is to ring the Commission, discover its agenda, rush out a press release stating that that is what they would like, and return claiming triumph when they have run up the white flag yet again. As QMV increases, that will be increasingly true.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend is making a thoughtful speech. Not only is it true that the British Government are incapable of drafting a directive or regulation that could be adopted by Brussels, but more importantly, Members of Parliament are incapable of stopping any draft regulation or directive. The sole power of our European Standing Committees is to refuse to "take note" of something—and the Question is then put on the Floor of the House and automatically nodded through even if we have voted in favour of not taking note.
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. It is dispiriting that so much of our democracy is being removed. The Bill
  850
  will make things worse. On many subjects, the House may not even be consulted before a Minister goes to Brussels to consider a proposition. The Minister may go along with a proposition because he fears being outvoted, or he may be bold enough to endure that. He will then return to the House and claim that he has triumphed and that it is in our interest to accept the proposition. If we try to do anything, it will not matter because the proposition will already be good law, settled at European government level. The views of the House will be overridden yet again.
  The Under-Secretary smiles wanly because he knows that I have outlined the true position; perhaps he is in favour of that. I wonder why he wants to remain a Member of Parliament when he is so keen for all the decisions that we used to make to be taken elsewhere by QMV or by the executive order and fiat of Commissioners whom we have not elected.
  We are considering the negotiating powers of member states, and whether they have the right to defend their national interest. When I was a Minister, I attended some 21 Councils of Ministers—primarily the single market Council, but others as well—and I got a range of experience. Whenever I went with a veto, I found negotiating a pleasurable and relatively straightforward experience. I could guarantee to my colleagues in the Government that I would never come back with an answer that we could not accept.
  All the time that there was political support in the Government for the line that I wished to take—that was another issue—I could guarantee to my colleagues that I would either come back with a vastly improved draft because I had threatened to use the veto until I got the draft that I wanted, or come back empty-handed, and often happier that way, saying that I had used the veto because the proposals were totally unacceptable and that the British position had been preserved by exercising that veto. There was never any danger: we got either good law or no law. I would normally favour no law, although there are rare occasions when one might want a good law. With a veto, one can guarantee either good law or no law. Surely that makes sense for any Minister.
  Mr. Wayne David: How many times was the veto used against the United Kingdom when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister?
  Mr. Redwood: Not as often as I would have liked. It is entirely reasonable that member states should protect their national interests. It is also reasonable, in a world of subsidiarity, that in most cases there should be not a European law but national laws passed by each member state according to its wishes. I want a trading arrangement, primarily, and a single market that works. I do not believe that we get a single market by having lots of laws. We pass too many laws in the name of the single market.
  A single market is about traders, freedom of movement and removing barriers. It is also about having no customs dues, about having the ability to sell a product or service here as well as there, and about Governments not getting in the way. As always with the European Union, it tries to turn the single market into a massive extension of state power. It has proposed some 300 laws, many of which we finally agreed to because we had to under QMV,

  851
  and many of those were not strictly necessary for a single market. The single market would be stronger if quite a number of them were repealed.
  When I tried to negotiate under QMV, I found it far more time-consuming and expensive in every way. There were times when I was able to persuade my partners and colleagues and win them over. However, that might take three to six months of intensive campaigning involving international telephone calls, getting on planes to foreign capitals to persuade friendly Ministers, horse-trading on particular issues, developing parliamentary tactics or making people sit up late into the night—which they were not used to doing—in the hope that they would give in to me on a vital clause because they wanted to go home.
  All those things had to he done, and it was not a pleasurable experience. I often had to come back and report to the House of Commons—as I always did, because I thought that that was important—that we were making law that was not ideal, but that it was the best we could do in the circumstances because we had given away our right to make, in the House and on behalf of the British people, the laws that we thought were correct.
  I urge the House to support the position of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk and of the official Opposition—supporting whatever amendments are necessary in the light of the advice that we get on the documentation from the Foreign Office, which seems to be a bit of a shambles—to ensure that we do not give away any more qualified majority votes. Before the Minister says, "We can't do that, because Britain has given its word", I would say that Britain is surely still sufficiently democratic that, if the British people and their parliamentary representatives think that this treaty goes a step too far, we can go back to our European partners and say that it goes a step too far. We have the opportunity to do that now, because the Irish people have said that it goes several steps too far, and that, as far as they can see, the treaty of Nice is a dead letter.
  Many good points have been made on individual items. I do not want to take up much more time, as others wish to contribute, but I am worried by the proposals on product intervention and the surrender of the unanimity clause. I find those proposals ambiguous, and I am not sure that the Government have protected our position on oil in the way that they claim. Whenever I have raised the issue, their defence has always sounded rather shrill. They are clearly worried by the issue, and I would like to hear their legal advice on it.
  7.15 pm
  I am worried about the subsidies to member states in trouble. We have not had a clear enough definition of what that might mean and how much it might cost British taxpayers.
  I am also worried by any hint of dilution of the veto on the common foreign and security policy. This country should control its own foreign policy, and its own Army, Navy and Air Force. The Government are on the slide on that issue. I trust that they will offer leadership in Europe, but I want them to do so by power of persuasion, not by giving away our right to go it alone should the need arise. I am worried that the rules on structural funds might now pass out of veto territory into qualified majority voting territory. I fear that we might not do as well as we would wish if that were to happen.
  852
  My final observation is about the extraordinary text—highlighted by the right hon. Member for Llanelli—concerning the European Central Bank and the ecu. I thought that the ecu had been pensioned off some time ago, and was being replaced by the euro. I was always worried about the legality of that move, because the ecu is the currency in the treaty and it has a specific value, which could be different from that of the euro at any given point because of the way in which currencies move, and the fact that it is a weighted basket currency. We now see the ecu coming back in the language of the treaty of Nice.
  I hope that the Minister will explain why we have reinvented the ecu when the Germans and others were trying to polish it off, and why we did not have proper amendments to the treaty confessing that the whole third stage plan for the ecu had gone wrong. That plan was blown up when the exchange rate mechanism fell to pieces, and when the German Government decided that the ecu was an embarrassment because it had sunk so far against the deutschmark. I hope that the Minister will also explain why we do not have proper treaty amendments for incorporation into the Bill to make the euro an honest currency in the legal sense, even if it is still a devaluing currency in every other sense. It is not a currency that I welcome. I see the Minister laughing. He would be well advised to make it legally honest, even if it is never going to be honest money.
  I have great pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk and a united Conservative party in saying that we do not want all this qualified majority voting. It undermines our liberties and our democracy, and it is taking away the rights entrusted to us by the British people. Our tenure in this place is leasehold—although some have longer leases than others—and it is wrong to give away the freehold.
  Mr. David: The treaty of Nice is an exceptionally good deal for the United Kingdom. There is much in it that deserves to be commended. For example, it contains proposals for sensible changes to the European Parliament, for well-thought-out changes to the European Commission and for significant changes to the European Union's legal system. There will also be significant changes to the Council of Ministers, especially with regard to qualified majority voting and to voting in the Council of Ministers.
  As the Government explained in their White Paper in the lead-up to the Nice summit, QMV does not weaken Britain's place in Europe. The opposite is the case: a sensible extension of QMV will strengthen the United Kingdom's position. It is interesting that, in this philosophical debate, the Opposition have conceded that there are many circumstances in which QMV has already operated to the material benefit of the United Kingdom. The greatest single achievement of the European Union to date is the single European market. No one in this debate has doubted for a moment that that single market, although not yet complete, would not have proceeded as far as it has done without qualified majority voting.
  I am, therefore, happy to see an extension to qualified majority voting. Some of the measures proposed in the treaty of Nice advocate an extension of QMV in areas of no tremendous significance—for example, with regard to the Committee of the Regions and to the Economic and Social Committee. Not many people would argue that those two bodies were institutions of great significance. In fact, they are decidedly not European Union institutions.

  853
  However, I accept that other areas in which an extension of QMV is proposed are of some significance. The structural funds have already been mentioned. The extension is also proposed in areas of industrial and commercial policy and in environmental measures. It is also suggested that it be extended to ensure that the single European market is made complete.
  Mr. Bercow: Arguing by advocacy rather than by evidence, the hon. Gentleman contends that the single market is a tribute to qualified majority voting. If that is his position—it is a perfectly honourable one—can he tell the House how and why the free trade agreement that Switzerland has with the European Union is inferior to participation within the formal confines of the single market?
  Mr. David: The free trade agreement with Switzerland is a positive measure, but it is only the beginning of what, we hope, will become a more complete arrangement. I hope that, as many people have advocated, the Swiss will reconsider their position and develop an ever-closer association with the EU in future. The current arrangements are a step in the right direction, but there is further to go.
  Mr. Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the position of Switzerland and Norway will become untenable as the EU expands further, as they will have the benefits of the EU but none of the costs, and that those benefits, if they wish to retain them, will have to be looked at carefully?
  Mr. David: I agree with my hon. Friend that the position is not ideal, but not that it is untenable. It is satisfactory at present and points us in the right direction. The position of Switzerland and Norway indicates that a deeper association is mutually desirable.
  Further to my points about the single European market, it has been accepted that there were difficulties in securing the legislation that we wanted in our national interests when unanimity was required. Given that there were difficulties with an EU membership of 15, we can imagine how much more difficult it would be with a membership of 27. It would be enormously difficult to try to achieve unanimity. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) told us that when he was a Minister he used to fly around Europe making deals and arrangements. Even he would find it difficult to fly around 26 member states trying to secure agreement on different items of policy.
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is making my point. One has to fly around Europe dealing with all these people because of qualified majority voting. If we had a veto there would be no need for that. If there was a silly proposal the British Government would simply say no.
  Mr. David: On the other hand, instead of voting everything down, seeking to destroy everything and being entirely negative, as the Opposition would like us to be, would it not be far better if we had an imaginative, powerful agenda for Europe, as the Government have, and the power of advocacy to fulfil that agenda?
  854
  We have heard a lot about the United Kingdom being able to exercise a veto, but we should not forget that if we have a veto so will every other member state. At the moment the EU comprises 15 member states. If there were 27 member states, they would all have a veto and that would be a farcical situation. Apart from the Opposition, very few people in Europe are trying to argue that proposition.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Does not the hon. Gentleman betray the mindset with which he and his hon. Friends come to this House by suggesting that the great enterprise of additional legislation will lead us to some utopia? Is it not a matter of the danger of additional legislation that we can prevent by the exercise of a veto, but not through qualified majority voting?
  Mr. David: I return to the point that I was making earlier. The Government have a positive agenda for Europe. We want to build a better Europe. We are not satisfied with simply maintaining the status quo or attempting to turn the clock back. We want the EU to develop so that we have a single market, supported by a strong social backdrop to produce the wealth-creating capacity that we all want.
  Let me give an example of what could happen if we had enlargement without the extension of qualified majority voting. Reference has been made to the structural funds. Let us imagine that the British Government, negotiating the new financial perspective from 2007 onwards, negotiated a very good deal for the regions of the United Kingdom, drawing substantial sums of money from the structural funds, but at the last moment one of the new member states—such as Slovenia, with a population of under 2 million—suddenly refused to accept that and decided to exercise its veto. It would be perfectly entitled to do so. What would happen if Cyprus, with a population of 700,000, decided to exercise its veto? It would be perfectly entitled to do so. What would happen if Malta, with a population of under 300,000, decided that the deal negotiated by the United Kingdom was unacceptable and chose to exercise its veto? That would be an untenable and farcical situation in which deals negotiated by our democratically elected Government could be scuppered by a small minority of people in a far-flung section of the EU. That is not democracy.
  Mr. Turner: The hon. Gentleman must surely not need reminding that we are a net contributor to the EU and the vetoing of a structural fund allocation is not something over which we should weep if we were able to retain the money and distribute it among our own regions as we wished.
  Mr. David: That is a much broader argument that goes far beyond this debate. It is not an argument against the Nice treaty, but in favour of our withdrawal from the EU, which I suspect many Opposition Members would like to happen.
  Let me return to qualified majority voting and the proposed changes. With regard to the weighting of votes at the Council of Ministers, it is worth pointing out that under the present formula the United Kingdom has 10 votes, which represent 11.4 per cent. of the 87 votes. Under the Nice treaty it is proposed that, with a membership of 15, the United Kingdom would have 29 of

  855
  the 237 votes. That would be an increase to 12.2 per cent. of the votes, so under the Nice treaty the United Kingdom's position would be strengthened by the reformulation of votes. Admittedly, that is only in the short term. After enlargement, the voting strength of all the larger states will be reduced as a percentage of the total.
  I wish that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) were in his place, as it is worth noting that Germany, which has the largest population in the EU, will have the lowest voting strength in relation to its population. I find it objectionable that the hon. Member suggests that there is some kind of plot whereby Germany is trying to take the lead and subvert democracy. What has been negotiated at Nice demonstrates that that is absurd.
  As we have already heard, qualified majority voting is not being advocated across the board. It is important for us to recognise that in some areas such as taxation, social security and border controls, there is an argument for maintaining the principle of unanimity. We are not arguing a maximalist position, but a reasoned pragmatic position that will take Europe and the United Kingdom forward.
  In conclusion, I believe that the treaty of Nice is absolutely essential for EU enlargement, as is qualified majority voting, and enlargement is in the interests of all the candidate countries. Clearly, those countries would not be applying for membership of the EU if it were not in their best interests to do so. Let me stress, however, that it is also in our best interests. It will mean more jobs and more trade and will allow us to tackle common problems. It will mean fewer pressures for economic migration. Perhaps above all else, it will mean greater economic stability, with peace and security. It will mean an end to the east-west divide that has scarred our continent for too long.
  That is why I honestly believe that the amendment will be rejected and that the House will eventually lend its support to the treaty of Nice.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said that he wanted to press amendment No. 233 to a vote. I ask hon. Members to look at the amendment paper, where they will see that people have subscribed to that amendment whom one would normally regard as the standard bearers of rectitude in matters European. One would have thought that they were the people to follow, given the reputation that they have established in these matters.
  My hon. Friend was persuasive in his arguments for amendment No. 233. He told us of the agony experienced by a mother who had her children abducted and could not gain access to them. Those emotional arguments were so powerful that he abrogated the principle that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) set out at the beginning of the debate: that the Opposition were opposed to any further encroachments of qualified majority voting.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stone said that such was the extremity of this one case that we should take a further leap and place family law into the domain of qualified majority voting, and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have been persuaded by him and subscribed to the amendment.
  856
  The problem of child abduction in Europe is very much, though not exclusively, a German one, under laws that date back unreformed to national socialism. My hon. Friend was forensic in his exposition of how majority voting has changed under the treaty of Nice and how the Germans will increasingly get their way as a consequence of their increase in the share of the qualified majority, and particularly the double majority voting. That entirely undermines his case for the amendment. The consequence will be that we will have cast family law into the pot for qualified majority voting, but the Germans, by the strength of his own argument, will get their way anyway. Far better, I urge my hon. Friends, to oppose the amendment and stick with the principle established by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk, dealing with such matters by bilateral negotiations.
  Mr. Hendrick: The decision-making processes agreed at Nice are considerably to the benefit of the United Kingdom. They have been changed to ensure democratic legitimacy. In qualified majority voting, not only will the qualified majority be necessary but the votes will have to represent at least 62 per cent. of the total population of the European Union before a decision can be made.
  The comments of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) about the Germanification of Europe are totally unfounded, because the treaty says that Germany will have the same number of votes as the UK, even though the German population is 82 million and ours only 57 million. It says:
  "Acts of the Council shall require for their adoption at least 258 votes in favour, cast by a majority of members, where this Treaty requires them to be adopted on a proposal from the Commission."
  Germany has only 29 of those 258 votes. We can see that people who pretend to be interested in Britain remaining in the European Union are using scaremongering tactics on qualified majority voting and enhanced co-operation.
  The President of the European Commission will now have to be approved by the European Council by QMV and there will be new powers to organise the Commission and sack individual Commissioners if necessary. Many of us remember the appointment of the previous Commission President and the disagreement between European Governments, when unanimity was needed. Every single member state had a veto. If that was bad with the 12 member states that existed then, what would it be like with 25, 26, 27 or 28 members? Because they could not reach agreement, the 12 member states at the time came up with Mr. Jacques Santer, who proved to be a useless head of the European Commission. Decisions were made that lacked clarity, concision or vision, and we ended with the spectacle of a totally discredited European Commission.
  Mr. Redwood: If the Commission President was so bad and the Commission so discredited, why did not Mr. Kinnock resign?
  Mr. Hendrick: I was in discussions with Mr. Kinnock at the time. He wanted the entire Commission to resign, and he was instrumental in persuading certain Commissioners, including Mrs. Cresson, to do so. One of the most reluctant to resign was the President himself, who was appointed under the unanimity procedures that the Conservative party is still trying to defend. Unanimity may be okay for decisions such as own resources, border

  857
  controls, treaty changes and taxation, but not across the board. QMV has worked in Britain's interests. In 1998–99, there were 85 contested QM votes in the Council of Ministers. The UK was outvoted or abstained on five occasions, compared with eight for France and 21 for Germany.
  QMV protects Britain's interests in many areas, including the European Court of Justice; trade in services; article 161, on the tasks and rules of the structural and cohesion funds, which will stop net recipients blocking efficiency and cost savings; environmental issues; financial regulation; appointments; and industrial policy. The Opposition amendments are aimed not at improving the European Union, but at wrecking the Nice treaty and other treaties negotiated over decades, as well as wrecking the relationship that we have with the 14 other member states.
  Peter Hain: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in this interesting debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), who will appreciate—indeed, he anticipated—that I will study what he said with great care before I write to him in detail on the points he raised. I have pointed out to him that there were a number of errors in the footnotes of the Command Paper that have been corrected. That may account for some of the issues he mentioned, if not all.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), as before, exulted in being Mr. Veto in Europe. A fine load of good that did Britain and I am not sure that it did him much good either. It is important that we concentrate on the big picture. People listening to this debate could have been sidetracked into some of the intricate detail and away from the big picture.
  When Britain joined the European Economic Community, under a Conservative Government, there were already a considerable number of articles in the treaty of Rome that were subject to qualified majority voting. As the EEC and, later, the EU has grown larger, so there has been a need to extend QMV to stop decision making grinding to a halt.
  Frankly, the picture painted by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) was literally incredible, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) pointed out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) observed, there is at least a measure of hypocrisy in Conservative criticisms of the Bill because the biggest extension of QMV came with Mrs. Thatcher's Single European Act in 1986. Literally thousands of directives and regulations have been passed using articles to which QMV was extended under the Single European Act.
  The Single European Act allowed progress on the single market to be accelerated; a good thing, too. Yet the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) was happy to see QMV, to use his phrase, "bulldozed through" in the Single European Act, for which he voted, but not in other areas.
  I admire the sense of principle and integrity of the hon. Member for Stone when he realises that an issue needs addressing—he spoke with great eloquence and sincerity
  858
  about child abduction. The original proposal at Nice was that the whole of article 65 should move to QMV but one member state in particular was adamant that family law should be excluded. Given that unanimity applies to treaty change, and that we asked others to respect where we considered a matter of fundamental importance to be at stake, we had to respect that decision. The hon. Member for Stone differs from the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who seems blind to the dreadful problem of child abduction.
  Maastricht also introduced QMV to many new areas of activity: implementing measures for common foreign and security policy and for the justice and home affairs pillars; for trans-European networks in transport; for telecommunications and energy infrastructures; for development policy co-operation; for consumer protection; and for the environment.
  Why am I dwelling on the history? Because it was not this Government who agreed to those moves, but the Conservative party: the same party that now tells us that it is against new extensions of QMV in principle; the same party that calls QMV "giving away the veto" and an "erosion of national sovereignty"; the same party that has such a negative view of Europe that it seemingly cannot accept that QMV can ever be in Britain's interests. It is also the same party that has tabled amendments to the Bill seeking to remove every single new area of QMV.
  Let us examine some of the new areas where Britain's national sovereignty is being eroded. The Conservatives object to the use of QMV on the financial regulations in article 279, which will make it easier to carry out much-needed reforms to tighten financial management, making rules for accounting officers and financial audit. These provisions will ensure that the British taxpayers' money is used properly. We do not want vested interests to block such reforms; we want more efficient ways to tackle fraud, mismanagement and waste in the EU. I am astonished that the Conservatives do not.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Cash: I recognise the dilemma in amendment No. 233, but we are considering the problems affecting children and their parents in difficult circumstances. We should be able to concede on that matter, but not in relation to matters of European government, which is a different issue altogether. That applies to common foreign and security policy, as well as to Maastricht and Amsterdam, which we largely negotiated.
  Peter Hain: I always enjoy my dialogues with the hon. Gentleman, who is a serious student of this matter. He deserves respect and to be listened to. However, government is about areas of social policy such as family law. It is to his credit that he has recognised that, in the appalling example to which he referred, QMV should apply; we wanted that in Nice, but were unable to achieve it. However, he should look with similar objectivity at other aspects of its application.
  The Conservative party objects to QMV to appoint special representatives in common foreign and security policy.
  Mr. Redwood: Quite right.
  Peter Hain: "Quite right," says the right hon. Gentleman. To whose credit is haggling over the

  859
  nationality of these representatives, so that they arrive too late do any good? QMV will make sure that the right person is appointed quickly—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston in another context. We have had national interests blocking the best person for the job. QMV enables that to be overcome.
  The Conservatives object to QMV being applied to incentive measures to help stamp out discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, religion, disability, age or sexual orientation. We have been encouraging the Commission to do more in this area; QMV will make that task easier. We still have built-in safeguards to prevent any weakening of British standards through harmonisation of national legislation.
  I could go on; in fact, I will. Another important point is that the Conservatives object to QMV on industrial policy under article 157(3), which is about competitiveness. QMV will help us to deliver the Lisbon economic reform agenda. It will deliver measures to support initiative, the development of small and large enterprises and better exploitation of innovation and research; all measures that will clearly benefit British business.
  The amendment that really takes the biscuit arid shows how far down the road of madness the Conservatives have gone is the one that would strike from the treaty the move to QMV on deciding the pension rights of the registrar of the Court of First Instance. Apparently this and articles like it represent such a monumental erosion of national sovereignty that the Opposition are demanding complete renegotiation of the treaty; more, they are demanding a referendum. The Conservative party would deny the British people a referendum on joining the euro, one of the most important issues of our time; the same party that denied the people a referendum on the fundamental changes made by the treaty of Maastricht. However, it wants the British people trooping off to the polls over the crucial constitutional issue of the pension rights of the registrar of the Court of First Instance. This is bizarre.
  Mr. Redwood: Like the Minister, I wish to see fraud and racism stamped out throughout the EU and beyond. Which are the countries that the Minister thinks will support fraud and racism that need to be overridden by the use of QMV? Surely we can negotiate on those matters by unanimity. Which countries are so awful?
  Peter Hain: That is not the way to look at the issue. In tackling discrimination, difficult and tough decisions are needed. There are different views about how we achieve it, and QMV helps.
  The Government take a pragmatic view towards QMV based on calculating Britain's interests, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) said in his excellent speech. On structural funds post-2007, QMV may well assist in advancing that issue for areas such as Wales. QMV works for Britain; it built the single market on which more than 3 million British jobs and thousands of businesses depend. It is simply not true that Britain always loses out and others always win, as Conservative fantasy suggests. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston was right to say that in 1999 Britain was not outvoted on a single issue, but Germany was twice, France was three times and Italy was eight times.
  We are clear that more QMV, in the right areas, can work strongly in Britain's interest in the future and that is how we approached the negotiation on the Nice treaty.
  860
  When we felt strongly that an issue was of such fundamental importance that the decision must remain in the UK, with this Government and this Parliament, we just said, "No, we will not agree to QMV." We made that clear to the House and to our EU partners even before we had begun the negotiations.
  We set out in advance the areas on which we would not agree to QMV. We said that we would not accept QMV in areas such as tax, social security, defence, border controls, treaty change or the Community budget. And nor did we. The UK veto remains on all of those issues.
  We firmly and successfully defended our interests as we saw them. Of course, that works both ways. We could have accepted QMV on some issues at Nice—such as on family law within article 65, which is the issue to which the hon. Member for Stone referred—but they were red line issues for other member states.
  We have heard several times today that Nice extends QMV in 31 articles of the treaties. That is true, and there are good reasons for all those changes. However, the Committee should consider how many times the article on appointing common foreign and security policy special representatives will be used compared with the number of times the articles that the Conservatives agreed should move to QMV under the Single European Act have already been used. The Committee could also compare the significance of moving decisions on consumer protection to QMV, as the Conservatives did at Maastricht, compared to moving to QMV for decisions on the rules of procedure of the Court of Auditors, as we did at Nice.
  Mr. Bercow: Closer to home, does the Minister for Europe not recognise that the loss of the veto has already resulted in the imposition on this country of the information and consultation directive? The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) told the Trade and Industry Committee on 4 November 1998 that he would stop that directive. It is virulently opposed by the Federation of Small Businesses and will cost tens of thousands of small enterprises in this country dearly.
  Peter Hain: That sounds like the scare stories put about before the 1997 general election, when we were told that the minimum wage would cause the loss of millions of jobs. Instead, 1 million new jobs were created under this Government. I went to the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg after the general election—at short notice, I might add—and was able to negotiate a better deal on that information and consultation directive so that it will be introduced over seven years and will not apply to companies with fewer than 50 workers. It will have little impact, contrary to what the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) suggests.
  The debate is not about numbers, but about British interests. It is a shortsighted view to oppose QMV in principle, as the Conservatives do, and every one of the 31 moves to QMV that we agreed at Nice will be in Britain's interests. It is in Britain's interests to have QMV for industrial policy to increase competition, as we decided at Nice. Our companies do very well out of the single market.
  It is in Britain's interest to have QMV for international agreements on trade in services because our companies will benefit from the liberalisation that that is likely to

  861
  offer. It is in the UK's interests to have QMV for the rules and procedures of the European Court of Justice because that will deliver more efficient procedures and speedier judgments to ensure that the EU's rules are respected.
  I could go on. The fact is that QMV works for Britain, which the Conservatives seem to have forgotten since they agreed to QMV in 42 articles or sub-articles under the Single European Act and Maastricht.
  Mr. Alan Simpson: The Minister mentioned defending the national interest and the trade in services. I am pleased that he was not drawn into the game of playing one EU country off against another. My point is about the surrender of negotiating rights under QMV, in so far as that then transfers exclusive authority to negotiate on those issues to European Commissioners. The Minister will know that Pascal Lamy was keen to deny individual states the right to negotiate on trade in services—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech, not an intervention.
  Peter Hain: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Why do he and Opposition Members have so little confidence in Britain's ability to go to Europe and get a good deal? We have been consistently able to do that, but my hon. Friend, like Opposition Members, seems to suffer from an incredible inferiority complex about the strength of our arguments and our ability to win in Europe.
  The position of the Government is crystal clear: when QMV is in Britain's interests we will agree to it, and when it is not in Britain's interests we will not agree to it. It is as simple as that. The QMV provisions of the Nice treaty fully reflect that principle. That is why we strongly support the treaty, and why we reject the amendments.
  Mr. Cash: I must be very brief. The matters that have been discussed can be dealt with by renegotiation. It is essential that we solve the problem of QMV by rejecting it in all its aspects, except when it affects the people I described in my earlier speech. I am a member of the Child Abduction Committee, as set out in the Register of Members' Interests, and as such I am completely in favour of all the arguments put forward by my right hon. and hon. Friends about QMV, with the exception of amendment No. 233.
  Mr. Spring: I agree with the Minister for Europe that we have heard several fine contributions tonight from both sides of the Committee. What has emerged clearly is how confused the Government are on QMV. They are schizoid. They say that the moves on QMV are hugely important and then, in the next breath, say that they are inconsequential. The Government cannot have it both ways. The real reason for that confusion is that the Government do not have a clear view of the architecture of Europe and the role of Britain in it. That is the heart of the problem.
  Before Nice, the former Foreign Secretary talked to the Foreign Affairs Committee about the 50 items on the French presidency's list of potential extensions to QMV, and he substantially ruled them out. In practice at Nice,
  862
  the majority of the items on that list were eventually accepted in one form or another. Some were amended, but were still accepted. The rhetoric beforehand was entirely different from what actually happened.
  Before the last IGC, Ministers repeatedly listed six areas in which they would refuse to extend QMV—treaty change, taxation, border controls, social security, defence and own resources. However, Labour's recent election manifesto mentioned only two issues in relation to retaining the veto—tax and border controls. I tabled a written question specifically on that point and received a bland reply about the national interest. The increasing ambiguity on the subject is a hallmark of a Government who have no clear view on Britain's interests.
  We keep hearing the parrot cry about constructive engagement in Europe, but the Government cannot name a single power that has been returned to this national Parliament as a result of their negotiating skills in the past four years.
  The political integration process is going in one direction only. We want a modern, dynamic and successful EU that will incorporate all 27 or 28 countries. Qualified majority voting undermines that. Nice was not, in practice, about enlargement: its effect will be to slow down and damage enlargement.
  We may well wish to press new clause 11 to a Division in due course, but the debate has made it clear that the Government have undertaken no fresh thinking about our relationship with Europe. The evidence for that is the way in which they have given up our veto on crucial matters.
  We therefore have no hesitation about pressing the amendment to a Division this evening.
  It being Eight o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [28 June], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 149, Noes 349.

  Division No. 22]

  [8 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Collins, Tim

  Amess, David

  Conway, Derek

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Cran, James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Bacon, Richard

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Barker, Greg

  Dodds, Nigel

  Baron, John

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Bellingham, Henry

  Duncan, Alan

  Bercow, John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Duncan, Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Evans, Nigel

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fallon, Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Brazier, Julian

  Flight, Howard

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Flook, Adrian

  Burns, Simon

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Burt, Alistair

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Butterfill, John

  Francois, Mark

  Cameron, David

  Gale, Roger

  Cash, William

  Garnier, Edward

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Gibb, Nick

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Chope, Christopher

  Goodman, Paul

  Clappison, James

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  863

  Greenway, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Hammond, Philip

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

  Hayes, John

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Heald, Oliver

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hendry, Charles

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hermon, Lady

  Selous, Andrew

  Hoban, Mark

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Shepherd, Richard

  Horam, John

  Simmonds, Mark

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Key, Robert

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Spring, Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Steen, Anthony

  Lansley, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Leigh, Edward

  Swayne, Desmond

  Letwin, Oliver

  Swire, Hugo

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Syms, Robert

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Luff, Peter

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  McDonnell, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  MacDougall, John

  Tredinnick, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Trend, Michael

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Walter, Robert

  Mates, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Watkinson, Angela

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Whittingdale, John

  Mercer, Patrick

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Norman, Archie

  Wilshire, David

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Osborne, George (Talton)

  Wintertor, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Paice, James

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Paterson, Owen

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pickles, Eric

  Mr. James Gray and

  Randall, John

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Berry, Roger

  Ainger, Nick

  Betts, Clive

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Allan, Richard

  Blizzard, Bob

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Breed, Colin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Brennan, Kevin

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Brooke, Annette

  Baird, Vera

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Baker, Norman

  Banks, Tony

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Barnes, Harry

  Browne, Desmond

  Barron, Kevin

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Battle, John

  Bryant, Chris

  Bayley, Hugh

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Beard, Nigel

  Burden, Richard

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Burgon, Colin

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Burnham, Andy

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Benn, Hilary

  Cairns, David

  Bennett, Andrew

  Calton, Patsy

  Benton, Joe

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  864

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Godsiff, Roger

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Goggins, Paul

  Casale, Roger

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Challen, Colin

  Grogan, John

  Chaytor, David

  Hain, Peter

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Harvey, Nick

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heath, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Heppell, John

  Corston, Jean

  Hill, Keith

  Cotter, Brian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoey, Kate

  Cranston, Ross

  Hood, Jimmy

  Crausby, David

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hope, Phil

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hughes, Bevertey (Stretford)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hurst, Alan

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hutton, John

  David, Wayne

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

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

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jamieson, David

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dismore, Andrew

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatflield)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Doughty, Sue

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Joyce, Eric

  Efford, Clive

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Kemp, Fraser

  Farrelly, Paul

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

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Fisher, Mark

  Khabra, Piara S

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Flint, Caroline

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Flynn, Paul

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Follett, Barbara

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lamb, Norman

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lammy, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Foulkes, George

  Laws, David

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Laxton, Bob

  Galloway, George

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Gapes, Mike

  Lepper, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Leslie, Christopher

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Levitt, Tom

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  865

  Linton, Martin

  Purchase, Ken

  Lloyd, Tony

  Purnell, James

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Love, Andrew

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lucas, Ian

  Rammell, Bill

  Luke, Iain

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Lyons, John

  Rendel, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McCafferty, Chris

  MacDonald, Calum

  Ross, Ernie

  McFall, John

  Roy, Frank

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ryan, Joan

  McKechin, Ann

  Salmond, Alex

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Salter, Martin

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sanders, Adrian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McNulty, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  MacShane, Denis

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mallaber, Judy

  Simon, Siôn

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mann, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marris, Rob

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

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

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Spellar, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Squire, Rachel

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Meale, Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Merron, Gillian

  Stevenson, George

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Miliband, David

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Miller, Andrew

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stringer, Graham

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Moore, Michael

  Stunell, Andrew

  Moran, Margaret

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morgan, Julie

  Tami, Mark

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mountford, Kali

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mullin, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Thurso, John

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Oaten, Mark

  Touhig, Don

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Trickett, Jon

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Truswell, Paul

  O'Hara, Edward

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Olner, Bill

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Tyler, Paul

  Owen, Albert

  Tynan, Bill

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pearson, Ian

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Perham, Linda

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Picking, Anne

  Watson, Tom

  Pickthall, Colin

  Weir, Michael

  Plaskitt, James

  White, Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pond, Chris

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pope, Greg

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Pound, Stephen

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Price, Adam

  Willis, Phil

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Winnick, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wishart, Pete

  866

  Wood, Mike

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Wray, James

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Dan Norris and

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Mr. Ivor Caplin.

  Question accordingly negatived.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sit Michael Lord): I have now to announce the result of the Divisions deferred from a previous day.
On the motion on Education, the Ayes were 293, the Noes were 195, so the motion was agreed to.
On the first motion on Northern Ireland, the Ayes were 482, the Noes were 10, so the motion was agreed to.
On the second motion on Northern Ireland, the Ayes were 483, the Noes were 10, so the motion was agreed to.
[The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
Further considered.
Mr. Wilkinson: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
'Article 1 (other than paragraph 1),'.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 41, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
'Article 1 (other than paragraph 2),'.
No. 42, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
'Article 1 (other than paragraph 3),'.
No. 43, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
'Article 1 (other than paragraph 4),'.
No. 44, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
'Article 1 (other than paragraph 5),'.
No. 45, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
'Article 1 (other than paragraph 6),'.
No. 46, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
'Article 1 (other than paragraph 7),'.
No. 47, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
'Article 1 (other than paragraph 8),'.
No. 48, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
'Article 1 (other than paragraph 9).'.
No. 53, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
'Article 1 (other than paragraph 15),'.
No. 78, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
'other than Article 2, paragraph 47'.
No. 29, in page 1, line 12, after "occasion", insert—
'except for Article 3, paragraph 1(b) of the Protocol on the Enlargement of the European Union in so far as that relates to the appointment of a special representative in the area of common foreign and security policy'.

867
New clause 1—Special representative in the area of common foreign and security policy—
'In relation to Article 1, paragraph 3 of the Treaty of Nice, amending Article 23(2) TEU, prior to a vote in the Council on the appointment of a special representative in the area of common foreign and security policy, Her Majesty's Government shall lay a report before Parliament setting out its preferred candidate for the post and shall lay a further report after the Council meeting if that candidate has not been adopted.'.
New clause 2—International agreements under Article 24 TEU—
'In relation to Article 1, paragraph 4 of the Treaty of Nice, amending Article 24 TEU, prior to casting a vote in the Council on any such international agreement, Her Majesty's Government shall lay before Parliament a report setting out the implications for the United Kingdom of such an agreement.'.
New clause 7—Western European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation—
'This Act will not come into effect until Her Majesty's Government has laid before Parliament a report showing the implications for the Western European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, for the future functioning of these organisations, and for the United Kingdom's role therein, of Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Nice Treaty, revising Article 17 TEU, and Article 1, paragraph 5 of the Nice treaty, revising Article 25 TEU.'.
New clause 8—Adoption of decisions under Article 17, paragraph 1, TEU—
'For the purpose of Article 17, paragraph 1 of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Nice, the constitutional requirement of the United Kingdom before any decision under that paragraph (common defence) may be adopted by the United Kingdom shall be that the decision shall have been approved by an Act of Parliament.'.
New clause 33—Eurojust—
'This Act shall not come into force until Her Majesty's Government has obtained, and laid before Parliament, legal advice from the Attorney General on the effect on the criminal and judicial processes in the United Kingdom of Article 1, paragraph 8 of the Nice Treaty, revising Article 31 TEU, as they relate to the provisions on Eurojust.'.
Mr. Wilkinson: I speak in support of new clause 7 in particular, which is of great significance. Under the treaty of Nice nearly all the functions of Western European Union, as laid down in the treaty of Brussels and modified by the Paris protocols of 1954, are taken over by the European Union. Only two remain, and to some extent there is a third, residual, function as well. The first is the mutual defence obligation under article 5 of the treaty of Brussels. The second is the existence of the Assembly of Western European Union, which sits in Paris and of which I have had the honour to be a member for some twelve and a half years. The third is the residual function relating to armaments co-operation— the supervision of the West European Armaments Group.
Article 5 of the Brussels treaty is the fundament and heart of European defence. It is the mutual security guarantee among the European members of the alliance to come to the defence of a member state if it is subject to aggression. It is an explicit, clear and total guarantee. It is a commitment to mutual defence, and nothing less. Interestingly, article 5 of the Washington treaty commits the signatories to consult in order to take appropriate action, or words to that effect, but article 5 of the Brussels treaty is firmer even than the Washington treaty in the obligations that it places on member states. I am pleased that this function, which is regarded as residual by European Union policy makers, is retained as Western European Union's raison d'être in its remaining form.
868
8.15 pm
The Parliamentary Assembly of Western European Union is an invaluable body. It is a forward-looking institution that has produced countless reports, often well ahead of their time. It brings together representatives of no fewer than 28 states, which is significant because it bridges the gap between the European Union and the wider Europe. The security of our continent has to be considered in that wider context.
The aim of the treaty of Nice is to narrow European security and defence to member countries of the European Union. When a crisis emerges, they have an obligation to consult on what response should be taken. Of course, they voluntarily commit themselves to inviting other members of the alliance into the consultation procedure, but those countries are not part of the decision-making process to the same extent as the EU member states. European NATO countries such as Norway and Turkey and others that have more recently joined the alliance, such as the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary, are therefore second-class citizens within the security apparatus of their own continent. It is a particularly grotesque fact that Norway and Turkey, which were literally in the front line against the former Soviet Union during the cold war inasmuch as they shared a boundary with the Soviet Union, should be deemed in any way to have a lesser share in decision making about the security of our continent.
We would do well to bear in mind the fact that, apart from the virulent and dangerous phenomenon of terrorism from ETA in Spain and the Irish Republican Army and loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, there is no immediate security threat within the EU itself. There are, however, grave developments of major consequence to the security of our continent of which we are all too well aware in parts of Europe that lie outside the EU. This is especially true in the Balkans, with the threat of civil war in Macedonia and the difficulties of maintaining an uneasy peace in Kosovo and of retaining a presence of peacekeeping troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The non-EU countries have just as great an interest in the security of our continent as do the EU nations.
It is a thoroughly retrograde step to arrogate to the European Union a more exclusive right to a premier role in European security. Indeed, it is a somewhat perverse arrogation of duty to the EU nations, inasmuch as many of them are neutral states which throughout the long period of the cold war deliberately eschewed membership of NATO and of WEU. Furthermore, we are reminded of the implications of this fact by the outcome of the Irish referendum, which came about to some degree because a significant number of Irish electors believed that by virtue of the treaty of Nice they were giving away their treasured neutral status and that Irish forces might find themselves under British or NATO command. That was anathema to a significant minority of voters in Ireland who, with other strands of opinion, came together to form the majority who voted down the treaty of Nice.
I urge Her Majesty's Government to think long and hard and to recognise the implications. Our Turkish friends, who are in a pivotal strategic situation, feel especially disadvantaged. It is from Turkish bases that British and other allied aircraft fly missions over northern Iraq under the policy of restraining Saddam Hussein in the no-fly zones. It is the Turks who, as the bridge

869
between Asia and Europe, are vital in the Balkans. It is also the Turks who. with their perspective to the Caucasus and other zones of conflict and threat, are especially interested in those areas. To give the Turks a lesser status in decision making over European security, which is inherent in the Nice proposals, is anathema to the Turkish Government and they have not been able to acquiesce in that initiative.
Dr. Nick Palmer: In view of the hon. Gentleman's comments on Turkey. I am sure that he is aware of Turkey's ambition to join the European Union. If it did so, presumably that objection would fall away. The reason that it is not altogether welcome at this stage has to do with the activities of the Turkish army, to which he refers so favourably. Does he feel that the development would be desirable?
Mr. Wilkinson: There have always been difficulties in the body politic in Turkey. Wise commentators understand that. However, the interests of mutual security transcend those difficulties, do they not? It was on Turkish soil that NATO felt it necessary to deploy Jupiter ballistic missiles against the Soviet Union in the 1950s. Turkish troops were shoulder to shoulder with our forces and other allied troops maintaining the freedom of South Korea during the Korean war. We would be foolish to be as critical as the hon. Gentleman of internal affairs in Turkey to the extent of allowing that critical frame of mind to prejudice our appreciation of the security value which Turkey contributes to the continent of Europe.
Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend always sets out his case clearly. He will know of the genuine anxieties in Turkey about the proposed new European defence arrangements. In the view of many Turkish commentators, the arrangements may cause the dismemberment of NATO and possibly the ultimate withdrawal of United States forces from Europe. Given Turkey's difficult geographical position, that is why the Turks are concerned. That is why we should express considerable support for Turkey's anxieties at this stage, as we consider the future of the European defence effort under the proposals emanating from Nice.
Mr. Wilkinson: How right, as ever, is my hon. Friend, but I must address the point made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), which I did not answer in full. Turkey may be knocking on the door of the European Union, but we should consider how long other European countries have waited—applicant nations supposedly in the forefront of eligibility for entry. They started knocking at the door at the beginning of the previous decade. They are still not yet inside the EU house. We do not know exactly when they will come in, and the Turks' admission may be postponed sine die. I can imagine all kinds of barrier being put in their way—especially the kind described by the hon. Gentleman relating to Turkish domestic politics and so on. That is not to take on board subtler and more implicit objections relating to Turkey's predominant Muslim faith, although it is of course a strictly secular nation.
Let us not say, "Turkey may participate fully when it is a member of the European Union", because it may be an unconscionable time a-coming, and in the intervening
870
years all sorts of crises may emerge which will necessarily involve Turkey and should involve it as a full front-line partner in the decision-making process. I say that advisedly, because what nation would wish its troops to be deployed in situations which may evolve into combat when it is not involved in decisions on those deployments from the outset?
The question is crucial to the NATO context too, is it not, Mr. Lord? Under the proposals of the European security and defence initiative, the Europeans are to make good the deficiencies in their own capabilities. We all know about the headline goals that are supposed to be met by the year 2003 to allow 60,000 troops to be deployed in two months, with an armada of naval vessels and a panoply of air power over the top, but crucial capabilities will still depend on the United States: heavy lift, strategic reconnaissance, intelligence, smart munitions for all-weather operation and much else besides. Many of those capabilities will require the employment of US service personnel, because no one else has the training to operate the equipment concerned. What Congress of the United States will allow its personnel to be deployed in support of a European operation of which it is inherently critical? We are told that the Europeans will go it alone only if the Americans feel that they should not, or will not, take part; so there is an inherent veto from the United States from the outset over those key capabilities that are necessary to the success of any operation.
8.30 pm
Let us not delude ourselves about the Petersberg tasks. We all know that it is the small conflagrations—the situations which we suppose we can solve with a brush-fire type operation of peacekeeping and containment—that smoulder and ignite into a major conflagration, which involves the deployment of large numbers of forces with supporting services. That is what has happened in the Balkan wars until now, and we cannot assume that things will be different in future.
We cannot assume that the concept of the Petersberg tasks—of providing the inventory of capabilities and the complement of units up to the 60,000—will be confined to the limited operations for which the Labour spokesmen, the drafters of the Nice treaty, designed it.
Mr. Cash: I am much persuaded by my hon. Friend's arguments. Does he accept that it is impossible to sustain the distinction between peacemaking under the present arrangements in the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice and the previous understanding of Petersberg tasks? Under Petersberg tasks, stealth bombs and smart bombs were used, and there was a full-scale war in the Balkans. It is unworkable for this matter to be dealt with using vague wording. It is obviously a movement towards a European army and all the support services, as my hon. Friend said.
It is also deeply worrying to discover, by tracing through the complicated procedures described, that qualified majority voting is involved. It is absolutely impossible to imagine that anyone would have any proper command and control system in such circumstances.
Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is very wise. I shall not take up all the points that he makes. Suffice it to say that I find one feature particularly perplexing and deeply worrying. I cannot comprehend what benefit is construed

871
from the duplication of military and political staffs between NATO and the European Union. Those who manage a crisis want one clear chain of command and, above all, one set of analysts and one set of staff specialists; otherwise, there will be two interpretations of the crisis as it develops, one by NATO staffs and one by the European Union staffs, and who will know which should predominate? There will be bitter conflicts between the two.
I am reading the late Robert Rhodes James's book on the Gallipoli campaign, which describes the confusion between the military staffs under Hamilton and the naval staffs under De Robeck. What did we then get in the Balkans? The biggest allied tragedy in joint operations that occurred in the 20th century, even allowing for Dieppe. There is a serious possibility of delay, confusion and even conflict and recrimination between the two sets of military political staffs—those in NATO and those in the European Union. I do not see how the cause of European security will be advanced thereby.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I do not always agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I certainly recognise his expertise in this field, based as it is on much practical experience. Is it not clear that there is increasing reluctance on Capitol Hill to commit American forces on the ground in Europe? If such is to be the future attitude of the House of Representatives and the Senate, does it not make sense for the Europeans to have a capability to deal with issues such as those in Kosovo or other parts of the Balkans, in circumstances where we know that we cannot automatically expect the Americans to come to Europe?
Mr. Wilkinson: Of course I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. There is no need to create such a European Union architecture for the evolution of an autonomous security and defence policy just to achieve the goals that we all know need to be met.
As with NATO, the Western European Union's great strength is that it is a free association of sovereign, independent states, which for their common good came together to work for their mutual security. This approach will not exist in the EU because there is a political dynamic and a political objective to create a European army, to use the expression of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).
That policy involves a capability for autonomous action on the part of the EU, per se, as an embryonic state, ultimately to give it the characteristics of a fully fledged state. The EU has much of the other apparatus, but it has not yet been fully put in place. Let the Europeans do their best to build up their capability, but they do not need to abolish most of the functions of WEU and subsume them within the EU and to create an architecture that competes with NATO.
It is noteworthy, Sir Michael—forgive me for downgrading you most unworthily and inappropriately in the nomenclature which I used earlier—that one of the noblest features of the modernisation and transformation of NATO has been the partnership for peace programme, whereby the countries of central and eastern Europe, which were formerly our adversaries, have been taken into the bosom of the western defence community in NATO and helped to bring their armed forces under civilian, democratic control, thus learning how to work under
872
democratic Governments, how to harmonise their procedures and operational methods with those of the NATO alliance and how to exercise together, breaking down barriers and becoming all part of one happy family.
That has worked very well, but the EU's objective is just the opposite; it is to keep at arm's length and to exclude to some degree those who are not members of this sacred union, which is acquiring a political dimension and capability for autonomous defence action. This is thoroughly retrograde. It is recreating divisions which we hoped had ceased to exist in our continent, with the ending of the cold war and the dismantlement of the Berlin wall. So new clause 7 is entirely wise. A report on all those implications should be put before Parliament, but of course we have had nothing of the kind and I think that thoroughly remiss.
In conclusion, I shall argue this final point: there is much talk about how democratic scrutiny of European defence will be maintained on a transnational basis. In the current review of whether the European Parliament should assume that function, whether a new assembly should be created or whether we should use the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union, I urge that we use the Assembly. I say that not because I am particularly parti pris but because the WEU Assembly actually works well, and it does so because of its wide membership. All the countries—whether EU nations, NATO nations outside the EU, or countries from further east whose representatives work alongside us—are essentially on one footing. Our Parliament has the right to question Defence Ministers and an obligation to vote funds for defence. Other Parliaments have the ability to modify defence budgets, and it is from the ranks of national parliamentarians that national Defence Ministers are drawn.
The European Parliament, by contrast, is déraciné—it does not have the same roots or legitimacy; it does not even have the same treaty competence. I cannot comprehend why we should arrogate the oversight function to an Assembly which is more remote from the peoples of western Europe. We risk creating a hybrid entity with no clear mandate or treaty responsibility, which the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union has. Whatever the outcome of the debate on European security and defence, I hope that we will maintain transnational democratic parliamentary scrutiny, as provided by WEU.
Dr. Palmer: I want to respond to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). I agree that it is probably correct that the European force is unlikely to take a controversial role without the consent of the United States. He referred to a veto, although I am not sure that I would express it like that. However, a major commitment in the real world, even under the Petersberg tasks, is unlikely to be carried out in the teeth of opposition from Washington.
Involvement is much more likely if the United States decides, for whatever reason, that it does not want to commit ground forces but has no objection to—perhaps even welcomes—an active European commitment. I respect the hon. Gentleman's historical view and think that he will agree that for many years, since the first world war, Congress has been sceptical about the willingness of European countries to put their troops where their mouths

873
are and commit themselves to concrete engagements instead of relying on US troops to rush over and bail us out when we have a problem. Many members of Congress would have put it that brutally. Although opinions vary in the US just as they do here, a few people on both sides of Congress welcome the prospect of the Europeans taking seriously the job of pursuing peacekeeping and other Petersberg tasks independently, in consultation with our American allies.
We are all aware that the debate on security is a proxy for the broader debate on the direction of the EU. It would be illusory to suggest that the hon. Gentleman is not partly motivated in his criticism by his aversion to the idea that the EU might move beyond what it already is and begin to resemble a joint state or entity.
8.45 pm
If we have a common foreign and security policy, it is difficult to argue that we should have no capability to implement even the smallest, most peaceful activity that comes under that heading under our own steam. I assume that the hon. Gentleman would argue that a common foreign and security policy is essentially wrong-headed and that we do not need the EU to develop such a policy. I do not want to put words in his mouth, but I think that he would regard that as a dangerous development. The debate in which we are currently engaged is inextricably linked to the question of whether we favour the whole concept of a common foreign and security policy.
If we were to reject such a policy, it would be logical to reject the provision before us and to welcome new clause 7. However, to do that would be to reject the serious commitment of the EU to maintain peace on our borders. I appeal to hon. Members' sense of history. The history of Europe does not support the idea that it is sensible for western European countries not to take an active interest in events on the fringes—an interest that extends to having a joint foreign and security policy that affects how they behave, and includes a willingness to commit forces to reinforce the peaceful objectives of that policy.
Mr. Julian Brazier: The Opposition entirely endorse the very striking point that the hon. Gentleman has just made, but it does not follow that we need a separate structure to achieve those ends. There is a danger. How do we avoid becoming sucked into an effort for which we do not have the capability through a structure that was not designed for the purpose?
Dr. Palmer: That is a reasonable point: we must be careful not to become involved in a peacekeeping operation that develops into a war-fighting operation when we do not have the infrastructure to support such an action. That challenge will be faced by the EU as it develops its new capability. However, with respect, one cannot have it both ways: if we want significant war-fighting operations to be reserved for NATO, as most hon. Members on both sides of the House do, we cannot escape the fact that we will have to draw the line somewhere and acknowledge that certain operations are beyond our capability.
Mr. Hendrick: Given the problems that developed in Bosnia and subsequently in Kosovo, does my hon. Friend
874
agree that it is important that we have a rapid reaction force that can act quickly? Such a force is not a European army: it will not be a standing army, but one that comprises volunteer forces from member states, so it cannot be considered a Euro-army, as the Opposition argue. Does he also agree that, with only a handful of staff based in Brussels, the WEU hardly has the administrative power or clout needed to do what must be done by the EU, given the EU's political clout and the structures that already exist within Europe?
Dr. Palmer: I am grateful for all those points. The more we can define the rapid reaction force's precise role and objectives in our debate and the broader debate across Europe, the more effective it will be. I accept the point made by several hon. Members that it is necessary to attempt a precise definition; otherwise, in practice, we will have problems in the grey areas. However, that does not mean that we should not make the attempt; we must do so because, as my hon. Friend said, the force is essential for the security of the EU.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is typically generous in giving way. He got to the nub of the problem when he talked about reserving serious war fighting for NATO and confining the work of the EU force to crisis management. The flaw at the heart of that argument is that there is no way of having such a fire break. The major wars that have been fought in history have, as often as not—indeed, more often than not—started when attempts at crisis management spiralled out of control. Creating a structure outside NATO reopens the deadly prospect of war breaking out in Europe without the Americans being involved from the outset. That is the nub of the problem and the cancer at the heart of the project.
Dr. Palmer: I am afraid that I do not agree, as the position is the reverse. There are a number of serious situations, such as the recent conflict in the Balkans, that go beyond the normal scope of diplomatic endeavours and cannot be tackled within the broader ambit of NATO, which would effectively require a full-blooded commitment from the United States. The USA is not willing to give that commitment routinely or intervene regularly in what it may see as every brush fire or little conflict in parts of Europe, so we need an alternative option. I accept that we must be careful not to get involved in something that is beyond the scope that we have set, but if we do not have that option at all, it is likely that serious situations will be allowed to get more serious because of the lack of a relatively limited response to deal with them. Recent history in Europe, notably in the Balkans, provides support for that belief.
Finally, in response once more to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Wilkinson—I am sorry, the hon. Gentleman and his constituency have become synonymous over the years, and I mean the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood—I listened with surprise to his belief that the WEU is less remote to the peoples of western Europe than is the European Parliament. I would have agreed if he had said that there is a problem with democracy and with people identifying with the institutions of the EU. We all recognise that there is a democratic deficit and limited interest in the European Parliament. As we know, the turnout for European elections does not even reach the

875
dizzy heights that we achieved in the general election this year. However, I wonder what percentage of our constituents have ever heard of the WEU, let alone regard it as the less remote body that represents them on those issues.
Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman is most courteous and indulgent. May I clarify the distinction? The membership of the WEU Assembly is drawn entirely from national parliamentarians, who sit on the defence and foreign affairs committees of their Parliaments and take part in all the defence debates, the procurement process and the voting of funds. It is from their ranks that national Defence Ministers are drawn. The European parliamentarians in Strasbourg or Brussels often do not even have proper constituencies and are seldom seen in them, let alone in their national Parliaments, lobbying or trying to influence events.
Dr. Palmer: The belief that democracy is best served by indirect representation through national parliamentarians is most strongly held by national parliamentarians. I do not believe that the man or woman in the street would consider that a particularly impressive way of representing his or her views at European level. The hon. Gentleman says that the European Parliament is not perfect, and I accept that.
I am using my freedom of the Back Benches to take a somewhat critical view of the WEU, which I am sure that my Front-Bench colleagues would not wish to do. The hon. Gentleman suggests in new clause 7 that the proposals could have grave consequences for the WEU. That is not necessarily the case, as long as the membership of the European Union is only a subset of the broad scope of nations across Europe. As long as that is the case, the WEU will provide a contact point for many countries that are not, for the next few years, likely to be members of the European Union. That is a healthy balance.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman considers me a raving Europhile. I will not conceal from him my hope that there will come a time when the membership of the EU and the current membership of the WEU are not all that different. At that stage, we might reconsider the matter, but for now his fears do not seem to be justified.
Mr. Spring: Several issues are covered under this group of amendments, as the Nice treaty makes a number of changes to the treaty on European Union. I shall touch on just a few of those issues.
Amendment No. 40 concerns the so-called early warning mechanism agreed at Nice. Under the revised article 7 of the treaty on European Union, the treaty of Nice allows the EU to "address appropriate recommendations" to a country if there is a risk—I repeat, a risk—of a serious breach by a member state of the fundamental principles listed in article 6(1) of the treaty on European Union: liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law.
Does the Minister agree that that runs the risk of damaging and divisive interference in the internal affairs of member states, on the basis of mere speculation? Of course, as the House knows, under article 7 countries can already take action if there is a "serious and persistent breach" of those principles by a member state.
876
How exactly will the new provision work? It is no secret that it was formulated in response to recent events in Austria. Presumably, when they signed up to the article, Ministers had an idea when it might be used, so perhaps they will now tell us what the intention is. Would the provision have been exercised in the case of Haider's inclusion in the Government of Austria? If so, what would the recommendations to the Government have been, and when, if ever, would the mechanism have come to an end?
How will the article 6(1) principles be assessed, both under the new mechanism and under the existing article 7 provision? In particular, will the Minister guarantee that those principles, which include respect for human rights, will not be interpreted through the prism of the charter of fundamental rights? For example, article 19 of the charter states:
"No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty".
If the charter will affect national law only in so far as it implements Union law, what is the point of that particular article?
9 pm
Let me cite one example. Will the Minister assure the House that the provision that the Government agreed at Nice will not be used to decide that a member state that intends to extradite a suspected murderer to the United States is in danger of contravening article 6(1) principles and will therefore be given recommendations by QMV, under revised article 7 TEU? I am sorry that those are technical points, but they must be explored.
The second issue that I want to speak about is the European defence identity. We heard an absolutely outstanding speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). I was especially pleased that he referred in some detail to Turkey, which feels concerned about the recent developments in Nice. As the House will appreciate, although European defence policy is not contained in the treaty, some changes were agreed to pave the way for it.
First, references to the Western European Union in article 17 TEU have been deleted. Amendment No. 41 would deal with that problem by removing paragraph 2 from article 1 of the treaty. Secondly, article 25 TEU, as amended by Nice, provides an enhanced role for the Political and Security Committee. Under the authorisation of the Council, the committee will exercise
"political control and strategic direction of the crisis management operations"
and may, with Council authorisation, take decisions in that context.
Finally, declaration 1 of the final act of the intergovernmental conference, which does not form part of the Bill, relates to European security and defence policy, which it says will become operational quickly. It foreshadows a decision to be taken by the European Council no later than the Brussels summit.
New clauses 7 and 8 would ensure greater parliamentary scrutiny of those developments. New clause 7 would require a report to be submitted to Parliament on their effects on NATO and the WEU, and new clause 8 would require a Bill to be introduced before any decision on common defence is taken.

877
The House has debated those issues several times, and I do not intend to cover familiar ground for too long, but I should like to make some specific points in relation to new clauses 7 and 8. The background to the debate is that the Conservatives strongly support greater European defence co-operation and a stronger European commitment to NATO. Indeed, it was a Conservative Government who started that process. We genuinely believe, however, that the European defence policy that is currently being developed represents an evolution towards a European army in all but name. The documents agreed at Nice and elsewhere make it clear that the force will exist outside NATO, which flatly contradicts repeated assurances made by Ministers and confirms the major reservations of the Americans. We believe that the structures agreed at Nice will weaken and undermine NATO.
I have some specific questions for the Minister. First, how does he reconcile the removal of references to the WEU in article 17 TEU and the decline of the WEU with what the Prime Minister said to the House four years ago? He said that
"getting Europe's voice more clearly heard in the world will not be achieved through merging the European Union and the Western European Union or developing an unrealistic common defence policy."—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 3141
Does the Minister accept that although changes to the WEU were agreed at Maastricht, it was developed as the forum for expressing European defence interests within NATO and was formally recognised as such by the EU? The idea was that the WEU was to be balanced halfway between NATO and the EU. Its development posed no threat to NATO and all the units available to it were either to be borrowed from NATO, or if they were outside NATO they were available to it in an emergency.
Does the Minister not accept that the establishment under the Nice treaty of the Political and Security Committee is another sign that, by creating new, stand-alone EU structures, the European security and defence policy duplicates existing NATO structures? What is the point of doing that unless it is to rival NATO, with all the consequences that flow from that?
Despite assurances from the Prime Minister that planning for military operations would happen in NATO, the Nice accords and the statements of the Secretary of State for Defence make it crystal clear that many operations can and will be planned outside NATO. National headquarters can be used under the auspices of the EU. The Nice accords further make it clear that there is no onus on the EU to involve NATO at any stage of a crisis. It is evident that a defence entity that is a clear rival to NATO is being established. It could undermine the Atlantic alliance and the United States' commitment to Europe's security.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) made a thoughtful contribution. I emphasise to him that the Americans want burden sharing, and they are not getting it. Our anxieties are shared by the head of the EU's military staff, Major General Messervy Whiting, who said earlier this year that the EU's rapid reaction force would start to compete with NATO when it acquired a full range of strategic military assets. He said:
"In the early years, we'll be looking at things below the NATO threshold, things NATO doesn't do, like disaster relief and evacuation of citizens. In due course. once our collective capabilities
878
are developed and we have strategic transport, the EU should be in a position to go higher … At that point, there will have to be a critical conversation between the European Union and NATO over who takes on what".
In the light of such issues, we have tabled new clauses 7 and 8. One attempts to provide for analysis of the developments that I have outlined and their effect on NATO and WEU. The other proposes a mechanism to provide parliamentary scrutiny by means of a Bill. The changes have serious implications for the future of NATO, and I trust that the Minister for Europe will understand the need to be open about them so that the House can hold a rational debate on the matter. The future of NATO and our relationship with it are crucial to the continued security and stability of Europe.
Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 and new clause 33 deal with Eurojust. After the Tampere summit in October 1999, when Eurojust and related measures were discussed, the Conservative party made it clear that we supported moves to improve co-ordination. We do not intend to oppose Eurojust if co-operation and co-ordination are involved. However, we seek a guarantee that we shall not go beyond that, and that the Bill does not pave the way for harmonisation. New clause 33 would provide for a report from the Attorney-General about the implications of Eurojust for the criminal and judicial processes of the United Kingdom.
Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to update hon. Members about developments on Eurojust since the Select Committee on European Scrutiny published its sixth report in February. The Committee welcomed the Government's view that they could not accept any wording on Eurojust's remit that accorded the Commission any operational role in national investigations or prosecutions. However, it expressed anxiety about what is described as ambiguity in the draft documents, which related to the amount of influence that Eurojust is expected to exercise.
The report stated:
"The requirement that a prosecuting authority in a Member State should be obliged to account to Eurojust for its reasons for not complying with a request to prosecute, or for not complying with a request to co-ordinate prosecutions with those of another Member State, suggests to us that Eurojust is intended to have some influence over prosecution discretions; otherwise there would seem to be little point in asking for the reasons to be stated".
I trust that the Minister can reassure us on the latest discussions.
Angus Robertson: May I ask the hon. Gentleman why there is no recognition in the proposal of the fact that Scotland has its own legal and judicial system? Why has that fact not been incorporated in the amendment?
Mr. Spring: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has brought that point to my attention. I am sure that we shall bear it in mind, as will the Government.
Ministers should act to allay the concern in some quarters that, while initially promising nothing more than co-operation between prosecuting authorities, Eurojust may be the first step towards having an EU public

879
prosecutor able to conduct investigations outside our legal system and corpus juris—the EU body of criminal law. For example, Commissioner Vitorino has said:
"A provisional judicial co-operation unit, which will serve as a kind of laboratory, enabling us to conceive and simultaneously test Eurojust, will take up its work soon. We may in the longer term also agree on the concept of centralised prosecution as a further logical step along the path of co-operation and co-ordination within the Union, at least for a number of sectors of particular European relevance."
The explanatory statement of a report voted for by Labour and Liberal Democrat MEPs in November, the Gebhardt report, said:
"Eurojust must … be so constituted that it can be regarded as a forerunner of a future European public prosecution service designed to strengthen the European Union's judicial dimension in relation to criminal law. But institutionalisation alone is not enough. The Council must draw up, in co-operation with the European Parliament and the Commission, appropriate rules of law on the basis of which Eurojust will be able to operate. Parliament has already indicated the form that such a 'corpus juris' might take … The acquisition of such a body of law would enable the European Union to clearly counter the charge that its structures were undemocratic because it did not possess an independent legislature, executive and judiciary with counterbalancing powers, the hallmark of all democratic societies."
We are seeking important reassurances from the Government on those issues. We need to be assured that, by providing treaty articles in this area, EU leaders are not paving the way to moving beyond mere co-operation towards the kind of development—such as the creation of a European public prosecutor—for which many in the EU have been calling for some time.
Amendments Nos. 45 and 48 also raise important issues relating to enhanced co-operation in the second and third pillars. We are particularly sympathetic to amendment No. 48, which concerns the loss of the so-called "emergency brake" veto in the justice and home affairs pillar. However, we will be discussing the principle of enhanced co-operation later in the proceedings, and I intend to address the veto issue in relation to its loss in the Community pillar at that time.
I apologise to the Minister of State for asking a series of very specific questions. but I hope that he will recognise that these are genuine concerns, and that he will address them during the course of the Committee proceedings.
Mr. Hendrick: I shall start by saying how much some Labour Members deplore the scaremongering of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and some of his colleagues when they say that the treaty threatens NATO in some way. The European rapid reaction force will give the European Union the capacity to conduct military operations in response to international crises when NATO is not, and does not wish to be, engaged. I find it incredible that the Opposition should want Europe to have a capability to intervene in crises across Europe, yet are unwilling to give it the means to do so. I also find incredible the suggestion that the Western European Union might serve as the body capable of co-ordinating such operations, because it has a staff of less than 100, based in Brussels.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I think that the hon. Gentleman is missing the point of the Opposition's objections. What we object to has nothing to do with the capability of European
880
countries to defend Europe. It has to do with the structures that organise and apply those capabilities. We want European defence capabilities to be organised and applied within the structure of NATO. Under the treaty, we are getting new structures without capabilities, whereas we need new capabilities within existing tried and tested structures such as NATO.
9.15 pm
Mr. Hendrick: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Clearly, if the United States does not wish to be involved, we need a coherent political structure that can direct operations, and the only political structure that can do that is the European Union. The Western European Union has very little clout, so it is bizarre to suggest that such a structure should be built around the WEU when most of the countries involved are members of the EU. That says more about the Opposition's attitude to the EU than it does about the capability of the WEU to conduct such operations.
The range of potential missions is described as humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace making. For many months during the war in Bosnia, the United States was unwilling to get involved in a European conflict, and that unwillingness led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Bosnian people. The ethnic cleansing in that part of the world was an atrocity that had not been witnessed since the second world war, and the unwillingness of the Americans to get involved because they were reluctant for any of their troops to come back in body bags led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman is really testing the patience of the House. Is it not inconceivable for him to present this argument when it is perfectly clear that it was impossible for the EU to generate anything in the way of heavy lift or the response that was required to deal with the catastrophe in Bosnia? The hon. Gentleman is talking total rubbish because he has not referred to the increase in function, the shift away from NATO and the absolute refusal of member states to provide the resources that were necessary. In fact, the Germans are continually decreasing their defence capability. The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute rubbish and, most unusually, he is making a fool of himself.
Mr. Hendrick: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I hope that he will not pull his punches so much in future.
The ink was not dry on the common foreign and security policy when the conflict in Bosnia broke out, and it is quite clear that the Americans did not want to get involved. For many years now, they have made it plain that they are not prepared to spend American tax dollars on defending European nation states. Now that Europe has produced a constructive set of proposals, many of which the United States accepts. we are hearing arguments—not from Colin Powell or any other American representative—about possible Turkish opposition to the proposal. Indeed, the outcome of the Irish referendum has been put forward as the reason why Europe should not move in this direction. To anyone who says that it leaves out Turkey or Norway,

881
I would say that I certainly do not remember Turkey or Norway arguing for strong intervention in Bosnia or expressing any great wish to sort out the problems there.
Mr. Wilkinson: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Danes are not contributing any forces at all to the so-called rapid reaction force?
Mr. Hendrick: I am not here to answer for the Danes, but to speak for the interests of the British people and my constituents in Preston, so I shall not go down that route. The Opposition constantly refer to Denmark and Ireland as though they were the most significant and weighty states in the EU.
Angus Robertson: Perhaps one of the advantages of the European rapid reaction force is that it brings in countries that are not involved in NATO, such as Austria, Finland and Sweden. That may benefit everybody in Europe.
Mr. Hendrick: I agree. More nations are involved than would have been had any other method been adopted. Had the treaty not been agreed, the Opposition would not have made any constructive proposals to deal with any of the crises that may arise in Europe as a result of the current political problems.
For the benefit of Opposition Members, I must explain that the treaty does not involve the creation of a European army. The commitment of national resources by member states to any operations will be based on their sovereign decision as nation states, not the decision of the European Commission or the European Parliament. The European Union has not been given a role in collective or territorial defence, which remains the sole responsibility of NATO, and anybody who, like the hon. Member for West Suffolk, says that the proposals in some way rival NATO obviously does not understand the treaty and has not read it very well. The treaty acknowledges that NATO remains the base of its members' collective defence and will continue to play an important role in crisis management.
European military capabilities must be strengthened as a priority. The Euro-army is the latest Conservative anti-European myth. The proposal is for a stronger Britain and a stronger Europe, and the Opposition know it.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has been exceptionally generous in giving way, and I thank him for that. He says that there is no conflict between the rapid reaction force and NATO, but if the rapid reaction force is not to have standing forces of its own—which it is not—and if it is only to deploy forces that are normally allocated to NATO, what would happen if it were engaged in a large-scale peacekeeping operation, taking forces away from NATO, and another crisis arose in which NATO and the United States wished to act, but found that their forces were depleted because they were engaged in some escapade with the rapid reaction force? Which of the two crises would come out on top? Is all this necessary, when if the force remained within the structure of NATO, all such matters would be resolved internally?
Mr. Hendrick: The number of troops committed to any such operation is likely to be relatively small in relation to NATO's total capability.
Dr. Lewis: Sixty thousand.
Mr. Hendrick: Yes—relatively small.
882
There is nothing to stop two crises arising at the same time. Presumably, NATO would have the capability to deal with the situation. The hon. Gentleman's hypothesis is unlikely, but if that happened, it could still be dealt with under the current system.
I want to deal with a few of the myths. Opposition Members say that European defence will weaken NATO and undermine relations with the United States. Better European capabilities will strengthen the contribution of European nations to NATO as well as to the EU. Most of the Opposition's arguments are not really about defence capability or our ability to deal with conflict—although their proposals would inhibit that—but about a political objection.
Let us consider what Opposition Members have said in the past. The Maastricht treaty, which was signed by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), said:
"The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence."
Sir Malcolm Rifkind said:
"The recent NATO summit agreed that European allies should take a greater responsibility for common security and defence. This will be achieved through the development of a European security and defence identity expressed through the WEU, which will in turn strengthen the European pillar of the alliance."
Statements from a previous Secretary of State for Defence and the current Opposition Foreign Affairs spokesman fly in the face of what has been said by Opposition Members today.
I repeat that what has been said today has nothing to do with the defence of the EU, or NATO; it has a lot to do with the opposition to the proposals for the further development of the EU.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I shall address my brief remarks to the issues raised so eloquently by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). I did not entirely agree with him, but I most certainly did agree with some portions of his thoughtful speech. He struck a chord with me when he spoke about defence expenditure, because there will be no capability unless there is defence expenditure.
If we cast our minds back to the general election, none of the three major parties committed itself in the course of this Parliament to any material increase in defence expenditure. There is a certain amount of creative accounting going on around Europe that justifies some officials saying that defence expenditure is going up. I do not believe that, because the way in which expenditure is allocated is often done differently in different countries. The real question is not what is being spent, but what we are getting for the money that is being spent; to use an expression that was current about 10 or 15 years ago, how big a bang are we getting for the buck?
If there is a strong European security and defence policy, it will strengthen NATO; if there is a weak policy, it will most certainly weaken NATO. Those of us who

883
support a European security and defence policy have an overwhelming obligation to ensure that what is put in place does not damage or affect NATO's capability. We must also argue the case as persuasively as we can—within our parties and this House, and outside—to ensure that sufficient expenditure is made available to make a European security and defence policy a reality.
Respectfully, I say to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) that to characterise the problems in the Balkans as being related entirely to US intransigence is not to take a sufficiently broad view of what took place, especially in the period when Bosnia was the source of such difficulty. I have been critical of the fact that the US has been unwilling to commit troops, but we must recall that there was a critical—to use the word in its alternative sense—meeting of the EU here in London at which a lot of warm words were expressed and commitments given. However, there was then no follow-through action or deployment of the necessary forces.
Another element of the Bosnian situation that cannot be avoided is that the mandates handed down by the UN Security Council, and the terms upon which the UN was first operating in Bosnia, were, to say the least, ambiguous. We need a longer historical perspective on Bosnia to see why the international community found it so difficult to deal with something that, as the commemoration today in Srebrenica reminds us forcefully, was horrific to an extent that people thought we were unlikely to experience after the end of the second world war.
On the relationship between NATO and the EU, I adhere strongly to a view that I have persistently expressed in the House; persistently is perhaps the right adverb to use. What we need is a formal protocol between NATO and the EU in which NATO is given a formal right of first refusal. The annexe to the Nice treaty talks about where NATO is not involved. On that point also, I agree with the hon. Member for Ruislip—Northwood. We need to locate operational planning in NATO, and I would go further and argue that strategic planning should also be located in NATO.
I part company with the hon. Gentleman on a further point and I shall try to explain my logic. If NATO decided not to become involved in an issue, it would be standing back not only militarily, but politically. If the EU, in furtherance of the provisions we are discussing, decided that it would proceed militarily, it would make no sense to look for political direction of that EU activity from NATO. Some form of political direction must be available on occasions when NATO declines to become involved. We need a structural element in addition to what we have at the moment.
On the issue of scrutiny, we have heard much special pleading for the Western European Union in the House in the past 18 months, but if we are to scrutinise the provisions before us, the place for that scrutiny is in this domestic Parliament. I feel strongly that decisions about sending young men and—increasingly—women to war should be taken in a forum in which I, as an elected representative with a front-line air base in my constituency, have the right to hold Ministers to account for their decisions. Whatever the merits of the WEU or the European Parliament, I am not willing to cede my responsibility for that scrutiny to a body that has no real constituency—as the hon. Gentleman suggested of the European Parliament—or is essentially an appointed body
884
like the WEU, however distinguished it might be. I disagree with the suggestion—made, I think by the Prime Minister in Warsaw—that one possible feature of a second chamber for the European Parliament would be the exercise of scrutiny on defence matters, because that scrutiny should rest with the House of Commons.
Mr. Wilkinson: Is not the point that while ultimate responsibility for sending British troops to war remains with the House, we nevertheless benefit from the fact that our colleagues in the House and in the other place are members of the WEU? In that body, which provides another forum for transnational responsibility in Europe, our colleagues are informed of the obligations, stresses, strains and problems of other member countries that impinge on our national security decisions. The WEU can exert a common will to persuade other Parliaments to do things to our mutual benefit, such as creating heavy lift and other capabilities.
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman and I may be moving, slowly but inexorably, towards agreement on that subject. It may be a question of emphasis, but the WEU and other such bodies—I speak as someone who has been a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly for some 10 years—have a tremendous role to play in allowing us to understand the principles and priorities of the other countries involved. However, formal scrutiny is our responsibility and it should not be ceded.
Mr. Hendrick: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: No, I wish to make progress because I know that others wish to speak, including the Minister.
I believe that Turkey should be a member of the European Union—a view not always popular in my party—but it has considerable obstacles to overcome, not least in the conduct of its police and its army and in relation to the universal recognition of human rights. However, Turkey overplayed its hand at first, because it appeared to believe that it could influence the opinion of the EU on its application for membership by displaying a mailed fist on the proposals for the European security and defence policy.
I shall end by referring to new article 17.2 of Command Paper 5090, which is the document that sets out the treaty. It states that the policy
"shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation … under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with a common security and defence policy established within that framework."
That shows that NATO is recognised in that part of the treaty. Moreover, article 17.4 states:
"The provisions of this Article shall not prevent the development of closer cooperation between two or more Member States on a bilateral level, in the framework of the Western European Union … and NATO, provided such cooperation does not run counter to or impede that provided for in this Title."
Those provisions show that the primacy of NATO is not affected, and that the capacity for bilateral arrangements between two or more states in the WEU and NATO is also provided for.
Finally, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis)—east is east, and west is west, and ne'er the twain shall meet—spoke of the deadly prospect that a war

885
might break out and that the Americans might not be willing to come to Europe. That is a prospect that we must consider, as it is more possible now than for a long time. However, a further deadly prospect exists: that if we do not have in place the arrangements that we are discussing, a war may break out in Europe, the Americans might decline to come and the Europeans could be left unable to do anything about it.
As long as the money is spent and the capability is achieved, I believe that we can make a contribution to NATO, and offer the capacity for the European Union to operate when NATO declines. That is why I believe that these provisions are worthy of support.
The Second Deputy Chairman: I call Mr. William Cash.
Mr. Cash: I am sorry, Sir Michael, for not rising immediately to my feet, but I was distracted by a representative of the usual channels. My eagerness to engage in the debate means that such tardiness is very unusual for me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has already made it clear that the amendment deals with a matter of immense importance. It is a matter that I have raised with the Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary, now the Leader of the House, several times. At issue is the movement towards a European army represented by the establishment of the rapid reaction force.
My noble Friend Lord Tebbit used to be the Member of Parliament for Chingford. He and I opposed the then Conservative Government—our own Government—over the Maastricht treaty, and we made compelling speeches on the treaty's defence implications. Those speeches have subsequently proved justified.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood also made a valuable and important contribution in the Maastricht debates. Indeed, he and my wife managed to transport another hon. Member—whose name must remain undisclosed—away from a secret location a few hundred yards from here and into the Lobby to vote, with the result that we won a crucial Division. I therefore owe my hon. Friend a great debt of gratitude for his sterling—indeed, Special Air Service—assistance at that time.
Let there be no doubt that the genesis of where we are now is the Maastricht treaty, which contained provisions that we do not need to go into, and indeed cannot go into today. It was followed by Amsterdam, whose provisions were negotiated by yet another Conservative Government and handed over to the present Government under the chairmanship of another distinguished Minister for Europe. I do not think that I need to mention his name, but he was one of the revolving chairmen of the Westendorp group.
I wrote a pamphlet in reply to the White Paper that Sir Malcolm Rifkind and the said Minister for Europe produced. It was called the "Blue Paper"; it was 25 or 30 pages long and took the White Paper apart line by line, because I felt so strongly that the Government were going in the wrong direction.
The said Minister for Europe is currently competing strongly for the attention of other Conservative Members of Parliament. I have a letter written in 1995 from yet
886
another contender for the Conservative party leadership, in which he set out his reply to me with respect to the questions that are before us under the Nice treaty. It shows the evolution of the thought processes and policy making en route to the present debate
The letter went, "Thank you for your letter" I am paraphrasing a little bit [Laughter] "about the mischievous piece in The Sunday Telegraph on 12 November, which you also raised with me in the House last week." So, it is all on the record. He went on, "I trust I set your mind at rest then"—some chance—"I and the Government remain totally opposed to any suggestion of a separate European army. Nothing that Malcolm Rifkind and I agreed to in Madrid moved us one jot in that direction. As for our memorandum on European defence which the Prime Minister launched in March, the article misses the point completely. The essence of our position is that the defence of Europe is founded on NATO. NATO also has a role in smaller scale missions like peacekeeping—witness Bosnia."
Now the House may understand my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood. My point has always been that keeping the peace in places such as Bosnia and making the peace according to the Petersberg tasks—on which I have tested the Foreign Secretary on many occasions—cannot be distinguished from the greater development not merely of a rapid reaction force but the panoply of warfare. Such equipment was exemplified by the stealth bombers, smart bombs and heavy-lift operations provided by the United States under the umbrella of NATO, although attempts were made to claim that such action had been carried out by a chameleon of the Western European Union.
The letter continued that it was unreasonable to expect the North Americans always to want to get involved in such smaller scale missions, such as peacekeeping, and that that was where WEU came in. It stated, "It cannot really do the job at present, so we want to make it more capable, but it has no military forces separate from NATO, nor is it subordinated to the EU. That is how we want to keep it. Hardly a slippery slope to federalism, I think. Yours ever."
The significance of that is that I argued in the House that it was a slippery slope to federalism. Now that we have the Nice treaty, I think that I can reasonably say that the predictions made in those days of rebellion by me and my hon Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and for Ruislip-Northwood about what would happen after Maastricht demonstrate that we are now in the business of having a European defence capacity.
We could call it by one of thousands of acronyms—ESDI, CFSP, or whatever. However, the question is: what is the function of that body? What is it intended to do and what does it actually do? Does it have the properties and the resources to enable whatever has been created to perform effectively in the interests of whatever defence capacity is being provided?
9.45 pm
I hold a simple view. I believe in alliances and in co-operation, but in no circumstances will I subscribe to those points of the compass that take us into the single, autonomous capacity described in various statements such as the one made at Feira, which annoyed the Turks

887
beyond endurance. I attended a meeting held under the auspices of the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office at the Institute for Strategic Studies with a Turkish general, the ambassador and others. There was a heated exchange of views. I was very much on the side of the Turks, because—bluntly—they had been cheated. There is no time to go into every detail, but the bottom line is that the Turks felt cheated and they were extremely angry—with justification, in my judgment.
Subsequent meetings took place, including at Cologne, followed by the Nice arrangements. The important point is that under those arrangements, we are talking about a single autonomous structure, which dovetails with the single structure prescribed by the treaties and from which there is no escape. I look at the Minister for Europe with great interest and concern at this point because there is no way in which he can escape the unequivocal wording of the treaties. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was able to visit the Pentagon before the Secretary of State for Defence did so. That is why he was able to see Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney before the Foreign Secretary. I am open to correction if I am wrong, but that is my understanding.
The bottom line is that hosts of indicators have been given by the most distinguished US generals, advisers and senior members of the Administration. My hon. Friend had opportunities to give evidence to the Senate and to Congress on these questions. There were some attempts to retrieve the situation, prompted understandably but regrettably by the Labour Government. However, if one weighs up all the comments that have been made, one realises that my hon. Friend established an international reputation in this field, and that was recognised by the United States Administration.
Dr. Palmer: Is the hon. Gentleman absolutely sure that leading US military figures will welcome his attempt to involve them in the Conservative leadership campaign?
Mr. Cash: I have no idea. The matter is one of historical record. Indeed it is already on the record, so I am saying nothing that has not been said already.
The significance of all this is very simple: through Feira, St. Malo and Cologne we are moving towards not merely a rapid reaction force or enhanced Petersberg tasks, but a European army I believe that it was Romano Prodi who said—I am paraphrasing—"You can call it Mary or Marianne or whatever you like", but his emphasis was that it would be a European army. That is why he is asking for all those billions of pounds from the European Union, to fill the gap in order to fulfil the functions that will be provided.
There are honest Members of Parliament on the Labour Benches, and they know the truth. Some of them are prepared to say that there should be a European army because they genuinely believe that. I wait with interest, as the debate proceeds, to hear what they have to say. However, it is impossible to provide the defence or military capacity that is needed without providing the money to go with it. As I pointed out in an intervention, it is rubbish to say that the Americans are at fault, when the bottom line is that it was the Americans who provided the mechanics, operational lift and the capacity to bring
888
to an end the tragic warfare that ensued for a range of reasons that we do not have the time nor the opportunity to go into tonight—
Mr. Hendrick indicated dissent.
Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I wish that I could remember the name of his constituency.
Mr. Hendrick: Preston.
Mr. Cash: I was brought up at school only 15 miles from Preston, so perhaps I should remember that from now on. [Interruption.] Well, the school produced seven VCs, so we did not do too badly. The hon. Gentleman attacked the United States. He mentioned intransigence, and he was extremely critical of the US. He referred in derogatory terms to its concern about body bags.
Mr. Hendrick: I will not be as aggressive in my response to the hon. Gentleman's speech as he was to mine, but although the Americans did eventually broker an agreement at Dayton, they did so only after very many months of violence, attacks on civilians and massacres throughout Bosnia, and with hundreds of thousands of people dead from ethnic cleansing. I would have liked to see the Europeans broker a deal in Europe, but the common foreign and security policy had only just been drafted and the means and capability did not exist. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should have those means and capability, because that is what Nice is all about?
Mr. Cash: No, I am afraid that I really do not, because the problems of the Balkans have an immensely long history and will not be resolved by trying to stitch up arrangements for the sake of what has been described as a moment of glory. I believe that it was Mr. Poos who, during the Bosnian or Kosovo crisis, said, "This will be the moment of glory for the European Union", or words to that effect. It was a moment of disaster, because the EU does not have the capacity to deal with such a crisis. There are too many national interests at work to be able to create the necessary so-called identity or co-ordination. The hon. Gentleman, in his ideological mind, does not seem to understand that. It is not a workable proposition.
If I may, I shall glance at Edward Gibbon for a moment. In 1787, in "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", he wrote about the Balkans in the fourth century AD in a manner that was no different from the commentaries that we would see today. It is a very difficult problem, and it will not be resolved on the back of ideological or wishful thinking. It is a practical problem, which even at this stage has not been resolved properly, and may yet not be resolved. Therefore, I am afraid that I really cannot give any credibility to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Roger Casale: The hon. Gentleman and I served together on the European Scrutiny Committee and, with the greatest respect to him, surely what is rubbish is scuppering the opportunity to strengthen European defence co-operation, thereby compromising this country's national defence interests on the specious argument that, by strengthening European defence co-operation, we are

889
building some kind of European army. All we are doing is trying to get other European nations to contribute more to actions that are in our national defence interests.
Mr. Cash: First, those contributions are not forthcoming on the scale required and, secondly, those nations simply cannot catch up with the technology, the rocketry, the capacity for heavy-lift aircraft or any of the fundamentals required in modern warfare. Furthermore, they will not catch up for perhaps 15 or 20 years, or more.
Surveillance is also important. Again, I raised that issue with the Prime Minister and the then Foreign Secretary. I asked them about the exchange of confidential defence information between the United States and the United Kingdom. Let us remember that during our involvement in the early part of the Balkan crisis, it was clearly understood that the French had disclosed secrets. The United States is simply not prepared to provide information to the EU that will then be leaked. That is incredibly important—it is not just a semantic argument; it is about the reality of warfare. We cannot have the sort of defence system that is being devised when any of the parties is liable to divulge information, as that completely undermines the trust and confidence of the main ally, which provides all the operational equipment, personnel and the surveillance system itself.
Peter Hain: If there is a crisis in the Balkans, for example, and the US is not willing to provide assistance and NATO is not willing to intervene, do we just turn our backs? Is there not a role for a European capability? Is it not the case that a European security and defence policy provides exactly that capability? What would the hon. Gentleman do?
Mr. Cash: I have raised that very point with the Prime Minister, and the words "where NATO as a whole is not engaged" are the very ones that I used. The Minister will recognise those words, but their use presupposes the involvement of the United States in the reference to NATO, so it is not a credible policy to turn that on its back by asking what we shall do in the EU. The bottom line is that without the involvement of either the US per se—or through article 5, the US and NATO—the EU is capable of producing no such defence capacity. By the way, it is also well understood that, time and again, the British forces are regarded as the linchpin to enable the delivery of a European capacity. So we are in deep territory.
I know that the Minister is extremely intelligent and well versed in such matters—at least, he soon will be. [Laughter.] Therefore, I have great confidence that he will extend his capacity, as Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to a real understanding of the role that he must adopt in relation to the treaty and the defence capacity. We need to get the balance right. The truth is that, under the treaty and under the representative role of the new Secretary-General, Javier Solana, who—I say this with respect, although I wrote an extremely tough article about him in The Times when he was appointed because it struck me as a little odd that the Secretary-General of NATO had campaigned against NATO—
It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, resumed the Chair.
890
To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Caplin.]
Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2001–02
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55(1) and (4) (Questions on voting of estimates, etc.)
Resolved,
That, further resources not exceeding £1,250,531,000 be authorised for use for civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2002, and that a further sum, not exceeding £2,853,190,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the cost of civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2002, as set out in HC 46.
Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolution: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Andrew Smith, Dawn Primarolo, Ruth Kelly and Mr. Paul Boateng do prepare and bring it in.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2001–02
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Mr. Paul Boateng accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources and the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund for the service of the year ending on 31st March 2002 and to appropriate the supply authorised in this Session of Parliament: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 7].
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  SPORTS GROUND AND SPORTING EVENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft Football (Disorder) (Duration of Powers) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 20th June, 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, 2Ist June and 19th July 2002.—[Mr. Caplin.]
Hon. Members: Object.

DEREGULATION AND REGULATORY REFORM CTTEE
Motion made,
That Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. David Chaytor, Brian Cotter, John Cryer, Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson, Mr. Paul Goodman, Andy King,

891
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.

PETITION

  Sentencing
  10.2 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: In my capacity as national patron of the charity RoadPeace, which looks after the families of the victims who die on our roads, it is an honour to present this petition.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons.
  The Petition of supporters of RoadPeace,
  Declares that court sentences for offences which result in road death and injury do not take into account the fact that such offences involve the killing or hurting of fellow human beings.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to bring forward legislative proposals which will ensure that road deaths caused through negligence or law breaking are prosecuted as homicides; that serious injuries so caused are prosecuted with appropriate severity; that all such offences should be prosecuted before a judge and jury; and that sentences for such offences should properly reflect the level of culpability involved.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  White Waltham Airfield
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]
  10.4 pm
  Mrs. Theresa May: I am grateful for the opportunity not only to complete the trilogy of Berkshire MPs who have spoken in Adjournment debates this week but to bring to the attention of the House a matter that is of considerable concern to my local residents. I believe that it is also of concern to residents in other parts of the country. The issue in question is the need to control noise from light aircraft.
  White Waltham airfield in my constituency is one of the oldest and best-known airfields in the country. It is one of the few remaining grass airfields and is reputed to be the largest such airfield in Europe. It started in 1928 when the de Havilland family bought the land and set up the de Havilland flying school. In 1939 the airfield was taken over by the Ministry of Defence and became the headquarters of the Air Transport Auxiliary—the renowned ATA.
  I am proud to count among my constituents several former members of the ATA—redoubtable ladies whose expertise and courage in transporting aircraft across the country during the war deserves our recognition. To digress slightly, among their number is one lady who went on to learn to fly a helicopter when she was in her seventies. The maidens of Maidenhead are indeed a force to be reckoned with.
  The airfield was retained under Royal Air Force control until 1982. It is now controlled and operated by West London Aero Club and up to 150 aircraft of different types are based there, including Tiger Moths and other pre-war aircraft. It operates as a traditional flying club, but anyone who lives near such an airfield will know that, pleasant though the open space is, such airfields bring problems for local residents—notably, noise.
  Noise from White Waltham airfield has been a recurring theme during my time as Member of Parliament for Maidenhead. Many residents knew about the problem, in that the airfield was operational and they were aware of the flying activity when they moved into the area. However, the problems become greater if noise levels increase.
  Let me quote some comments that I have been sent by local residents. Mr. and Mrs. Wilson of Lambourne drive, Cox Green, say:
  "we did enjoy seven years with almost no overflying from their planes, but since early last summer, we have had numerous planes flying over/adjacent to our bungalow daily. In fact, sometimes there is less than a minute between planes, and when we devoted one afternoon to actually noting times, it was either one or two minutes between each plane for the greater part of that afternoon."
  Mr. Isherwood, also of Cox Green, says:
  "The noise from light aircraft circling overhead from White Waltham Airfield at weekends is intolerable. They have little or no engine silencing and apparently there is no legislation requiring it. If my car was that noisy I would quite rightly be pulled over by the police in minutes."
  Mr. and Mrs. Brown, also of Lambourne drive, Cox Green, write:
  "to be honest, unless Central Government introduce legislation to control this problem, or give councils the authority, nothing is going to happen. We cannot understand in this modern world, that no one is controlling local airfields in terms of noise, air pollution and circuit flying."

  893
  It is the issue raised by Mr. and Mrs. Brown that I want to draw to the House's attention.
  Residents are frustrated: not only do they suffer the problem of noise, but when they appeal to authorities to do something it appears that nothing can be done because nobody has the power to enforce any controls over the nuisance from which they suffer. Residents expect their local council to be able to do something, but find that it is powerless to do anything.
  I should say at this point that, although residents are worried about the noise, they want the airfield to stay. Having such a wonderful open space on the outskirts of Maidenhead is welcome and, as I said, many of them moved into the area knowing that the airfield was there. Residents need a balance to be struck between their needs and the needs of the airfield and its users.
  West London Aero Club has taken some steps itself. It has circuits for flying, details of which are posted to its pilots and made known to visiting pilots. The club offers a free instructor to work with pilots who are unsure of the procedures operated by the club. Other measures include a voluntary decision not to engage in night flights or helicopter pilot training, both of which previously caused my constituents concern in terms of noise nuisance. The club has also been active on the issue of silencers. As I understand it, a silencer cannot be fitted to an aircraft in the United Kingdom unless it is approved by the Civil Aviation Authority, even if it is approved by the relevant authorities in the country of origin. Over the years, that has been used by many fliers as a smokescreen for not doing something about the problem. This year, however, West London Aero Club paid the CAA to approve silencers for its training aircraft, and has now fitted them to those in use at White Waltham. Silencers could be fitted to similar training aircraft elsewhere; the club is now considering using them for multi-bladed propellers.
  The club has taken action, but problems still remain for local residents. There have been agreements in the past; when I first took my seat, a voluntary flying agreement between the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and West London Aero Club covered night flights and matters such as the use of helicopters. That agreement was reached following the council's decision to withdraw two enforcement orders that had been imposed in 1996, and it ran until November 2000. It then lapsed and has not been renewed. It was voluntary and it is for West London Aero Club to negotiate a further agreement. However, such an agreement has no statutory enforcement beyond the council going to court for an injunction. As that is at the court's discretion, there is no guarantee that enforcement action can be taken if the controls in the voluntary agreement have not been met by people using the club.
  At White Waltham, the issue of noise control has often been taken alongside planning matters and applications. Following the withdrawal of the voluntary agreement, which, as I said, lapsed last November, the council received a planning application for development on part of the site that also included a proposal for a further voluntary flying control agreement. The council's legal advice was that, as the proposed agreement was part of the planning application, it was not suitable for inclusion in the planning decision. The application for development has now been refused, which perhaps has affected the opportunities for voluntary agreement.
  894
  The council is right in its fundamental point that it should be possible to separate the control of noise and flying at such an airfield from planning decisions. When planning applications are made, councils should not have to rely on planning conditions as a means of offering control on flying to local residents; it should be possible to have powers to offer that control separately.
  There is one further point about whether there should be statutory or voluntary control at White Waltham. As the Minister will be aware, there are statutory consultative arrangements for designated airfields under section 5 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. However, White Waltham is not a designated airfield, so it is not possible to have a statutory consultative procedure, even though the council established a voluntary consultative committee. Questions about the chairmanship of the committee and whether certain local councillors took residents' views into consideration properly were recently followed by discussions about the constitution of the committee and the fact that it is only voluntary; again, it has no statutory power.
  There is no statutory power, either for consultative arrangements or for noise and flying controls, except that on which the council relied in its previous agreement—section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
  The issue that I wish to raise with the Minister is whether the Government intend to follow their proposal last year to introduce legislation to allow local councils to control flights of light aircraft at such airfields. As the Minister might imagine, I have been in correspondence about the issue with a number of Ministers over the years, and depending on what he says tonight I dare say that I will be in correspondence with him in future.
  I refer to a letter that I received on 18 January this year from the then Under-Secretary of State at the then Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who has returned to a more traditional and recognisable role for him and freedom on the Government Back Benches. He referred to the consultation paper that the Government issued last July, following their White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport". He wrote:
  "We are proposing to provide aerodromes with clearer powers to regulate flying behaviour. The preference will still be for local solutions and, where existing arrangements are working satisfactorily, the expectation will be that such arrangements will carry on much as before. However, where the Secretary of State believes that these have been ineffective, he would, under our proposals, be given a new power to designate an aerodrome requiring it to agree a noise amelioration scheme with an appropriate local authority. That authority would then have powers of enforcement. Independent arbitration is proposed as one way of resolving any disputes that may arise."
  That intention to legislate was more recently reiterated by the Government when the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead asked the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when legislation might be introduced. The reply stated that there had been almost 600 responses to the consultation paper on control of noise from civil aircraft:
  "These reflected a wide range of views from a broad cross-section of interested groups, organisations and individual respondents. They are currently being carefully considered. Our intention is to announce our conclusions and bring legislation forward in due course."

  895
  The reply continued:
  "I cannot give a timescale when a legislative slot will be found… However, I can assure you that the Government's commitment to introduce legislation remains."
  It is on that issue that I press the Minister tonight. My constituents feel strongly that powers should be available to enforce controls on noise from light aircraft using airfields such as White Waltham. As I said, no one intends to stop activity from White Waltham or to stop the airfield existing. It has a long and proud history, and we wish White Waltham airfield to stay and to provide opportunities for flying for those who enjoy that leisure activity or who use it for business purposes, as do some who use the club.
  However, residents want the comfort of knowing that when the nuisance becomes too great, someone can take action. At present, that does not seem possible. Residents expect their local council to be able to take such action. The royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead wants to be able to take action, but it cannot do so on its own. The matter is in the hands of the Government. They have promised legislation. They say that they recognise the problem and that they will act to resolve it.
  I hope that when the Minister responds he will be able to give comfort to my constituents and let them know that they can enjoy the benefit of the open space, but that the noise nuisance can be controlled so that they do not constantly have to suffer from a nuisance that they believe their local council should be able to control.
  10.18 pm
  The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate, and on the fluent and comprehensive way in which she presented her case, largely without notes, which is unusual in late-night Adjournment debates. She is probably fleeing from the attentions of the canvassers for the various candidates, and the Chamber may be one of the few safe places in the Palace of Westminster.
  Aircraft noise is, as the hon. Lady rightly said, a subject of great concern to airport neighbours. The Government take aviation noise seriously and support measures to limit its disturbance of communities around aerodromes. Although I shall respond as far as I properly can to the points made about White Waltham specifically, much of what I say will be equally applicable to many licensed and unlicensed aerodromes around the country.
  Let me make clear the role of my Department in respect of aircraft noise policy at aerodromes. Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports are designated under section 80 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 for the purposes of section 78 of that Act, for noise regulation. Elsewhere, circumstances vary greatly between larger airports and the many small local airfields. The policy of successive Governments has been that aircraft noise is a local issue that is best resolved locally. We recognise the legitimate right of general aviation pilots to fly, but as the hon. Lady said, that right should always be balanced with the interests of the communities that are disturbed by aerodrome activities.
  General aviation is an activity that is not only legitimate, but important. It would be wrong to conceive of it as a matter purely of weekend leisure flying, although that has its place. The Government are also mindful of the contribution of general aviation to the training of pilots,
  896
  many of whom move on to commercial airline service, and to emergency operations, business and local economies.
  Aerodrome and aircraft operators are expected to achieve as far as practically possible the minimum disturbance to the community. Often, with a measure of good will on both sides, matters can be improved by discussion between the aerodrome management and local interests. For example, such improvements could be made by designing circuit patterns with noise avoidance features when it is safe to do so and when that will not produce worse nuisance elsewhere. Improvements could also be achieved by controlling and notifying the times of relatively noisy operations.
  As the hon. Lady said, White Waltham is a long-established airfield with a venerable history. From the early days of the de Havilland flying school in the 1930s, through its wartime and subsequent years as the headquarters of the Air Transport Auxiliary, and afterwards as a base for Fairey Aviation and the West London Aero Club among others, it is certainly well rooted in the community.
  The aerodrome's proximity to Heathrow and its location below the congested airspace of the south-east mean that there must be rather tight constraints on its scope for modifying its procedures. However, it clearly indicates noise avoidance areas in its posted circuit procedures and pilots should be well aware of the need for considerate flying that avoids, for example, the residential areas of south-west Maidenhead, Knowl Hill, White Waltham village and other locations.
  I understand that the airfield management has recently had silencers approved by the Civil Aviation Authority, whose involvement the hon. Lady mentioned, for the aerodrome's fleet of training aircraft, and that they have now been fitted. The possibility of fitting quieter four-bladed, rather than two-bladed, propellers is also being investigated with the CAA. I am told that the aerodrome has voluntarily restricted helicopter training activity, as the hon. Lady pointed out.
  I want to say a little about international regulation of noise at source. Each light aircraft type coming newly into service must be certificated to show compliance with noise limitation standards recommended and published by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The effectiveness of the standards is kept under review and they are updated as much as is technically feasible and economically justifiable. The Government's policy is to regulate to put those recommendations into practice. That policy recognises that manufacturing and operating aircraft is nowadays a global business that needs global solutions wherever practicable.
  The noise problems presented by light aircraft are rather different in character from those produced by large commercial aircraft. Often it is repetitive activities such as circuit flying or compass testing that cause the greatest annoyance. It is important that aerodromes should try to ensure that their circuits and procedures are designed—this must happen within the constraints of safety, of course—to minimise inconvenience to people on the ground. They should specify noise avoidance areas where appropriate and ensure that pilots respect the rules.
  Following a UK initiative, the ICAO published guidance for pilots and aerodrome operators on "Considerate Flying", which contained training and

  897
  operating measures to minimise noise nuisance for local residents. The CAA has disseminated that guidance to aerodromes here and the British Helicopter Advisory Board has issued guidance on the subject to helicopter pilots.
  As the hon. Lady said, it is important that aerodromes consult local amenity groups, local authorities and others about decisions that are likely to affect the noise climate. They should listen carefully to their views, and act on them whenever possible. The best forum for that is often a consultative committee. Sensitive and responsive handling of concerns is in everyone's interest, including that of the aerodromes. Many aerodrome managers already order such matters well, but there is sometimes room for improvement.
  Although noise control measures at White Waltham and other aerodromes are the responsibility of the aerodrome management, our policy is to encourage consultation as a means of reconciling local difficulties that arise from aerodrome operations.
  Approximately 50 aerodromes nationally have been designated under section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. That requires the aerodrome management to provide adequate facilities for consultation for specified categories of users, local authorities and local representative organisations on any matter concerning the management or administration of the aerodrome that affects their interests.
  White Waltham has not been designated under section 35. However, I understand that the management has voluntarily established a consultative committee, which is structured along similar lines to the committees at many section 35 aerodromes.
  All pilots have to comply with the Rules of the Air Regulations 1996, which relate to height limits for aircraft. They require that an aircraft must not fly within 500 ft of
  "any person, vessel, vehicle or structure",
  except when landing or taking off, nor below 1,500 ft over a congested area, unless written permission has been obtained from the CAA. They also prohibit aerobatics, which can be a source of significant annoyance, especially over highly populated areas.
  No legal action can be taken against pilots for noise disturbance, provided that they observe the rules of the air and fly in accordance with normal aviation practice. I stress that the regulations primarily cover safety, but the height restrictions give some collateral noise benefit.
  It is important to stress that the establishment and use of aerodromes are subject to normal planning controls. Many aerodromes, including White Waltham, predate current planning legislation. Even so, many have had to seek planning permission for subsequent expansions and alterations over the years. The planning authority may grant permission, subject to the relevant conditions, which might include noise-related requirements, that it considers appropriate. Conditions may, for instance, stipulate the number of flights permitted by day and limit the use of the site at night. The local planning authority has powers to take enforcement action if the terms of the planning permission are breached.
  If a local authority's purpose cannot be achieved through a planning condition, it may seek to enter into a planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and
  898
  Country Planning Act 1990 to restrict or regulate the development or use of the land. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) points out, that clause is well known to Members of Parliament.
  Local authorities can also require use of land to be discontinued by making a discontinuance order under section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Such an order would have to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, and may involve the local planning authority paying compensation for the loss of existing use rights.
  I understand that White Waltham sought planning permission for office and hangar developments, and in connection with the application proposed additional controls on flying activities. As the hon. Lady said, the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead recently refused planning consent. I am sure that she understands that it would not be appropriate for me to enter into a debate about the details of the case. I am outlining the objective circumstances that relate to it.
  The hon. Lady also mentioned the use of silencers on light aircraft. Certification is carried out independently of the aircraft manufacturer, either by the CAA or its designates. and it is agreed internationally. It deals with noise on flyover, sidelines, the take-off phase and final approach. Some countries, such as Germany, have adopted national noise standards for light aircraft that are more stringent in some respects than the ICAO recommendations. However, it is our policy to use ICAO standards, and to work through that body to achieve more stringent global noise standards. National variations merely undermine the benefits of global standards.
  Additionally, the safety regulation group of the CAA has concerns about safety when certain types of silencers are fitted to existing light aircraft. We would not want to take any risks on safety to achieve marginally lower noise levels. To comply with current requirements, some light aircraft may need to be modified by fitting silencers or mufflers. Such modifications require approval by the CAA to ensure that the modified aircraft continues to meet all the applicable safety requirements. The hon. Lady mentioned proposed new legislation in this regard.
  The long-standing policy of maintaining a balance between the rights of general aviation pilots to fly and the interests of the communities that are disturbed by aircraft noise has generally proved successful. Nevertheless, the Government accept that aircraft noise can be disturbing and that sometimes more should be done.
  Last autumn, we completed a public consultation entitled "The control of noise from civil aircraft". We think of some stunningly original titles. In this, we proposed providing aerodromes with clearer powers to regulate flying behaviour. The preference is still for local solutions and, where existing arrangements are working satisfactorily, the expectation will be that such arrangements will carry on much as before. However, if the Secretary of State believed that they had been ineffective, he would, under our proposals, be given a new power to require an aerodrome to agree a noise amelioration scheme with an appropriate local authority. That authority would then have powers of enforcement. Independent arbitration is proposed as one way of resolving any disputes that may arise. There were many detailed responses to the consultation, reflecting, as one would imagine, a broad range of views. They are being evaluated and considered, and our conclusions will be announced in due course.

  899
  The legislative proposals were intended not to supplant existing planning powers, but to strengthen the hand of aerodromes in controlling their existing operations, and to allow intervention when necessary if voluntary arrangements have failed. We would certainly not expect a local authority to regard itself, in anticipation of such legislation, as inhibited from exercising its current powers—for example, to pursue planning obligations or conditions in respect of noise either from, or affecting, new development.
  I hope that that has been helpful to the hon. Lady in the pursuit of her cause on behalf of her constituents. She suggested that she might wish to write to me on further points, and I await that with interest and anticipation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

  Deferred Divisions

    EDUCATION
    That the draft Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.
    The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 195.

    Division No. 18]

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelli)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Baird, Vera

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Barnes, Harry

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Battle, John

    Dismore, Andrew

    Beard, Nigel

    Dobbin, Jim

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Benn, Hilary

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Bennett, Andrew

    Doran, Frank

    Benton, Joe

    Dowd, Jim

    Berry, Roger

    Drew, David

    Best, Harold

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Betts, Clive

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Efford, Clive

    Borrow, David

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Wiithington)

    Ennis, Jeff

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Farrelly, Paul

    Brennan, Kevin

    Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Fisher, Mark

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Flint, Caroline

    Browne, Desmond

    Flynn, Paul

    Bryant, Chris

    Follett, Barbara

    Buck, MS Karen

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Burden, Richard

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Burgon, Colin

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Burnham, Andy

    Foulkes, George

    Cairns, David

    Galloway, George

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Gapes, Mike

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Caplin, Ivor

    Gilroy, Linda

    Casale, Roger

    Godsiff, Roger

    Caton, Martin

    Goggins, Paul

    Cawsey, Ian

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Challen, Colin

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Grogan, John

    Chaytor, David

    Hain, Peter

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hanson, David

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Clelland, David

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Clwyd, Ann

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Heppell, John

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hesford, Stephen

    Coleman, Iain

    Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

    Colman, Tony

    Heyes, David

    Connarty, Michael

    Hill, Keith

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Hoey, Kate

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Corston, Jean

    Hope, Phil

    Cousins, Jim

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Cranston, Ross

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Crausby, David

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Cruddas, Jon

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cummings, John

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    901

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Mudie, George

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Mullin, Chris

    Hurst, Alan

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Hutton, John

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Norris, Dan

    Jamieson, David

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jenkins, Brian

    O'Hara, Edward

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Olner, Bill

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Owen, Albert

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Perham, Linda

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Picking, Anne

    Joyce, Eric

    Pickthall, Colin

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Plaskitt, James

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Pond, Chris

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Pope, Greg

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Pound, Stephen

    Kelly, Ruth

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Price, Adam

    Kidney, David

    Primarolo, Dawn

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Purchase, Ken

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Purnell, James

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Laxton, Bob

    Rammell, Bill

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Leslie, Christopher

    Ross, Ernie

    Levitt, Tom

    Roy, Frank

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Linton, Martin

    Ryan, Joan

    Lloyd, Tony

    Salter, Martin

    Love, Andrew

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Lucas, Ian

    Sawford, Phil

    Luke, Iain

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Lyons, John

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    McCabe, Stephen

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    McCafferty, Chris

    Skinner, Dennis

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    MacDougall, John

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    McFall, John

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Soley, Clive

    McIsaac, Shona

    Southworth, Helen

    McKechin, Ann

    Squire, Rachel

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    McNamara, Kevin

    Steinberg, Gerry

    McNulty, Tony

    Stevenson, George

    MacShane, Denis

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    McWalter, Tony

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    McWilliam, John

    Stringer, Graham

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Tami, Mark

    Mallaber, Judy

    Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

    Mann, John

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Marris, Rob

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Timms, Stephen

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Touhig, Don

    Martlew, Eric

    Trickett, Jon

    Meale, Alan

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Merron, Gillian

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Twigg, Stephen Enfield

    Miliband, David

    Tynan, Bill

    Miller, Andrew

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Morgan, Julie

    Watson, Tom

    Mountford, Kali

    White, Brian

    902

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Wood, Mike

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Woolas, Phil

    Worthington, Tony

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Wills, Michael

    Wyatt, Derek

    Winnick, David

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Gibb, Nick

    Allan, Richard

    Gidley, Sandra

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Goodman, Paul

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Gray, James

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Grayling, Chris

    Bacon, Richard

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Baker, Norman

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Barker, Greg

    Grieve, Dominic

    Barrett, John

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Beggs, Roy

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Hammond, Philip

    Bellingham, Henry

    Hancock, Mike

    Bercow, John

    Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Harvey, Nick

    Boswell, Tim

    Hawkins, Nick

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Hayes, John

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Heald, Oliver

    Brady, Graham

    Heath, David

    Brake, Tom

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Brazier, Julian

    Hendry, Charles

    Brooke, Annette

    Hermon, Lady

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Holmes, Paul

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Horam, John

    Burnett, John

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Burns, Simon

    Hunter, Andrew

    Burnside, David

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Burt, Alistair

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Butterfill, John

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Calton, Patsy

    Keetch, Paul

    Cameron, David

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

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Key, Robert

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Chidgey, David

    Knight Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Clappison, James

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Lamb, Norman

    Collins, Tim

    Lansley, Andrew

    Conway, Derek

    Laws, David

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Leigh, Edward

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Letwin, Oliver

    Cran, James

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Loughton, Tim

    Dodds, Nigel

    Luff, Peter

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M

    McDonnell, John

    Doughty, Sue

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Duncan, Alan

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Duncan, Peter

    Malins, Humfrey

    Evans, Nigel

    Mates, Michael

    Fabricant, Michael

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Fallon, Michael

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Fight, Howard

    Mercer, Patrick

    Flook, Adrian

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Moore, Michael

    Fox, Dr Liarn

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    Francois, Mark

    Norman, Archie

    Gale, Roger

    Oaten, Mark

    Garnier, Edward

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Öpik, Lembit

    903

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Streeter, Gary

    Ottaway, Richard

    Stunell, Andrew

    Page, Richard

    Swayne, Desmond

    Paice, James

    Swire, Hugo

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Syms, Robert

    Paterson, Owen

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Pickles, Eric

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Thurso, John

    Rendel, David

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Robathan, Andrew

    Tredinnick, David

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Trend, Michael

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

    Tyler, Paul

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Walter, Robert

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Wareing, Robert N

    Ruffley, David

    Waterson, Nigel

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Watkinson, Angela

    Sanders, Adrian

    Webb, Steve

    Whittingdale, John

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Selous, Andrew

    Wiggin, Bill

    Simmonds, Mark

    Wilkinson, John

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Willetts, David

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

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

    Willis, Phil

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Wilshire, David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Yeo, Tim

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Spring, Richard

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
    The House divided: Ayes 482, Noes 10.

    Division No.19]

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Berry, Roger

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Best, Harold

    Alexander, Douglas

    Betts, Clive

    Allan, Richard

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Blizzard, Bob

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Borrow, David

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Boswell, Tim

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Bacon, Richard

    Brady, Graham

    Bailey, Adrian

    Brake, Tom

    Baird, Vera

    Brazier, Julian

    Baker, Norman

    Brennan, Kevin

    Barker, Greg

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Barnes, Harry

    Brooke, Annette

    Barrett, John

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Battle, John

    Beard, Nigel

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Browne, Desmond

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Bellingham, Henry

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Benn, Hilary

    Bryant, Chris

    Bennett, Andrew

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Benton, Joe

    Burden, Richard

    Bercow, John

    Burgon, Colin

    904

    Burnett, John

    Duncan, Peter

    Burnham, Andy

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Burns, Simon

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Burt, Alistair

    Efford, Clive

    Butterfill, John

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Ennis, Jeff

    Cairns, David

    Evans, Nigel

    Calton, Patsy

    Fabricant, Michael

    Cameron, David

    Fallon, Michael

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Farrelly, Paul

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Fisher, Mark

    Caplin, Ivor

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Casale, Roger

    Flight, Howard

    Caton, Martin

    Flint, Caroline

    Cawsey, Ian

    Flook, Adrian

    Challen, Colin

    Flynn, Paul

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Follett, Barbara

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Chaytor, David

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Chidgey, David

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Clappison, James

    Foulkes, George

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Francois, Mark

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Galloway, George

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Gapes, Mike

    Clelland, David

    Garnier, Edward

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Clwyd, Ann

    Gerrard, Neil

    Coaker, Vernon

    Gibb, Nick

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Coleman, Iain

    Gidley, Sandra

    Collins, Tim

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Colman, Tony

    Gilroy, Linda

    Connarty, Michael

    Godsiff, Roger

    Conway, Derek

    Goggins, Paul

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Goodman, Paul

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Gray, James

    Cooper, Yvette

    Grayling, Chris

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Corston, Jean

    Grieve, Dominic

    Cousins, Jim

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Cran, James

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Cranston, Ross

    Grogan, John

    Crausby, David

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Cruddas, Jon

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Hain, Peter

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Cummings, John

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Hammond, Philip

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Hancock, Mike

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Hanson, David

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Harvey, Nick

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Hayes, John

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Heald, Oliver

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Heath, David

    Dismore, Andrew

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Hendry, Charles

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Heppell, John

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Hermon, Lady

    Doran, Frank

    Hesford, Stephen

    Doughty, Sue

    Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

    Dowd, Jim

    Hill, Keith

    Drew, David

    Hinchliffe, David

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Hoey, Kate

    Duncan, Alan

    Holmes, Paul

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    905

    Hope, Phil

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    McDonnell, John

    Horam, John

    MacDougall, John

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    McFall, John

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Howells, Dr Kim

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    McKechin, Ann

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Hunter, Andrew

    McNamara, Kevin

    Hurst, Alan

    McNulty, Tony

    Hutton, John

    MacShane, Denis

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

    McWalter, Tony

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    McWilliam, John

    Jamieson, David

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Jenkins, Brian

    Malins, Humfrey

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Mann, John

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Marris, Rob

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Martlew, Eric

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Mates, Michael

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Joyce, Eric

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Meale, Alan

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Mercer, Patrick

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Merron, Gillian

    Keetch, Paul

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Kelly, Ruth

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Kemp, Fraser

    Miliband, David

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

    Miller, Andrew

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Key, Robert

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Khabra, Piara S

    Moore, Michael

    Kidney, David

    Morgan, Julie

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Mountford, Kali

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Mudie, George

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Mullin, Chris

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Norman, Archie

    Lamb, Norman

    Norris, Dan

    Lansley, Andrew

    Oaten, Mark

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Laws, David

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Laxton, Bob

    O'Hara, Edward

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Olner, Bill

    Leigh, Edward

    O'Neill, Martin

    Leslie, Christopher

    Öpik, Lembit

    Letwin, Oliver

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Levitt, Tom

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Owen, Albert

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Page, Richard

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Paice, James

    Linton, Martin

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Lloyd, Tony

    Paterson, Owen

    Loughton, Tim

    Perham, Linda

    Love, Andrew

    Picking, Anne

    Lucas, Ian

    Pickles, Eric

    Luff, Peter

    Pickthall, Colin

    Luke, Iain

    Plaskitt, James

    Lyons, John

    Pond, Chris

    McCabe, Stephen

    Pope, Greg

    McCafferty, Chris

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    906

    Pound, Stephen

    Tami, Mark

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

    Price, Adam

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Pugh, Dr John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Purchase, Ken

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Purnell, James

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Thurso, John

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Timms, Stephen

    Rammell, Bill

    Tipping, Paddy

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Touhig, Don

    Rendel, David

    Tredinnick, David

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Trend, Michael

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Trickett, Jon

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Truswell, Paul

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Ross, Ernie

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Roy, Frank

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Ruffley, David

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Tyler, Paul

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Tynan, Bill

    Ryan, Joan

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Salter, Martin

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Sanders, Adrian

    Walter, Robert

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Sawford, Phil

    Wareing, Robert N

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Waterson, Nigel

    Selous, Andrew

    Watkinson, Angela

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Watson, Tom

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Webb, Steve

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    White, Brian

    Simmonds, Mark

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Whittingdale, John

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Skinner, Dennis

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Wiggin, Bill

    Wilkinson, John

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Willetts, David

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

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

    Soames, Nicholas

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Soley, Clive

    Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

    Southworth, Helen

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Willis, Phil

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Wills, Michael

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Wilshire, David

    Spring, Richard

    Winnick, David

    Squire, Rachel

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Stevenson, George

    Wood, Mike

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Woolas, Phil

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Worthington, Tony

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Streeter, Gary

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Stringer, Graham

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Wyatt, Derek

    Stunell, Andrew

    Yeo, Tim

    Swayne, Desmond

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Swire, Hugo

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Syrns, Robert

    NOES

    Beggs, Roy

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Burnside, David

    Robathan, Andrew

    Dodds, Nigel

    Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Gale, Roger

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Life Sentences (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved
    The House divided: Ayes 483, Noes 10.

    Division No. 20]

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Allan, Richard

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Caplin, Ivor

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Casale, Roger

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Caton, Martin

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cawsey, Ian

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Challen, Colin

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Bacon, Richard

    Bailey, Adrian

    Chaytor, David

    Baird, Vera

    Chidgey, David

    Baker, Norman

    Clappison, James

    Barker, Greg

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Barnes, Harry

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Barrett, John

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Battle, John

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Beard, Nigel

    Clelland, David

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Clwyd, Ann

    Bellingham, Henry

    Coaker, Vernon

    Benn, Hilary

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Bennett, Andrew

    Coleman, Iain

    Benton, Joe

    Collins, Tim

    Bercow, John

    Colman, Tony

    Berry, Roger

    Connarty, Michael

    Best, Harold

    Conway, Derek

    Betts, Clive

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Cooper, Yvette

    Blunt, Crispin

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Borrow, David

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Boswell, Tim

    Corston, Jean

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Cousins, Jim

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Cran, James

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Cranston, Ross

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Crausby, David

    Brady, Graham

    Cruddas, Jon

    Brake, Tom

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Brazier, Julian

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Brennan, Kevin

    Cummings, John

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Brooke, Annette

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Browne, Desmond

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Bryant, Chris

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Burden, Richard

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Burgon, Colin

    Dismore, Andrew

    Burnett, John

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Burnham, Andy

    Dobbin, Jim

    Burns, Simon

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Burt, Alistair

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Butterfill, John

    Doran, Frank

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Doughty, Sue

    Cairns, David

    Dowd, Jim

    Calton, Patsy

    Drew, David

    Cameron, David

    Drown, Ms Julia

    908

    Duncan, Alan

    Holmes, Paul

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Duncan, Peter

    Hope, Phil

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Horam, John

    Efford, Clive

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Ennis, Jeff

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Evans, Nigel

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Fabricant, Michael

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Fallon, Michael

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Farrelly, Paul

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Fisher, Mark

    Hurst, Alan

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Hutton, John

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Flight, Howard

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Flint, Caroline

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

    Flook, Adrian

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Flynn, Paul

    Jamieson, David

    Follett, Barbara

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Jenkins, Brian

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Foulkes, George

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Francois, Mark

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Galloway, George

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Gapes, Mike

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Garnier, Edward

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Joyce, Eric

    Gibb, Nick

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Gidley, Sandra

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Keetch, Paul

    Godsiff, Roger

    Kelly, Ruth

    Goggins, Paul

    Kemp, Fraser

    Goodman, Paul

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

    Gray, James

    Grayling, Chris

    Key, Robert

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Kidney, David

    Grieve, Dominic

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Grogan, John

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Hain, Peter

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Hammond, Philip

    Lamb, Norman

    Hancock, Mike

    Lansley, Andrew

    Hanson, David

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Laws, David

    Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

    Laxton, Bob

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Harvey, Nick

    Leigh, Edward

    Hawkins, Nick

    Leslie, Christopher

    Hayes, John

    Letwin, Oliver

    Heald, Oliver

    Levitt, Tom

    Heath, David

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Hendry, Charles

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Heppell, John

    Linton, Martin

    Hermon, Lady

    Lloyd, Tony

    Hesford, Stephen

    Loughton, Tim

    Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

    Love, Andrew

    Hill, Keith

    Lucas, Ian

    Hinchliffe, David

    Luff, Peter

    Hoey, Kate

    Luke, Iain

    909

    Lyons, John

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    McCabe, Stephen

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    McCafferty, Chris

    O'Hara, Edward

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Olner, Bill

    McDonnell, John

    O'Neill, Martin

    MacDougall, John

    Öpik, Lembit

    McFall, John

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Ottaway, Richard

    McIsaac, Shona

    Owen, Albert

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Page, Richard

    McKechin, Ann

    Paice, James

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Paterson, Owen

    McNamara, Kevin

    Perham, Linda

    McNulty, Tony

    Picking, Anne

    MacShane, Denis

    Pickles, Eric

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Pickthall, Colin

    McWalter, Tony

    Plaskitt, James

    McWilliam, John

    Pond, Chris

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Pope, Greg

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Malins, Humfrey

    Pound, Stephen

    Mallaber, Judy

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Mann, John

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Marris, Rob

    Price, Adam

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Pugh, Dr John

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Purchase, Ken

    Martlew, Eric

    Purnell, James

    Mates, Michael

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Rammell, Bill

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Meale, Alan

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Mercer, Patrick

    Rendel, David

    Merron, Gillian

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Miliband, David

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Miller, Andrew

    Ross, Ernie

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Roy, Frank

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Ruddock, Joan

    Moore, Michael

    Ruffley, David

    Morgan, Julie

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Mountford, Kali

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Mudie, George

    Ryan, Joan

    Mullin, Chris

    Salter, Martin

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Sanders, Adrian

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Sawford, Phil

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Selous, Andrew

    Norman, Archie

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Norris, Dan

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Oaten, Mark

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    910

    Simmonds, Mark

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Turner, Dennis (Wdverh'ton SE)

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Tyler, Paul

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Tynan, Bill

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

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Soames, Nicholas

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Soley, Clive

    Walter, Robert

    Southworth, Helen

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Wareing, Robert N

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Waterson, Nigel

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Watkinson, Angela

    Spring, Richard

    Watson, Tom

    Squire, Rachel

    Webb, Steve

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    White, Brian

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Stevenson, George

    Whittingdale, John

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Wiggin, Bill

    Streeter, Gary

    Wilkinson, John

    Stringer, Graham

    Willetts, David

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Swayne, Desmond

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Swire, Hugo

    Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

    Syrns, Robert

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Tami, Mark

    Willis, Phil

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Wills, Michael

    Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

    Wilshire, David

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Winnick, David

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Wood, Mike

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Woolas, Phil

    Thurso, John

    Worthington, Tony

    Timms, Stephen

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Touhig, Don

    Wyatt, Derek

    Tredinnick, David

    Yeo, Tim

    Trend, Michael

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Trickett, Jon

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Truswell, Paul

    NOES

    Beggs, Roy

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Burnside, David

    Robathan, Andrew

    Dodds, Nigel

    Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Gale, Roger

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Asylum Seekers
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Pearson.]
9.30 am
Ann Clwyd: May I say how pleased I am to have this debate in the closing weeks before the summer recess? The topic is important, so it is right that we should air it again. I am also pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), is present. I am sure that she will bring the same sympathy, compassion and dedication to her new role that she brought to her previous one.
Over the years, I have visited many refugee camps and prisons across the world. However, until I visited Cardiff prison two weeks ago with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), I had visited only one prison in the United Kingdom, which was a women's prison in Bristol. There are 44 asylum seekers in Cardiff prison of 20 different nationalities, including people from Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Kosovo, Albania and Zimbabwe. They have all been refused asylum by an immigration officer at a port or at their point of entry, and they have been refused bail while their appeal is under way. They usually have legal representation, but solicitors sometimes send agents, who are often inexperienced, to deal with bail applications.
The situation in Cardiff prison hit the press when asylum seekers were taken in handcuffs to a local hospital. That shocked many people in Cardiff and elsewhere. When we visited the prison, the authorities told us that asylum seekers were treated the same as other prisoners because they were in a prison regime.
Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North nor I have any criticism of the staff at Cardiff prison. We found them sympathetic, and they were both concerned and resentful at being asked to perform a duty that they felt they should not have to perform. A constituent of mine, who is a prison officer there, told me, "I think it's absolutely disgraceful. These people should not be in prison." All the prison officials with whom we spoke echoed that view.
Most of the staff who deal with the asylum seekers receive some training. One group had visited Belmarsh prison. As far as we could ascertain, no extra resources are given to the prison authorities to educate asylum seekers. The asylum seekers are held in cells, in which they are usually locked up for 12 hours a day. We managed to talk to a few of them, but communication proved difficult because no interpreter was available. It was, therefore, a halting conversation. One asylum seeker had kitchen skills, but the others' skills were not known to the prison authorities, which concerns me.
248WH
The authorities know little about the asylum seekers' countries of origin. Although they provide special food and prayer facilities, they do not know the circumstances from which those people have fled.
The capacity of Cardiff prison is tight; there are about 640 inmates. At present, Welsh prisoners are sent to English prisons because there is not enough room for them in Cardiff prison. In one cell, we met a Pakistani—a very cultured man—who was a scholar, and the author of 37 books. He would have kept us there all morning if we could have spent that amount of time with him. He could not understand why he was being detained. We met a Tamil from Sri Lanka, who had left Sri Lanka because of the daily violence there. He had owned his own bakery. We met an Iranian who was a technician in an oil refinery. Due to language difficulties, it was not possible to find out why he had left his country.
One of the prison officers told us that the staff were concerned that the asylum seekers were mixing with other prisoners and were being introduced to drugs. In spite of the best efforts of the prison authorities, drugs are brought into prisons. It was also alleged that asylum seekers were being taught how to forge credit cards. Obviously, that skill may be useful to them in future, but they should not be learning it.
We met a man from Kosovo, whose father and brother had disappeared. He was frightened for his life so he decided to flee. Everyone understands why people fled Kosovo at the time that he did. He did not know the whereabouts of his father and brother; he believed that they were dead. The day before we arrived, he learned that his mother was in prison in Tirana, Albania. We asked whether he had managed to talk to anyone and he told us that access to the telephone was very limited—something that others have confirmed. There is one telephone per 50 of the prison population. Even when I visited refugee camps in Macedonia with the Select Committee on International Development, one of the points that we made to the authorities there, and to the Government when we returned, was that the first thing that people wanted to do when they fled their countries was to make contact with their family or friends. It is essential that they are able to do that. We managed to convince the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to arrange for mobile telephones to be brought into the refugee camps in Macedonia so that people could make those important telephone calls. The Kosovan man was ready to go back to Albania. He wanted to go to Tirana to see his mother. I hope that he will be able to do that soon.
The staff of Cardiff prison have been attacked in the press, and I repeat that those staff are doing the best that they can in the circumstances. I would not want anything that I say today to be considered as a criticism of their difficult work. If asylum seekers cannot speak English, it is important that interpreters are available. Similarly, if those seeking asylum want to learn English, those facilities should be available. That is a basic right.
This morning I received a letter that was handed to the Refugee Council on 2 May. It is from a Zimbabwean and others in Cardiff prison. There are a number of

249WH
signatures attached. Obviously, in the light of what we saw there and the conversations that we had, we cannot verify the claims that he makes, but it is right that I place it on record. He said:
"As asylum seekers in this prison, we strongly object the inhuman treatment we are subjected to. We feel that there is a need for audience with both immigration and human rights support services within the country as we suspect that there is a conspiracy against us…Most of the detainees have relatives in England (London) but immigration have chosen to detain them in"
a Welsh prison. He continues:
"This is meant to deter you from seeking assistance from well-wishers/relatives and in London, some had personal solicitors in London of which they lost contact with, due to tricky unwarranted movements. During this period immigration expects you to source additional evidence to support your claim in court yet they are hampering all your access to information and you call this justice…Here at Cardiff prison we are treated like animals as compared to criminal remand prisoners and those serving sentences. Some of us we have never been arrested before, and just found ourselves in a prison cell sharing facilities with convicts of different crimes people committing suicide and unwarranted bullying from prison officers. You try and seek explanation from the local immigration officer, why you are in prison, 'the answer lies with immigration in London' all he is instructed to help you go back to your country if you are fed up…Association is divided between criminal remand prisoners and immigration detainees but you find that preferential treatment is given to the former evidenced by the following. From Mon 19/03/01 to Mon 02/04/01 we only got 2 hrs free from every 48 hrs, locked in the cells. From Tues 03/04 to Friday 06.04 we were locked up for more than 78 hours…no shower and no explanation, but fellow prisoners were allowed out all the time. Again this is not surprising cause we are not British.
We don't know the difference between us and other asylum seekers as these are not subjected to the same conditions ie Campsfield Detention Centre (Oxford) people are free to receive calls and interaction throughout the day until late, but here we are only allowed £16 worth of phone cards each week equivalent to 15 mins talking time when calling a mobile. You are expected to discuss with solicitors relatives both locally and internationally using just this…We used to think that Britain was the Cradle of Justice, human rights and equality the world over hence this level of abuse only prompts one to conclude that this is an epicentre of racism it only confirms that MPs statement which states 'Asylum seekers are compared to rats in a bucket who create social tension'. This is what we are fleeing from and we wouldn't expect this level of torture from a developed country, more-so a signatory of the 1951 Human Rights UN convention."
As I said, I have no way of checking that out.
Iraq, Sri Lanka, the Republic of Yugoslavia, Iran, Somalia and Afghanistan accounted for about half of all UK asylum applications last year. Serious human rights abuses, including torture, occur in all those countries, as even the British tabloids cannot deny. As Europe tightens its immigration controls, it is now virtually impossible for someone fleeing persecution to reach safety in the UK legally. Those asylum seekers who have entered Britain illegally may have had no other option.
Britain has signed the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees, which gives anyone the legal right to claim asylum. Anyone who has claimed asylum has a legal right to remain in the UK until the claim has been assessed.
250WH
The truth is that we do not bear the greatest asylum strain—the world's poorest countries do. Most refugees have always gone to neighbouring countries and will probably always do so. I want to put the problem in context. Iran currently has something like 1.8 million refugees from Afghanistan. Pakistan has 1.2 million refugees. Britain had just 76,000 new arrivals last year. Some of us have visited refugee camps and have seen, for example, Kurdish refugees fleeing over the mountains to Iran or Turkey. In 1991, the Turkish border came down pretty fast; the Iranians kept their borders open for much longer. When we see the plight of those people, we realise that they leave their homes not because they want to, but because of persecution.
At the end of May, about 1,787 refugees were detained in British prisons. Some 396 were detained in an immigration detention centre, 247 at Oakington detention centre and 1,144 in prisons. During the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill, the Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Williams of Mostyn, told the other place that he accepted, on the Government's behalf, the principle that
"no detainee ought to be kept in the prison regime. That cannot be brought about overnight, but we accepted the principle immediately…David Ramsbotham was absolutely right, and we said so at the time."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 July 1999; Vol. 604, c. 717.]
The Government's report "Fairer, Faster and Firmer" stated that we needed a statutory framework for detention centres. It proposed to seek the power to regulate the rights and responsibilities of detainees and detention centre managers. Those rules have been approved by Parliament, and reflect the fact that detention centres must account for the difference between asylum seekers and criminals. The Refugee Council believes that if the rules are to serve their purpose and protect detained asylum seekers, we should cease to use prisons for that group.
Amnesty International's 2001 report notes with concern that, at any given time, there are about 1,000 asylum seekers in detention. The British Medical Association's new handbook for doctors on human rights says that the routine use of prison detention is an abuse of asylum seekers' human rights. The UNHCR's detention guideline 10, "Conditions of Detention", says that asylum seekers should not be detained in prisons. The "Sanctuary in a Cell" report on the detention of asylum seekers in Northern Ireland has found that
"the moral and legal obligation to grant sanctuary to those fleeing persecution is being systematically undermined by the criminalisation of asylum seekers in Northern Ireland."
The chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, has on several occasions stated that he does not consider the detention of asylum seekers to be a fit and proper role for the Prison Service. In January he said:
"I don't think it's right to hold people who have not been accused of or committed a crime, in prison conditions…prison rules do not apply to those who are wholly innocent of any offence".
The chief executive of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders said that prisons
"are wholly inappropriate for people in a distressed and vulnerable state."

251WH
The UNHCR's United Kingdom representative, Hope Hanlan, has also attacked using prisons in such a way. She says:
"There is nothing to justify putting people in prison. Once you do that you raise all sorts of humanitarian issues."
She added that no other country in Europe did that. The Asylum Rights Campaign has produced a summary of its concerns about how asylum seekers are detained, particularly in prison. It makes the point that prisons are understaffed and overcrowded and that there are excessive lock-up times, sometimes between 16 and 18 hours a day.
On the possibility of applying detention centre rules in prison, governors said that it would be impossible to run separate regimes for convicted remand and immigration detainees in a single establishment. An old Victorian prison such as Cardiff is in much need of refurbishment. The conditions are pretty bad for people who are meant to be in prison. When we visited that prison on a very warm day, we found the conditions to be particularly oppressive.
At the end of last year, the Government announced that a further 500 places for asylum seekers had been secured from the Prison Service. Ministers in the previous Government claimed that that was a temporary measure. The previous Minister said that prison places would be used as an interim, short-term measure. In 1999, Sir David Ramsbotham said of Rochester prison:
"Most of all I must express my concern at the poor treatment and conditions of the numbers of asylum seekers, immigration detainees and other foreign nationals who form almost half the prison population.
Detainees were treated as if they were unconvicted prisoners. This approach seemed to be based on guidelines from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and was adopted by prison staff in their dealings with them."
The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture sent me this week a study of Pakistani torture survivors who come to the UK that makes particularly disturbing reading. It has recorded 11 cases in which torture victims were detained in mainstream prisons instead of receiving temporary admission. I urge people to read the study. It states:
"Holding asylum seekers in prison, where they are forced to mix with people accused of serious criminal offences, conflicts with the Government's own policy as stated in the same White Paper. …
In each of the eleven cases, the asylum seekers were imprisoned—on average for just over 9 months, but in one case for more than 20 months—despite giving evidence of torture during initial interviews with immigration officers about their reasons for fleeing into exile.
Medical examination by Foundation doctors found that each of those held had scars—some a dozen or more—and other marks on the body fully consistent with the account of torture. One man had 32 scars, although when he was screened on arrival in prison, the word 'Nil' was entered in the section headed 'Abnormalities, scars etc.'
In only one instance was an asylum seeker quickly freed after being examined by a Foundation doctor. The others remained in prison for months after a medical report from the Foundation had been prepared."
All the asylum seekers described in the study had endured various torture methods in Pakistan. I will not go through them, but one in five of the sample had suffered sexual torture, some of whom had been raped. In spite of all the evidence of torture in Pakistan that
252WH
human rights observers have provided, the Home Office made a formal legal declaration in 1996 that, in its view, there was generally no serious risk of persecution in Pakistan. Earlier this year, however, the Appeal Court confirmed the ruling that to characterise Pakistan in that way was unlawful and irrational.
The study concludes that the Home Office hardly ever makes a proper evaluation of the evidence of torture from the individual's testimony, or from what is known of torture in Pakistan and from medical evidence. The Medical Foundation also found the same deficiencies when the Home Office examined asylum applications made by its clients from Turkey, India and Sri Lanka. The foundation maintains that such deficiencies lead to a systematic failure by the UK to honour its international obligations to protect asylum seekers with a history of torture.
Over the past couple of days, Asylum Link Merseyside, which the Minister may know of, has faxed me a petition with 1,700 signatures. It is headed "Free asylum seekers held without trial in Walton prison". It is addressed to the Home Secretary.
"As our newly appointed Home Secretary we the undersigned urge you to use your office to release asylum seekers held unjustly in Walton (Liverpool) prison and other high security prisons. This situation is an outrage and cannot be justified and we ask for immediate action to release all asylum seekers so that they can be given access to decent conditions whilst awaiting a review of their claims for refugee status. We know you are an advocate for human rights and request you give this matter your urgent attention."
I have had a letter from the Immigration Advisory Service. It refers to the use of vouchers, which is, of course, a contentious issue. The IAS says:
"We take the view that the system is so flawed and now so expensive in comparison with giving benefits to asylum seekers while their cases are being considered that it should be scrapped. …the application of this system is causing widespread misery and has not had the intended effect of deterring asylum seekers from coming to the UK."
The Select Committee on International Development visited Montserrat in the early days of the volcano crisis and followed that up a year later with another visit. We discovered that the use of vouchers was one of the things that caused people on Montserrat the greatest concern. We managed to get the voucher system scrapped. If we can do that on Montserrat, we should also do so in the UK.
The Refugee Council has provided me with considerable briefing material, as have other organisations. It believes that asylum seekers should be detained only in exceptional circumstances and that they should not be detained in prison. It notes that something is seriously wrong if asylum seekers can be detained, sometimes in prisons, for long periods—sometimes approaching two years. The council calls for the Government to publish a regular breakdown by nationality, gender and so on of the number of asylum seekers detained under the Immigration Act 1988. I have tabled a question on that subject, which is awaiting a reply from the Minister. The council also believes that the bail provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 should be implemented as soon as possible.

253WH
The Prime Minister wrote in The Times in May:
"we must never cease to be a country offering refuge to the genuinely persecuted. Never forget, in all this fuss about the false cases, that there are still many people fleeing racial, religious or political persecution, who without our help would face death or destitution. We have a proud history of helping such people and many of them, their children and grandchildren are pillars of our society today."
So I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind the points that I have made.
I visited a camp that the British Government in Hong Kong ran for the Vietnamese boat people. Those people were caged, and held in appalling conditions. That was some years ago, and I remember coming back to the House and saying that that was no way for the Government to treat people who were fleeing their country, for whatever reason. The vast majority of people flee for perfectly legitimate reasons.
During our visit to Cardiff prison, my hon. Friend and I again saw asylum seekers who were caged. It is simply not good enough, in 2001, to treat people like that when they are fleeing persecution and have left their own countries and families. It is not easy to flee one's country—talk to refugees in any country in the world. Most of them do not want to do it, except with very good reason. I am sure that we all recognise that. We should all be deeply ashamed of the appalling things that have been said during the past few months about asylum seekers in this country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With the winding-up speeches due to start no later than 10.30 am, I appeal to those hon. Members who seek to catch my eye to bear it in mind that four more Members wish to contribute to the debate.
10 am
Mr. Mark Oaten: I shall be brief. I thank the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for raising this important issue, and particularly for focusing on the treatment of asylum seekers in our prisons. I shall speak briefly about the conditions for asylum seekers in Winchester prison in my constituency, and I shall focus on three matters—first, the pressure that holding asylum seekers puts on the Prison Service; secondly, the inappropriateness of holding asylum seekers in prison; thirdly, I shall ask the Minister to comment on some time scale questions about the use of prisons in general and particularly about Winchester prison.
First, I agree with the hon. Member for Cynon Valley about pressure in prisons. I have no criticism of the staff or the governor of Winchester prison. Publicly, they tell me that they can manage. However, some prison staff have told me privately that they find it extraordinarily difficult to do so, and that they feel extremely uncomfortable about it. They are not prepared to say that publicly, but I know that the prison authorities are worried that prison staff are finding it difficult to cope. Like many other prisons, Winchester is busy and it is under enormous pressure.
254WH
I do not make a direct connection between that pressure and the figure that I now cite; I raise the subject to point out the difficulties that the prison faces. During the past five years, Winchester prison has seen about five times more suicides than the average in prisons. Winchester clearly faces considerable difficulties and pressures and it can well manage without that additional burden. Will the Minister say what financial arrangements are made when prisons are used in that way? What sort of financial assessment is made of the difficulties that face prisons, and what additional financial resources do prisons have to help staff cope with the pressures involved?
The second issue is the appropriateness of holding asylum seekers in prison. When talking to folk in my constituency about that, I focus on the fact that putting such pressure on the Prison Service makes no sense. Asylum groups in Winchester have made public another important moral issue, which is that imprisonment is completely inhumane and inappropriate.
In informal conversation with those who have been held in prison and with those who have worked with them, I have heard concern expressed about asylum seekers' access to lawyers, and I have heard some pretty troubling stories about lawyers not being able to get through to them at the right time. It is worrying that many individuals who have been detained in prison are removed from prison late on a Friday evening, taken to centres near an airport on Saturday and have to leave the country on Sunday. As one of those trying to help, I have quite often found it difficult to challenge such decisions late on a Friday night or a Saturday. I know that lawyers can find it difficult to get into the prison on that final day in order to make what can often turn out to be a last-minute appeal. Access to lawyers for asylum seekers in prison troubles me greatly. I would appreciate it if the Minister were to give an absolute assurance that being held in prison was not a barrier to asylum seekers gaining access to the specific legal help that they need in such complex cases.
I am equally concerned about the language difficulties. Prison staff have pointed out the impracticability of moving asylum seekers around the prison from day to day because in some cases it is virtually impossible to communicate with them. Can the Minister say what kind of back-up and support there is for prisons in relation to language?
There are also simple things that would help. For example, can we do more to ensure that a range of newspapers is available? Such measures would make a great difference to the lives of individuals held at Winchester prison. Will the Minister talk about such pastoral issues, and what sort of financial support is available so that prisons can buy newspapers?
My final point is about time scale. When Winchester prison was being used towards the end of last year, I and others raised a number of issues with Ministers and with the prison. We were told that it was a short-term measure—a matter of five or six weeks—and that the individuals who were being kept at the prison had gone through every possible appeal process and were to be sent back to their countries. The position then changed. I received a ministerial response stating that it was the Government's intention that the use of remand accommodation at Winchester prison would cease by the end of October 2001. I probed again a couple of

255WH
weeks ago and received a slightly different ministerial response, implying that that October deadline would not be kept. I was told that
"even in the long term, for reasons of geography, security and control, there would continue to be a need to hold some detainees in prisons."—[Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 100W.]
This is of concern, in that the goalposts seem to have moved every time that I have asked about the time scale. I hope that the Minister can today give an absolute assurance, first that the commitment given to me in a ministerial response on 8 February that Winchester prison will not be used beyond 31 October remains and secondly, that the Government still intend that the use of prisons will end on the day when they open the detention centres, or at least within days of it. My worry is that prison use is now a long-term policy, that the detention centres will not meet the need and therefore, for reasons of geography and security, it will be necessary to continue to use prisons beyond 31 October. I shall be most grateful if the Minister will confirm that that is not accurate, and that the Government intend to end the use of prisons by 31 October.
10.7 am
Julie Morgan: There is much about the treatment of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom that causes concern—the voucher system, which is being reviewed, some aspects of the dispersal policy, which has started well in Cardiff, and the care and welfare of asylum-seeking children, which has been raised by Save the Children and other voluntary organisations.
However, I want to concentrate on the policy of holding asylum seekers in prison and I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on securing the debate. As she has said, one of the impetuses for it was our recent joint visit to Cardiff prison. The policy of holding asylum seekers in prison is inappropriate. I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and hope that she will be able to indicate when the policy will end.
During our visit to Cardiff prison we were told that the original intention had been that the asylum seekers would stay there until October, but that the prison staff had been told that they would be there until December. I hope that the Minister will cast some light on the policy and tell us when there is likely to be an end to holding asylum seekers in Cardiff prison. The policy has been strongly condemned in Wales. I have been inundated with representations from voluntary groups, the Refugee Council and the Churches. They all find it unimaginable that we are holding asylum seekers in Cardiff prison in the capital of Wales. The National Assembly for Wales, where all parties have condemned it, has come out against the policy and it is hard for people in Wales to understand that Welsh Members of Parliament have not been able to influence it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said, 44 asylum seekers were detained in Cardiff prison when we visited it. Since the policy started in February 2001, 78 detainees have been received at Cardiff prison, of which 27 have been bailed, seven deported and 44 held. As Cardiff solicitors have become more used to the circumstances, the number of cases in which bail has been granted has shot up, which shows that when asylum seekers have an opportunity to put their case they are granted bail.
256WH
Like my hon. Friend, I have no criticism of the prison staff. They were welcoming and open to us, allowing us to go anywhere and see anyone we wanted. They gave us a list of all 44 detainees, and we were able to pick whom we wanted to see. We saw people in cells, and went to the landing where the detainees stayed. It is not fair to make the prison staff responsible for looking after a group of people whom they were not employed to look after. They have not had training in such work and do not have background knowledge about the detainees' difficulties, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said.
The detainees have many needs that are different from those of the remand prisoners on whose wing they have been placed. Many of them have no or limited English. They have been transported from all parts of the United Kingdom and have no contacts in Cardiff at all. Many have families in other parts of the UK, and the fact that the detainees have been moved such a distance causes problems, as their original solicitors are based elsewhere in the country. They need access to telephones to find out information about their families and what is happening in their own countries, but their access is the same as that of the remand prisoners.
Above all, the detainees have not been charged with crimes. Most of them are awaiting appeal. They are not at the end of a long process, as I was given to understand when I was told that asylum seekers would be held in prison. They are not waiting to be deported. Since February, only seven have been deported and 27 have been bailed.
In Cardiff prison, the asylum seekers are on a separate landing on the remand wing, but they mix with the remand prisoners at association times. That has advantages and disadvantages. My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that prison is a learning ground for crime, as we all know, and that asylum seekers were being taught how to deal in drugs and forge credit cards, despite the efforts of the prison officers. However, one can understand why it is the policy that everyone on the same wing should mix at association times and not be kept apart.
The detainees are held under the same conditions as the remand prisoners, which means that they are handcuffed when they go out to have vaccinations, X-rays and other medical treatment. In the Welsh press, there has been outrage from all political parties in Wales about the fact that people not convicted of crime have been subject to that public humiliation. It has been hard for the Welsh public to understand why that happens. I do not criticise the prison staff, who are in an awkward situation. They have been told to treat asylum seekers as remand prisoners, so they use the same guidelines.
No additional money has been given to the prison to cope with the diverse demands of holding asylum seekers so it has not been possible, for example, for detainees to learn English as a second language, as asylum seekers in the community can at no charge. Only now has the Prison Service taken money out of its budget to ensure that asylum seekers in prison have that opportunity.
Now that local solicitors are geared up to what is happening, many more asylum seekers are granted bail. We ascertained reasons why the asylum seekers were in the prison, and some did not seem serious. One person

257WH
told us that under the dispersal scheme he had been sent to one address and then to another in a nearby block of flats. The letter asking him to report to the immigration authorities went to the first address, so he did not receive it and he was arrested and put in Cardiff jail. He was trying to contact a solicitor to establish what was happening. When he first went to Cardiff jail in February the service was not under pressure. Now, as we all know, the figures for people in prison have shot up. I was given anecdotal information yesterday by a Cardiff probation officer that all the Cardiff and valleys remand prisoners who would normally go to Cardiff jail are going to Park prison in Bridgend. There is not enough room in Cardiff prison, which already has a wing out of commission for refurbishment.
There is no logic, justice or point to the policy of keeping asylum seekers in prison. The practice of keeping them in Cardiff prison should stop for the sake of everyone involved—prison staff, remand prisoners who need local places and, above all, asylum seekers. The practice should stop throughout the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend has said, on 31 May, under the immigration powers. 1,144 persons were detained. That included 428 people in dedicated detention facilities. We are not talking about vast numbers of people. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should examine the policy seriously.
My visit to Cardiff prison had a profound effect on me, as I know that it did on my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley. Treating asylum seekers like criminals is bound to make the public believe that they are criminals. It is bound to exacerbate race relations problems and to make the dispersal system less likely to succeed. So far, that system has been going well in Cardiff.
As I stood on the third landing in a wing of that old Victorian prison, in hot sunshine, talking to people from all over the world who had come to this country seeking asylum, it seemed unimaginable that this was Britain in 2001, with its great human rights tradition. I hope that my hon. Friend will seriously reconsider the policy and reassure us about the time scale involved.
10.17 am
Mr. Neil Gerrard: While the debate has focused mainly on prisons so far, I want briefly to raise some other issues.
I recall debates on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It struck me then, and still does, that the fundamental problem with our treatment of asylum seekers is that the system established by that Act was designed to be punitive. It was quite deliberate. The Act was about deterring people from making applications. To that end, a tough regime was introduced, which applies equally to every asylum applicant, whether genuine or not. What is happening now with the voucher system and detentions is an inevitable consequence of the Act.
I am glad that the Home Office is bringing the applications backlog down at long last, and making progress, but I have never changed my view that if we are serious about dealing with asylum applications we need to make decisions efficiently and quickly, and
258WH
enforce them. I know that that means that some people must be removed. We must face that. However, it is far and away the best approach.
I would like to make some brief points on several separate issues. I apologise if I become a little disjointed, but there is not enough time to go into detail. First, I would like to deal with the operation of the National Asylum Support Service. I spent the best part of a day at NASS a few weeks ago and what struck me when I talked to people there and saw what they were doing was that there were a lot of people working hard to make an impossible system work. The voucher system has been reviewed, and I do not want to go into that this morning because I hope that when that review is published there will be some fundamental changes. However, there are still some problems that need to be tackled.
There are delays in processing applications at NASS. As a London Member of Parliament, I tend to see people who are not being dispersed but are applying for vouchers. I cannot understand why people who apply for vouchers only are waiting six, seven, eight, nine, or 10 weeks to get decisions on their applications. What on earth are they supposed to live on during that period? If they are applying for vouchers they are, by definition, claiming to be destitute and in most cases they genuinely are. The issue of how to deal more efficiently with applications for voucher support only must be tackled.
Then there is the question of who gets dispersed. There is an ongoing discussion about what happens to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children when they reach the age of 18. Before that age, they are in the care of local authorities, but when they turn 18 they become the responsibility of NASS. Just because they are asylum-seeking children does not mean that they are not covered by the provisions of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, which refers to the continued responsibility of the local authority. Arguments seem to be going on between the Department of Health and NASS about how those children should be treated. NASS, having originally drafted some guidance that said that 18-year-olds would be treated as exceptional cases, now says that it will "consider" treating such children as exceptional cases. That needs resolving.
Another dispersal-related issue is that of people with health problems. I have been contacted more than once by medics in London who deal with people with HIV. Such people are dispersed and then find that they do not receive treatment. That raises serious public health concerns.
Figures have been quoted about detention. The figure of 1,800 people detained is a snapshot. The last set of figures that I saw for a complete year showed that something like 15,000 people had been detained at some point during the year. In the past couple of years the Home Office has said that it is unable to answer parliamentary questions on the matter and does not have the figures for people detained whose cases have not been determined. When those figures were supplied, a year or two ago, such people were in the majority.
How many of those people who are detained are then given refugee status or exceptional leave to remain? Some of them certainly are, but I suspect that the Home Office does not know how many. Probably, if one examined the figures, one would find that the rate of acceptance of those detained was not very different from

259WH
the rate for people who were not. Detention generally has no rational basis and is often more connected with the nationality of the person than with anything else. The bail provisions of the 1999 Act have already been mentioned. It is important that they should come into force.
My final point is on decision making. Huge numbers of people are now being refused asylum on grounds of non-compliance. All that we are doing is shifting many of those cases into the appeals queue instead of having a proper first look at their case. We must give people longer to put the forms in—or, at the very least, ensure that the forms are translated into appropriate languages. There are notes to go with the forms, but they do not always get to people when they have to fill them in.
The issues that I have highlighted in regard to the way in which the system is working—in the context of my fundamental disagreement with it—need serious attention.
Jeremy Corbyn rose—
Mrs. Marion Roe (in the Chair): Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I inform hon. Members that the winding-up speeches begin at 10.30.
10.25 am
Jeremy Corbyn: Thank you, Mrs. Roe. I shall be brief. First, we owe a great debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for raising the matter today and for visiting Cardiff prison with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan). That has given us the opportunity to highlight the treatment of asylum seekers in this country. I recall parliamentary answers from five years ago that stated that 700 or 800 asylum seekers were held in custody in prisons, police stations or detention centres at any one time. My latest information is that that figure is now more than 1,700 and rising. Not one of those people has been charged with any crime, anywhere, or had the opportunity of appearing before a court. They are held solely under immigration law. That means that 1,700 people are being held without charge or trial. We should be ashamed of that figure.
Anyone who has visited people detained under immigration law in prisons, detention centres or police stations finds a sense of incomprehension on the part of those people. I visited Rochester prison and several other prisons and detention centres last year. People look at me with pleading eyes and ask, "Why am I in prison, when I thought I was fleeing the regime in Afghanistan?"—or Iraq, or wherever it happens to be. When we condemn inadequate judicial systems in other parts of the world, we should reflect on our own.
Quite rightly, our attention has been drawn to the conditions under which people are held. I do not blame prison staff. I had long discussions with prison staff in Rochester and other prisons. They deal with the cases as sympathetically and decently as they can. However, such conditions as shared association time for asylum seekers and people charged with serious criminal offences are a recipe for long-term disaster. Similarly, the police do not want to hold asylum seekers in police stations. The immigration service is so inefficient in
260WH
dealing with asylum cases that it often does not know exactly where asylum seekers are. Police officers have told me that they constantly phone the immigration service to say that they are not allowed to hold asylum seekers beyond a certain amount of time without putting themselves into an illegal situation; they ask the immigration service to come and do something about it. It is simply outrageous that we should detain asylum seekers in police stations. I hope that the Minister will address that in her reply.
Last year the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees criticised the British Government for their treatment of asylum seekers. We take pride in our ability to house asylum seekers and give people fleeing from fear of persecution some safety and security—yet the UNHCR has condemned our treatment of asylum seekers; we should think about that for a moment. Some of the rhetoric used in the election campaign by the Leader of the Opposition did much to stir up racism and, indeed, feeling against asylum seekers.
I ask the Minister for help on three issues. First, when does she expect the review on the voucher system to be completed? Many people feel that the voucher system is inadequate. It causes many asylum seekers who are not in custody to live in terrible poverty. It is also deeply disturbing and embarrassing for children whose parents receive the vouchers when their parents have no cash to pay for school trips and the small things that are so important in life and make a difference for children. Many teachers dip into their own pockets and handbags to help children out, because they cannot stand to see children living in such poverty.
My second point relates to housing, the dispersal policy and all the associated problems. Many private bed-and-breakfast landlords are ripping off the public with the amount that they charge for housing asylum seekers, often in disgraceful conditions, which leads to health problems. Constant changes of address mean that many asylum-seeking children drop out of the education system. They move from school to school so often that their parents cannot keep up and no schools are available for them.
Finally, I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to acknowledge, as I am sure that she will, that we understand the reasons why people seek political asylum—the horrors of the killings in Algeria, the civil war in Sri Lanka and all the problems with the Taliban in Afghanistan and so many other places around the world that we have a responsibility to consider in our foreign policy.
The previous Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), made noises about a new United Nations convention on refugees—that is, rewriting the 1951 Geneva convention. I become very nervous when I hear such remarks, as the 1951 convention is an important benchmark and the basis on which the world treats people who flee from oppression and violence for their own safety. If we rewrite it, put up borders around the wealthy countries and say, "It's nothing to do with us," we become part of the problem, not part of the solution.
10.31 am
Norman Baker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on an excellent speech and on having initiated today's debate.

261WH
I followed her when I made my maiden speech in 1997, and I came to the conclusion that perhaps I had been wrong and Parliament was full of people of integrity, compassion and dedication. I am not sure that that has always been borne out by events, but it has in her case. She always makes a useful contribution to debates in the House and has done so again today.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) referred to the 1951 UN convention relating to the status of refugees. It is worth reflecting, 50 years on—we celebrate that anniversary this year—on the reason for that convention. After the second world war, the international community was determined that people would never again be unable to escape persecution such as Europe had just witnessed. The 1951 convention is an expression of what is best in international politics, and we tamper with it at our peril. Unfortunately, some people want to slip back from those high ideals and adopt what some people—not me—might call a pragmatic approach. One hundred and thirty-nine countries signed the convention. It is an important international document.
I, too, deplore the fact that before the last election a minority of people, including politicians, tried to exploit the asylum situation for narrow political benefit. That is disgraceful. It is worth remembering that in this country the number of asylum seekers is a pale shadow of that in other countries. It is not even the problem in number terms, if people want to view the matter in those terms, that applies elsewhere. For example, in the last decade of the 20th century, 424,000 asylum seekers came to the United Kingdom. The figure for Germany is 1,765,260, so refugees do not even necessarily come here. The big problem that some people perceive is a shadow of that in other countries.
I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) that the legislation introduced a couple of years ago was an attempt to deter asylum seekers, which is bound to fail. Asylum seekers do not look at the legislation in this country and ask themselves whether they will get slightly more for a voucher and whether they will be satisfactorily housed. They come here to escape treatment such as torture that endangers their lives and genuinely threatens them. The countries from which the UK receives the most asylum seeker applications have appalling human rights records—Iraq, Sri Lanka, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia and the like. The idea that they can be deterred by something that the House does about the voucher system is ludicrous and inhumane. We should not go down that road, and I am sorry that we have.
The Government are almost embarrassed about allowing asylum seekers into this country. Their policy is seen as weak by a sector of the electorate; it can be attacked by the Conservative press and is considered to be a vote loser. There is an idea that appearing tough will protect the Government's standing with elements of the population. Asylum seekers should not be used as pawns in that game when the Government deal with the press.
262WH
It is virtually impossible for asylum seekers to enter the country legally, which is contrary to the 1951 UN convention. Will the Minister spell out how it is possible for an asylum seeker to enter the country legally? I do not think that it is possible.
If asylum seekers come here illegally and are stigmatised by that, they are faced with considerable difficulties. They are given 14 days—10 working days—to complete the necessary paperwork to satisfy requirements on arrival. They must complete a 19-page statement of evidence form in which they outline their asylum claim. They must secure a legal representative within that short time scale even if they are dispersed around the country. Failure to submit the form in time or to complete it in English will be given as a reason to reject the asylum claim on grounds of non-compliance. Last year, more than 26,000 asylum claims were rejected for that reason alone. No consideration was given to whether the claims were genuine, or the claimants had been subjected to torture or intimidation in their own countries. The claims were ruled out of order because the claimant had failed to meet a very short deadline. I suppose that that appears tough, but it is not a sane, mature or compassionate way to deal with asylum seekers.
The voucher system is appalling and degrading, and it is an insult to a civilised country that people are expected to live on 70 per cent. of income support. The Minister will know, from her previous incarnation, that income support is defined as the minimum that a person can live on, yet asylum seekers are expected to be able to live on less. I do not believe that they can. To add insult to injury, the voucher system prevents the supermarkets giving change. Even the supermarkets object to that. Those bastions of freedom and civil liberty—Sainsburys and other supermarkets—say that the asylum system does not work and that they object to making profit at the expense of asylum seekers. Good heavens, do we want lessons in morality from Sainsburys—although in this case it is saying the right thing? Why do the Government not listen to Sainsburys when they normally listen to it and to their big business friends? They should listen to Sainsburys and change their policy. It is insulting that asylum seekers get only 70 per cent. of income support and cannot get change from vouchers.
The hon. Members for Cynon Valley and for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) rightly referred to detention. My hon. Friend quoted the written answer that he received on 3 July from the Minister, which said:
"even in the long term, for reasons of geography, security and control, there will continue to be a need to hold some detainees in prisons."—[Official Report, 3 July 2001: Vol. 371. c. 100W.]
Why will there be a need to hold detainees in prison? There is no explanation for that. Is it beyond the wit of the Government to find an alternative solution that is humane and consistent with our requirements under the UN convention, or must people be in prison because someone at the Home Office says that that is more convenient?
I have two questions for the Government. On what date will the last asylum seeker be removed from prison and be dealt with humanely in this country, and when will the voucher system be abolished? I understand that the last Labour party conference—I was not there—said

263WH
that it did not want the system. We still have it, so when will the system disappear, or do the Government still think that it is appropriate?
There is also a wider question: will the Government stand up for the convention that they signed up to? Will they stop acting like a whisky priest, and start standing up for what I think that they believe in their heart? Will they stand up for what is right and moral, and stop kowtowing to the Tory press? In short, will they make their asylum policy more humane?
10.39 am
Mr. John Bercow: I congratulate all the hon. Members who have participated in the debate, and I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). She spoke movingly and passionately about the asylum seekers whom she had encountered, and about their appalling incarceration in Cardiff prison.
I want to make two initial points. First, the criticism of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) was exaggerated and unwarranted. However, every politician has a duty to avoid using language that inflames or exacerbates tensions. I also want to point out that, although asylum policy is an important national issue that should be debated, I did not refer to it in any of my election leaflets, because it is by no means the biggest issue—other subjects were of far more importance to my Buckingham constituents, and I chose to focus on them.
I believe that there is a consensus that it is wrong to incarcerate asylum seekers in prison; it is chronically inhumane, and it constitutes a flagrant abuse of the purpose of the institution of the prison. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) rightly pointed out that that consensus exists in the National Assembly for Wales.
I take as my starting point the statement that was made on 22 May 2001 in the National Assembly for Wales by the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities, Edwina Hart. On the strength of her discussions with the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche)—who was, at that time, the Minister with responsibility for immigration in the Home Office—she stated that it had been clarified that the policy of the Home Office was
"that only detainees who are at the end of their application for leave to remain should be detained at Cardiff prison."
She went on to say that she had been informed by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green that the
"period of detention should…be secure and for a short period".
However, I think that the Minister will acknowledge that, at present, those criteria are not always met.
Detainees have been taken for hospital treatment in handcuffs. We have been told that such incidents happen because prison staff have little or no discretion in implementing the Home Office guidance, and there is a consensus that prison staff are doing their best in difficult circumstances. The normal day for detainees on the remand wing includes only one hour of exercise, and two hours of association outside the cells, excluding meal breaks. Prison staff accept that it is not appropriate that detainees should spend 18 hours each day in their
264WH
cells. I agree with the solicitor who represents those asylum seekers that the key issue is not whether handcuffs should have been used but whether such people should be in prison at all. They should not.
There is, however, scope for legitimate disagreement between Members of Parliament about the question whether the applications of a substantial number of asylum seekers are not genuine. I shall word what I say very carefully, because there was a recurrent theme in the contributions of the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker), for Cynon Valley and for Islington, North that the great majority of asylum seekers are genuine. I presume that the implication of that contention is that those people should be entitled to stay in the country. I say to those hon. Members that there is a widely held view that, although substantial numbers of people are fleeing persecution and should, therefore, be granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain, substantial numbers of people have abused the system over a lengthy period. We must take account of, and reflect in our policy, that widespread perception, if we believe that it is true. I do believe that it is true, and the sincere contributions of those hon. Members who have spoken this morning have not dissuaded me from that belief.
We have a proud tradition of offering sanctuary to those fleeing persecution. I believe that it is incumbent on us to do so in a pluralist democracy and the faithful honouring of that tradition is a hallmark of a decent, civilised society. However, we know that the system is in crisis and there remains a massive backlog—applications in May were 290 up on April. We also know that the processing of applications is breathtakingly slow. In May, we discovered that the slow process of determination continued. In the first five months of 2001, there were 45,620 appeals, but only 19,030 went to the appeals authority to be heard.
We know—the Minister would be hard pressed to deny it—that the amnesty granted by the previous Labour Government assisted 21,000 people to remain in this country who had no justification to do so. An average time for decision making of 14 months is not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable that the Government were loth to implement the law against illegal working. They said that they would not do so, then did a U-turn and said that the extent of abuse was so considerable that they were obliged to reconsider their position. However, only eight prosecutions took place last year, and only one the year before. Serious problems exist. Notwithstanding the observations of hon. Members who spoke earlier, 78 per cent. of applicants are rejected for asylum or exceptional leave to remain.
I respect the sincerity of the hon. Member for Lewes, and it pains me to sidle up to the Government, but he is unjustified in suggesting that the Government are trying to curry favour with the Conservative press. That is an unworthy charge to level at them. We should work on the basis that all parties are pursuing policies and advocating measures that they believe are right, on principle and on grounds of pragmatism. For the hon. Gentleman to behave in that characteristically Liberal Democratic, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou fashion does not advance his cause.

265WH
I would like to say something about the dispersal policy, not least in the context of the Royal Institute for International Affairs report, which said this month that the policy is fuelling racial tension and that the "cluster areas" policy has not been implemented. It continues:
"In practice what has happened is that dispersal is very much determined by the availability of cheap accommodation…housing is contracted through private suppliers"—
a point made by the hon. Member for Islington, North—
"and this has led to many asylum seekers being sent to inappropriate accommodation in areas of high social tension without sufficient consultation with local authorities, and this has led to the sorts of problems we have been hearing about."
I regard that as disturbing. It is also disturbing to observe the verdict of the Asylum Education Legal Fund:
"People are just being shunted into places where there is no one qualified to help them."
We need to know how the Government intend to address those problems. With only 12 minutes of the debate left, I am happy to resume my seat and I await the Minister's response with eager anticipation, bated breath and beads of sweat on my brow.
10.48 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on securing this debate and on her long-standing and doughty interest in human rights, which she pursues with determination everywhere she goes.
Hon. Members and others have many worries about the treatment of asylum seekers and the use of detention, especially when it is in prison accommodation. I share those worries. It is important to remember that few asylum seekers are detained. The power to detain, which is exercised by immigration officers, is used only sparingly and for the shortest necessary period. To put it in perspective, at any one time, only 1.5 per cent. of those who are liable to detention are detained. That said, depriving anyone of liberty, even for a short period, is a serious step, not to be taken lightly. A balance must be struck between recognition of the seriousness of any deprivation of liberty and the fact that effective enforcement of immigration control requires some immigration offenders to be detained.
A legitimate issue raised in this morning's debate is where such people are to be detained, and what regime is in force there. The Government have made it clear—this remains our position—that there is a presumption in favour of temporary admission or release. Detention must be justified in the case of the individual concerned and is normally justified only in these limited circumstances: first, when there is a reasonable belief that an individual will fail to keep the terms of temporary admission or release; secondly, when there is
266WH
an initial need to clarify a person's identity as the basis of their claim to enter, or remain in, the UK, which applies because many people arrive with no papers or identification; and thirdly, when removal is imminent. In addition, a person whose asylum claim appears to be straightforward and can be decided quickly may be detained at Oakington reception centre.
As at 31 May, a total of 1,787 individuals were detained under Immigration Act 1988 powers. Of those, 1,237 were held in Prison Service establishments, including 428 in the dedicated immigration detention facilities at Haslar, Lindholme and Rochester. The figures do not distinguish between those who have applied for asylum and those who have not and many of them are clerically collected, which I am trying to do something about. However, it is likely that, on current trends, at least two thirds of those detained solely under Immigration Act powers have applied for asylum. No one is detained solely because they have applied for asylum. As I said, the overwhelming majority of those who apply for asylum in this country are not detained.
In addition to the three dedicated detention facilities, the Prison Service made available 500 places for immigration detainees in a small number of local prisons throughout the country: Cardiff, Elmley, Liverpool, Holme House, Winchester, Wandsworth and High Down. The total number of places available in those prisons is 445.
The regime in those local prisons is clearly very different from that which operates in the dedicated detention facilities. In my view, that is what we are talking about today. Immigration detainees in the prisons are held on unconvicted or remand wings and are kept separate from convicted prisoners as far as possible, although there is some unavoidable contact as my hon. Friends have mentioned. Many hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have commented that that is undesirable.
The use of local prison places began in November 2000 as a temporary measure to help make up the identified shortfall in immigration detention capacity while the immigration service detention estate is being expanded. It was designed to support our removals targets for those whose claims for asylum have failed. The places were offered by the Prison Service within what was, at that time, surplus remand accommodation in various parts of the country. Only men aged 21 or over can be allocated to them.
The Government are determined to pursue a strategy of detaining people in dedicated detention facilities and reducing reliance on Prison Service accommodation. We fully recognise that the use of dedicated detention facilities is preferable to prisons in the vast majority of cases. We shall be discussing the timing and arrangements for withdrawal from the prison places, which has to be planned properly, with the Prison Service as soon as it is practicable. I can tell my hon. Friend that we hope that Cardiff prison will be emptied of its asylum seekers by Christmas.
As hon. Members know, we are engaged in an ambitious expansion of the immigration service detention estate, which will enable us to move people from local prisons into much more suitable accommodation. New detention centres will open this year at Harmondsworth near Heathrow, Yarl's Wood

267WH
in Bedfordshire and Dungavel in Scotland, providing an additional 1,500 spaces. Overall detention places will have increased from 900 at the end of 2000 to 2,790 by the end of 2001.
On Cardiff prison, as at Friday 6 July 39 immigration detainees were held there, representing 21 different nationalities including Indian, Bangladeshi, Nigerian, Pakistani, Ukrainian and Kosovan. The majority are asylum seekers whose applications have been refused and who are awaiting the outcome of appeals or pending removal.
On the conditions at Cardiff prison, I understand that strenuous efforts have been made to accommodate the particular needs of detainees, within the constraints of a prison establishment. It is recognised that immigration detainees' needs differ from those of remand prisoners and where practicable such needs have been accommodated. However, it is true that the regime is much more restrictive than that of an immigration detention centre. That is why prisons are not the first choice for the detention of asylum seekers and why the Government wish to withdraw from those arrangements as soon as is practicable.
On telephone access and some of the practical, pastoral points that hon. Members raised, detainees in Cardiff prison have greater access to telephone cards than is the norm for remand prisoners, and rightly so. However, I acknowledge that problems might arise when accessing telephones during periods of heavy use. I have asked officials to look into the matter in conjunction with the prison authorities and to find out whether there is a particular problem that might be improved.
Detainees have free association periods, but they are kept in their cells for longer than is normal in a detention centre—nor do they have access to activities that are available in dedicated detention centres.
Immigration service staff visit the prison three times a week to give advice and serve papers. Local solicitors and legal advice agencies visit twice a week. Special arrangements have been made to enable legal advisers to use a converted cell for interviews with detainees. They are unsupervised, although the door is left open for security reasons. Legal representatives may also visit detainees under the usual legal visits arrangements.
A range of dietary needs, including halal, is catered for by the prison's catering service, and menus are supplied in eight languages. Information on other matters is also available in different languages. Where translation is required, immigration staff use a
268WH
telephone translation facility known as the language line. An interpreter is used for longer or more formal interviews and is paid for by the immigration service.
Mr. Oaten: As time is running out, may I ask now whether the Minister can give for other prisons the commitment that she gave for Cardiff? Will other prisons not be used for asylum seekers by Christmas?
Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman should listen carefully to what I am about to say. The Government intend to withdraw from those allocated spaces as soon as is practicable. It has been said that we will be able to fill up the new detainee estate in a day, but that cannot be done—one must fill up detained spaces gradually. Certain practical steps must be taken to ensure that the regime does not break down. Within those constraints, we will do our best to withdraw from the arrangements as quickly as is practicable. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman greater satisfaction, but I do not want to give a date that I am not certain we can keep to. I hope that he will appreciate the way in which I have attempted to answer his question.
Although it is important to realise that these practical issues are important and that those concerned find their situation distressing, we should remember that the number of people involved is small. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and others have noted, the answer is for the determination system to operate much more efficiently. We are dealing with that, although there is a legacy of backlogs. The most important thing is to ensure that we have an efficient and sensible way of dealing with asylum applications. It is also important to recognise that there are people who claim asylum in this country who are economic migrants. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is initiating a debate on how we might more effectively balance a migration policy with an asylum policy.
I reiterate that the Government are determined to pursue the strategy of holding people in dedicated detention facilities, not prisons, and that we will work hard to achieve that aim as quickly as is practicable.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley for raising an extremely important issue.
Norman Baker rose—
Angela Eagle: I would normally give way to the hon. Gentleman, but we are near the end of the debate.
Norman Baker: Will the Minister say something about vouchers?
Angela Eagle: The fieldwork on the voucher review has been done and we are considering it. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will make an announcement when we are in a position to do so.

Global Warming
11 am
Tom Brake: I start with a small apology. It appears that the purpose of the debate was not made entirely clear, and there have been discussions among Departments about which of them should respond. If it is not possible for the Minister to answer some of my questions directly himself, I hope that he will at least seek responses from the Department of Trade and Industry.
My first point concerns transparency. One of the major issues that I came across in my research is the lack of easily available statistical data about the sustainable nature, or otherwise, of the projects that are supported by the Export Credits Guarantee Department, and their impact on global warming. That lack of transparency and readily available information is a problem that we cannot ignore. The discussions and outcomes of negotiations on projects are kept confidential: there is almost an institutional paranoia about the public disclosure of any information about their impacts.
Most export credit agencies—I shall refer briefly to others, not only our own—do not conduct environmental impact assessments that are publicly disclosed in accordance with international norms. Most do not disclose the name, nature or location of projects that they back until they are well under way. In some respects, export credit agencies are the most opaque of any Government agencies, placing the needs of private corporations above the rights of citizens to protect their lives and environments and to ensure that their Government's objectives are being applied in countries abroad that are receiving financial support from that Government.
In the UK, the public have no idea whether the screening process for new projects that is used by the ECGD follows the guidelines or objectives that the Government have set in relation to sustainability and tackling climate change. As with any public body, citizens have a fundamental right to scrutinise the activities of the ECGD. Not only should the Government be notified about those activities, and the information be made publicly available, but other organisations, such as the Environment Agency, may have a role to play in advising on the effects of such projects. How do the Minister and his colleagues in other Departments propose to combat that lack of transparency?
What is the reasoning behind the reluctance to release relevant environmental and developmental documents to associated agencies for review? Does the Minister believe that the UK should issue a public international strategy on sustainability and climate change, similar to that which was issued on conflict prevention, to ensure that our international partners, business and non-governmental organisations precisely understand the UK's stance?
The lack of accountability is reinforced by the lack of expertise in the ECGD's council. It has ties with many Departments, and it is clear that cross-departmental activity is needed. It should not only be down to the new Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that sustainability issues are reflected in other Departments, and in particular the Department
270WH
responsible for the ECGD. I hope that the Minister can clarify which cross-departmental activity considers not only the foreign and trade effects of the ECGD's activities, but their environmental and sustainability impact. With the coming G8 conference this is a good time for the Government to clarify their views on the issue so that the role of export credit agencies can be discussed in those negotiations, with the UK Government having a clear internal position on what the ECGD should be promoting.
I hope that the Minister will be able either to say something today or to write to me about the progress that has been made among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries on drawing up common standards for export credit agencies on the way in which they seek to promote sustainability in developing countries. When will such standards be in force? Will progress on those common standards be reported at the Johannesburg conference, which would be an excellent opportunity to make such a report? Furthermore, is he willing to work with his departmental colleagues to give the ECGD an explicit requirement to promote sustainability? It should be not only in the business of screening, but in the business of promoting the UK's policy agenda on sustainability, climate change and preventing global warming.
Export credit agencies such as the ECGD that are funded by Governments carry many responsibilities. The ECGD is in place to further British exports and businesses, and because of its nature as a public body it must take into account the Government's policies and goals. It must promote the human rights and social issues that surround the projects that it is undertaking while considering the sustainability implications of its actions. Greening of government, which is part of any modern institution, is something that we would all support, but it must be carried through in all Departments. The ECGD's mission and strategy should be convergent with the Government's aims in relation to debt relief, poverty alleviation, ethical foreign policy, compliance with multinational environmental agreements and sustainable development.
The ECGD should be supporting productive investments focused on the development of sustainable energy in the way in which the American export credit agency promotes projects that contain sustainable measures. There is a further conference—the G8 conference—at which there will be an opportunity, of which I hope that the Government will make good use, to raise these issues.
I shall highlight an area of perverse policy: if we scrutinise ECA-funded projects across the globe, we discover that many of them are unsustainable and have serious effects on climate change and global warming. From 1994 to 1999, $216 billion out of $376 billion of global expenditure by ECAs was spent on supporting energy-intensive projects, which included financing more oil and gas development and fossil-fuelled power generation. If that process continues, during the next 30 to 50 years the developing countries' annual and total contributions to CO2 emissions will achieve parity with those of industrialised countries. The top destinations for these projects include leading sources of CO2 emissions such as Indonesia, China, India, Mexico and Brazil. It would be better if the work were done now—as the Americans are doing—in terms of

271WH
promoting sustainable projects through the ECGD as opposed to promoting projects that are heavily dependent on fossil-fuelled power generation, for example. Such projects, as part of a discussion subsequent to Kyoto, will inevitably be revisited. We may find that, within a matter of years, they must be reexamined and less energy-intensive projects substituted. What activities have been undertaken by the Minister's or other Departments to ensure that, here and abroad, there is a stricter policy of environmental reform for the export credit agencies?
On the recognition of the importance of the Kyoto agreement and of helping developing countries grow while minimising the emissions that they release, it will not be the OECD countries that will have the most effect on climate change in the foreseeable future, but many of the countries in which the United Kingdom is providing support. Given the size of the sums involved, if we can shift even a small proportion of that financing toward more environmentally friendly technologies, that could have a significant impact on the economies of developing countries and their carbon dioxide emissions.
Will the Minister confirm that the Government recognise that the ECGD can have a heavy impact on the environment and play a positive role in helping both the United Kingdom and developing countries achieve globally the targets that we must achieve in relation to carbon dioxide emissions? I support the Government's manifesto pledge to reduce such emissions by 20 per cent. Would the Minister like to see that reflected in the policies adopted by the ECGD? Is there not a case for ensuring that, over a period, the projects that are supported and funded seek to achieve the targets that we have set? Perhaps we could ensure that for each kilowatt of power that is generated, there is a similar reduction. I would like to see the Government act on that.
Should the ECGD have a role in promoting sustainability? Should it switch focus to take a more proactive role in so doing?
With regard to United Kingdom objectives being reflected abroad, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that our target for renewable energy generation of 10 per cent. by 2010 will be reflected in a similar target being set for the ECGD? That would make sense in developing countries where there is often enormous potential for renewable energy. In many cases, such countries do not have a grid and self-supporting renewable energy projects such as solar power can be competitive with traditional forms of power generation. The review of the ECGD issued by the Government concluded that
"in relation to issues such as sustainable development…the ECGD should align itself with the best of the other ECDs".
I would welcome that.
The Government have also agreed that the ECGD should aim to promote their wider objectives, which could and should include sustainable development. What concrete steps have been made to follow through on them since the report? There has been additional support for activity on sustainability from the Trade and Industry Select Committee's 10th special report, with which the Minister may be familiar. The report recommended that the ECGD reassess the weak stance that was taken by the environmental questionnaire used
272WH
to determine whether a project was sustainable. Some projects spring to mind where a tougher policy might have stopped them from coming forward.
The ECGD has stated that
"there is no scope for agreeing more favourable credit terms for renewable energy as compared to conventional power plant".
Although I understand that that may make sense from a business perspective, it is an alarming statement from a sustainability viewpoint. Many companies shy away from more renewable energy because of the current additional cost, but considering the environmental implications and the cost reductions that can occur if more investment is made, the ECGD should re-examine the matter. As I said about fossil fuel power generation projects, what is a good investment today might not be tomorrow, particularly if we make progress on climate change and Kyoto.
Mr. Simon Thomas: In the United States, the Export-Import bank has a different approach to renewable energy projects and gives out loans at a preferential rate. As a result, environmental industries, which are creating jobs in the United States, benefit to the tune of exports worth about £1 billion whereas the figures in the United Kingdom are so negligible that we do not even know them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that manufacturers in the UK would benefit if we took advantage of selling our renewables technology resources and technology to developing countries?
Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and agree entirely with his point. The work of the US export credit agency on renewable energy is a welcome initiative and goes some way towards offsetting President Bush's activities in pulling out of the Kyoto protocol.
The ECGD states that it has an obligation to compare the projects against international standards such as those of the World Bank, which has much stronger investment safety clauses on renewable energy. If such comparison or benchmarking takes place, where is the evidence that the ECGD has revised its procedure to remain comparable with large organisations such as the World Bank?
I have raised many questions, to which I hope that the Minister will respond. As I said at the beginning, it is possible that some are not his responsibility and I hope that other Departments follow the debate closely and will respond to some of them.
11.18 am
Mr. Tony Colman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing this timely debate and on his exposition of the key concerns. I congratulate also the Minister on his outstanding support for all methods of tackling global warming. His presence is an example of joined-up government and the links that the debate has between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry.
I should declare a constituency interest. The World Coal Institute and the IEA Coal Research centre for clean coal technology are both based in Putney. I should also add that my hot interest in the subject comes from attending a GLOBE International conference in New

273WH
York last month. I have consulted the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and believe that it does not need to be registered.
The conference, which was on export credit agencies and global warming, brought together parliamentarians from Europe and the United States, non-governmental organisations such as World Wildlife Fund Belgium, Friends of the Earth from Japan and the United States, Pacific Environment, Environmental Defense and the World Resources Institute. There were representatives of the Export-Import Bank of the United States and the Japan Bank for International Co-operation. Also present were private sector representatives from GE Capital and from Green Mountain Energy. The conference was a good example of GLOBE at work, and I urge all UK parliamentarians to join GLOBE UK and to use its facilities to learn about the issues and campaign for a better future.
The New York conference was timed to predate the 7 July deadline, which has now passed, for signing revision 6 of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development draft recommendation on common approaches to the environment and officially supported export credits. That, in turn, is due to go to the G7/G8 Genoa summit later this month. I understand that, as of yesterday, the UK had not signed; I hope that the Minister will explain the UK's position on the document. The OECD approach was supported by about 300 NGOs that met in May 2000 in Jakarta at an international export credit agency reform strategy session. The Jakarta declaration for the reform of official export credit and investment insurance agencies was a global call for reform that included: first, transparency—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned that—public access to information and consultation by ECAs and the OECD ECA working party; secondly, binding common environmental and social guidelines and standards that are no lower and less rigorous than the existing international procedures and standards for public international finance, such as those of the World Bank group and the OECD development assistance committee; thirdly, the adoption of explicit human rights criteria to guide the operations of ECAs; fourthly, the adoption of binding criteria and guidelines to end ECA abetting of corruption; fifthly, the adoption of a commitment to finance only economically productive investments; and lastly, the adoption of comprehensive relief for developing countries for ECA debt.
I am concerned that the latest consensus draft, which is potentially revision 7, does not contain credible commitments of ECAs to two key points. The first, which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, is to disclose to interested parties the environmental impact assessments for review and comment prior to the finalising of the decision on financing—that is, transparency of decision making at all times. The second is to apply World Bank standards to all the projects that ECAs support. The draft is discretionary rather than mandatory on those two points. That is worrying, as these loopholes are possibly large enough to destroy the reasoning behind the document as a whole. I noted that a further review is due in 2003, but these points could be nailed down now.
274WH
What was interesting at the New York conference was the perception that, in its commitment to high environmental impact assessments, the United States was ahead of the rest of the world, including the UK. I was interested to see that the ECGD environmental impact assessment report on the Ilisu dam, which was published this week, made the point in its executive summary that
"environmental procedures and guidelines of the Ex-Im Bank of the US were used as the main reference."
The commitment of the United States comes from the United Nations framework convention on climate change to help developing countries mitigate future emission increases by enabling the transfer of environmentally sustainable technologies and providing the necessary financial resources to support such transfers. The convention was signed by the 41st President of the United States in 1992.
I congratulate the Government on the moves that they have made so far in changing the ECGD work programme and culture. The reports from the Trade and Industry and International Development Select Committees informed the decisions last July of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers). The January 2001 ECGD impact screening and analysis procedures are a great improvement on the past, and I congratulate David Allwood of the ECGD and his team on their work on the new environmental guidelines. The impact questionnaire asks for specific information about a project's potential impact on the global climate, including quantification of carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases from projects involving power generation from fossil fuels, and details of use of ozone depleting substances. The ECGD states:
"Through its process of constructive engagement, it promotes the use of high efficiency technology for power generation and supports the use of renewable sources of energy, wherever appropriate."
Members may say that we have not yet seen much action on that. I am sure that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the UK Government have allied themselves to the United States Government in their commitment to the greatest reform of ECA use.
The Genoa G8 summit will receive reports not only on OECD recommendations on common approaches to the environment and officially supported export credits, but from the task force set up at Okinawa last year on the development of renewable energy sources, which is, of course, headed up by the chief executive officer of Shell UK. The use of ECAs to provide finance to developing countries for renewable power will enable a billion people who are currently unable to access power to do so in future. Power markets fall into three broad categories: first, on-grid in OECD countries; secondly, on-grid in developing countries; and, thirdly, as the hon. Gentleman said, off-grid in developing countries. It is difficult for renewables to compete with conventional fossil fuels in on-grid markets. Capital costs are higher and the payback period is longer, and the per unit costs of power are therefore generally greater. Their output is dependent on variable or seasonal environmental conditions. Much greater potential exists for renewables to serve off-grid markets to reach 2 billion people in rural or isolated areas who cannot currently access power. Lower population densities and higher per unit

275WH
costs mean that renewables are much more competitive versus conventional power sources. Renewable power sources tend to offer lower long-term costs.
To make renewables attractive to commercial funding, concessional and non-concessional funding need to be blended in a way that does not distort funding overall. At the same time, we must increase the market share of renewables to reduce their long-term financing costs. In short, ECAs can put in place—or, in the case of the US and UK, improve on—regular greenhouse gas accounting for all projects, financed or co-financed. ECAs should ensure that their staff understand renewable technologies to facilitate project assessment and underwriting. ECAs could put greater investment in business development to support renewables, working especially with small and medium-sized enterprises, which are often best placed for such projects. How many SMEs, which form the bulk of the companies in the "Guide to UK Renewable Energy Companies 2001" have been contacted by the ECGD? I fear that not many have. Could they be contacted in the next 12 months?
In the longer term, ECAs should develop a greenhouse gas accounting standard that facilitates the development of carbon markets. They should assess the feasibility of developing financial services tailored to small-scale renewable projects. Opportunities also exist for ECAs to explore non-energy projects in developing countries, with high potential to contribute to greenhouse gas reductions. "These could include carbon sink or land use projects, transportation, infrastructure and equipment, and improvements in efficiency.
Given the few UK companies specialising in renewable energy technologies so far, the impact of the ECGD taking a strong line and supporting such technologies is hypothetical. Let me therefore propose actions for the UK Government to make the hypothetical real in export potential for the UK renewables industry. First, I sounded out senior management at BP Solar as to the impact of such support through the ECGD. BP Solar has factories in the United States, Germany and Spain. Last week, it announced an expansion of the existing 15 MW production factory in Spain by a further 60 MW—the biggest in Europe. I understand that Sir John Brown met the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last night, at the latter's request, to discuss the establishment of similar manufacturing facilities for solar power equipment here. Given the weather conditions in the UK, as in Germany, the vast majority of the output of such a UK factory would be for exports to developing countries—countries dependent on ECGD ECA cover.
Has the Secretary of State offered preferential ECGD cover rates for such exports if a solar power factory was built here? Will the same apply to the product of the Vesta wind power factory that is shortly to open in the United Kingdom, and to all other solar and wind power factories in this country? I am sure that hon. Members would support such preferential cover. Such support is needed not only for the basic technology but to cover the set-up on the ground and enable it to continue to deliver for some years. The long repayment period available for thermal energy—that is, fossil-fuel power stations—should be available for renewable energy installations too.
276WH
The IEA Coal Research centre for clean-coal technology, which is based in my constituency, has put forward proposals for what it calls zero-emission coal-fired stations. They would produce zero emissions in that the excess CO2 above the 70 per cent. efficiency levels achievable in clean-coal technology power stations would be injected into carbon sinks, perhaps using the depleted geological seams for gas and oil in the north sea and elsewhere. Could the ECGD provide concessional finance over and above that available for non-zero emission thermal power stations? Will the Minister confirm that he is talking to his colleagues within the G7-G8 about such an approach for thermal power stations?
Will the Minister phase out support for ECGD cover for thermal power stations that do not seek to achieve zero emissions? The argument may be given that it is inappropriate for the ECGD to seek such an approach. I understand that the French and German governments, while espousing the Kyoto protocol, are opposed to the US proposals for concessional finance and to a playing field tipped in favour of renewal energy. As a business man—that was my profession before entering the House—the only role that I see for government as opposed to commercial finance is to provide such a rigging of the market. Indeed, the study by National Economic Research Associates on the ECGD, published last July, was entitled "The Economic Rationale for the Public Provision of Export Credit Insurance by ECGD". Clearly a choice must be made of projects that are soundly financeable, and I do not suggest that the ECGD should back power projects that are not sound. However, it should not finance projects that have a greater CO2 greenhouse gas impact than those that do not.
So far, I have covered only the role of the ECA in encouraging sustainable energy technologies. Almost as important is the measurement of reduction in greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions resulting from all other ECA capital financing, which was touched upon by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. Two separate cases should be mentioned in that respect: high-energy consumption industries and aircraft emissions.
In the former case, investments determine emission trajectories over a long period—25 to 50 years. ECAs are big investors in oil and gas development, transport equipment and manufacturing industries such as chemicals, cement, pulp and paper. There must be a veto within ECA procedures to ensure minimising of CO2 emissions. We must not export old technology high carbon burn techniques. The latest technology, with maximum combined heat and power for manufacturing processes, must be the norm.
In the latter case, aircraft emissions appear to have been omitted from the OECD agreement. The Americans will not accept ECA aircraft financing as needing to come within the new proposed restrictions. However, aircraft emissions represent 5 per cent. of greenhouse gases, and many are worried that their impact may be the equivalent of 15 to 20 per cent. of greenhouse gas emissions. Aircraft emissions are of course increasing with the growth of air traffic. Our gift to the world through Airbus would be a low or zero-emission aircraft. Boeing in the US would have to follow suit. Will the Minister talk to his colleagues in the

277WH
Department of Trade and Industry on the specification of the new Airbus? The Government have provided over £400 million in launch aid and the ECGD will be used to help to sell the new planes around the world.
What is the Minister able to do to ensure that those two areas—high-energy consumption industries and aircraft emissions—are dealt with by the OECD ECA agreement and by the taskforce on renewable energy at the G7-G8 Genoa summit?
So far, I have not mentioned the need for ECA countries—the G8 countries, one might say—to adapt their economies to avoid global warming. I am glad to say that the UK is committed to the Kyoto protocol. Last week, two books were published on the issue: "The UK Transition to a Low Carbon Economy" by Paul Ekins of Forum for the Future and "At the Energy Crossroads: Polices for a Low Carbon Economy" by Steward Boyle and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas). They provide a blueprint for the review by the Minister for Industry and Energy of UK energy needs for the next 50 years and a basis for the UK's 60 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gases.
From our commitment, there comes a new industry that will be producing renewable energy for export. That will, I hope, be based on the environmentally friendly ECA policies that will be ushered in at the Genoa summit.
I hope that the United States will still commit itself to the Kyoto protocol. In early-day motion 94, on global warming, I publicised the 43rd President's reconfirmation of the 42nd President's executive order of 3 June 1999. Independent advice leads me to believe that the United States could, by at least 2010, reduce its greenhouse gas total by 5 per cent. on 1990 levels. I hope that that American commitment can be used at the seventh conference of the contracting parties—COP7— in Bonn later this month to reopen the way to American ratification. United States support for dealing with global warming through changed ECA methods is also on the record.
American legislators believe that the Kyoto protocol is fundamentally anti-American and that there is little commitment to change on the part of EU industries. The American proposals for the use of the Ex-Im bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation—the United States Government reinsurance company—to deliver renewable energy to developing countries and the President's recommitment to his predecessor's executive order clearly show that there is a wish, certainly in Congress, to do a deal that is not anti-American.
I hope that Japan will reconsider its position, too. It could sign with the EU. The position of the Japanese Government and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation—Japan's ECA bank—on the use of ECAs to combat global warming has changed significantly in the past few weeks.
To summarise, in 1998, all 36 OECD Governments agreed to negotiate common environmental approaches for their ECAs. At the 1999 G8 summit in Cologne, the leading industrial countries went a step further and agreed to adopt common environmental guidelines by 2001. That was confirmed at Okinawa by the addition of the sustainable energy task force.
278WH
This July, in Genoa, the UK can work with the United States to persuade their G8 partners that ECAs can be a key weapon in dealing with global warming through sustainable energy technology transfer across the world. There can be a step change in thinking about what goods developed and developing countries want for their common future.
All the G8 countries still need to sign the Kyoto protocol. Alongside it, however, OECD recommendations can reinforce the message that global warming must be stopped and can be with the will of the world.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs. Marion Roe (in the Chair): Order. I remind hon. Members that the winding-up speeches are due to begin at 12 noon.
11.38 am
Mr. Simon Thomas: Although this seems to be an extremely esoteric subject, there could be no better day on which to have this debate. Today is "Stop Exxon Day", which is better known as "Stop Esso Day" in this country. The debate gives us a way of underlining the responsibility of international corporations on global climate change. We know that Exxon unfortunately joined the Global Climate Coalition in America, was a key funder of President Bush's campaign and has ended up as the bad boy of global warming. If we as parliamentarians can put pressure on Exxon/Esso to change its attitude, we might be able to approach President Bush, too.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) made it clear in his comprehensive remarks that, although this is a complex and esoteric subject, it has a real impact on the way in which we do business in the United Kingdom. He also made it clear that we can support measures to mitigate climate change through the actions of our own Export Credits Guarantee Department. I want to concentrate my remarks on our ECA.
The Environmental Audit Committee recognised the importance of the issue when it began an investigation into the Export Credits Guarantee Department and its relationship with sustainable development in the last Session of Parliament. Unfortunately, the small matter of the general election cut across what the Environmental Audit Committee was undertaking at that stage, but some of the initial information that came out of it underlined the evidence that has been given by the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for Putney.
There are difficulties with export credit agencies. The first, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington made clear, is transparency. The second concerns what an ECGD supports. Does it, for example, support effective protection of the environment? We should look at projects such as the Sual plant in the Philippines—a coal power plant, and not a clean one—or the Mossel Bay gas fields development in South Africa, and we should consider the prudent use of natural resources. For example, the Alumbrera copper and gold mine project in Argentina contributes to the global over-supply of that metal; that is not a prudent use of natural resources. Historically, our export credit

279WH
agency has supported the accelerated use of fossil fuels, flying in the face of what we say we want to achieve in the Kyoto protocol.
It is a matter of concern that our ECGD does not commit to international best practice. As the hon. Member for Putney has pointed out, the United States has higher standards in this area. They might not be as high as the World Bank group or non-governmental organisations would like, but they are higher than ours. Is it not a paradox that we support Kyoto—we shall be in negotiations with Japan next week in Bonn about saving it, and about ensuring that America somehow comes into the Kyoto fold—yet in daily dealings the United States has higher environmental standards? I hope that the Minister, whom I welcome to his well-deserved continuation in the post, will want to get rid of that anomaly, perhaps through the Green Ministers Committee.
The ECGD says that it wants to meet the Government's environmental objectives; it says that it works with other Departments; it says that it is part of the greening government initiative—in particular, it has put sustainable development in its guidelines. For example, it says that it provides credit support for the most heavily indebted countries only if it will benefit the country's economic and social development. It also says that its criteria for granting export credit to the 63 poorest countries are those that assist social and economic development, that give maximum benefit to areas most in poverty, that tackle problem areas where private investment is not available, and that encourage viable self-financing projects. Those are important principles, but there is no reference to environmental benefit in the guidelines.
Historically, export credit agencies have been concerned about environmental impact locally, but not about the global situation. That is why this debate, concentrating on global warming and export credit agencies, is valuable. It focuses our scrutiny on what is being done in the name of greening government and I hope that it will help Ministers to think again about how we might achieve the objectives that we have set out for ourselves as a nation.
We are missing a trick. Through different use of our export credit agency, we could support our indigenous businesses. A memorandum from the Environmental Industries Commission, which was submitted to the Environmental Audit Committee, made clear how great the gap is at the moment. The ECGD focuses so much on the defence, aerospace and power industries that in 1997 less than 1 per cent. of its £3.7 billion business related to the export of environmental protection technologies. In fact, the level of support was so small that the ECGD did not keep figures on it. Yet that is a massive opportunity. The worldwide market is worth something like £330 billion a year and is set to go up to £600 billion by 2010. It would be the same size as the aeronautical industry, and the Government have accepted that. In 1999, the Department of Trade and Industry stated that
"the UK's performance in environmental technology industries has been disappointing relative to European competitors…the UK appears to have lost ground in key export markets over recent years."
Where do we get the support to win back that ground? Is it not a key task of an export credit agency to support our industries in doing that?
280WH
In October 2000, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry called for a 20 per cent. increase in our world market share of these technologies. One of the key reasons why we have not been able to achieve that is that our own package of export support measures such as export credit does not match those of our competitor countries in America and in the European Union. For example, the USA is the world's largest exporter of environmental technologies, to the value of $14 billion a year. More than $1 billion of that sum is supported through its export credit agency. In this country, we do not know the figures—they are negligible—but in the USA they are $1 billion and $14 billion. We are wasting our huge potential, as well as failing to get the best deal for developing countries.
There is a way forward, because the international discussions to which the hon. Member for Putney referred have involved these issues, and there are key ways in which we can advance matters. In June 1999, the G8 countries met in Cologne to discuss the environmental guidelines for ECAs. The communiqué from the summit mentioned climate change but did not include it in the environmental guidelines. Until comparatively recently, environmental issues were approached through export credit agencies by considering carefully the local, but not the global, impact. That is reflected in the current guidelines, but I understand that doors are opening and that some time this year—the hon. Gentleman referred to it—there will be an opportunity to consider how we might strengthen the guidelines.
We should ensure that export credit agencies encourage investment in energy efficiency, shifts to less energy-intensive products and switches in fuel. Our export credit agency is undermining our Government's climate commitments. An example of that is the global environment facility, where we have gone in with other countries to help transfer technologies to assess climate risks in developing countries, and to remove barriers to the development of renewable energy. That is not growing in the way that it should be.
How have we avoided this for so long? Why has it not been a feature of the debate on climate change? One of the reasons is the lack of public scrutiny. For example, in February 2000—these are the latest figures that I could get—only four out of 12 of the leading OECD countries' export credit agencies actually published their environmental guidelines. That is transparency gone mad—if we cannot even get the figures, how can the debate advance? Of those four countries, only two routinely shared the figures, solicited public comment and reported CO2 emissions. That is the key. If we can get our export credit agency to report on its effect on global CO2 emissions, we will have taken a great step forward and so will the Government.
Environmental guidelines do not consider climate change, but I hope that the G8 countries will re-examine that in their meeting this year. I understand that there is a working party on export credits and credit guarantees. We need to institutionalise consultation and information disclosure within our export credit agencies. We need to get them to report on greenhouse gas emissions and open up their decision-making processes. That could eventually become part of common environmental guidelines.

281WH
Adoption of export credit agency environmental guidelines that conform to international best practice for environmental assessment and evaluate potential climate impact will not be an easy task because, as we saw in the case of the Ilisu dam, these matters are very complicated. That dam might, for example, pass one threshold—it could be said to be environmentally beneficial as it is hydro-electric and a positive step forward. However, in terms of the wider social and environmental impact and of sustainable development, perhaps the dam will not be seen as so positive.
Although I recently read the report, I did not pick up on what the hon. Member for Putney pointed out about the guidelines used for the analysis of the Ilisu dam being not our own, but those of the Ex-Im bank in America. Why do we not have our own export credit agency, with sufficient guidelines for us to deal with complex matters such as the Ilisu dam? Why do we use environmental guidelines from America? Have we not done enough in this country to develop our own environmental standards for our own export credit agency? Until we do so, we are not putting our export money where our mouth is.
11.50 am
Malcolm Bruce: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing the debate. It may be esoteric and it has not packed the Chamber, but it is pretty central to our survival as a trading nation and as a planet. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has responsibility for the environment, and that the Export Credits Guarantee Department effectively comes under the auspices of the Department of Trade and Industry. Nevertheless, we must examine the ECGD's impact on the environment, and I hope that there is enough joined-up government to recognise that.
Although we welcome the fact that the ECGD's mission statement has been specifically revised to accord with the Government's objectives on sustainability, we need to monitor what the ECGD does to determine whether that makes any difference. Perhaps the mission statement should be more proactive. The agency underwrites in excess of billion of business a year, and its fundamental aim remains the promotion of British trade rather than the promotion of sustainability.
The American credit agency appears to have a more proactive environmental stance, which is interesting. One only hopes that it will survive the current Administration far. President Bush is passing through the country and meeting Ministers next week. The Minister may not be able to suggest it, so we can suggest to him that it would be surprising if, at the heart of their discussions, there was not pressure to rethink the inconsistencies in American policy. If America benefits substantially from exporting sustainable trade and products, why is it not in America's interests to encourage more of that by signing up to the Kyoto protocol or some development of it? I do not have a problem with the Americans arguing that what they have been presented with is unsuitable, but we all have a problem with them walking away from the process. The British Government have a responsibility to try to persuade them to recognise the inconsistency.
282WH
Let us think in terms of pure economics. The oil price is approximately $25 a barrel. Compared with previous cheaper prices, is it sensible for America to concentrate on increasing oil and gas production in its environmentally volatile backyard, rather than to reduce wasteful energy use, promote alternative energy and develop or strengthen its export business on the back of that? The rationale is to persuade President Bush or his advisers that they are mistaken in their analysis of American self-interest. I hope that there will be some discussion with Mr. Bush when he is here next year to persuade him in that direction.
I am grateful to the Library for a useful note that it provided to me before the debate. It contains some basic facts that are worth recording about the importance of export credit agencies to world trade, and their potential for good or evil. For instance, 8 per cent. of world trade is underwritten by export credit agencies—that is $400 billion of trade a year. Of that, $50 billion goes into infrastructure developments, many of which have been rejected by international environment agencies.
I am pleased to say that in most cases Britain has not been party to that rather disgraceful scramble. However, it underlines the need for international agreement on the operation of export credit agencies, which the OECD has been trying to achieve, to ensure that international environmental objectives are not undermined or destroyed by Government agencies. Nevertheless, it is clearly happening. The Three Gorges dam and the Ilisu dam are two classic projects that either should not have gone ahead—if the ECAs not been prepared to underwrite them, they may not have been built—or they should not have been guaranteed and underwritten in such a way.
We have some reason to be satisfied that the mission statement and the Government's review of the ECGD has moved the organisation at least to acknowledge its role in considering the sustainability of the projects that it supports. However, I suggest that it should have a more proactive role, making a detailed analysis to ascertain the extent to which the balance is shifting. Given the hot competition for trade, many of us feel that the tendency is to think first of jobs, and Britain's balance of payments. The sustainability criteria come under severe pressure when such choices have to be made.
To use a mixed metaphor, we cannot be fair-weather environmentalists. If the clear objective is to ensure that sustainability is at the heart of the policy, we cannot bury it just because times are hard, even though we may need the exports and the jobs. Principles are principles, and they have to withstand the fluctuations of the trade cycle and must not be knocked off course.
It is useful, courtesy of the Library, to see the ebb and flow of this debate. We in the Chamber are expressing our desire for environmental criteria to be central to the operation of organisations such as the ECGD, whereas businesses seeking trade complain that the parameters have been drawn in a way that could compromise potential exports. That difference can be resolved by making a clear public statement of the policy objectives. Some businesses obviously think that the objective of the ECGD is to underwrite what they regard as risky exports because it is in the British national interest to secure business that might otherwise not be secured.

283WH
That is the simple economic case; that is why the ECGD and all other ECAs exist. Businesses must understand that we have an ethical foreign policy, and that an increasingly important environmental strategy lies at the heart of it. They must be part of it, and should not waste their time chasing business that does not meet those criteria. The EGCD can do still more to explain that.
In one or two recent newspaper articles, some business men have complained that they do not understand the rules. They feel that the rules are working against them. To be fair, the previous Minister for Trade said that he thinks that the new strategy is clear and that it will not lead to a loss of business, but there is clearly a difference of view between the Department and those businesses that are actively seeking trade. If they understood our objectives, it would save everyone a lot of time and heartache.
The United Kingdom cannot yet claim to be anywhere near the sharp end of the green revolution. Many of our continental partners are way ahead of us in several ways. The Americans seem to be far ahead of us in technology and their awareness of it, even if they remain the world's greatest polluters and reluctant to apply joined-up thinking.
We have four or five years of this Parliament in which to look to the Government to raise our environmental standards. I accord with the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) in welcoming the Minister back to his post. He knows how widely welcomed his reinstatement was among many of the organisations that deal with environmental issues, because they recognise his commitment. A Minister with his sort of commitment is extremely important for the new Department, and the appointment sends a positive signal, which I welcome. I am sure, nevertheless, that he will not mind my saying that we need to move forward.
A new super-Department, which is what I hope we have, brings the need to review all our targets. The Minister could, if that were done, relate to the Department of Trade and Industry and the ECGD in a way that would make sustainability more than something to take on board from their mission statements—it could be made a key objective for them to market proactively. It could be viewed as a development export opportunity on the back of a much invigorated environmental policy, from which British companies at the front end of environmental development could benefit. That would give us both an environmental and a business objective. The United Kingdom would be determined to secure its own place in the world in establishing improved environmental targets, and the place of its businesses in helping other countries to act accordingly. The right role for the ECGD would be providing guarantees for the countries that really needed the technology, to ensure that the business could be done.
If that is the outcome of debates such as this one, I hope that the participants will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington has put down a timely marker. I hope also that the Minister's reply will reveal a positive dynamic behind the policy, not just a statement of good intent.
12.2 pm
Mr. Damian Green: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing the debate, and I thank his office for
284WH
explaining to me what he was driving at. The title was sufficiently opaque to leave ambiguities, which his office cleared up. I was relieved to hear from his opening remarks that those ambiguities affected the Government as well, when they were deciding which Minister should respond.
I add my congratulations to the Minister for the Environment on retaining his position while moving sideways to a new Department. I am sure that he welcomes the opportunity to reply this morning, not least because, given that the issue falls neatly into two halves—the environmental issues and the performance of the Export Credits Guarantee Department—he will show himself to be better than anyone at replying on the former aspect, while happily referring all the difficult questions about the ECGD's performance to his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry.
Most of what I say will take the form of probing questions. Given the current excitement in my party it would clearly be foolish to propagate any detailed policy. The policy—and, even more likely, its propagator—might prove temporary. I shall concentrate on asking the Minister to clarify the many ambiguities that have been pointed out by hon. Members. Those ambiguities fall into two broad sections: first, what the ECGD's strategy should be in this important area and secondly, how practical it is to move towards the changes that hon. Members have suggested in this debate.
I start with what the strategy should be, perhaps for export credit agencies generally. The debate raises a wider point about the usefulness of Westminster Hall and where it should concentrate its fire. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said that he wished to improve standards across the export credit agencies of all OECD countries, but concentrated most of his fire on our own ECGD's performance. That was sensible, because I suspect that the extent to which debates such as this are useful is in direct proportion to how narrowly focused they are. If they explore part of the Government's performance, they can be useful, but the more they become simple, moral lectures to the world at large and to other Governments about how they should perform, the less useful they are. The more we stick to our domestic performance, the greater service we give to the Government and to Parliament's reputation.
Following my rubric, I will stick to the ECGD's performance in this part of my speech. I echo comments made by several hon. Members about the ambiguity and opaqueness of the guidelines in the environmental sector of the ECGD's performance. Its objectives put sustainable development up front, stating:
"ECGD will press for reform on sustainable development and human rights issues in relation to export credits."
Its policies state that the ECGD will
"increase its awareness and understanding of project impacts…screen applications for cover to identify and thereafter analyse, any adverse or beneficial environmental, social or human rights aspects of relevant projects."
Such policies are laudable, but will the Minister address what they mean in practice? We have heard specific examples of projects that have been environmentally controversial. The very good point has been made that while local environmental impact is

285WH
often studied carefully, there is much less assessment of wider environmental impact. Are the ECGD's current objectives effective in their own terms?
Does the Minister wish to extend the ECGD in a more proactive direction as advocated by the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats? Should the ECGD actively seek out environmentally beneficial projects, rather than simply not supporting, as I hope is the case at present, those that are environmentally damaging? There are two separate questions on that topic for the Government to address: first, whether it is desirable for the ECGD to move in that more proactive direction and secondly, whether it is practical for it to do so.
Last year's review of the ECGD's mission and status, which has been mentioned, sought to delve into that matter. It said:
"ECGD's initial environmental screening process helps identify whether a particular project on which cover is sought may raise sensitive issues. When such projects are identified, they go through a second stage process of 'due diligence'—in which ECGD and the project lenders find out more, taking independent advice as necessary—to help assess project risks and related issues and determine how to take matters forward."
Is that enough? What happens after that process seems slightly fuzzy round the edges? That raises questions about whether the Government wish the ECGD simply to avoid damaging projects or to spread its remit to encourage—perhaps only to encourage—certain approved types of development. The Minister will be aware of the pitfalls in that approach. If he is saying that the proactive stance is not only desirable but practical, and it is the direction in which the Government want the ECGD to move, has he straightforwardly calculated the effect of that on exports? It would not necessarily be damaging in the long term.
The Minister is aware, as I am, that the environmental industries in the UK sometimes feel that they are treated too much as the Cinderella sector, when in fact they are one of the growth industries of the 21st century. They feel that Britain is not punching its national weight in their field compared with other sectors. In the long term, moving the ECGD further in that direction may be beneficial. In the short term, however, it would be likely to cut out some projects that would be otherwise approved and cause damage to existing British companies that provide jobs. That would be a bad thing.
I have been unable to find some hard numbers, which would enable us to make the assessment of the balance—from contributions to the debate, it is clear that other Members have had the same problem. I will be interested to hear whether the Minister can provide those numbers. In practice, would there be an increase in exports of renewable energy projects, and in the promotion of such projects, and would that compensate, or more than compensate, for the existing projects that would presumably be excluded?
The second broad area that raises questions relates to practicality. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington raised issues about energy-intensive projects. Besides anything that the Government may be doing to change the ECGD's focus, what are they doing to change the focus of exports? I was fascinated to hear the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) refer to
286WH
clean coal technology, as based in his constituency, because one of our leading renewable energy companies told me of its despair when, during a delegation to China a few years ago—they were a mixed crew of businesses and officials—the Chinese asked, "What do you do in the renewable field?" The Chinese were clearly interested in renewable technology, but the only thing that the official element of the British delegation wanted to talk about was clean coal technology. That may be gratifying to hear for the hon. Member for Putney. No, he is shaking his head, so even he, as the constituency representative of the clean coal industry, feels that that was too narrow a focus.
Clean coal technology is better than dirty coal technology. However, if Government delegations abroad are referring only to clean coal technology, we have some way to go. The Minister also has some way to go to influence his colleagues and promote joined-up green government in this area. Perhaps he will tell us what are the limits of his ambition. Does he think that he is having an impact on his colleagues and does he think that it is right and practical to use the ECGD as a moral example to other countries? He knows that Britain's record in renewable energy is generally not the best—we are behind other European countries. Does he agree that until we show a better national performance, attempting to use the ECGD as a stick—or perhaps rather as a carrot—to give as an example to other countries will be impractical? It cannot be a battering ram that gets us through to countries, the performance of which we wish to improve.
Another specific question is where does nuclear technology fit in? The Government have announced their review, which has not come up in this debate, but it does have a wider impact. It would be helpful if the Minister clarifies whether the Government regard nuclear technology as having anything to do with this debate.
I suspect that it is not a matter of dispute in the Chamber that we want this country to have a better national performance in terms of the percentage of renewable energy that we produce. If we could create prosperous industries that, with the backing of the ECGD, could become world leaders that promote projects around the world, it would be hugely desirable as both an economic and environmental objective. I am aware that the ECGD is not the Minister's direct responsibility, but he is aware that important issues are at stake. I hope that he will use this morning to clear up some of the many ambiguities.
12.15 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): It is, of course, protocol on these occasions to congratulate the opening speaker on his or her choice of debate. I do so with real sincerity and feeling because far from regarding this matter as esoteric, which it may be to some, I regard it as essential. If we are looking for drivers to push forward sustainable development and environmental considerations in both this country and abroad, export credit agencies have some of the most important roles to play. Until recently we have underplayed the issue but that is changing dramatically.
I am grateful that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) referred to the Department of Trade and Industry. I shall try to answer

287WH
all the questions that I possibly can, but it is important that all Departments take the message on board and reflect it in their policies. This is not only a matter for my Ministry, regardless of which Department it may happen to be in. I take the view that was put forward by all hon. Members that the ECGD needs to be more proactive. I am sure that the DTI and my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who is the Minister responsible for these matters, will take that on board. I also take the point, which was made in a rather nice phrase by the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), that we want to see a positive dynamic, not merely a mission statement. That is what the Government are trying to do, but it is fair that hon. Members are looking for that to be fully reflected in policy.
Export credit agencies play a significant environmental role by ensuring that the exports that they support do not make unacceptable contributions to global warming and by actively promoting the use of sustainable technology. The OECD agreement on common approaches to the environment that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) discussed at length will be a big step towards ensuring that all ECAs take account of the environmental impacts of the projects that they support, thereby contributing to a reduction in the rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
Export credit agencies' attitude to the environment has tended primarily to focus on trade promotion objectives. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) is right to say that we shall not abandon those, but it is a question of better integration. Until the last few years, the main consideration was whether the financial risk was acceptable. Much less emphasis was given to the nature of the export, the project to which the export was destined or the impact that it may have on the environment. Thankfully, all that is changing. All OECD country ECAs now recognise the need to consider the environmental impacts of the exports that they are supporting, and they are working to promote environmental sustainability. That is demonstrated by the fact that in the past couple of years many OECD country ECAs have recruited professional environmental advisers. The majority of them now have systems in place to determine the environmental impact of the projects that they are supporting.
I am slightly surprised that no one has mentioned the Ilisu dam—
Mr. Colman: I did.
Mr. Meacher: I failed to take account of that. Of course, this provision is one of the ways in which that contentious project is being professionally and formally assessed.
Several hon. Members referred to US standards and performance, and it is certainly true that the US wants a common standard. The Export-Import Bank of the United States and domestic companies have a competitive disadvantage, in that they must meet America's own environmental test before lending can proceed. The US wants other countries to fall into line, but in that regard I rather take the view of the hon. Member for Gordon. We fully expect America to take
288WH
account of its own interests, but it would help if it took on board that other countries want it to fall into line with our views on the Kyoto protocol. A massive internal expansion of oil and gas production is understandable, given that the lights keep on going out in California, but it must be reconciled with attitudes to the Kyoto protocol.
I accept that the Export-Import Bank of the United States has high standards, but they apply only to large projects. Only about10 per cent. of exports are supported by those standards, whereas the ECGD's environmental assessment applies to all civil exports. The ECGD can, and does, offer the same terms to renewable energy exports as the Export-Import Bank of the United States: better still, it offers them to all exporters. That is an important consideration.
Several hon. Members mentioned transparency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney talked about better disclosure of the environmental impact assessment in particular. An important point is that it is now ECGD policy to make publicly available what information it can—subject to issues of commercial confidentiality and ownership—and that ought to include the environmental impact assessment. The Department is looking to expand the information provided on its website, and will provide briefings on issues of public concern relating to export credit guarantees. We are trying to be transparent.
The Export Guarantees Advisory Council is now responsible for ensuring that the ECGD complies with its business principles. To reflect that broadened remit, the council's membership has recently been extended. Seven new appointments reflect expertise in small and medium-sized enterprises, corporate responsibility, the environment and sustainable development.
The hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington, for Gordon and for Ashford—indeed, probably everyone—mentioned proactive measures. So far, I have talked about systems that the ECGD has put in place to ensure that it does not support exports that damage the environment. At the same time, it is attempting to be more proactive, particularly in its support of SMEs, including manufacturers of environmentally beneficial equipment. Several regional presentations have been made to SME audiences this year, and more are planned for the autumn.
As part of that initiative, ECGD officials have already met representatives of the Environment Industries Commission, as have I on several occasions. They made presentations at last month's environment technology 2001 exhibition. As well as making available to UK manufacturers of renewable energy equipment its normal range of assistance, the ECGD is trying to identify some targeted measures—within the scope of the OECD arrangement, it must be said—that will meet the needs of SMEs.
Several points were made about that. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) cited several power projects that were supported by the ECGD. Let me mention four that come into that category: the Oman liquefied natural gas plant, 1997; Shandong coal-fired power station in China, 1998; Manjung power station in Malaysia, 1999; and the Ho Ping coal-fired power plant in Taiwan, 1999. The point about those projects is that they predate the introduction of the

289WH
ECGD's environmental assessment system. Although I am not prejudging what would have happened under the new system, they would have been assessed on entirely different criteria, and I suspect that in several instances there would have been a different result.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to support for the 10 per cent. renewable energy target and asked whether the ECGD could be more helpful in trying to promote it. The Government are trying to promote it most of all through the clean development mechanism of the Kyoto protocol, specifically to favour smaller-scale renewable energy projects. Many countries are seeking to exclude larger-scale hydro projects, and especially nuclear projects—a highly contentious issue to which the hon. Member for Ashford referred. In our opinion, it is all very well for the exporting countries to take a view on such matters, but we must take account also of what the developing countries want within their own territories. That is a significant factor. As those countries have been the first to tell us in the course of many negotiations—no doubt they will do so in Bonn next week—they have a right to decide what they want to take. Nevertheless, I take the point, and the ECGD is actively seeking to promote its facilities to manufacturers of environmentally sustainable equipment.
Mr. Colman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Meacher: I am reluctant to do so. I was about to mention my hon. Friend, who asked about preferential financing for renewable energy exports.
The OECD rules that allow a maximum of 12 years' repayment terms for conventional energy projects apply also to renewable energy projects. The OECD consensus arrangement would prevent the ECGD offering preferential rates to BP or to any other exporter of renewable energy technology. Unless the arrangement rules are changed, it has to be done in that way. The alternative that my hon. Friend proposed—refusing ECGD support for low-efficiency fossil fuel technology—would be contrary to the ECGD's current
290WH
mission of supporting the UK economy by supporting UK exporters. That leads to the conflict that the hon. Member for Ashford mentioned. His principle of promoting the UK economy is perfectly proper, but it is a question of finding a way that can reconcile the two objectives.
Mr. Colman: Is my right hon. Friend able to comment on the signing of the OECD consensus guidelines, which will go before the Genoa summit later this month?
Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is telepathic, because I was about to come to that.
The change in attitude that I have been talking about can be most clearly seen in the OECD negotiations on common approaches to the environment and officially supported export credits. Over the past few years, the OECD's export credit group has been working towards an agreed system for assessing and controlling environmental impacts of the exports that all ECAs support. We are not in a position to sign anything, because the negotiations are still going on, but we hope that they will be concluded by the end of this year. That should provide a unified framework that ensures that all ECAs take proper account of environmental impacts, resettlement, other effects on vulnerable groups and cultural heritage—all of which are important in the case of the Ilisu dam—and supports exports to projects that comply with acceptable standards.
I have one minute to explain the problem that we are encountering. The United States rejected the OECD agreement because it does not commit to the use of a single set of World Bank standards that projects should adhere to and does not require, as opposed to encourage, the publication of the environmental impact assessments and standards to which my hon. Friend referred.
We sympathise with the position of the USA. We would also like the agreement strengthened but with this, as in regard to Kyoto, the USA is alone in arguing that all projects should meet the standards of the World Bank. The problem is that if one insists on that, it is more likely to provoke a negative reaction from other OECD and G8 members.

Further Education Teachers(Gloucestershire)
12.30 pm
Diana Organ: I am pleased to be able to deal with pay in the further education sector and the concerns and challenges facing that sector in Gloucestershire.
Education is a priority for the Government. They have made clear through their vision for lifelong learning that they want high-quality education to be made available to all who want it. Lifelong learning recognises the need for individuals to develop their potential, tackle social exclusion and equip local economies with the skills necessary to compete globally. A national framework has been put in place with the learning and skills councils working with the learning partnerships to provide diversity and the necessary provision to meet the needs of the customer.
The key provider in the agenda is the FE sector, which has 4 million students in 271 colleges—the numbers have more than doubled since 1992. If the sector is not properly resourced, funded and rewarded, we will not be able to deliver the Government's agenda and vision. For too long, further education has been the Cinderella of education. It is now time for her to have the dress and carriage and go to the ball In the past four years, the Government have put resources into the schools sector through initiatives such as nursery funding, the new deal for schools, money for books, the pay awards, the standards boards, the new threshold for teachers, the laptops for teachers and money going direct to head teachers. That has all had a major beneficial impact on raising standards.
There is more to education than school provision, however. Now in their second term, the Government must match that provision for the FE sector. Indeed, the funding and resources invested in the schools sector have only exacerbated the destructive differential between the two. The Government are aware of the serious long-term underfunding of the FE sector, which has affected levels of pay and rewards of college staff. They demonstrated that by awarding £300 million over three years for college lecturers' pay, which is the first time that colleges have had earmarked funding for pay. As I shall explain, however, that is not the solution to the problem.
Lecturers and staff in the FE sector deserve recognition and respect for their achievements. Pay is crucial for colleges to be able to recruit, reward and retain staff. The poor comparison between pay in the FE sector and schools damages morale in the sector. That has led to a recent national day of action by members of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education on 22 May and a lobby of Parliament on 3 July. During the day of action in May, I met local staff from the Royal Forest of Dean college. In June, I organised a meeting with Gloucestershire principals, chairs of governors, other Members of Parliament, trade unions such as UNISON and NATFHE—bodies from across the county—so that I could hear their concerns. Three Labour Members of Parliament attended and the Liberal Democrats sent a representative; the Tories are not interested.
292WH
Most of the points that I make today arise from those two meetings. The picture that was presented at them to me was not a good one. It is clear that the demand for a fully funded flat-rate increase of £3,000 for all lecturers and managers is a valid start to closing the gap between lecturers and school teachers. College lecturers' pay is around 10 per cent. below that of a school teacher. Even if a lecturer in an FE college had received every pay increase agreed at national level since incorporation in 1993, that difference would still exist.
Many colleges have not received all the nationally agreed increases, however. Since 1993, colleges have been responsible for setting their own pay levels and awards, in line with local conditions, need and affordability. Unlike schools, colleges have to meet the cost of pay awards from existing resources. It is clear from data from the Department for Education and Skills that colleges' resources have been significantly reduced in the past five years and that the unit of resource will not be restored to the 1995–96 levels until next year. In fact, the money available per student in further education is actually expected to decrease by 4 per cent next year.
In the case of the Royal Forest of Dean college, lecturers have not received all the nationally agreed increases and their pay is now a further 5.8 per cent. behind. Yet the college is the local sixth form for the Forest of Dean and its teachers do the same work as sixth form teachers in other schools. Its results are excellent, placing it in the top 10 colleges nationally for A-level passes and making it the top non-selective sixth form A-level provider in Gloucestershire. At the Royal Forest of Dean college, a newly appointed, fully qualified teacher with a degree earns £16,423; that compares with nearly £18,000 for most new school teachers. The maximum that a fully qualified, experienced lecturer can earn at the college is £24,459—that is reached after 10 years—but teachers in local schools after nine years' experience can apply to cross the threshold and, if successful, gain access to a nine-point scale that exceeds £30,000.
The pay differential affects recruitment and retention of staff. Greg Smith, the principal of Gloucestershire college of arts and technology, said that there have been recruitment problems, particularly in maths, science, computing and engineering. Gloucestershire's economy is based on aerospace, engineering and manufacturing, with 23 per cent. of employment based on manufacturing and 35 per cent. in the forest. We face major skills shortages in those areas yet, only last year, a maths lecturer with 20 years' experience left the Royal Forest of Dean college to take up a post in a local school. His pay is higher, he has less responsibility, and he no longer has to teach evening sessions. Clearly, the pay discrepancies cannot continue.
There has not been a fully funded pay award to further education since incorporation in 1993. The teachers' pay initiative suggested by the Government is not the solution, as it represents only a 2 per cent. increase in the college pay bill for this year. The competition between schools and colleges was intense before the new system allowed so many school teachers to go through the threshold, and now it is even worse. The equivalent offer to the FE sector does nothing to bridge the gap: the money is guaranteed for only three

293WH
years and is allocated to colleges in relation to student numbers and not the number of fully qualified, experienced staff who could stand to benefit.
The TPI provision allocation to the Royal Forest of Dean college for the first year is £73,000, which is less than £700 for every full-time member of staff who qualifies. There was a strong feeling at my meetings with the Gloucestershire colleges that TPI is not the solution as it is divisive, and that was deeply regretted by all.
Another way out of the problem is to go for growth. The amount of money per student, however, has not increased but gone down and is expected to fall by another 4 per cent. next year. In addition, Gloucestershire might not be able to attain growth. Participation is already high, and the county enjoys very low levels of unemployment, so it will be difficult to grow quickly to get extra money. The high participation rates achieved in Gloucestershire and the good state of the local economy are testimonies to the success of the FE sector. Surely, we should not penalise that success.
A representative of Stroud college told me that the number of full-time students drops year after year because so many young people are able to find work. They do not wish to do long courses but instead want to earn money and learn skills while working. What they demand are part-time vocational courses, which cost more to deliver than courses in the sixth form sector. In addition, it is difficult to recruit and retain lecturers with vocational experience in a rural area, and the possibility of growth in 16-to-19-year units is particularly difficult to achieve in Gloucestershire because there is a substantial competitive sixth form sector with a very high stay-on rate. It is estimated that only Cirencester college will be able to grow in the sector.
Many further education colleges in Gloucester serve wide, dispersed rural areas and that gives rise to particular problems of transport and access. Vocational courses and the upskilling of the work force must be done throughout the county and in small classes. Those classes are expensive and difficult to organise and deliver in rural colleges that are often small, as Stroud and the Royal Forest of Dean colleges are. Gloucestershire does not qualify for the educational maintenance allowance, which is only at the pilot stage in places such as Hereford, Devon and Cornwall. There is a case for Gloucestershire to receive it as well. Gloucestershire does not qualify for any special postcode funding either, but a special case should be made because of the sparsity of our large rural areas, our pockets of deprivation and the need to skill an engineering and manufacturing work force.
Further education colleges can draw down extra money, such as money for staff development and training, only by matched funding from challenge funds. That system is inflexible and Gloucestershire colleges do not believe that it is the answer, because they do not have many unqualified staff. The colleges recognise that the standards fund is useful and flexible in schools, but they regret that nothing comparable is available for FE colleges.
There are problems in recruiting and retaining support and administration staff, who are so vital to FE colleges. Colleges are unlike schools because they have
294WH
a mix of students with a wide age range and deliver many different courses. Teaching times are not set between 9 am and 4 pm, but go on into the evening and Saturdays. That means that there is a bigger burden in further education than in schools on departments such as administration. We face double jeopardy, however. As we have low unemployment, colleges face intense competition from district and county councils and the public and private sectors for quality administration and support staff. In some colleges, it was reported that staff turnover in those departments was as high as 33 per cent. The other competitors can raise salaries—Cotswold district council talked about raising administration staff pay by 15 per cent. and then putting up the council tax. FE colleges cannot match such salary increases because they do not have the funding, so they lose out to other sectors on vital staff.
The colleges in Gloucestershire are proud of their achievements, and rightly so. They believe in and want to meet the Government's agenda, and work in partnership. They have confidence in the national Learning and Skills Council and are wholly supportive of the vision for lifelong learning. They want to demonstrate and deliver quality value-added post-16 education and will continue to work to achieve that. However, for too long the sector has not been flexibly and adequately funded. Staff pay has fallen behind and is uncompetitive and the solutions being offered will not close the gap.
The cost of further education is the same as in 1995, but the sector's productivity has increased by 40 per cent. It is successful and meets the targets set by Governments. Colleges in Gloucestershire have examined everything to reduce overheads and costs, including the sale of buildings, and making redundancies is now the only way to meet their budgets. The Government's vision and priority for education must address the fact that the FE sector has a recruitment, reward and retention problem. They must ensure that highly valued staff do not walk out the door and prevent us from delivering the vision of high quality education for all who want it. The Minister should come to Gloucestershire to listen to the concerns of the people I met in my June meeting. He should meet the principals, heads, staff and trade unions of all colleges in Gloucestershire to find a way forward out of their present difficulties.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (John Healey): I listened with interest and empathy to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ). I warmly congratulate her on securing the debate about matters that she, the Government and I feel strongly about. I listened with empathy because, similarly to my hon. Friend's constituency, my constituency had a long—though now sadly past—association with the coal industry and my constituents, like hers, still cherish the opportunities that further education and training can bring.
I am pleased to respond because I have an early opportunity in my new post to place on record my appreciation of the work that teachers in further education colleges—not only in my hon. Friend's area of Gloucestershire but throughout the country—are

295WH
doing to open up opportunities for people in the communities that they serve. As my hon. Friend said, further education colleges are key providers in that field.
I also pay tribute to the manner in which my hon. Friend champions her constituents and, especially, to the detailed work that she has done on the matter, which strikes me as an exemplar of how good constituency Members should operate. She has pulled together the principals, chairs, unions and the learning and skills council in Gloucester. I am glad that they welcome the Government's vision of lifelong learning and that they want to play a part in realising that vision. I will be pleased to meet my hon. Friend's delegation, either in Gloucestershire or in my Department, to do justice to the detail of her case.
I want to ensure that my hon. Friend understands the context in which we must view the concerns that colleges have raised with her, and I shall touch on the most relevant Government policy that is being put in place.
More than 4 million people are learning via further education and the Government recognise the commitment and dedication of the staff who deliver education and training. However, too much of the provision is patchy and the levels of learner recruitment, retention and achievement are too low in many areas. That is why we are committed to raising standards. Colleges have responded well. Standards of teaching and levels of achievement have substantially improved, although we must build on that improvement. Colleges will continue to be challenged and supported by the Government, the Learning and Skills Council and the independent inspection carried out by the Office for Standards in Education and the new adult learning inspectorate. We have charged the LSC with developing a strategy to raise standards. This year, that is backed with funding of £160 million in the new standards fund, which is double the sum that we invested last year.
On pay, the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 established an independent further education sector through the creation of independent corporations to provide further education and training. The governing bodies and principals of colleges are required to secure efficient and effective management of all their college's resources, expenditure, capital assets, equipment and staff. They are also required to conduct academic and financial affairs to balance their budgets. The appointment of local governors means that the needs of local people, local employers, the local community and the local economy can be better met.
Each college must settle the annual pay and conditions of its staff in the context of the overall resources that are available and, as my hon. Friend rightly said, local need and local conditions. Those are matters between employers and staff within the broad parameters of public sector pay policy.
To help colleges solve the retention and recruitment problems mentioned by my hon. Friend, to reward high calibre teaching staff and support the restoration of proper career development within the sector, starting this year and running over the next three years, we have made an additional £300 million available in the FE teaching pay initiative. I am disappointed to hear my hon. Friend describe that as divisive and not the answer to the sector's problems.
296WH
I am also disappointed that the local colleges that she has spoken to dismiss the initiative. We expect more than two thirds of teachers in general FE colleges to qualify for payments of at least £1,000—in many cases, up to £2,000 a year. In addition, we expect 10 per cent. of such staff to secure the restored principal lecturer grade, which will carry an additional payment of up to £4,000 a year.
Alongside that initiative, sixth form colleges are offering a professional standards scheme with payments to experienced teachers. Both schemes are designed to encourage and reward eligible teachers on a par with the threshold payment scheme for school teachers. From April this year, all payments can be backdated to 1 April. No college need lose out even if it is slow off the mark in submitting a declaration of intent to the local LSC.
Colleges should be examining ways to restructure their pay systems to base promotion and rewards on competence, professional development and high quality teaching. The sector must seize both the opportunity and the extra funds that we have provided to improve staff pay. It has been wrongly suggested that there is a bureaucratic delay in getting the new money for pay to colleges, so I will make the position clear: colleges received their provisional allocations for this year's funding for pay in April.
Our discussions on implementation are continuing separately with sixth form colleges. The onus has been on all the other colleges to submit to the LSC a brief summary of their implementation plan for the FE teaching pay initiative. Three months on, less than 10 per cent. of colleges have done that. None of the five colleges mentioned by my hon. Friend that serve her county have done so either. Once colleges have sent in the information, they will receive their funding. I urge colleges to get on and complete their summaries, so that their lecturers can benefit from the extra funding that we are providing to reward their work.
My hon. Friend pointed out that the teacher's pay initiative funds have been spread across the FE sector this year in line with the allocation of core funding to colleges, or, as my hon. Friend described it, in line with student numbers. Our purpose, however, is to recognise the different retention and achievement rates in different colleges. Let me be clear: I will press ahead with plans to examine the scope for refining the TPI arrangements for next year in discussion with the learning and skills council and representatives of the colleges.
My hon. Friend made great play of the comparison between schools and the FE sector. Work is under way to ensure that the FE sector benefits from some of the initiatives already proposed for schools, such as golden hellos and help for new teachers working in shortage subjects to pay off their student loans. I am also conscious of the high proportion of part-time staff in the FE sector and I am considering ways to strengthen the teaching delivered by and support available to such staff.
Qualifications and training are as important as pay. I do not know whether my hon. Friend appreciates that, in many respects, an equivalent of the standards fund exists in the FE sector and I hope that it will have an impact similar to that which she acknowledged it had in schools. Of the £160 million that would be in the

297WH
standards fund, £80 million will help new FE teachers to gain teaching qualifications and support existing college lecturers and teachers with continuous professional development. The extra money for standards is part of an increase of £527 million for FE in this year alone—a 12 per cent. real terms increase on the money available last year—and next year it will increase by a further 3 per cent., not decrease, as my hon. Friend suggested. That funding includes support for the introduction of the new FE pay arrangements, for new centres of vocational excellence in FE, for higher standards of teaching and learning and for a step change in capital investment, including in IT infrastructure.
Further education has been crying out for such resources after years of neglect. I am certain that the proposal will enable further education to support the extra students that we all want. During the debate, my hon. Friend forcefully pointed out the disparity in pay between some FE lecturers and teachers in schools. We are all well aware of the historic funding gap between schools and FE and how it opened even wider during the 1990s. We are pledged to increase funding and ensure upwards convergence. However, being realistic and honest, that can be achieved only in time. With the TPI for FE colleges and the professional standards payments scheme in sixth form colleges, we have made a start. I understand that the association colleges have offered a 3.7 per cent. general pay increase this year. I am bound to say that that, in combination with new schemes such as TPI, is one of the best outcomes in FE for years.
My hon. Friend also referred to individual colleges where nationally negotiated pay increases are not implemented in full. As I explained, it is for colleges to make such decisions in discussions and negotiations with their local work force representatives. They must operate within their budgets and make what I appreciate can be difficult decisions. As my hon. Friend said, those decisions are for her five local colleges. I understand the uncertainty that that can cause members of staff and students, especially in rural areas such as the Forest of Dean.
I end on a positive note about a powerful new player that the FE sector should regard as its ally, not its administrator. My hon. Friend paid tribute to the new Learning and Skills Council. Its creation in April is one of the most significant and far-reaching reforms ever enacted in the post-16 learning sector. For the first time in 100 years, the planning and funding of all post-compulsory learning outside higher education will be integrated. The local learning and skills council in my hon. Friend's constituency, in Gloucester, is central to our purpose and to ensuring that the needs of local learners, lecturers, staff, employers and communities are properly met.
Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair): Order. As the Minister and the hon. Member concerned are present, we may start the next debate.

Transport (South-West Bedfordshire)
12.58 pm
Mr. Andrew Selous: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss several transport issues that are of huge importance to my constituents.
I begin with the urgent need for a full north-south bypass for Dunstable. The residents of Dunstable have been asking for a bypass since 1936, and this morning I read with some disappointment an Adjournment debate initiated by my distinguished predecessor, Sir David Madel, on 8 November 1972, in which he asked
"when will construction work begin on the A5 north-south bypass?"—[Official Report, 8 November 1972; Vol. 845, c. 1154.]
It is depressing to be here as a Member of Parliament for South-West Bedfordshire asking the same question 19 years later.
As one travels up the A5, it seems that every town and village apart from Dunstable has been successful in getting a bypass. Travelling through the village of Markyate this morning, I noticed that the A5 goes around the village, which has reclaimed its high street. The traffic that wants to go to the village flows smoothly and the community is able to enjoy its high street environment. The same thing has happened in Redbourn.
The need for the bypass is overwhelming, and undisputed except by a few per cent. of the people in the town. The overwhelming need is environmental, as the quality of life in the town centre is abysmal for those who have to work and live there. There are 11 schools very close to the route of the A5. On a daily basis, the children in those schools have to endure the fumes produced by almost stationary traffic. As any automotive engineer will confirm, traffic that flows freely produces less pollution than traffic that is nearly at a standstill. The proposed A5 bypass would skirt round the foot of Blows downs—it would not go across them—and, with screening, an environmentally acceptable solution could be found for Blows downs and the Houghton quarry.
There is also an economic need. From an industrial point of view, I have to tell the Minister that Dunstable lost 1,500 jobs in the 12 months up to July this year. I hope that he does not respond by saying that unemployment has fallen in South-West Bedfordshire, so there is no problem. Unemployment has fallen, but where are the jobs? I want local jobs in my constituency. If my constituents must travel out of the area to Stevenage, Luton, Watford, Milton Keynes or London to get jobs, that adds to the severe transport difficulties.
Next to the proposed route of the north-south bypass are 80 acres of brownfield sites that are ripe for regeneration and to which the bypass would give access. They include the old AWD site, the Woodside industrial estate in Houghton Regis and the Renault buildings. From an economic standpoint, the retail centre of the town is in a distressed state. Some 25 per cent. of the shop frontage in Dunstable is vacant because people cannot easily get in and out of the town to do their shopping. Therefore, most people avoid it.
We are told that the north-south bypass is being considered in the multimodal study for the south midlands. I am somewhat cynical about that, and the

299WH
people of Dunstable view it as a stalling mechanism to delay giving them the bypass. How is it that a full western bypass for Bedford, which was also supposed to he considered in the multimodal study, has been granted? A similar process has taken place in Great Barford. Furthermore, I understand that the Government Office for the East of England is pushing for a Luton eastern bypass. If Luton were to get a bypass before Dunstable, there would be an outcry, considering the length of time that we have been pushing for one.
Last year, my hon. Friend, the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) visited my constituency and called for an immediate public inquiry. I hope that, as a minimum, the Minister will announce a public inquiry today to get some progress on the Dunstable bypass. When my distinguished predecessor spoke in another Adjournment debate on this subject last year, he said:
"I very much hope that, by December, the Government will agree to a public inquiry in Dunstable and that a bypass will be constructed." —[Official Report, 27 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 1386.]
It is now July 2001 and we are no further forward. The matter is urgent and I beseech the Minister to make some progress. I invite him to visit my constituency to see the situation for himself.
An extension of the Leighton Buzzard southern bypass is also needed from the Thorn turn, where it meets the A5, to the Ml. A huge volume of traffic uses that bypass, which has successfully taken much of the through traffic out of Leighton Buzzard to that town's advantage. However, the bypass ends short of the M1. Therefore, when traffic meets the A5, much of it turns right and goes straight through Dunstable, which adds to the 3,000 heavy goods vehicles that go through the town every day. That traffic wants to go through, not to, Dunstable. I hope, therefore, that the extension of the Leighton Buzzard southern bypass to the M1 will be forthcoming. Traffic also passes through other villages, such as Toddington, which are highly unsuitable for HGV traffic en route to the M1. Both bypasses are needed to relieve traffic congestion and to contribute to the urgently required economic regeneration.
There is a feeling that the Government are blackmailing us by holding a gun to our heads. We have been told that we have no prospect of getting a bypass unless we accept the green wave of co-ordinated traffic flows from the A5. However, if that is merely a sop and the Government are saying, "Make do with the green wave because that will alleviate the need for a bypass", that simply will not do.
The Government have also told us that, unless we co-operate with their Translink proposals for a guided busway from Luton to Dunstable, our chances of a bypass will similarly diminish. That is an unacceptable way to treat people in my constituency. I have nothing against guided busways: in many parts of the world they can be advantageous to the people whom they serve, as they greatly ease traffic flows. However, I strongly object to the establishment of a guided busway on the site of the existing railway line from Luton to Dunstable. Anyone who drives on the roads in the south-east of England will know that they are becoming more congested daily. Surely many of the branch lines that Dr. Beeching axed should now be brought back into use.
I hope that the Government will not only open the branch line from Luton to Dunstable, but, in time, will connect that line with Leighton Buzzard, to where it
300WH
used to run. It is true that part of the track that runs from Dunstable to Leighton Buzzard no longer exists, but it would not be difficult to route a track alongside the Leighton Buzzard southern bypass, which could join the main line to London near Cheddington.
If that were done, the possibilities for economic regeneration for the region would be tremendous. Birmingham, Milton Keynes, Leighton Buzzard, Dunstable, Luton and Luton airport could all be linked and that means that the many people who travel to the airport from the midlands could reach it in comfort by rail. At the moment, the Strategic Rail Authority has reserved the line between Luton and Dunstable for rail use. An over-enthusiastic local group wanted to run a railway carriage up and down the track, and some of the sleepers were removed. I understand all that, but I beseech the Minister not to proceed with Translink on the existing route at the expense of restoring rail links to our towns. As I said, I am not against guided busways per se, but I would prefer a rail link.
Leighton Buzzard is a major commuter town to which many people have moved because of its supposedly good rail links to London. It is vital that Silverlink trains retains full access to the fast rail line to London and that neither Virgin nor any other rail company is allowed to elbow Silverlink aside so that it is unable to provide an acceptable commuter or other regular service to London.
In addition, there are no lifts at Leighton Buzzard station. That means that people who are disabled, who are in wheelchairs, who are carrying luggage, or who are mothers with young children have difficulty reaching the platforms. Silverlink was wrong not to have installed a lift in the first place, but it now says that it would not be economic to do so, as the franchise has only two years to run. Given that franchises have only two years to run and that companies do not know whether they will have them renewed, will the Minister consider telling them that if, say, they install a lift, they will receive a credit for it if they do not win their franchise next time? Is there no mechanism for encouraging such important capital improvements that allow access for disabled people and others to our railway network? It is not good enough for the remaining years of the franchise to be years in which capital investment stops altogether. Will the Minister consider whether there is any way in which Silverlink can proceed with lift installations, without it being penalised in the final years of its franchise?
My final point—the debate may be coming to resemble the film "Planes, Trains and Automobiles"—concerns Luton airport. I am delighted that the airport is so close to my constituency. It provides ample and welcome opportunity for my constituents to travel abroad at reasonable prices. It is also a great advantage for any region, both economically and as far as jobs are concerned, to be close to an airport, and I welcome it unreservedly.
That said, however, the airport consultative committees are something of a joke. There is no worthwhile accountability to the people over whose homes the aircraft fly from Luton or from many other airports in the United Kingdom. Time and again, sensible-looking approved routes are shown to members of the consultative committees. Aircraft are not scheduled to fly over people's homes on a regular basis,

301WH
but are subsequently regularly vectored off. They are taken off the approved routes merely to save the passengers a couple of minutes' journey time.
That is wholly unacceptable. As I said in my maiden speech, it would be the equivalent of a bus driving across a village green to save two or three minutes. There would, quite rightly, be outrage if that happened. Why do we allow aircraft to fly wherever they want over people's homes when that could and should be easily avoided? With the increase in flights predicted for Luton airport— possibly 30 million passenger flights a year rather than the 7 million or so at the moment—the issue will become more and more serious and will relate not just to Luton airport, but to airports all over the country. Will the Minister urgently consider giving real teeth to the consultative committees to which the airports are responsible? I am not anti-airport, but we must strike the right balance between the economic advantages and jobs that airports bring, and the environmental impact on people over whose homes aircraft fly.
1.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Mr. Selous) on securing this debate and on the delivery of his well researched speech. I knew his predecessor, Sir David Madel, extremely well; he was an Opposition Whip when I was a Government Whip and we frequently haggled behind the scenes about Bills. Perhaps I will come to know the hon. Gentleman just as well. His predecessor was a courteous, well informed and witty man, who acted as a vigorous advocate for his constituents, particularly on the issue of transport. The hon. Gentleman has shown that he will follow in his predecessor's footsteps in that respect.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned how transport policy affects the quality of life and liveability issues are at the heart of our transport policy. He mentioned the importance of economic regeneration and prosperity in South-West Bedfordshire, and such considerations are in our minds when we formulate policy. We are mindful of the substantial job losses in his constituency. The unemployment rate is still below the national average, although that is no satisfaction to those who have recently lost their jobs. I assure him that every effort will be made on behalf of his constituents, even when the matter extends beyond my remit. I am sure that he will lobby hard to secure greater employment in his area. The current economic climate favours regeneration and the creation of new jobs; we must be pleased about that.
I hope that I have enough time to deal with all the h G's points. Some general comments on policy will show how South-West Bedfordshire fits into a wider framework. Debate on transport in the area is controversial. It has gone on for at least 29 years; the hon. Gentleman's predecessor held an Adjournment debate on the subject in 1972. I expect that other hon. Members can go back still further. The other day, someone told me that it was 60 years since a particular bypass was first considered.
302WH
We have established an integrated transport policy and a 10-year transport plan to provide resources for improvements to our transport system. It is widely acknowledged that we have inherited a legacy of under-investment and it will take years to put that right. For the last two years, we have increased the resources available for all forms of transport and, along with local authorities and transport providers, we have committed ourselves to a major sustained investment programme. We established the Strategic Rail Authority, which has a mission to develop the railways as a positive national asset, rather than as a service run at minimal cost to the Exchequer.
The long-term franchises that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will provide the requisite major investment in rail services. I have taken on board his comments about disabled access at stations and will take that message back to the Department. The Strategic Rail Authority is working on a strategy for the whole network and that is due to be published later this year. I accept that the railways have had major problems, but that will not deflect us from our long-term aims.
The motorway and trunk road networks are important to South-West Bedfordshire, which is at the hub of many major networks. We have established, and are committed to delivering, a targeted programme of about 40 schemes for improvement. Many of those are under construction, but others will start in the next few years. We are a long way from the time when people made wish lists, which often promised very little. We have established a programme of multimodal studies that examine comprehensive proposals for dealing with our transport system's most intractable problems.
We have initiated five-year local transport plans to enable local authorities, such as those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and their partners to decide what must be done in their areas and to have the confidence to take their plans forward. The thrust of his argument is that there has not been enough local determination or ability to be able to carry out those plans. The whole transport network plan process is a major step forward and has been widely welcomed.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the integrated transport policy in South-West Bedfordshire, and how solutions are being developed. He described in some detail the need for improvements in safety and in environmental and economic redevelopment. As he described so graphically, congestion is, without doubt, endemic in Dunstable. Diversions from incidents on the M1 can also make that congestion much worse. Bus services cannot run on schedule and timetables have to be adjusted to cope with the regular disruption.
Those problems are not new and we seek to tackle them with the main players in the locality. It is accepted that some of our major projects could take time to be implemented, but the whole approach involves systematic development rather than a series of wish lists.
With regard to the railways, the west coast main line through Leighton Buzzard is being upgraded and new trains are already operating on the midland main line through Luton. The public inquiry for the Thameslink 2000 project is finished and the inspector is working on his report. The Queen opened Luton Airport Parkway station in November 1999. About 30 per cent. of the

303WH
airport's passengers use public transport—a figure up with the best. The hon. Gentleman will agree that that also contributes to reducing congestion on the roads.
The hon. Gentleman raised the possibility that Silverlink services on the west coast main line might suffer as a result of restrictions on the use of fast trains. At the west coast forum on Monday, the consultants issued a report that set out actions to deal with that problem. The Strategic Rail Authority will consider the report and decide what action to take in consultation with other interested parties.
South-West Bedfordshire is covered by two local transport plans. Leighton Buzzard and the more rural areas fall within the Bedfordshire plan. The Dunstable and Houghton Regis area has combined with Luton to produce a single transport plan for the conurbation. We are delighted that the Luton, Bedfordshire and South Bedfordshire councils have come together to work on a comprehensive transport strategy, as that is the best way to deal with the area's substantial problems.
We have already provisionally accepted the joint Bedfordshire-Buckinghamshire A4146 Stoke Hammond and Linslade western bypass major scheme. That will complement the southern bypass by removing further through traffic from the urban area of Leighton Linslade. Bedfordshire council is also developing local programmes for market towns, such as Leighton Buzzard, and the rural areas of the county.
The authorities propose two major schemes in the joint plan. The hon. Gentleman referred to Translink—the guided busway—a major project that links Dunstable and Houghton Regis with Luton and the airport. All the authorities have identified the scheme as being of the highest priority and are now firmly behind the busway project. He described the huge problems of congestion that prevent reliable bus operations. The authorities consider that Translink will create the required sea change in bus operations for that conurbation.
If the hon. Gentleman has any doubts, he should enter into discussions—if he has not done so already—with those local bodies that have shown themselves to be so much in favour of the project. He will understand that we will listen to the local bodies and those responsible for views on local matters. It is not for us to make a decision from Westminster, but to listen to the local decisions and recommendations.
I am aware of the controversy surrounding the scheme and the alternative ideas for the heavy rail use of the old Luton-Dunstable line. However, the local authorities and local partners must decide which scheme to promote. We expect to receive the full appraisal of Translink at the end of July, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will receive careful attention.
The east Luton south corridor improvement, between junction 10 of the M1 and the airport, is the second major scheme. We recognise the project's importance in respect of regeneration, and its appraisal is expected soon. My officials have visited both major schemes to ensure that we are fully aware of the details of the projects.
In addition to such major schemes, we have substantially increased funds for maintenance and integrated transport in the Luton, Dunstable and Houghton Regis area. The figure for 1999–2000 was
304WH
£1.544 million, rising to £2.574 million for 2000–01, and to £4.919 million for 2001–02. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the area that he represents has received substantial increases, and we have indicated that similar funding will be made available for subsequent years.
The plan identifies public transport as the highest priority, followed by walking, cycling and freight access. Those priorities are determined locally, and they will form the basis of the implementation programmes that are developed by the authorities. Local authorities, in conjunction with their partners and transport operators, must decide which programmes to pursue, and they are keen to take up the challenges that are offered by the substantial extra resources that we have made available for transport projects in urban and rural areas.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the London to south midlands multimodal study. We are conducting multimodal studies to deal with the most difficult transport problems. The widening of the M1 and the A5 Dunstable bypass has been referred to the London to south midlands study. Work is under way to develop broad strategies for the first round of consultation with the major players and that will take place in the autumn. More detailed consultation on the proposals for the main corridors, such as the M1, the A5 and the west coast and midland main lines, will take place early in summer 2002. Those consultations will allow for full discussion of the strategic options for South-West Bedfordshire, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to contribute to them.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman's predecessor contributed to the planning conference on the Dunstable bypass that was held in 1996. There was disappointment that no serious action was taken following that conference. The plans for the A5 bypass propose to construct a major grade separated dual carriageway through the urban area. Such a scheme would have a great impact on the urban area, and surrounding open land and sites of special scientific interest. As the h G will be aware, the project is still very controversial.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I am grateful to the newly dapper Minister for allowing me to intervene. Before he reaches his peroration, I want him to explain the thinking behind the Government's decision to detrunk major A roads in Bedfordshire, which means that now the county council, rather than the Government, will foot the bill for maintenance.
Mr. Jamieson: If I address that matter in detail, there will not be enough time to deal with other issues raised in the debate. However, we feel that decisions on the 30 per cent. of the roads that are trunk roads would be better made locally. We have put in place the funding for that and we have transferred it to the local highway authorities to enable them to manage those roads. The major trunk roads will, however, continue to be managed through the Highways Agency.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire made several points about Luton airport, and I have some complex arguments that I would like to present to him. However, we might not have sufficient time to discuss them, so I hope that he will find it acceptable if I promise

305WH
to write to him about Luton airport and vectoring off. If he wishes to discuss the matter further, I will be happy to do that.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this subject and for the way that he has conducted the debate. I look forward to debating with him in the future. I also thank him for giving me the opportunity to explain the Government's position on the important matter of transport in South-West Bedfordshire.

Whaling
1.30 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: It is no pleasure to raise the issue of whaling in the House. I have done it on many occasions, but I am grateful for the opportunity to ask questions of the Government. It might not be a pleasure to raise this issue, but it is a pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State in his place. He is held in high esteem in the animal welfare movement, and he is trusted.
Slaughter of the great whales was and remains one of the greatest crimes ever perpetrated by human beings against our own or another species. For 50 million years, the great whales lived in perfect balance with nature, the seas teemed with whales and fish were in superabundance. However, within the space of 200 years or so, we all but wiped out some of the most magnificent creatures ever to have inhabited our planet, and brought many of those fish stocks to crisis levels. Human beings did that—we cannot blame others—yet we continually blame other species for problems that are entirely created by our own selfishness and venality.
One can say a great deal about whales as a species—although there is not enough time—but certain points need to be made to put the matter into context. Eighty species of whales exist. The blue whale, for example, is the largest living creature to have existed on the planet—even larger than the most massive of the dinosaurs. The sperm whale has the largest brain of any living creature, including that of human beings. The song of the humpback whale is evocative, intricate and capable of being heard by other humpback whales over hundreds of miles of open ocean. The toothed whales have natural sonar echo location equipment, which is 95 per cent. more accurate than the most sophisticated equipment developed by man.
Whales great and small are highly intelligent, communal, warm-blooded mammals with complex social behaviour patterns. They deserve to be studied and held in awe. There is so much that we need to know about them, and perhaps even learn from them. Over the centuries, however, we have slaughtered these gentle, social, harmless creatures, for such prosaic purposes as pet food, candles and perfume. I am reliably informed that, in Japan, one can buy whale ice cream. I can think of few worse insults than that—the great whales turned into a confection for fat kids.
The danger that we might wipe out the whales caused the International Whaling Commission to effect a moratorium in 1986 on commercial whaling. Despite the moratorium, 21,000 whales have been killed since 1986, either in defiance of the moratorium or in the name of so-called scientific whaling. The countries that have primarily defied the IWC in world opinion are not dirt-poor countries or bandit states, but among the most economically prosperous countries in the world—Japan, Norway and Iceland. Japan and Norway together kill more than 1,000 whales every year—mostly minke whales, but last year I understand that the Japanese Government added sperm and Bryde's whales to the list. Every year, Japan kills more than 500 whales using the loophole of scientific whaling. Japan has the audacity to claim that it is killing in the name of science. All I can say—I know that I can get emotional about this—is that that is exactly the same sort of claim that was made by the Nazis when they were killing people in the name of science in the concentration camps.

307WH
Meat from the so-called scientific slaughter ends up, unsurprisingly, in markets or on plates in Japanese restaurants. The Norwegians use the same loophole and export the product of scientific whaling as food to other countries. I have noticed, over the years, that the Japanese are especially touchy when confronted on this matter. They tend to accuse those of us who are trying to end the slaughter of being cultural imperialists, or, at times, downright racists. They say that it is an attempt by the European meat-eating cultures to impose their will on Asian fish eaters. It always seems perverse to me that with all the so-called scientific whaling, we are still unable to show the Japanese or, apparently, the Norwegians, that whales arc not fish but mammals. So much for scientific whaling.
The Japanese, in particular, say that whales are taking too many fish. How often have we heard that before? Industrial fishing has depleted fishing stocks around the world. Nature has its own balance—it is only human beings that have affected that balance. We have caused stocks to fall, so we turn around and blame other species such as whales or seals for depletion. That argument is as absurd as blaming woodpeckers for deforestation.
On the "Today" programme recently, someone from the Japanese embassy compared the hunting of whales with the hunting of deer. When I raised the issue with the then Norwegian Prime Minister, Mrs. Brundtland, she went further and compared whaling with fox hunting. Those comparisons are grotesque, odious and totally irrelevant, but they reveal the bankruptcy of those who try to defend their arrogant defiance of world opinion. We should remember, when we talk about hunting, that there are those outside this country who use our hunting issue to undermine our stance on wider, more significant animal welfare issues.
Whaling is an animal welfare issue, because we inflict terrible pain and suffering on warm-blooded mammals when the harpoon is fired into them. The time it takes for a whale to die often exceeds one hour; it is estimated that on average 50 per cent. of whales are not killed by the first weapon impact. An independent study financed by Her Majesty's Government showed that some whales were still alive when the whalers cut them up. There is no way of finding a painless way to kill a great whale. Not only is organised whaling economically unnecessary and ecologically unacceptable, it is also extremely cruel.
The attitude of countries such as Japan and Norway is breathtaking in its arrogance and defiance of world opinion. It is sometimes difficult to understand how such economically powerful and supposedly civilised countries can continue such offensive and cruel slaughter of the great whales. In so far as the whales are owned by anyone, they are owned by all of us.
Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I agree absolutely with everything that he said. Would he care to comment on the falsification of figures in the past in returns to the International Whaling Commission by countries that have taken up so-called scientific whaling? Would he also like to comment on the number of massive fishing fleets, especially in the Pacific and the south Atlantic, that have taken and sold whales illegally and not reported the fact to anyone? Does he not think that there
308WH
should be a much better surveillance system on all fishing fleets to protect what remains of the great whales?
Mr. Banks: I absolutely agree. I want to ask the Minister about our involvement in the revised management scheme and the DNA records. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) has worked with me on this issue in all the years we have been in Parliament and knows the matter as well, if not better, than I do.
The moratorium has worked more or less and certain populations of whales can be argued to have reached healthier levels. It is at this point that we are told that they can survive being harvested—a horrible euphemism for slaughtering that ignores the cruelty. We brought whales back from the brink of extinction and yet there are countries, including some of those that brought that crisis about, that now want to reintroduce commercial whaling. They must not be allowed to succeed.
One of the most contemptible practices employed by the Japanese is the buying of votes in the IWC—providing development and fisheries aid to a number of countries on condition that they will vote with Japan at the IWC. I have a list here: Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Morocco, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Kitts and Nevis, Grenada and Guinea. Two more countries—Panama and Peru—are likely to join the IWC this year as part of the Japanese vote-buying strategy. Namibia and Togo are rumoured to be potential IWC members, having signed fisheries agreements with the Japanese.
The Government must challenge Japan on that vote buying, because if it is allowed to succeed at the IWC it will, in effect, buy a return to whaling. Most of the countries that I listed are members of the Commonwealth. Has the issue been raised at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings, or will it be raised at them in the future? The Minister or the Foreign Office should call in the high commissioners of each of those countries and tell them that if they accept conditional aid from the Japanese, the British Government will withdraw development aid from them. We must impose appropriate sanctions on countries that continue to whale or to allow whaling in their territorial waters.
The plenary meetings of the IWC will begin in London on 23 July. We Londoners must let the whaling nations and their vassal states know how this country feels about what they are doing. At the meetings in Hammersmith, there will be discussions about the revised management scheme that has been mentioned. By definition, we cannot accept a revised management scheme if we oppose the idea of whaling, but it is essential for us to be involved in the discussions. No mechanism has yet been proposed for the enforcement of the rules and for the penalisation of those who infringe them.
Whaling nations oppose any advancement of the RMS because they object to international observation and inspection. They say that that is on the ground of cost, but we know what it is really about: they do not want the world to bear witness to what they are doing. Similarly, they oppose the establishment of an

309WH
international DNA database to track legal and illegal whale products. Of course, they also oppose any discussion of the humane considerations surrounding whale killing.
I would like the Minister to spell out the position that the Government will adopt at the IWC, and I shall ask him a few specific questions. First, will he insist that humane considerations be given priority? Whales are slaughtered without any legislative framework to provide standards or even recommendations about methods of killing. In Monaco in February, a large number of countries spoke in support of the UK's data collection protocol and we must build on that.
Secondly, the scientific committee does not have sufficient expertise on welfare matters. What proposals do the Government have to provide such expertise? Thirdly, what resolution will the Minister propose on the ethical considerations associated with the whale kill? Fourthly, will the Government support an independent DNA database? Fifthly, will he do what he can to ensure that Iceland is not permitted to rejoin the IWC while it maintains its reservations to the moratorium?
This House is united in the objective of ending whaling completely. In the meantime, however, we must put in place the most rigorous rules to try to mitigate the damage being done by countries such as Japan and Norway. Ultimately, the so-called civilised nations that continue to slaughter whales must be forced to acknowledge that what they are doing is not pursuing cultural or historical activities, but perpetrating crimes against the planet and world opinion. No country, however big and powerful, should be allowed to get away with that.
I thank the Government for their refusal to allow Norway to count minke whales in our waters. I tabled an early-day motion on that matter and it is attracting considerable support from hon. Members in all parties. I wish the Minister well in his efforts to control and ultimately ban all forms of whaling. When he goes to the IWC, he will take the support of all parties in the House. I feel strongly, and I think that world public opinion does too, that whaling must be brought to an end. I wish the Minister well in his deliberations to achieve that objective.
1.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) on initiating the debate. He has articulated strong views, which a majority in this country share and which are also held internationally. He has been a longstanding campaigner on the issue and can speak on whaling with authority and knowledge. I hope that the countries that are still involved in it will take note of his comments because he is articulating an important strand of thought.
My hon. Friend is right that the International Whaling Commission will be holding its third annual meeting in London between 23 and 27 July. I can confirm that the UK delegation will oppose all forms of whaling, other than some subsistence whaling by indigenous people, which is insignificant in comparison
310WH
with the whaling carried out by Japan and Norway. We strongly support the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling and will robustly resist any attempt by other countries to weaken or reverse it.
My hon. Friend is right that there will be further detailed discussions on the revised management scheme that is being developed to regulate all aspects of commercial whaling. We are totally opposed to any return of commercial whaling. We recognise that whaling has been going on and that there is a need for proper regulation. We have participated constructively in work on that to ensure that our voice and scientific expertise are involved.
I should make it clear that we are in no way satisfied with the current content of the RMS. As it stands, it provides insufficient safeguards. Like many like-minded countries, the UK is seeking a comprehensive RMS that would ensure that no form of whaling was a threat to whale conservation and that catch limits and other rules were strictly observed.
One key aspect of any RMS—this is one of the points that my hon. Friend outlined—is that there must be an effective and robust DNA database. There must also be provision for international observers on whaling vessels. Without those two key elements, the RMS will be completely ineffective. We are not satisfied with the procedures that have been agreed so far and we will not compromise on the points that I mentioned.
Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the Minister's remarks. What plans does he hope the International Whaling Commission will produce for the observation of illegal whaling in the Pacific and south Atlantic and of massive over-fishing and over-catching? What does he hope that the IWC will do about the use of long nets, which catch many smaller mammals in addition to the fish that they are designed to catch, resulting in the loss of the food source of many whales? Does the Minister accept that a comprehensive strategy is needed, as well as the strongest possible intervention against illegal fishing?
Mr. Morley: I certainly accept my hon. Friend's points. Indeed, an observer programme might well be part of an international approach to the problems of cetacean bycatch, which involve both great whales and small cetaceans. One of a number of fundamental disagreements that the UK has with the pro-whaling lobby in the IWC is that we believe that the IWC has competence on issues such as small cetaceans. We also believe that it should have an evolving role—it should evolve away from regulating the commercial exploitation of whales, which it was originally set up to do, towards dealing with environmental threats to whales, which come from several sources, including pollution, over-fishing and a range of other issues that it is important for the IWC to note. The IWC has a good scientific base and the UK plays a full role in that regard, along with other countries. We should use that scientific base to tackle the issues that I have mentioned.
International over-fishing goes beyond the competence of the IWC. However, the UK takes the matter seriously and has raised it with UN organisations such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation to ensure that there is international action on regulating the illegal fishing that has been taking place on the high seas.

311WH
I echo my hon. Friend's argument that, scientifically, it is ludicrous to try to hold whales responsible for the perilous state of many international fish stocks. Whales are an integral part of the marine ecology and the state of whale stocks is a biological indicator of the ecological health of our seas. The fact that many species have not recovered well suggests that all is not right in relation to the exploitation of our seas. We must tackle that internationally. Speaking as a Minister with responsibility for fisheries, I know only too well that the impact of modern fishing fleets on fish stocks all over the world is much more detrimental than that of any whale. I made that point forcefully to the Japanese commissioner and scientists who gave an unimpressive presentation on the subject at the most recent IWC.
We are disappointed with the lack of compromise demonstrated by the pro-whaling countries. Nevertheless, we shall continue to take part in discussions, as it is important that we have input on issues such as the revised management scheme. We will make it clear that our participation in that work is without prejudice to our declared opposition to any form of commercial whaling. There should be no misunderstanding about that.
A key element of conservation of whales that will arise in the IWC is the creation of regional whale sanctuaries. We strongly supported the initiative proposed last year by Australia and New Zealand to create a south Pacific whale sanctuary. This year, Brazil will propose a south Atlantic whale sanctuary. Those sanctuaries will afford greater protection to whales in areas that are highly important for their breeding and feeding and are on their migration routes. It would be irresponsible to oppose those sanctuaries, which would be an important step for conservation, on the grounds that they might interfere with commercial exploitation. We will support the proposals strongly and argue for them robustly.
With the majority of IWC members, we have also consistently criticised Japan for its whaling operations authorised under special permits—the so-called scientific whaling to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham referred. Like him, we were appalled last year when Japan extended those whaling operations to cover two further species, sperm and Bryde's whales. Under the IWC's parent convention, IWC approval for those proposals is not needed and it is for Japan to authorise whaling under special permit. However, we expected Japan to take note of the IWC's views and those of its scientific committee. We will again register the Government's strong objection to the activity and urge Japan to restructure the research so that its objectives are achieved by non-lethal means. Whales need not be killed to be studied.
We also intend to ask Norway to reconsider its whaling activities, because we believe that they are contrary to the IWC moratorium. Iceland has no case to rejoin the IWC with a reservation on the moratorium. A country cannot set out its reservations to an international organisation before it has joined it. We are taking legal advice on Iceland's position. We are especially disappointed that Norway, which generally has a good environmental record, has disregarded the decisions of the IWC and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species by deciding
312WH
to export whale products. That is a principal reason why we have refused permission for its whale count in United Kingdom waters this year.
We will also raise the argument about cruelty that my hon. Friend mentioned.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think that it is on the record that I have had a financial relationship with the International Fund for Animal Welfare in the past.
I congratulate the Minister on his radio broadcast of a couple of days ago. It probably reached a bigger audience than the debate will, and made many of the same points effectively. He said that the Government had blocked the Norwegian survey in our waters this year. How will he come to a judgment on future years? Is that matter still open, or is it likely that the Norwegian survey will continue to be blocked?
Mr. Morley: Generally speaking, it is important to have good science and to co-operate internationally on collecting and sharing data. That is the fundamental basis for a sound scientific approach. Our objection to Norway is that it has ignored international conventions, and CITES in particular, by trying to restart the export of whale products.
We object to the Norwegian method of calculating its self-imposed quota for taking minke whales. We do not think that the survey makes sound science or that it helps whale conservation. Of course, if Norway changes its stance and the criteria that it applies in its approach to whales and its study of them, we shall reconsider our decision in future years, but we are not prepared to assist Norway in the matter of information relating to the quotas it has set itself for the slaughter of whales, particularly given that country's behaviour internationally.
The UK will express its concern about the cruelty involved in whaling and about inhumane methods and lack of regulation in the hunting of not only great whales but small cetaceans. Video evidence from the Environmental Investigation Agency showed appalling scenes of the slaughter of small cetaceans. We raised that matter at the IWC last year. We shall also promote the practice of whale watching, which is a way for many countries to benefit from whales without killing them. Even whale watching needs regulation and management and that is an important function of the IWC.
Jeremy Corbyn: I endorse what my hon. Friend has said about whale watching and whale tourism. I understand that that could be a way to change the mind of some of the smaller countries whose votes have been bought by Japan. They may be persuaded that there is more in it for them in the future if they pursue ecological tourism and whale observation than there would be in accepting gifts from Japan in a trade-off for votes to permit the continuation of scientific whaling. Are the Government prepared to think further about that?
Mr. Morley: Yes, I am pleased to reassure my hon. Friend. We have been actively involved in that approach and sponsored a study of the benefits of whale watching in the Caribbean. I am glad to say that we received

313WH
support from several Caribbean countries. At this year's IWC we shall present a properly researched analysis of the benefits of whale watching off the west of Scotland, so that small countries can see that there is an economic return from whale watching—perhaps a greater one than can be had from the sort of commercial exploitation that is now taking place.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham will know that Japan strongly denies vote buying, but it is accepted that there has been, shall we say, recruitment. It is for the Governments concerned to answer for themselves on those issues, but there is strong public opinion about whaling in the countries involved. The relevant Governments are democratically accountable and I hope that they will account for their actions. They are individual delegates to the IWC. They do not have to follow a given line; they can listen to the arguments. We shall be arguing strongly on issues such as whale sanctuaries, which are important.
I should be disappointed to be given evidence that Japan, for the sake of argument, had tried to use whatever influence it had to persuade delegates to vote in a certain way. That would ultimately rebound
314WH
strongly on the Governments concerned and it is one reason for our intention to resist moves for voting in secret at the IWC. We are all accountable to our electorates and Parliaments. People should be able to witness a transparent, open process at the IWC.
Our Commonwealth links are strong and I set great store by them. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been active in its contacts with our Commonwealth partners and other countries, in raising international and conservation issues in both the IWC and CITES contexts. I pay tribute to what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has done. It has managed to air the arguments in a way that is not patronising or threatening to the countries concerned; it has simply put the case for whale conservation and explained what would be at stake if commercial whaling returned or CITES were relaxed. It has outlined the risks—not only the prospect of cruelty, but the risk to many whale species that are still on the brink of extinction.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham that I know the views of the House very well and he has put them forcibly and strongly. We will ensure that they are articulated firmly at the forthcoming IWC.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

HEALTH

  Anti-psychotic Medication
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the prescribing rates in the last three years for which figures are available for atypical, anti-psychotic medication. [1586]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of items dispensed in the community in England for atypical, anti-psychotic preparations for the period 1998–2000 is shown in the table.

  Thousand

  Year

  Prescription items

  1998

  469.7

  1999

  772.6

  2000

  1,149.4

  The data are from the Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) system and are based on a full analysis of all prescriptions dispensed in the community, i.e. by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered in England. The PCA system includes not only prescriptions originating from general practices in England but also from nurses, dentists and hospital doctors provided they were dispensed in the community; also included are prescriptions written in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man but dispensed in England. The data do not cover drugs dispensed in hospitals or private prescriptions.

  Patient Consultations
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role the new strategic health authorities will have in ensuring effective patient and public involvement. [1839]

  Ms Blears
  The detail of the roles and responsibilities of strategic health authorities are still being finalised. It is not possible to say at this stage what the precise arrangements will be for ensuring effective patient and public involvement mechanisms.

  We shall be able to be much clearer about the role of strategic health authorities, including how it fits with the new involvement structures, later in the summer.

  The new structures being formulated to strengthen patient and public voice and influence are based on the premise that every aspect of the National Health Service, both delivery and management, should respond to what
  508W
  users of the NHS believe is right for the future of the health services they use. Strategic health authorities will, together with all other bodies in the NHS, need to respond to this important consideration.

  Chiropody Services
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase investment in NHS chiropody services. [1727]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan forecast investment in all the allied health professions, which includes chiropodists. This year the Department has commissioned 345 training places, and funded local projects on return to practice from education consortia. Chiropodists are an integral part of the Government patient-focused policy programme, particularly in relation to older people and diabetes, which are part of the national service framework programme.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to replace the law relating to claims for medical negligence with a system of no fault compensation involving payment of modest lump sums and pensions payable for fixed periods up to and including for life. [1719]

  Ms Blears
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 144W.

  Mental Health
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government intend to implement the White Paper on "Reforming the Mental Health Act"; and what plans they have to consult further to ensure that new legislation meets the needs of mental health service users. [2713]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are committed to the reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 and will introduce new legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. We will continue to take account of the views of mental health service users and other key interests as work is carried out to develop the policies set out in the White Paper "Reforming the Mental Health Act" into detailed proposals for new legislation.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the pilot schemes for the availability of digital hearing aids on the NHS; and if he will extend access to digital hearing aids on the NHS. [2541]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has asked the Institute of Hearing Research (IHR) to conduct a research evaluation of the Modernising National Health Service Hearing Aid Services project. The IHR is expected to present its report in February 2002. The evaluation will help determine how changes in hearing aid services might be extended to all NHS audiology departments.
  509W
  If the project is successful we anticipate that by 2003–04 we will be investing an extra £25 million in NHS hearing aid services.

  Pending the outcome of the project, all NHS audiology departments, with the appropriate staff, training, equipment and experience, are able to apply for access to the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency contract for digital hearing aids.

  Milford Hospital
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of Milford hospital; and if he will visit Milford hospital. [2833]

  Ms Blears
  West Surrey health authority is currently considering the responses received during the recent public consultation—The Sustainable NHS—Phase ii.

  It would be inappropriate to make any comment on the future of the hospital before the health authority has made a final decision.

  Ministerial commitments will not allow a visit to Milford hospital at this time.

  Delayed Treatment
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the delay in the treatment given to Christopher Lewis, of Churchdown, Gloucestershire, by the NHS. [2942]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: The United Bristol Healthcare National Health Service Trust investigated Mr. Christopher Lewis' complaint about the delays to his treatment under the NHS complaints procedure, and a reply was sent to Mr. Lewis by the chief executive of the trust on 11 June 2001.

  Waiting Lists
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future publication of inpatient and outpatient waiting lists in England; and what plans he has to publish further indicators of patient waiting times. [3270]

  Mr. Hutton
  The inpatient waiting list has been reduced by 255,000 since June 1998, and the number of outpatient over-13-week waiters fell by 94,000 over the same period. Information on waiting lists and times will continue to be collected and published.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his estimate is of the level of(a) inpatient and (b) outpatient waiting lists and waiting times at (i) East Somerset NHS Trust and (ii) Taunton NHS Trust; what the Government's targets are in each category; and if he will make a statement; [3049]

  (2) what targets for (a) inpatient waiting times, (b) outpatient waiting times, (c) inpatient waiting lists and (d) outpatient waiting lists, he has set for (i) East Somerset NHS Trust and (ii) Taunton NHS Trust for each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement; [3050]
  510W
  Ms Blears
  Information on hospital waiting times is published quarterly by the Department in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England" and "Waiting Times for First Outpatient Appointments in England: Detailed Statistics". This information is also available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/waitingtimes.

  The numbers of patients waiting for inpatient or day case treatment at East Somerset National Health Service Trust and Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust on 31 March 2001 are shown in the table.

  Patients waiting for admission by number of months waiting

  East Somerset

  Taunton and Somerset

  0–2 months

  1,089

  3,400

  3–5 months

  538

  2,039

  6–11 months

  314

  1,371

  12–17 months

  2

  28

  18+ months

  0

  0

  Total

  1,943

  6,838

  The number of general practitioner written referral requests seen as a first outpatients in Quarter 4 (1 January to 31 March 2001) at East Somerset NHS Trust and Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust is shown in the table.

  Of those GP referral requests seen, the number who waited (in weeks)

  East Somerset

  Taunton and Somerset

  0–14 weeks

  2,251

  4,609

  4–113 weeks

  2,267

  4,299

  13–126 weeks

  758

  2,305

  26+

  208

  459

  Total

  5,484

  11,672

  1 Less than

  As part of the NHS Plan, the NHS is working towards reducing the current maximum inpatient wait of 18 months to 15 months by March 2002 and reducing the outpatient wait of over six months now to a maximum of six months by March 2002. These targets are part of a staged reduction in waiting times, with inpatient waiting times continuing to fall from 18, to 15, to 12, nine then ultimately six months by 2005. The maximum outpatient waiting time will fall to three months by 2005.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the length of the inpatient waiting list at East Somerset NHS Trust for each of the last 10 years; what his estimate is of the number of (i) inpatients and (ii) outpatients waiting for more than(a) three months, (b) six months, (c) nine months, (d) 12 months, (e) 15 months, (f) 18 months and (g) 24 months, for each reporting period over the last 10 years for (A) East Somerset NHS Trust and (B) Taunton NHS Trust; and if he will make a statement. [3048]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the tables. Information on inpatients is not available before June 1991; information on outpatients is only available from June 1995.
  511W

  Inpatient data for East Somerset NHS Trust (RA4) from June 1991 to March 2001

  Number of patients on list who have waited:

  Quarter

  Total

  Over 3 months

  Over 6 months

  Over 9 months

  Over 12 months

  Over 15 months

  Over 18 months

  Over 24 months

  June 1991

  1 605

  795

  406

  209

  104

  n/a

  n/a

  13

  September 1991

  1.558

  724

  377

  167

  82

  n/a

  n/a

  7

  December 1991

  1,604

  745

  342

  177

  79

  n/a

  n/a

  4

  March 1992

  1,485

  531

  196

  47

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  June 1992

  1,499

  610

  210

  85

  17

  1

  1

  0

  September 1992

  1,601

  545

  245

  71

  16

  1

  0

  0

  December 1992

  1,744

  637

  228

  82

  11

  1

  0

  0

  March 1993

  1,670

  611

  244

  72

  0

  0

  0

  0

  June 1993

  1,869

  780

  280

  98

  20

  0

  0

  0

  September 1993

  1,845

  815

  342

  103

  26

  1

  0

  0

  December 1993

  1,999

  704

  320

  105

  12

  0

  0

  0

  March 1994

  1,725

  654

  252

  76

  0

  0

  0

  0

  June 1994

  1,791

  642

  231

  72

  11

  2

  0

  0

  September 1994

  1,721

  685

  272

  77

  7

  0

  0

  0

  December 1994

  1,610

  591

  244

  51

  0

  0

  0

  0

  March 1995

  1,423

  381

  138

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  June 1995

  1,490

  457

  139

  23

  0

  0

  0

  0

  September 1995

  1,673

  497

  127

  15

  2

  0

  0

  0

  December 1995

  1,689

  494

  123

  14

  1

  0

  0

  0

  March 1996

  1,634

  421

  111

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  June 1996

  1,691

  531

  112

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  September 1996

  2,181

  682

  169

  18

  0

  0

  0

  0

  December 1996

  2,599

  983

  341

  81

  0

  0

  0

  0

  March 1997

  2,662

  1,025

  435

  146

  6

  0

  0

  0

  June 1997

  2,614

  1,122

  487

  212

  64

  4

  0

  0

  September 1997

  2,537

  1,077

  482

  185

  65

  23

  0

  0

  December 1997

  2,874

  1,189

  543

  206

  45

  7

  0

  0

  March 1998

  2,845

  1,251

  521

  172

  5

  1

  0

  0

  June 1998

  2,660

  1,120

  493

  182

  19

  2

  0

  0

  September 1998

  2,335

  965

  431

  171

  22

  0

  0

  0

  December 1998

  2,485

  941

  436

  183

  42

  3

  0

  0

  March 1999

  2,489

  850

  382

  143

  0

  0

  0

  0

  June 1999

  2,132

  812

  338

  156

  39

  0

  0

  0

  September 1999

  2,294

  843

  334

  136

  41

  5

  0

  0

  December 1999

  2,412

  878

  356

  126

  31

  6

  0

  0

  March 2000

  2,061

  803

  377

  150

  31

  4

  0

  0

  June 2000

  2,081

  877

  397

  183

  47

  9

  0

  0

  September 2000

  2,209

  900

  410

  183

  55

  3

  0

  0

  December 2000

  2,062

  937

  384

  164

  38

  0

  0

  0

  March 2001

  1,943

  854

  316

  96

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Note:

  Data not available prior to June 1991.

  Source:

  KH07 quarterly returns

  Inpatient data for Somerset and Taunton NHS Trust (RBA) from June 1991 to March 2001

  Number of patients on list who have waited:

  Quarter

  Total

  Over 3 months

  Over 6 months

  Over 9 months

  Over 12 months

  Over 15 months

  Over 18 months

  Over 24 months

  June 1991

  6,506

  4,126

  2,619

  1,713

  1,094

  n/a

  n/a

  289

  September 1991

  5,844

  3,733

  2,191

  1,269

  667

  n/a

  n/a

  143

  December 1991

  5,730

  3,103

  1,596

  792

  341

  n/a

  n/a

  66

  March 1992

  5,441

  2,648

  1,137

  352

  3

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  June 1992

  5,671

  3,102

  1,459

  525

  121

  20

  15

  5

  September 1992

  5,843

  3,156

  1,564

  505

  64

  22

  3

  0

  December 1992

  6,331

  3,113

  1,593

  599

  83

  13

  8

  0

  March 1993

  6,119

  2,932

  1,359

  431

  0

  0

  0

  0

  June 1993

  5,975

  3,094

  1,440

  462

  57

  3

  2

  0

  September 1993

  5,888

  2,931

  1,434

  481

  57

  2

  1

  0

  December 1993

  5,701

  2,897

  1,335

  469

  67

  7

  4

  0

  March 1994

  5,479

  2,528

  1,022

  243

  0

  0

  0

  0

  June 1994

  5,510

  2,491

  972

  229

  0

  0

  0

  0

  September 1994

  5,222

  2,200

  798

  206

  0

  0

  0

  0

  December 1994

  5,212

  1,966

  701

  157

  0

  0

  0

  0

  March 1995

  4,993

  1,884

  609

  157

  0

  0

  0

  0

  June 1995

  4,995

  1,974

  480

  43

  0

  0

  0

  0

  September 1995

  5,088

  1,891

  510

  22

  1

  1

  0

  0

  December 1995

  5,007

  1,748

  408

  29

  0

  0

  0

  0

  512W 513W

  Inpatient data for Somerset and Taunton NHS Trust (RBA) from June 1991 to March 2001

  Number of patients on list who have waited:

  Quarter

  Total

  Over 3 months

  Over 6 months

  Over 9 months

  Over 12 months

  Over 15 months

  Over 18 months

  Over 24 months

  March 1996

  4,899

  1,507

  292

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  June 1996

  5,152

  1,753

  329

  22

  0

  0

  0

  0

  September 1996

  5,201

  1,831

  425

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  December 1996

  5,898

  2,324

  648

  34

  0

  0

  0

  0

  March 1997

  6,282

  3,001

  1,070

  219

  0

  0

  0

  0

  June 1997

  6,759

  3,198

  1,406

  376

  18

  0

  0

  0

  September 1997

  6,710

  3,296

  1,506

  566

  52

  0

  0

  0

  December 1997

  7,513

  3,569

  1,689

  695

  113

  0

  0

  0

  March 1998

  7,523

  3,788

  1,691

  560

  22

  1

  0

  0

  June 1998

  7,596

  3,999

  1,771

  576

  32

  0

  0

  0

  September 1998

  7,385

  3,547

  1,624

  470

  44

  0

  0

  0

  December 1998

  7,606

  3,677

  1,705

  574

  114

  1

  0

  0

  March 1999

  7,440

  3,679

  1,759

  536

  137

  16

  0

  0

  June 1999

  7,451

  3,910

  1,859

  707

  137

  13

  0

  0

  September 1999

  7,630

  4,049

  1,933

  704

  180

  13

  0

  0

  December 1999

  7,690

  4,077

  2,007

  753

  211

  61

  0

  0

  March 2000

  7,027

  3.794

  1,793

  803

  271

  37

  0

  0

  June 2000

  6,920

  3,662

  1,677

  792

  297

  58

  0

  0

  September 2000

  6,753

  3,144

  1,430

  619

  197

  39

  0

  0

  December 2000

  7,094

  3,539

  1,459

  654

  203

  40

  0

  0

  March 2001

  6,838

  3,438

  1,399

  432

  28

  5

  0

  0

  Note:

  Data not available prior to June 1991.

  Source:

  KH07 quarterly return

  Outpatient data for East Somerset NHS Trust (RA4) from June 1995 to March 2001

  Number of patients waiting for a first outpatient attendance (following general practitioner referral) at quarter end who have waited:

  Quarter

  Over 13 weeks (three months)

  Over 26 weeks (six months)

  June 1995

  941

  277

  September 1995

  980

  228

  December 1995

  1,000

  189

  March 1996

  930

  194

  June 1996

  325

  20

  September 1996

  423

  30

  December 1996

  451

  60

  March 1997

  559

  87

  June 1997

  657

  146

  September 1997

  869

  142

  December 1997

  988

  225

  March 1998

  843

  237

  June 1998

  863

  210

  September 1998

  925

  200

  December 1998

  1,047

  196

  March 1999

  896

  247

  June 1999

  1,180

  258

  September 1999

  1,132

  294

  December 1999

  1,043

  306

  March 2000

  1,020

  257

  June 2000

  1,266

  295

  September 2000

  769

  202

  December 2000

  633

  126

  March 2001

  466

  97

  Notes:

  1. Data are not available on the total number of patients waiting for a first outpatient appointment.

  2. Data are not available for the number of patients waiting over nine, 12, 15, 18 or 24 months.

  3. Data not collected prior to June 1995.

  Source:

  QM08 quarterly return
  514W

  Outpatient data for Somerset and Taunton NHS Trust (RBA) from June 1995 to March 2001

  Number of patients waiting for a first outpatient attendance (following GP referral) at quarter end who have waited:

  Quarter

  Over 13 weeks (three months)

  Over 26 weeks (six months)

  June 1995

  948

  205

  September 1995

  1,204

  271

  December 1995

  1,138

  172

  March 1996

  929

  191

  June 1996

  1,153

  143

  September 1996

  1,482

  142

  December 1996

  1,471

  194

  March 1997

  1,268

  210

  June 1997

  1,105

  173

  September 1997

  1,628

  155

  December 1997

  1,599

  219

  March 1998

  1,216

  199

  June 1998

  1,536

  199

  September 1998

  2,012

  363

  December 1998

  2,125

  527

  March 1999

  1,978

  478

  June 1999

  2,483

  552

  September 1999

  2,597

  577

  December 1999

  2,561

  643

  March 2000

  2,128

  603

  June 2000

  2,651

  483

  September 2000

  1,543

  256

  December 2000

  1,692

  275

  March 2001

  1,384

  225

  Notes:

  1. Data are not available on the total number of patients waiting for a first outpatient appointment.

  2. Data are not available for the number of patients waiting over nine, 12, 15, 18 or 24 months.

  3. Data not collected prior to June 1995.

  Source:

  QM08 quarterly return

  Health Authority Merger
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to merge the Somerset health authority and the Dorset health authority; and if he will make a statement. [3051]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in April 2001 that the existing health authorities would be disestablished and replaced by new strategic health authorities. Public consultation on the boundaries of the new strategic health authorities will take place later this year.

DEFENCE

  Army Personnel Centre
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the chief executive of the Army Personnel Centre for financial year 2001–02. [3803]

  Mr. Ingram
  The chief executive of the Army Personnel Centre has been set the following key targets for 2001–02:To maintain the percentage of posts which are manned (excluding posts gapped for less than 28 days and all posts for private soldiers and subaltern officers) at 94 per cent.
  To ensure that the proportion of personnel posted in-year by the APC whose rank and service qualifications meet the specifications of the post is at least 94 per cent.
  To ensure that the percentage of in-year postings authorised by the APC where personnel are given at least four months' notification is at least 54 per cent.

  Note:
  Short-notice operational requirements and postings following initial training and long courses are excluded.
  To maintain accurate pay and personal records of service by correctly processing all pay, pension and personal occurrences within seven working days from receipt of valid input.
  To enable payment of all terminal benefits within five working days of retirement or receipt of valid documentation (which ever is the later) in no less than 98 per cent of cases.
  To remain within +0 per cent. to -1 per cent. of the annual resource control allocation for operating activities.

  Suez (Medals)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received concerning a general service medal for those who served in the Suez Canal Zone between 1951 and 1954 [2382]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) on 9 July 2001,Official Report, column 361W.

  Stanoc Centre
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the military units, (b) UK police forces, (c) UK authorities, agencies and private organisations and (d) overseas customers who have been advised by the Stanoc Centre over the past year. [3015]
  516W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: The Surveillance, Target Acquisition, Night Observation and Counter-surveillance (STANOC) centre has provided assistance to the following organisations since June 2000:

  Military Units
  A comprehensive list of all military units advised by the STANOC centre is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Assistance has, however, been provided in support of Op AGRICOLA, Op PALATINE and other military training activities.

  UK Civil Police Forces
  Metropolitan police, Greater Manchester police. Dorset police, Sussex police, Hampshire police, National Crime Squad, Police Scientific and Development Branch, Lancashire police, Wiltshire police, Jersey police, National Criminal Intelligence Service, SO19.

  UK Authorities and Agencies
  HM Customs and Excise, Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, Ministry of Defence Police, Defence Procurement Agency, Cabinet Security Office and other Government agencies.

  UK Industry
  Arkonia, Ascent Group, Swarowski, THALES, Marconi, Wylam Defence Systems., Avimo, BAE Systems, Barracuda (UK), Accuracy International, GKN, Raytheon, Bridport Aviation, Colebrand, Roctec, Abley Shelters, MFC, Gore UK, Karrimor, CDSS, ATSI, LEICA, Croma Optics and Resurgem.

  Overseas Armed Forces
  Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Air Force, Dutch Army, Belgian Army, Norwegian Army, German Army, Omani Army, Sierra Leone, Pakistan, US Army, NZ Army, Philippine Armed Forces, Malaysian Armed Forces, Albanian Army, Macedonian Army and NATO.

  Overseas Industry
  Barracuda, Litton.

  NATO's Defence Capabilities Initiative
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with NATO's Defence Capabilities Initiative since the Washington Summit in 1999. [2531]

  Mr. Hoon
  NATO's Defence Capabilities Initiative (DCI) aims to give the Alliance the capabilities it needs to be fully effective across the range of its missions. The initiative comprises some 59 Decisions. Of these, 21 are well on track. The UK is pressing for an intensified programme of work on the DCI over the coming months. The UK's own DCI performance has been strong, with some 60 per cent. of DCI-related Force Goals being fully implemented and a further 30 per cent. being partially implemented. This reflects capability enhancements such as the introduction of the C17 strategic transport aircraft, the acquisition of a greater sealift capability and development and procurement of new precision guided munitions.

  Japanese Internees (Compensation)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many compensation payments to internees in Japanese wartime prison camps have yet to be paid; how many have been paid; how many are being investigated; and how many of these are on grounds of the need to prove nationality. [2706]
  517W
  Dr. Moonie
  As at 6 July a total of 21,552 ex-gratia payments had been made to former internees and surviving spouses. A further 186 payments had been authorised but not yet paid. 3,364 applications are being investigated to confirm eligibility, of which 411 are on the grounds of proving nationality.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes there have been to the definition of "British" when applied to civilians eligible for Her Majesty's Government's ex-gratia payments to former prisoners of war and internees of the Japanese from 1941 to 1945 since 7 November 2000; and if he will make a statement. [2672]

  Dr. Moonie
  The ex-gratia payment announced on 7 November 2000 is being made to the various British groups who had been held prisoner by the Japanese during the Second World War. The eligibility criterion for civilian claimants has recently been clarified, but there has been no change in the intended scope of the scheme. British subjects whom the Japanese interned and who were born in the United Kingdom, or had a parent or grandparent born here, are eligible for the payment.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent disturbance in the sovereign base areas in Cyprus. [R] [2978]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government deplore absolutely the violence and vandalism that took place in the sovereign base areas in Cyprus on Tuesday evening. We have made, and will continue to make, every effort to demonstrate to the Government of Cyprus and the villagers of Akrotiri that the current and proposed antennae on the Salt Lake pose no threat to health and have a minimal impact on the environment.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the status of the border between the Republic of Cyprus and sovereign base areas after Cyprus's accession to the EU. [R] [2977]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government are considering carefully all the implications for the sovereign base areas of the accession by Cyprus to the EU. Our consideration of these matters has not yet reached its conclusion.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) equipment and (b) personnel his Department has provided to the Government of Macedonia since 1 January. [2823]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have given the Macedonian Government 500 pieces of body armour, 15 mine detectors and 100 handheld Global Positioning Systems. In addition, we will be providing one remote control bomb disposal vehicle and 1,000 parachute flares.

  In March this year at the start of the crisis we sent out a small team of eight military officers for five days to assess how we might assist the Macedonian Government. Two of these officers remained for a limited period to provide support to the UK Defence Adviser to the Macedonian Government (Brigadier James Short); their
  518W
  role was to provide assistance with planning. At present, a military officer is working alongside Brigadier Short providing operational advice.

  Pensions (Politically Sensitive Cases)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 June 2001,Official Report, column 132W, on pensions, if he will place in the Library a copy of the wording of the guidance both before and after the amendment was made. [3214]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is not current practice to place individual items from the guidance manuals in the Library. However, arrangements are being made to place a copy of the current War Pensions Medical Advisers Instructions and Procedures Guide in the Library, together with a copy of the amendment.

  Junior Officers
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the into productive service requirement is for junior officers this year; and if the requirement will be achieved. [2697]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: The into productive service target for junior officer multi-engined pilots in the RAF for the financial year 2001–02 is 55. Unfortunately, problems with the Tucano training fleet at the end of last year meant that the number of fast jet students restreamed to multi-engined aircraft training was fewer than expected and this is the main contributing factor to the target not being met. The current forecast is for 44 multi-engined aircraft pilots to join front line squadrons from Operational Conversion Units in 2001–02. The position is expected to recover in subsequent years.

  Nancekuke
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what materials were deposited in the sea off the North Cornish coast when CDE Nancekuke was decommissioned. [2664]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is no comprehensive record of materials which were deposited into the sea off the north Cornish coast when Chemical Defence Establishment (CDE) Nancekuke was decommissioned.

  All plant used in toxic or hazardous operations at Nancekuke was thoroughly decontaminated. All decontaminant was neutralized, diluted and tested on representative local marine species, namely prawns and gobies, before disposal into the sea.

  Chemical warfare agents and their precursors were generally destroyed by incineration or transferred to CDE Porton Down. Some precursors and other materials were however treated and disposed of as above. These included approximately 1 tonne of pralidoxime mesylate (treated with sodium hypochlorite before disposal), arsenic chloride (31 litres were hydrolysed then oxidised with sodium hypochlorite before disposal) and 7 kg of a mixture of ethylphosphonyl dichloride and ethylphosphonyl difluoride (hydrolysed and neutralised before disposal).

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make a statement on the environmental assessment being undertaken at RAF Portreath. [2666]
  519W
  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 7 February 2001,Official Report, column 522W. Work on the further land quality assessment has been completed. The expert consultant's report has been received and my officials are considering its recommendations and options for remediation work. The next stage will entail discussions on the way ahead with the Environment Agency and Kerrier district council.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sea monitoring has been undertaken since CDE Nancekuke was decommissioned. [2665]

  Dr. Moonie
  Sea monitoring is the responsibility of the Environment Agency, and its forerunner the National Rivers Authority. No monitoring other than the routine monitoring of South West Water's sewage outfall pipes has been undertaken.

  Porton Down
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the comprehensive survey of the service volunteer programme at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, announced on 1 May, will gather evidence and recollections from staff who organised the experiments. [3404]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 May 2001,Official Report, columns 415–16W.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 June 2001,Official Report, column 133W, on Porton Down, what plans he has to assign more officials to carry out the comprehensive survey of the service volunteer programme. [3406]

  Dr. Moonie
  We plan to take on a further member of staff, probably a higher executive officer (Grade C2).

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 June 2001,Official Report, column 133W, on Porton Down, if he will arrange for service volunteers to give their recollections of the Porton Down volunteer programme in a public forum. [3407]

  Dr. Moonie
  No. Service volunteers are free to give us their recollections in any way they wish.

  War in Space
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to reduce the threat of war in space. [3165]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK and its assets are not considered to be under threat from war in space. The UK was a Depository State of the Outer Space Treaty, which places important limitations on the military use of space, and the UK supports further consideration of issues relating to the prevention of an arms race in outer space at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

  Army Absentees
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what units of the British Army use(a) the legbrace and (b) orange shirts printed "Prisoner" in respect of absentees. [2496]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  Bermuda Regiment
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Bermuda Regiment is part of the British Army. [3044]

  Mr. Ingram
  No. The Bermuda Regiment is an internal security force whose role is to help the Bermuda Police Service maintain law and order. Although there are strong links between the Regiment and the British Army, it is not part of it.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bermuda
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what plans he has to consult Parliament about proposed amendments to the Bermuda constitution; and if he will make a statement; [3043]

  (2) if he will take steps to ensure that no Order in Council to amend the Bermuda constitution is enacted without hon. Members being given a reasonable period of time to consider the proposed amendments; and if he will make a statement. [3034]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Orders in Council to amend the Bermuda constitution are made under Section 1 of the Bermuda Constitution Act 1967, which provides that any such Order shall be laid before Parliament after being made.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it a requirement that there is general agreement by all relevant parties in Bermuda about the membership and terms of reference and functions of the proposed boundary commission to be set up consequent on amendments sought to the Bermuda constitution by the Bermuda Government. [3035]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The composition and terms of reference of the Bermuda Constituency Boundaries Commission are laid down in the Bermuda constitution. There is no intention to change the composition of the commission. Consultations have been undertaken with the political parties in Bermuda about the terms of reference and functions of the commission, with a view to that body making recommendations regarding possible single-member constituencies.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the(a) Governor and (b) Deputy Governor of Bermuda is paid; by whom; and what other allowances and emoluments accrue to each office. [3039]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government of Bermuda make provision in their budget for salary and other allowances of the Governor, and for the Governor's office. The Governor is paid in accordance with Bermuda civil service pay scales; the Deputy Governor, who is a member of HM diplomatic service, is paid in accordance with FCO pay scales.
  521W
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review the use of conscription in Bermuda; and if he will make a statement. [2492]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Conscription is regulated by the Bermuda Defence Act 1965. Amendment to this Act requires legislation in the House of Assembly in Bermuda.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the new Governor of Bermuda will be appointed. [2854]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  An announcement will be made in the usual way at the appropriate time.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the process of consultation followed by his Department in respect of the appointment of the Governor of Bermuda. [2855]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Governor of Bermuda is appointed following consultation with the Premier of Bermuda.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set up a constitutional conference prior to amending the Bermuda constitution by Order in Council. [3036]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There is no requirement to call a constitutional conference before amendment of the Bermuda constitution. But consideration of the most appropriate way forward is given on a case-by-case basis.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates(a) the Governor and (b) Foreign Office Ministers met (i) Bermuda Government Ministers and (ii) members of the Bermuda parliamentary Opposition to discuss proposals to amend the Bermuda constitution by Order in Council in the last two years. [3038]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Governor frequently meets Government of Bermuda Ministers and Opposition members. Meetings specifically to discuss proposals to amend Bermuda's constitution were hosted by the Governor at Government House in April 2001. Several Government Ministers and members of the opposition attended these talks.

  (b) FCO Ministers met Government of Bermuda Ministers to discuss proposals to amend the Bermuda constitution in October 2000 and December 2000. They met members of the Bermuda parliamentary Opposition in December 2000 and January 2001.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions a constitutional conference has been held prior to amendments being approved by Order in Council to the Bermuda constitution since 1971. [3037]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Once, in 1979.

  Bermuda Regiment
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many women serve in the Bermuda Regiment; and how many were conscripted. [2504]
  522W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Eighteen women are currently serving in the Bermuda Regiment. There is no conscription for women in Bermuda.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of conscripts to the Bermuda Regiment have not responded to their conscription call-up for each of the past five years. [2491]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The proportions for the years in question are as follows:

  1996–27 per cent.

  1997–29 per cent.

  1998–38 per cent.

  1999–24 per cent.

  2000–16 per cent.

  The percentage represents the proportion who are unaccounted for and for whom no reasonable excuse has been offered.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Governor Masefield's role is in respect of discipline and appeals in the Bermuda Regiment; and if he will make a statement. [2497]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Bermuda Defence Act 1965 established the policy and procedure to be observed in the command and administration of the Bermuda Regiment including military offences and the respective powers of the commander.

  Appeals are heard by the Defence Board, which forwards its recommendations to the Governor, who then acts at his discretion.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many conscripts from the Bermuda Regiment have served outside Bermuda in the past two years. [2493]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No conscripts have been deployed on operations outside Bermuda in the past two years.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what punishments have been made in respect of each conscript to the Bermuda Regiment who has failed to respond to his call-up in each of the past two years. [2500]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Failure to respond to call-up is dealt with in civil court. There were no prosecutions in 1999. In 2000 nine men were prosecuted and were bound over for one year by the magistrate. Of the nine, six have now commenced military service, one was found unfit, one qualified for deferment and one will commence service in January 2002.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people have served custodial sentences in the past two years consequent on their failure to accept conscription in the Bermuda Regiment. [2498]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  None.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the establishment strength of the Bermuda Regiment is, broken
  523W
  down by (a) full-time officers and soldiers, indicating those seconded from other regiments and units, (b) part-time officers and soldiers and (c) conscripts. [2494]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The establishment strength of the Bermuda Regiment is:

  (a) Full-time officers six, other ranks 22. Two are on secondment from the Royal Anglian Regiment.

  (b) Part-time officers 24, other ranks 514.

  (c) There is no breakdown available for conscripts. They are included in the part-time numbers.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions in the past year a leg brace has been used in respect of a Bermuda Regiment conscript; and for what purpose. [2501]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In the past year a leg brace has been used three times as a restraint.

  Bermuda Police
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Governor's responsibility for the command and control of the Bermuda Police. [3046]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In 1977 the Governor's responsibility for the Police Service for matters relating to recruitment, training, equipment, general organisation, finance and community relations was delegated to the Minister of Labour, Home Affairs and Public Safety.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions and in what circumstances the leg-brace is used by Bermuda Police. [3047]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Leg braces are not used by the Bermuda Police Force.

  Falkland Islands
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposed changes to the constitution of the Falkland Islands. [3045]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have invited all the Overseas Territories to review their constitutions and to submit their proposals for modernisation. HMG will consider carefully any suggestions for which there is evidence of extensive local consultation and support. A Select Committee has been appointed in the Falkland Islands to review the constitution and it is currently undertaking wide public consultation. The Select Committee has yet to submit its proposals formally to HMG.

  Overseas Territories
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to bring forward legislation relating to overseas territories. [3040]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The British Overseas Territories Bill, which will grant British citizenship to all British Dependent Territories Citizens in qualifying territories, was given a first reading in the House of Lords on 21 June and published on 22 June. A second reading was given 524W
  on 10 July and the committee stage is scheduled for 24 July. Copies of the Bill, with explanatory notes, are available from the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Orders in Council relating to the law of overseas territories he plans to bring forward during 2001; and if he will specify the purpose and overseas territory concerned in each case. [3042]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Orders in Council are used to give effect to various treaties, convention, UN sanctions and other similar matters where the capacity to pass local legislation is inadequate. A list of anticipated Orders in Council relating to the laws of the Overseas Territories is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Other Orders in Council may arise during the course of the year.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if all overseas territories are compliant with(a) the European Convention on Human Rights and (b) other human rights standards to which the United Kingdom is committed to by (i) treaty or convention and (ii) policy. [3041]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  HMG's policy is that those territories which choose to remain British should abide by the same standards of human rights that British people expect of their own Government. These are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and the six core UN human rights instruments. The ECHR and most of the UN Conventions have been extended to all the territories. We are working with the territories to complete the process of extending the outstanding UN Conventions. The territories to which these conventions have already been extended are in large measure compliant.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Cycle-tracks
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to increase the mileage of dedicated cycle-tracks by 2005. [2381]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government have encouraged local traffic authorities in England to include plans for increasing cycling in their local transport plans and all have done so. As a result we expect up to 4,300 km of new cycle routes in England by 2005, as well as a range of facilities for cyclists such as advanced stop lines, toucan crossings and junction treatments. Each authority must decide what mix of additional facilities is needed to reach its local cycling targets.

  We will also be continuing to help Sustrans in the development of the National Cycle Network, which it is hoped will be 10,000 miles long by 2005.

  London Underground
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the proposed stakeholders meeting of London Underground
  525W
  and the Health and Safety Executive's review of the Public Private Partnership will take place, and in which location. [2730]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground informs me that its stakeholders' safety meeting, originally scheduled for 26 June, was postponed at the request of Mr. Robert Kiley, while he conducted negotiations with the bidders for the PPP contracts. Mr. Kiley has now reported that he has been unable to reach agreement with the bidders which meets his objectives, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked London Underground to proceed with plans for the modernisation of the Tube. A rescheduled stakeholders' meeting can be expected later in the summer as part of the renewed drive to provide the investment and renewal programme needed to create a 21st century Tube.

  Safety will continue to be the first priority of London Underground. The Health and Safety Executive is currently undertaking a review of London Underground's safety arrangements as part of the rigorous acceptance process for revisions to London Underground's safety case.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many people used the London Underground in each of the years 1971 to 2000; [2506]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of people who will use the London Underground in the next 10 years. [2507]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground which has provided me with the figures in the tables, which represent the total number of fare-paying passengers who use the Underground network each year.

  million

  Passenger journeys

  1971

  654

  1972

  655

  1973

  644

  1974

  636

  1975

  601

  1976

  546

  1977

  546

  1978

  569

  1979

  594

  1980

  559

  1981

  541

  1982

  498

  1983

  563

  1984–85

  672

  1985–86

  732

  1986–87

  769

  1987–88

  798

  1988–89

  815

  1989–90

  765

  1990–91

  775

  1991–92

  751

  1992–93

  728

  1993–94

  735

  1994–95

  764

  1995–96

  784

  1996–97

  772

  1997–98

  832

  1998–99

  866

  1999–2000

  927

  2000–01

  970

  526W

  London Underground future projections over the next 10 years

  million

  Passenger journeys

  2001–02

  977

  2002–03

  993

  2003–04

  1,012

  2004–05

  1,025

  2005–06

  1,039

  2006–07

  1,050

  2007–08

  1,060

  2008–09

  1,079

  2009–10

  1,098

  2010–11

  1,117

  Uninsured Vehicles
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the number of vehicles on British roads(a) without insurance and (b) which have not passed their MOT; how many vehicles without insurance were involved in accidents in the last 12-month period for which figures are available; and what estimate he has of the number of vehicles without insurance on UK roads over the next five years. [2787]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is estimated that between 4 per cent. and 6 per cent. of motorists drive while uninsured, an offence for which 300,140 people were convicted during 1999. Estimates of MOT evasion are similar. The Motor Insurance Database will go live later this month and while it is too early to make exact estimates, we expect a considerable reduction in insurance evasion as offenders realise that the chances of being caught will be much higher.

  Figures for 2000 show that over 35,000 claims in respect of accidents involving uninsured drivers were made to the Motor insurers Bureau.

  Concessionary Travel
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the cost of reimbursing local authorities for their concessionary travel schemes in(a) London, (b) England, (c) Scotland and (d) Wales if the age requirement for men and women is equalised at 60. [2802]

  Mr. Byers
  In Scotland and Wales concessionary travel is devolved, as are the resources to cover for the additional costs. In England it is estimated that equalising entitlement to concessionary travel at age 60 for men and women will cost up to £50 million per year. That figure is broken down as follows:

  (a) London—£15 million,

  (b) rest of England—£35 million.

  Voter Turnout
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to initiate research into voter turnout at the 2001 general election; and if he will make a statement on the efforts to improve voter turnout in local, general and European elections. [2801]
  527W
  Dr. Whitehead
  The Electoral Commission's report on the general election, to be published at the end of July, is expected to include consideration of the reasons for reduced turnout. The Commission also has a duty to educate and inform the public about the electoral process and the importance of participating in it. We will shortly be inviting local authorities to submit pilot schemes to encourage turnout for next year's local elections.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of the eventual sale proceeds of the Dome site will be attributable to Lattice Properties plc. [2692]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: When English Partnerships acquired land on the Greenwich Peninsula from British Gas in 1997, the sale and purchase agreement provided for British Gas (Lattice Properties plc) to receive a proportion of any onward sale proceeds. This is set at 7.5 per cent. of sale proceeds or open market value.

  SPADs
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many signals were passed at danger on railways in the last three years and for this year; what the figures were for Connex South Eastern; and if he will make a statement on the SPAD on Connex Services north of St. Mary Cray on 26 June. [2927]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following information on signals passed at danger (SPADs) has been provided by the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate:

  (a) There were a total of 1,741 SPADs over the last three financial years: 662 in 1998–1999, 594 in 1999–2000 and 475 in 2000–2001.

  (b) There have been 92 SPADs so far this year, April to May 2001

  (c) There were 66 SPADs in the same period last year, April to May 2000.

  (d) There were a total of 104 SPADs by Connex South Eastern trains over the last three financial years: 41 in 1998–1999, 35 in 1999–2000, and 28 in 2000–2001. So far this year, April to May 2001, Connex South Eastern have had 3 SPADs.

  (e) The Connex South Eastern SPAD incident on 26 June at Bickley Junction near St. Mary Cray, is currently under investigation by the HSE's Railway inspectorate. The results of this investigation will be published in HSE's June monthly SPAD report, which will be placed in the House Library at the end of this month.

  Waterloo-Exeter Main Line
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement about the accident on 2 July on the Waterloo to Exeter main line west of Tisbury involving a passenger train and a heavy goods vehicle on an unmanned level crossing; and what steps he is taking to improve safety on such crossings. [2508]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: The incident is under investigation by the Health and Safety Executive's HM Railway Inspectorate with the assistance of the Health and Safety Laboratories. A meeting will take place on the 20 August between HM Railway Inspectorate and Railtrack's Southern Zone Level Crossings Manager
  528W
  to assess the incident and any further actions that are necessary. HM Railway Inspectorate will shortly be asking Railtrack to include this type of level crossing in their system wide review of level crossings

  After the road accident that caused a rail collision at Great Heck, Selby, the Deputy Prime Minister asked the Health and Safety Commission to convene and lead a working group that will look at the circumstances of incidents where vehicles have blocked rail lines and whether there are features in common that might have been preventable. Its report will be published in the autumn.

  M6
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 117W, on the M6 motorway, if he will convene an early meeting of right hon. and hon. Members whose constituencies are affected by the MIDMAN study to discuss the recommendations that he receives. [2998]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The early outcomes of the MIDMAN study will be available by the end of August and a further joint presentation to the MPs affected by the outcomes of both studies will therefore be arranged for early autumn. The Government Office for the West Midlands invited Members to a presentation of this study and the West Midlands Area Study on 18 April 2000 and I have asked them to make the necessary arrangements again.

  Cullen Report
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects the second Cullen report to be published. [3252]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The report of Part 2 of Lord Cullen's Inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove train crash, which is looking into the culture, management and regulation of safety on the railways, is expected to be published by the Health and Safety Commission later this year.

  Small Business Rate Relief
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate the number of businesses in England and Wales that would benefit from the proposed rate relief for small businesses with a rateable value of less than £8,000 as outlined in the Green Paper, 'Modernising Local Government Finance'. [2591]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Green Paper 'Modernising Local Government Finance' (September 2000) applied to England only. The National Assembly for Wales set out its proposals in 'Simplifying the System: Local Government Finance in Wales' (September 2000).

  The Green Paper proposal was that in England there should be relief of 50 per cent. for properties with rateable values up to £3,000, with the relief then tapering off, so that properties with rateable values of £6,000 would get 20 per cent. relief, and those with rateable values above £8,000 would get no relief.
  529W
  There are 977,000 properties in England with rateable values of £8,000 and less. Of these 474,000 have rateable values of £3,000 or less. However the Green Paper also suggested that small properties owned by large businesses might be excluded from the relief scheme, if this could be done without excessive administrative complexity.

  In the light of the responses to the Green Paper, and further discussions we have been holding with business organisations, we will be setting out our decisions on the relief scheme in a White Paper later this year.

  Private Hire Vehicles
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the consultation paper on private hire vehicle drivers was issued; and by what date responses are required. [3391]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Responsibility for the regulation of private hire vehicles in London has been passed to the Mayor. Transport for London issued a consultation paper on proposals for the regulation of private hire vehicle drivers on 13 June, with a closing date for responses of 8 August.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many private hire vehicle operators in London had registered for licensing on 1 July with the Public Carriage Office; [3393]

  (2) how many private hire operators were licensed under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 on 1 July. [3394]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Responsibility for the regulation of private hire vehicles in London has been passed to the Mayor. The Public Carriage Office undertakes the licensing function as part of Transport for London.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to publish the consultation paper on private hire vehicles under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. [3392]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It will be for Transport for London to publish a consultation paper on proposals for licensing private hire vehicles in London.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Mine Clearance
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much was spent by the UK Government on(a) humanitarian mine clearance, (b) commercial mine clearance, (c) military initiative mine clearance, (d) mine awareness, (e) victim assistance and (f) research and development for mine clearance in 2000–01. [3389]

  Clare Short
  Disbursements are as follows:

  2000–01

  £

  (a) Humanitarian Mine Clearance

  114,500,000

  (c) Mine Awareness

  500,000

  (d) Research and Development

  1,000,000

  530W

  1 Includes integrated mine awareness activities. As programmes are often integrated separate costs of awareness are not available.

  Notes:

  1. All expenditure by Department of International Development (DFID)

  2. Military mine clearance has taken place in the Balkans since 1992. Military advisers have been attached to UN Mine Action Centres assisting in the development of mine action programmes. They have also supervised the mine clearance carried out by the Entity Armed Forces and provided mine awareness to local populations. The Mine Information Training Centre (MITC) at Minley has provided mine awareness training to over 30,000 people. The MOD has also continued to monitor minefields in the Falkland Islands. This work is part of the wider responsibilities of those involved and is impossible to cost accurately.

  3. DFID has not funded commercial mine clearance. There are no records of UK commercial demining activities currently available in Department of Trade and Industry.

  4. Assistance to land mine victims is additional to our mine action programme. Mine victims benefit from our mainstream health and population and social development programmes, as well as specific programmes assisting the disabled. It is not possible to disaggregate expenditure figures for land mine victims.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list Government expenditure on humanitarian mine clearance in 2000–01, broken down by country. [3388]

  Clare Short
  Government expenditure on mine action programmes is indicated in the table.

  £

  Albania

  369,648

  Cambodia

  1,430,571

  Chad

  270,000

  Croatia

  150,000

  Eritrea/Ethiopia

  544,151

  Georgia

  456,259

  Guinea Bissau

  120,000

  Iraq

  616,100

  Jordan

  270,000

  Laos

  616,889

  Lebanon

  387,297

  Nicaragua

  283,000

  Thailand

  300,000

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Kosovo)

  7,899,020

  Global/Regional

  4,000,000

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the organisations to which the Government have given money for the purpose of mine clearance in 2000–01 specifying the amount given in each case. [3390]

  Clare Short
  The table gives the figures requested.

  2000–01

  £

  The HALO Trust

  1,863,304

  Mines Advisory Group (MAG)

  1,164,015

  Cambodian Mine Action Centre (CMAC) (via UNDPP

  214,285

  Croatian Mine Advisory Centre

  150,000

  Government of Jordan

  270,000

  Organisation of American States—Nicaragua demining

  283,000

  United Nations Mine Action Service—Kosovo

  390,364

  Battle Area Clearance Training Equipment Consultants (BACTEC)—Kosovo

  1,100,616

  Defence Systems Ltd. (DSL)—Kosovo

  3,118,404

  European Landmine Solutions ELS—Kosovo

  2,550,632

  United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS)—Global

  600,000

  United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)

  500,000

  531W

  2000–01

  £

  Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD)

  790,000

  Cranfield Mine Action

  162,182

  Landmine Monitor

  157,000

  Defence Evaluation and Research Establishment (DERA)

  306,060

  Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD)

  23,105

  Aardvark

  52,613

  MineLifta

  45,952

  United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

  600,000

  Belize
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 41W, concerning the KPMG report on Belize, for what reason the report will not be placed in the public domain. [2930]

  Clare Short
  The Government of Belize requested at the outset that the information contained in the consultants' report should be regarded as confidential between our two Governments.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 41W, concerning the KPMG report on Belize, when the report was submitted; for what reasons it failed to fulfil the terms of reference; and if she will place in the Library the original terms of reference. [2931]

  Clare Short
  A draft report was submitted by KPMG on 18 September 2000 which did not incorporate an assessment of the benefits and costs of public investment companies in Belize. A copy of the terms of reference will be placed in the Library.

  Chechnya
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if she will make a statement on Russia's response to the World Bank's request for information about the budgetary impact upon it of the Chechnya war; and if she will make it her policy to use the World Bank to encourage that country to apply for redevelopment support for the Chechnya area; [2726]

  (2) what representations she has made to Russia to seek funding from the World Bank for redevelopment in Chechnya; and if she will make a statement. [2725]

  Clare Short
  Responsibility for the redevelopment of Chechnya lies with the Russian Government, and it will be for Russia to decide whether to seek assistance from the international community. However, while fighting continues and the security situation remains poor, the redevelopment of Chechnya on any significant scale is unlikely to be possible.

  Britain is contributing to international appeals to provide help for those displaced by the conflict. So far this year we have directly contributed £1.75 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross and £1.6 million to the United Nations Interagency Appeal. We also contribute through the European Commission Humanitarian Office.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Firearms (Police)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police operations there were per police force in which firearms were issued; how many authorised firearms officers were involved; how many operations involved armed response vehicles between(a) April 1999 to March 2000 and (b) April 2000 to March 2001; and if he will make a statement. [3253]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: The latest available statistics for the police use of firearms in England and Wales were published on 12 April 2000, Official Report, column 223W, in an answer from the then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), and covered the period 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999. The statistics for April 1999 to March 2000 will be announced shortly.

  Prisoners (Conditions)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours were spent on purposeful activity 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. [2479]

  Beverley Hughes
  The average hours per week spent in purposeful activity in 1996–97, 1999–2000 and 2000–01, by establishment function, are given in the table.

  Function name

  1996–97

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Category B

  21.6

  23.4

  24.5

  Category C

  27.4

  26.8

  26.6

  Dispersal

  19.4

  19.2

  19.4

  Female closed

  28.6

  23.8

  25.4

  Female local

  22.2

  19.8

  23.0

  Female open

  37.9

  39.3

  39.3

  Male closed YOI

  22.2

  20.8

  22.3

  Male juvenile

  38.7

  37.9

  37.0

  Male local

  19.2

  19.5

  20.2

  Male open

  42.4

  42.7

  42.3

  Male open YOI

  46.0

  43.7

  40.4

  Male remand centre

  16.3

  17.6

  18.8

  Prison Service (Assaults)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults on(a) prisoners, (b) prison staff and (c) other people in Prison Service establishments there were in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [2477]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of proven adjudications for assaults on prisoners, staff and others for the years 1996–97, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are listed in the table. The Prison Service does not record data on assaults on staff and others separately. Data on assaults and all Prison Service key performance indicators are published annually in Her Majesty's Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts and Her Majesty's Prison Service Corporate and Business Plan.
  533W
  The number of proven adjudications for assault at any time will in part reflect the total number or prisoners and the extent to which victims are enabled to come forward with complaints.

  Assaults on prisoners

  Assaults on staff/others

  Total assaults

  1996–97

  2,747

  2,531

  5,278

  1999–2000

  3,457

  3,010

  6,467

  2000–01

  3,282

  3,107

  6,389

  Drugs Misuse (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to initiate policies to combat drugs misuse in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [1878]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has an overarching role in monitoring progress against the United Kingdom drugs strategy, taking account of the distinctive substance misuse strategies in the other countries of the United Kingdom. However, it is the National Assembly for Wales which is responsible for setting and the strategic direction of the strategy in Wales and monitoring its progress.

  The Assembly's Community Regeneration and Social Inclusion Unit maintains regular contact with officials of the United Kingdom Anti Drugs Co-ordination Unit and relevant Whitehall officials in other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Shiblu Rahman
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the police's role was in the provision of emergency treatment for Mr. Shiblu Rahman on 1 April in Bow; if his murder is being regarded as a racial incident; what representations his family have made to the Metropolitan police and how they have responded; and if he will make a statement. [2719]

  Mr. Denham
  I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the police's role in providing emergency treatment to Mr. Shiblu Rahman on 1 April in Bow was immediately to administer first aid on arrival at the scene, until a paramedic arrived.

  The murder of Mr. Rahman has always been treated as a racist incident. Mr. Rahman's family have made representations to senior officers from Tower Hamlets borough, to the Serious Crime Group and to Commander Smith who is the Association of Chief Police Officers officer with geographical responsibility for East London. The family have expressed concerns as to the initial actions taken by the emergency services and these are being considered by senior officers within the Metropolitan police service.

  Four people have been arrested and charged with the murder of Mr. Rahman, while a fifth person has been charged with aiding the principals.

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide extra financial resources for HMP Wandsworth for improvements. [2530]

  Beverley Hughes
  In the current financial year, Wandsworth has received an additional £511,565 from the Spending Review 2000 (SR 2000) settlement for a range of measures against drugs, and other additional budget allocations for specific purposes. However, as part of the SR2000 settlement, the Prison Service has to make cashable efficiency savings of 1 per cent per year in its baselines, and Wandsworth's baseline has been reduced to contribute to this. The net effect of these changes is to increase Wandsworth's funding by £362,538 in 2001–02 compared to 2000–01. In addition, the establishment has been selected as a pilot site for national health service-funded mental health in-reach work to an estimated value of £252,000.

  In the light of there changes Wandsworth is expected to contribute to efficiency savings while at the same time using the additional resources allocated to deliver more effective and targeted services. There is no prospect of further changes in Wandsworths' financial allocation in this financial year.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been electronically tagged in England and Wales. [2524]

  Beverley Hughes
  47,462 people were electronically tagged in England and Wales between the start of the current electronic monitoring contracts on 28 January 1999 and 30 June 2001. At midnight on 30 June 2001, a total of 3,162 people were still being monitored.

  Mentally Ill Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will divert resources from the provision of further prison establishments towards the care of mentally ill prisoners in secure specialist premises outside normal prisons. [2532]

  Beverley Hughes
  In England, the provision of secure, specialist premises outside prisons for the treatment of mental illness is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The National Health Service (NHS) plan, which he published in July 2000, contains a commitment to develop new NHS in-reach services for prisoners with serious mental illnesses. These services are being piloted in 12 sites in England, including Wandsworth prison, during 2000–01 before being implemented more widely. Alongside this development, the National Assembly for Wales is funding similar in-reach services in the four Prison Service establishments in Wales.

  Commonwealth Visitors
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) Jamaican, (b) Barbadian, (c) Guyanese, (d) Canadian and (e) Australian nationals were admitted as visitors during each month in (i) 2000 and

  535W
  (ii) 2001 to the latest available date; and how many of these, from each country, were admitted with leave for less than six months. [2520]

  Angela Eagle
  The available information is given in the table.

  Visitors are only admitted to the United Kingdom for a maximum period of six months. The table shows visitors and business visitors for the requested nationalities up to April 2001, the latest available month.

  Passengers admitted to the United Kingdom, by selected nationality and category, January 2000 to April 20011

  Number of journeys2

  Jamaica

  Barbados

  Guyana

  Canada

  Australia

  Visitors

  2000

  January

  1,340

  140

  60

  15,100

  22,900

  February

  1,630

  210

  50

  19,000

  14,500

  March

  1,930

  350

  120

  32,600

  20,200

  April

  1,870

  460

  160

  42,800

  35,800

  May

  2,500

  430

  160

  60,500

  48,700

  June

  2,990

  890

  180

  60,000

  48,600

  July

  5,160

  1,420

  610

  69,400

  58,100

  August

  3,440

  1,050

  430

  71,600

  51,100

  September

  2,380

  740

  200

  52,500

  57,600

  October

  1,880

  440

  150

  40,700

  41,000

  November

  1,990

  410

  170

  25,100

  23,300

  December

  2,980

  590

  230

  25,700

  33,600

  Total

  30,100

  7,130

  2,530

  515,000

  455,000

  20011

  January

  1,700

  200

  80

  16,300

  23,300

  February

  1,920

  200

  100

  23,700

  13,500

  March

  2,340

  290

  240

  20,100

  19,200

  April

  2,260

  310

  250

  36,300

  32,900

  Business visitors

  2000

  January

  50

  20

  10

  6,610

  3,470

  February

  90

  40

  10

  6,960

  3,990

  March

  170

  70

  3—

  7,210

  4,560

  April

  70

  30

  20

  6,560

  4,180

  May

  100

  60

  20

  7,970

  5,660

  June

  130

  80

  20

  7,550

  5,540

  July

  150

  50

  70

  7,020

  4,830

  August

  100

  20

  10

  4,840

  3,640

  September

  110

  80

  20

  8,070

  4,880

  October

  90

  60

  30

  8,710

  5,590

  November

  120

  120

  40

  8,520

  5,040

  December

  70

  10

  10

  4,340

  2,640

  Total

  1,250

  640

  280

  83,900

  54,400

  20011

  January

  100

  40

  40

  6,770

  3,950

  February

  140

  60

  10

  8,080

  4,280

  March

  140

  60

  30

  7,580

  5,170

  April

  100

  60

  20

  7,720

  4,610

  Total visitors

  2000

  January

  1,390

  170

  70

  21,300

  26,400

  February

  1,720

  260

  60

  25,900

  18,500

  March

  2,100

  420

  130

  39,900

  24,800

  April

  1,940

  490

  180

  49,300

  40,000

  May

  2,600

  480

  190

  68,500

  54,400

  June

  3,120

  960

  210

  67,500

  54,100

  July

  5,320

  1,460

  680

  76,500

  62,900

  August

  3,540

  1,070

  440

  76,400

  54,700

  September

  2,500

  810

  230

  60,600

  62,500

  October

  1,970

  500

  180

  49,400

  46,900

  November

  2,110

  530

  200

  33,600

  28,300

  December

  3,050

  610

  240

  30,100

  36,300

  Total

  31,400

  7,770

  2,800

  599,000

  510,000

  536W

  Passengers admitted to the United Kingdom, by selected nationality and category, January 2000 to April 20011

  Number of journeys2

  Jamaica

  Barbados

  Guyana

  Canada

  Australia

  20011

  January

  1,800

  240

  110

  23,100

  27,200

  February

  2,060

  260

  100

  31,800

  17,800

  March

  2,480

  350

  270

  37,600

  24,300

  April

  2,360

  370

  270

  44,000

  37,500

  1 2001 data are provisional

  2 Totals may not sum due to rounding. This is because all calculations are based on unrounded figures to ensure accuracy

  3 Five or fewer

  Note:

  Data rounded to three significant digits or to the nearest 10 if less than 1,000

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for extensions of stay were received in each month in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001 to the latest available date by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate from (i) Jamaican, (b) Barbadian, (iii) Guyanese, (iv) Canadian and (v) Australian nationals admitted for less than six months as visitors; and how many were (A) granted and (B) refused. [2519]

  Angela Eagle
  The available information is given in the table and relates to people who enter the United Kingdom as visitors and subsequently apply for an extension of stay in another category.

  The information relates to decisions on applications for an extension of leave to remain. The latest available data are for the period January to September 2000.

  Grants and refusals of extensions of leave to remain1 in the United Kingdom to persons having entered the country as a visitor2, by selected nationality, January to September 20003

  Number of decisions4

  Jamaica

  Barbados

  Guyana

  Canada

  Australia

  Grants of extension

  January

  560

  10

  10

  20

  40

  February

  480

  10

  10

  30

  40

  March

  580

  10

  10

  30

  60

  April

  380

  10

  10

  20

  50

  May

  470

  10

  10

  20

  60

  June

  630

  10

  10

  40

  60

  July

  500

  10

  10

  30

  60

  August

  460

  *

  *

  20

  70

  September

  400

  *

  10

  20

  60

  Total

  January-September

  4,460

  70

  70

  240

  500

  Refusals of extension

  January

  50

  *

  *

  *

  *

  February

  60

  —

  *

  *

  10

  March

  60

  —

  *

  10

  *

  April

  80

  —

  *

  *

  10

  May

  100

  —

  *

  10

  10

  June

  180

  *

  10

  *

  *

  July

  230

  —

  *

  *

  *

  August

  160

  —

  *

  *

  *

  September

  130

  *

  *

  *

  10

  Total

  January-September

  1,060

  *

  20

  40

  50

  Total Decisions

  January

  600

  10

  10

  30

  50

  February

  550

  10

  10

  40

  50

  March

  640

  10

  10

  40

  60

  April

  460

  10

  10

  30

  60

  May

  570

  10

  10

  30

  60

  537W

  Grants and refusals of extensions of leave to remain1 in the United Kingdom to persons having entered the country as a visitor2, by selected nationality, January to September 20003

  Number of decisions4

  Jamaica

  Barbados

  Guyana

  Canada

  Australia

  June

  820

  10

  10

  40

  60

  July

  740

  10

  10

  30

  70

  August

  610

  *

  10

  20

  70

  September

  530

  10

  10

  20

  60

  Total

  January-September

  5,520

  80

  90

  270

  550

  1 Excludes dependants of principal applicants, the outcome of appeals, and withdrawn applications

  2 Includes students admitted for less than six months

  3 Provisional

  4 Totals may not add up due to rounding. This is because all calculations are based on unrounded numbers to ensure accuracy

  Note:

  Data rounded to the nearest 10 with * = 5 or fewer

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been(a) applied for and (b) granted in (i) Staffordshire and (ii) Stoke-on-Trent. [2668]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of antisocial behaviour orders being applied for and issued is collected centrally by magistrates courts committee (MCC) area only. Between April 1999 and March 2001, two antisocial behaviour orders, both of which were granted, were applied for in the Staffordshire MCC.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour orders in the Shrewsbury division of West Mercia Constabulary. [2536]

  Mr. Denham
  Since my predecessor, the then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), answered my hon. Friend's earlier question on this subject on 4 April 2001,Official Report, column 214W, the Shrewsbury division of West Mercia constabulary has obtained a further 18 antisocial behaviour orders bringing the total for the division to some 24 orders. These orders have helped to curb intimidatory begging in the town centre and antisocial behaviour by groups of young people in other parts of the division. I applaud the efforts of the local police, and congratulate them on their success.

  Charities (Audit)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what he calculates to be the threshold level of turnover of charities needed to trigger full annual audits if the current provision had been indexed in line with that applied to company audits since its introduction; [2786]

  (2) what plans he has to uprate the threshold level of annual turnover for charities triggering full annual audits. [2785]

  Angela Eagle
  There are no plans at present to uprate the threshold level triggering full annual audits for charity accounts although the matter is kept under review.
  538W
  Part VI of the Charities Act 1993 and the associated Regulations and Statements of Recommended Practice provide the accounting framework for charities. The accounting requirements are graduated and vary with the size of the charity. Charities with gross income or total expenditure of over £250,000 (in the current or two previous financial years) are required to produce audited accounts.

  Charities that are registered as companies are subject to the Companies Acts and must file their accounts with Companies House. They are also subject to charity law. The audit threshold for a charitable company is £250,000 gross income, as provided for in the Companies Act 1985 (Audit Exemption) (Amendment) Regulations 1997.

  The auditing threshold for non-charitable companies was raised last year from £350,000 to £1 million, an increase of approximately 280 per cent., but the decision was taken at that time to retain the existing threshold for charitable companies. A similar increase for charities would raise the threshold to the order of £700,000.

  Good charity accounts which show how the charity is using its resources and which are reliable, consistent and available to the public are important in demonstrating openness and public accountability. The particular public interest in charities and charitable companies calls for an accounting system for them which is different from that which is appropriate for non-charitable organisations.

  Prism Staff (Salaries)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will increase the salaries of prison staff in discipline and administration grades. [2849]

  Beverley Hughes
  Prison officers and related support grades received a two per cent. increase in pay from 1 January 2001. Also, locality payments for those working in and around London were increased by between £517 and £873 a y ear. This year's pay changes for administrative grades are still subject to the outcome of negotiations. The pay of most of these Prison Service staff will he handled differently from next year.

  On 9 February 2001, Official Report, column 747W, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Home Office announced plans to set up a Prison Service Pay Review Body to make independent recommendations to the Government on the pay of prison officers and related support grades employed in public sector prisons in England and Wales, and the Northern Ireland Prison Service. This came into effect on 17 April 2001. It is due to make its first recommendations with effect from 1 January 2002. The pay of prison administrative staff, who are outside the Review Body remit, will remain subject to direct annual negotiation between the Prison Service and the Prison Service Trade Union Side.

  Mental Health Care
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement(a) Part I and (b) Part II of the White Paper "Reform of the Mental Health Act". [2952]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government are committed to reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 and will introduce the legislation needed to give effect to both parts of the
  539W
  White Paper as soon as parliamentary time allows. This will include proposals—set out in Part 2—to deal with the small minority of those mentally disordered people who present a high risk to others, including those who are dangerous and severely personality disordered.

  Good progress is being made on all aspects of the service development required for the creation of new services for those who are dangerous and severely personality disordered and for the modernisation of mental health services generally.

  Feltham Young Offenders Prison
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates there were at Feltham Young Offenders Prison in each of the last five years. [3129]

  Beverley Hughes
  The average population at Feltham Young Offenders Institution in each of the last five years is given in the table.

  Financial year

  Average population HMYOI Feltham

  2000–01

  698

  1999–2000

  798

  1998–99

  878

  1997–98

  894

  1996–97

  865

  Ministerial Visits
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his predecessor(a) first visited and (b) last visited (i) Indonesia, (ii) Turkey, (iii) Saudi Arabia, (iv) South Africa, (v) Chile, (vi) Argentina, (vii) Sudan, (viii) Taiwan, (ix) the UAE and (x) Cuba. [1824]

  Mr. Blunkett
  As far as records show, my predecessor did not visit Indonesia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Chile, Argentina, Sudan, Taiwan, the United Arab Emirates and Cuba in his capacity as Home Secretary.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his predecessor(a) first visited and (b) last visited (i) Canada, (ii) Australia and (iii) New Zealand. [1837]

  Mr. Blunkett
  As far as records show, my predecessor did not visit Canada, Australia or New Zealand in his capacity as Home Secretary.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his predecessor(a) first visited and (b) last visited, (i) Brazil, (ii) Bolivia, (iii) Mexico, (iv) Guatemala and (v) Peru. [1932]

  Mr. Blunkett
  As far as records show, my predecessor did not visit Brazil, Bolivia, Mexico, Guatemala or Peru in his capacity as Home Secretary.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his predecessor(a) first visited and (b) last visited (i) Rwanda, (ii) Democratic Republic of Congo, (iii) Central African Republic, (iv) Mozambique and (v) Nigeria. [1954]
  540W
  Mr. Blunkett
  As far as records show, my predecessor did not visit Rwanda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Mozambique and Nigeria in his capacity as Home Secretary.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his predecessor(a) first visited and (b) last visited (i) South Korea and (ii) Malaysia. [1947]

  Mr. Blunkett
  As far as records show, my predecessor did not visit South Korea or Malaysia in his capacity as Home Secretary.

  Prostitution
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish a summary of the responses to the consultation "Setting the Boundaries"; and if he will make a statement on the adequacy of the current legal framework governing prostitution. [3227]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We received in excess of 650 responses to "Setting the Boundaries". Officials are now assessing these responses and we will be considering the best way to make a summary available to hon. Members once this analysis has been completed.

  We have no plans to change the law relating to prostitution at present. However, one of the 62 recommendations made to Ministers in "Setting the Boundaries" is that there should be a further review of the law on prostitution. We will be carefully considering the responses to this recommendation before reaching a decision on it.

  Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome was in asylum cases where an appeal was received by his Department but not subsequently sent to the Immigration Appellate Authority for each month of(a) 2001, (b) 2000 and (c) 1999. [172]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: Information on the outcome of asylum cases where appeals were lodged with the Home Office, but not sent to the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA), is not available. Some cases in this category are withdrawn or abandoned, and a proportion is reconsidered for a variety of reasons after the appeal has been lodged with Immigration and Nationality Directory (IND). The reconsideration may result in the case not being sent to the IAA if it leads to a change in the appellant's immigration status. If in due course we find that there are a significant number of such cases, we shall consider what is the best way to publish this information once we are satisfied that it is reliable.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  A-Level Reforms
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she proposes to take following the Qualification and Curriculum Authority's initial report on the implementation of the A-level reforms. [3533]
  541W
  Estelle Morris
  Today I issued a response to the QCA's report on Curriculum 2000. That response has been placed in the Library, together with a copy of the report. The response notes that there is strong and continuing support in schools and colleges for the principles of Curriculum 2000, but also an urgent need to resolve issues in the delivery of parts of the programme, particularly the advanced subsidiary qualification. I am therefore asking the QCA to develop a combined examination paper of up to three hours for each AS where possible by summer 2002, as an alternative to the large number of individual unit papers currently offered. Where this is not possible, I am asking the QCA and the awarding bodies to look urgently at restructuring the timetable so that units of the same subject can be taken at a single sitting. Single, flexible units will remain available for those that want them. I am also asking the QCA to review specifications of subjects which are considered too heavy, to issue guidance to schools and colleges to highlight the existing flexibilities within the assessment regime, and to encourage the majority of students to take AS examinations either at the end of the first year of study or together with the examinations they take at the end of the second year. I am also asking the QCA to work with the awarding bodies to avoid as far as possible subject clashes in the examination timetable.

  The Government remain convinced of the need for all young people, whether in employment or training post-16, to be given a solid basis in the key skills of communication, application of number and IT. To ensure they are practicable for the majority of students, I am asking the QCA to take steps to reduce the volume of assessment, ensure that a greater range of proxy qualifications are accepted, and issue guidance to schools and colleges to support effective use of key skills. I am also asking the Learning and Skills Council to review urgently the funding arrangements for key skills.

  Lecturers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she is taking in conjunction with higher education institutions to improve the recruitment and retention of lecturers. [3186]

  Margaret Hodge
  The recruitment and retention of staff is a matter for higher education institutions. However, the Government are providing £50 million in 2001–02, rising to £110 million in 2002–03 and £170 million in 2003–04, to support increases in academic and non-academic pay. This will give higher education employers more flexibility to address recruitment and retention difficulties and modernise their reward systems.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements will be put in place for maintaining the value of the teaching pay initiative to further education lecturers after its expiry. [3191]

  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for future spending reviews. We have no plans to suspend the teaching pay initiative after 2003–04.
  542W
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average starting pay for college lecturers was in each of the last 10 years. [2991]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: Figures available are derived from the FE lecturer pension scheme. The last available figures are for 1999. Details have been given for the period 1991–99.

  Average starting salary of full-time FE lecturers 1991–99, England and Wales

  Year

  £

  1999

  17,996

  1998

  17,440

  1997

  16,959

  1996

  16,898

  1995

  16,482

  19941

  15,985

  19942

  16,213

  1993

  16,579

  1992

  15,692

  1991

  14,994

  1 Including sixth-form colleges.

  2 Excluding sixth-form colleges.

  Note:

  Sixth-form colleges excluded before 1993 because they were not part of the FE sector. Included as part of the FE sector from 1994 onwards.

  Competitiveness Indicators
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish the indicators of the competitiveness of British higher education institutions which she uses to compare them with their overseas counterparts. [3187]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) publishes international educational comparisons each year in "Education at a Glance". The 2001 edition, recently published, shows that UK higher education is characterised by high graduation rates and low non-completion rates, indicating the high quality of teaching and research and the efficiency and effectiveness of courses. This is reflected in the relative popularity of UK higher education courses among overseas students.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations she has received on the proposed withdrawal of funding for(a) education and (b) training programmes by local learning and skills councils. [3185]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have received very few representations about withdrawal of funding for programmes by the Learning and Skills Council. We have received a number of representations about the LSC's new funding arrangements for work-based learning for young people. On the whole, these changes have been well received, but inevitably there will be some concerns when funding rates change. To help meet these concerns the Learning and Skills Council has put in place effective transitional arrangements that cushion the reductions in income levels of providers compared with 1999–2000.
  543W
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements she has made to transfer teaching pay initiative moneys direct from local learning and skills councils through colleges to individual teachers. [3189]

  Margaret Hodge
  All colleges received provisional allocations of funding in April 2001 from the Learning and Skills Council for the teaching pay initiative in 2001–02. Indicative amounts for 2002–03 and 2003–04 were issued to general FE colleges on 10 July 2001. While discussions on implementation are continuing with sixth-form colleges, the onus has been on all other colleges to come forward with a brief summary of their pay initiative implementation. LSCs cannot release the money without this and so far less than 10 per cent. of colleges have responded. Detailed arrangements for making payments to individual teachers will be implemented locally by individual colleges.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has for learner representation on learning and skills councils. [3367]

  Margaret Hodge
  We recognise that to be successful, the Learning and Skills Council must be fully responsive to the needs of learners and potential learners. The LSC's national council and each of the 47 local LSCs include, for example, trade unionists and local authority elected members, who can represent the views and needs of learners.

  In addition, learning partnerships are already charged with ensuring that consultative mechanisms are in place to capture and articulate the views and opinions of young and adult learners, and feed these back to the LSC.

  First degree graduates in specified subjects by class of degree and domicile, 1999–2000, higher education institutions in the UK

  Numbers

  Subject/domicile

  First class honours

  Second class honours

  Third class honours

  Pass1

  Total

  Physical sciences

  Home

  1,553

  9,061

  998

  687

  12,299

  EU

  111

  435

  71

  53

  670

  Overseas

  36

  144

  22

  13

  215

  Total

  1,700

  9,640

  1,091

  753

  13,184

  Mathematical sciences and informatics

  Home

  823

  2,302

  442

  234

  3,801

  EU

  21

  88

  21

  14

  144

  Overseas

  34

  83

  22

  10

  149

  Total

  878

  2,473

  485

  258

  4,094

  Biological sciences

  Home

  1,476

  14,228

  801

  615

  17,120

  EU

  100

  768

  78

  34

  980

  Overseas

  28

  290

  25

  6

  349

  Total

  1,604

  15,286

  904

  655

  18,449

  Engineering and technology

  Home

  1,929

  9,688

  1,148

  1,804

  14,569

  EU

  200

  1,579

  467

  499

  2,745

  Overseas

  632

  2,128

  280

  197

  3,237

  Total

  2,761

  13,395

  1,895

  2,500

  20,551

  1 Pass grades include Ordinary degrees

  Source:

  HESA July Student Records 1996 to 2000
  544W
  The LSC itself is also considering what further mechanisms it needs to put in place at national and local levels to ensure that learners are effectively engaged in the new arrangements, and to advise on people's learning needs and expectations.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has for greater integration between the Learning and Skills Council and the higher education funding councils; and if she will make a statement. [3366]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Learning and Skills Council and the Higher Education Funding Council for England are already building close co-operation to widen access to higher education and to meet employers' skill needs. The two chief executives meet regularly and attend each other's council meetings as observers. The local arms of the LSC are partners with HEFCE in delivering the excellence challenge which helps able young people in deprived areas enter higher education. In addition, we welcome the contribution of representatives from the higher education sector on the LSC's national council and on 35 of its 47 local councils. The Government will encourage further joint working between the LSC and HEFCE to achieve their shared objectives.

  Graduates
  Mr. Bendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of graduates for each of the last five years receiving(a) first class honours, (b) ordinary and (c) third class honours degrees in subjects related to (a) physical sciences, (b) mathematical sciences and informatics, (c) biological sciences and (d) engineering and technology were (i) home students, (ii) EU students and (iii) overseas students. [3318]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: The available data are shown in the tables.
  545W

  First degree graduates in specified subjects by class of degree and domicile, 1999–2000, higher education institutions in the UK

  Percentage

  Subject/domicile

  First class honours

  Second class honours

  Third class honours

  Pass1

  Total

  Physical sciences

  Home

  91.4

  94.0

  91.5

  91.2

  93.3

  EU

  6.5

  4.5

  6.5

  7.0

  5.1

  Overseas

  2.1

  1.5

  2.0

  1.7

  1.6

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Mathematical sciences and informatics

  Home

  93.7

  93.1

  91.1

  90.7

  92.8

  EU

  2.4

  3.6

  4.3

  5.4

  3.5

  Overseas

  3.9

  3.4

  4.5

  3.9

  3.6

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Biological sciences

  Home

  92.0

  93.1

  88.6

  93.9

  92.8

  EU

  6.2

  5.0

  8.6

  5.2

  5.3

  Overseas

  1.7

  1.9

  2.8

  0.9

  1.9

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Engineering and technology

  Home

  69.9

  72.3

  60.6

  72.2

  70.9

  EU

  7.2

  11.8

  24.6

  20.0

  13.4

  Overseas

  22.9

  15.9

  14.8

  7.9

  15.8

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  1 Pass grades include Ordinary degrees

  Source:

  HESA July Student Records 1996 to 2000

  First degree graduates in specified subjects by class of degree and domicile, 1998–99, higher education institutions in the UK

  Numbers

  Subject/domicile

  First class honours

  Second class honours

  Third class honours

  Pass1

  Total

  Physical sciences

  Home

  1,435

  8,979

  1,086

  697

  12,197

  EU

  113

  436

  71

  48

  668

  Overseas

  37

  122

  21

  11

  191

  Total

  1,585

  9,537

  1,178

  756

  13,056

  Mathematical sciences and informatics

  Home

  783

  2,332

  484

  308

  3,907

  EU

  34

  102

  23

  16

  176

  Overseas

  40

  102

  12

  13

  167

  Total

  858

  2,536

  519

  337

  4,250

  Biological sciences

  Home

  1,356

  13,425

  727

  602

  16,110

  EU

  75

  724

  50

  24

  873

  Overseas

  41

  284

  22

  29

  376

  Total

  1,472

  14,433

  799

  655

  17,359

  Engineering and technology

  Home

  1,864

  10,351

  1,293

  1,933

  15,441

  EU

  198

  1,566

  349

  405

  2,518

  Overseas

  814

  2,630

  354

  255

  4,053

  Total

  2,876

  14,547

  1,996

  2,593

  22,012

  1 Pass grades include Ordinary degrees

  Source:

  HESA July Student Records 1996 to 2000

  First degree graduates in specified subjects by class of degree and domicile, 1998–99, higher education institutions in the UK

  Percentage

  Subject/domicile

  First class honours

  Second class honours

  Third class honours

  Pass1

  Total

  Physical sciences

  Home

  90.5

  94.1

  92.2

  92.2

  93.4

  EU

  7.1

  4.6

  6.0

  6.3

  5.1

  Overseas

  2.3

  1.3

  1.8

  1.5

  1.5

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  546W 547W

  First degree graduates in specified subjects by class of degree and domicile, 1998–99, higher education institutions in the UK

  Percentage

  Subject/domicile

  First class honours

  Second class honours

  Third class honours

  Pass1

  Total

  Mathematical sciences and informatics

  Home

  91.3

  92.0

  93.3

  91.4

  91.9

  EU

  4.1

  4.0

  4.4

  4.7

  4.1

  Overseas

  4.7

  4.0

  2.3

  3.9

  3.9

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Biological sciences

  Home

  92.1

  93.0

  91.0

  91.9

  92.8

  EU

  5.1

  5.0

  6.3

  3.7

  5.0

  Overseas

  2.8

  2.0

  2.8

  4.4

  2.2

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Engineering and technology

  Home

  64.8

  71.2

  64.8

  74.5

  70.1

  EU

  6.9

  10.8

  17.5

  15.6

  11.4

  Overseas

  28.3

  18.1

  17.7

  9.8

  18.4

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  1 Pass grades include Ordinary degrees

  Source:

  HESA July Student Records 1996 to 2000

  First degree graduates in specified subjects by class of degree and domicile, 1997–98, higher education institutions in the UK

  Numbers

  Subject/domicile

  First class honours

  Second class honours

  Third class honours

  Pass1

  Total

  Physical sciences

  Home

  1,489

  9,101

  1,143

  689

  12,422

  EU

  97

  439

  64

  57

  657

  Overseas

  40

  141

  20

  16

  217

  Total

  1,626

  9,681

  1,227

  762

  13,296

  Mathematical sciences and informatics

  Home

  779

  2,131

  454

  294

  3,658

  EU

  18

  61

  27

  14

  120

  Overseas

  34

  96

  14

  17

  161

  Total

  831

  2,288

  495

  325

  3,939

  Biological sciences

  Home

  1,383

  12,957

  690

  583

  15,613

  EU

  72

  656

  71

  30

  829

  Overseas

  31

  309

  22

  81

  443

  Total

  1,486

  13,922

  783

  694

  16,885

  Engineering and technology

  Home

  1,805

  10,910

  1,459

  2,156

  16,330

  EU

  140

  1,306

  346

  399

  2,191

  Overseas

  721

  2,655

  394

  280

  4,050

  Total

  2,666

  14,871

  2,199

  2,835

  22,571

  1 Pass grades include Ordinary degrees

  Source:

  HESA July Student Records 1996 to 2000

  First degree graduates in specified subjects by class of degree and domicile, 1997–98, higher education institutions in the UK

  Percentage

  Subject/domicile

  First class honours

  Second class honours

  Third class honours

  Pass1

  Total

  Physical sciences

  Home

  91.6

  94.0

  93.2

  90.4

  93.4

  EU

  6.0

  4.5

  5.2

  7.5

  4.9

  Overseas

  2.5

  1.5

  1.6

  2.1

  1.6

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Mathematical sciences and informatics

  Home

  93.7

  93.1

  91.7

  90.5

  92.9

  EU

  2.2

  2.7

  5.5

  4.3

  3.0

  Overseas4.1

  4.1

  4.2

  2.8

  5.2

  4.1

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  548W 549W

  First degree graduates in specified subjects by class of degree and domicile, 1997–98, higher education institutions in the UK

  Percentage

  Subject/domicile

  First class honours

  Second class honours

  Third class honours

  Pass1

  Total

  Biological sciences

  Home

  93.1

  93.1

  88.1

  84.0

  92.5

  EU

  4.8

  4.7

  9.1

  4.3

  4.9

  Overseas

  2.1

  2.2

  2.8

  11.7

  2.6

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Engineering and technology

  Home

  67.7

  73.4

  66.3

  76.0

  72.3

  EU

  5.3

  8.8

  15.7

  14.1

  9.7

  Overseas

  27.0

  17.9

  17.9

  9.9

  17.9

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  1 Pass grades include Ordinary degrees

  Source:

  HESA July Student Records 1996 to 2000

  First degree graduates in specified subjects by class of degree and domicile, 1996–97,higher education institutions in the UK

  Numbers

  Subject/domicile

  First class honours

  Second class honours

  Third class honours

  Pass1

  Total

  Physical sciences

  Home

  1,376

  9,945

  1,272

  806

  13,399

  EU

  73

  344

  50

  54

  521

  Overseas

  30

  100

  15

  7

  152

  Total

  1,479

  10,389

  1,337

  867

  14,072

  Mathematical sciences and informatics

  Home

  660

  2,080

  473

  296

  3,509

  EU

  19

  45

  10

  8

  82

  Overseas

  22

  59

  23

  10

  114

  Total

  701

  2,184

  506

  314

  3,705

  Biological sciences

  Home

  1,180

  12,044

  631

  644

  14,499

  EU

  39

  434

  40

  16

  529

  Overseas

  31

  244

  22

  39

  336

  Total

  1,250

  12,722

  693

  699

  15,364

  Engineering and technology

  Home

  1,778

  11,553

  1,641

  2,029

  17,001

  EU

  144

  1,186

  282

  357

  1,969

  Overseas

  713

  2,602

  462

  270

  4,047

  Total

  2,635

  15,341

  2,385

  2,656

  23,017

  1 Pass grades include Ordinary degrees

  Source:

  HESA July Student Records 1996 to 2000

  First degree graduates in specified subjects by class of degree and domicile, 1996–97, higher education institutions in the UK

  Percentage

  Subject/domicile

  First class honours

  Second class honours

  Third class honours

  Pass1

  Total

  Physical sciences

  Home

  93.0

  95.7

  95.1

  93.0

  95.2

  EU

  4.9

  3.3

  3.7

  6.2

  3.7

  Overseas

  2.0

  1.0

  1.1

  0.8

  1.1

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Mathematical sciences and informatics

  Home

  94.2

  95.2

  93.5

  94.3

  94.7

  EU

  2.7

  2.1

  2.0

  2.5

  2.2

  Overseas

  3.1

  2.7

  4.5

  3.2

  3.1

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Biological sciences

  Home

  94.4

  94.7

  91.1

  92.1

  94.4

  EU

  3.1

  3.4

  5.8

  2.3

  3.4

  Overseas

  2.5

  1.9

  3.2

  5.6

  2.2

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  550W 551W

  First degree graduates in specified subjects by class of degree and domicile, 1996–97, higher education institutions in the UK

  Percentage

  Subject/domicile

  First class honours

  Second class honours

  Third class honours

  Pass1

  Total

  Engineering and technology

  Home

  67.5

  75.3

  68.8

  76.4

  73.9

  EU

  5.5

  7.7

  11.8

  13.4

  8.6

  Overseas

  27.1

  17.0

  19.4

  10.2

  17.6

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  1 Pass grades include Ordinary degrees

  Source:

  HESA July Student Records 1996 to 2000

  First degree graduates in specified subjects by class of degree and domicile, 1995–96, higher education institutions in the UK

  Numbers

  Subject/domicile

  First class honours

  Second class honours

  Third class honours

  Pass1

  Total

  Physical sciences

  Home

  1,318

  9,617

  1,286

  893

  13,114

  EU

  89

  322

  50

  45

  506

  Overseas

  20

  119

  18

  7

  164

  Total

  1,427

  10,058

  1,354

  945

  13,784

  Mathematical sciences and informatics

  Home

  696

  2,278

  529

  306

  3,809

  EU

  18

  42

  14

  8

  82

  Overseas

  27

  99

  29

  22

  177

  Total

  741

  2,419

  572

  336

  4,068

  Biological sciences

  Home

  1,065

  10,840

  575

  551

  13,031

  EU

  38

  391

  27

  17

  473

  Overseas

  12

  192

  20

  73

  297

  Total

  1,115

  11,423

  622

  641

  13,801

  Engineering and technology

  Home

  1,879

  12,394

  1,741

  2,424

  18,438

  EU

  143

  990

  183

  276

  1,592

  Overseas

  543

  2,074

  404

  259

  3,280

  Total

  2,565

  15,458

  2,328

  2,959

  23,310

  1 Pass grades include Ordinary degrees

  Source:

  HESA July Student Records 1996 to 2000

  First degree graduates in specified subjects by class of degree and domicile, 1995–96, higher education institutions in the UK

  Percentage

  Subject/domicile

  First class honours

  Second class honours

  Third class honours

  Pass1

  Total

  Physical sciences

  Home

  92.4

  95.6

  95.0

  94.5

  95.1

  EU

  6.2

  3.2

  3.7

  4.8

  3.7

  Overseas

  1.4

  1.2

  1.3

  0.7

  1.2

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Mathematical sciences and informatics

  Home

  93.9

  94.2

  92.5

  91.1

  93.6

  EU

  2.4

  1.7

  2.4

  2.4

  2.0

  Overseas

  3.6

  4.1

  5.1

  6.5

  4.4

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Biological sciences

  Home

  95.5

  94.9

  92.4

  86.0

  94.4

  EU

  3.4

  3.4

  4.3

  2.7

  3.4

  Overseas

  1.1

  1.7

  3.2

  11.4

  2.2

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Engineering and technology

  Home

  73.3

  80.2

  74.8

  81.9

  79.1

  EU

  5.6

  6.4

  7.9

  9.3

  6.8

  Overseas

  21.2

  13.4

  17.4

  8.8

  14.1

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  1 Pass grades include Ordinary degrees

  Source:

  HESA July Student Records 1996 to 2000
  552W

  Trainee Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many trainee teachers(a) have been and (b) will he trained through the employment-based training route in each year from 2000–01 to 2004–05. [3368]

  Mr. Timms
  During 2000–01, 1,507 people entered the graduate teacher programme; 91 entered the registered teacher programme and 281 entered the overseas trained teachers scheme.

  The Government do not set targets for the number of people entering the graduate teacher programme, the registered teacher programme or the overseas trained teachers scheme. However, my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced on 12 March this year an extra 570 places on the graduate teacher programme that will bring the total, in due course, to 2,250 a year.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many of the trainee teachers undertaking the employment-based training route are from(a) the United Kingdom, (b) European Union countries and (c) other countries, indicating in each case where appropriate which subjects they are training to teach; and if she will make a statement. [3369]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on the nationality of trainee teachers undertaking the employment-based training routes is not collected centrally.

  University Grants
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will estimate the level of funding required if university grants had been maintained at their final level in(a) real terms and (b) actual terms for each of the years (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000, (iii) 2000–01 and (iv) 2001–02. [3317]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: If undergraduates normally resident in England and Wales currently funded under the new student support regulations had been offered a package of grants plus loans for maintenance similar to that available in 1997–98 we estimate the additional cost to the Department over the four years 1998–99 to 2001–02 to be as given in the following table.

  Additional funding required if maintenance grants had been maintained at their 1997–98 level

  million

  In cash

  On a resource basis

  In real terms

  1998–99

  50

  100

  1999–2000

  150

  380

  2000–01

  230

  630

  2001–02

  280

  790

  In cash terms

  1998–99

  50

  100

  1999–2000

  140

  360

  2000–01

  210

  590

  2001–02

  250

  710

  Note:

  These figures assume that contributions towards fees would be unaffected.

  Departmental Title Change Costs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the total cost of(a) design, (b) stationery, (c) new name plaques and (d) other costs of the naming of her Department; and if she will make a statement. [3033]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: Estimates for the cost of design, stationery, new name plaques and other costs of the naming of the Department for Education and Skills are as follows:

  £

  Design of marque

  14,705

  Stationery

  112,632

  New name plaques

  25,300

  Other costs including Branding guidelines, web development and registration

  23,420

  1 Production and initial stock

  2 18 signs on five HQ sites

  This has been carried out as economically and efficiently as possible. I
  believe that the connection with our customers via the identity is very important. Therefore we have chosen a clear, simple expression of what we do to help the public understand how our work affects them.

  University Staff
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many academic staff, by university, left positions between 1 January and 30 March, who would have been included in the research assessment exercise submission had they been in post on 31 March; and if she will make a statement. [3316]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: These figures are not available. However, the Higher Education Funding Council for England are analysing the research assessment exercise returns and expect to be able to provide this information by the end of August.

  Student Support
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what support is available for intercalating students; and if she will make a statement. [3319]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: Under the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2001, full-time students who are absent from their course because of illness are entitled to continue to receive student support for the first 60 days of absence. Before academic year 1998–99 this was only 28 days. Local education authorities have the discretion to decide whether such students should continue to receive support after the first 60 days absence.

  Students who remain ill for more than a period of 28 weeks may become eligible at that stage to receive income support and housing benefit. Local education authorities have the discretion to continue support to sick students waiting to receive income support.
  555W
  LEAs also have a discretion under the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2001 to continue paying student support to students who temporarily suspend their courses for reasons other than illness.

  We have made it clear in our guidance that local education authorities should exercise their discretion sympathetically in considering the cases of intercalation which come to them. Among the factors they must consider in coming to a decision is the possibility of financial hardship.

  Students who temporarily suspend their courses may also receive assistance from the hardship fund at their institution's discretion. The hardship fund allows universities and colleges to provide discretionary support

  GCSE

  GCE A-level

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  (a) Independent schools

  Urdu

  380

  435

  439

  508

  728

  56

  105

  23

  85

  113

  Bengali

  35

  36

  38

  37

  36

  —

  1

  2

  —

  2

  Gujarati

  87

  111

  97

  93

  136

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hindi

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  6

  4

  1

  —

  Chinese

  1,243

  1,283

  1,203

  1,112

  1,277

  750

  677

  825

  888

  961

  Any modem language

  46,211

  44,501

  42,202

  41,538

  41,876

  9,505

  9,510

  9,310

  9,240

  8,711

  (b) State schools

  Urdu

  5,617

  5,661

  5.525

  5,732

  5,722

  231

  240

  182

  205

  226

  Bengali

  1,939

  2,061

  2,011

  2,056

  1,967

  30

  26

  36

  9

  15

  Gujarati

  1,015

  1,043

  832

  1,009

  1,017

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hindi

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  3

  3

  3

  —

  Chinese

  493

  574

  546

  596

  593

  59

  72

  87

  107

  133

  Any modern language

  391,440

  388,408

  408,264

  421,523

  425,546

  13,890

  13,687

  13,499

  13,048

  11,825

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students obtained GCSE and A-level examinations in(a) Urdu, (b) Bengali, (c) Gujerati, (d) Hindi, (e) Mandarin, (f) Cantonese and (g) modern languages in each of the last five years. [1299]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 July 2001, c. 81W]: The table contained an error. The corrected table is given as follows.

  The number of students of all ages who obtained GCSE and GCE A-level passes in the various languages over the last five years are shown in the table. Figures for Mandarin and Cantonese are not available, data for Chinese as a whole have been provided instead.

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  GCSE

  (a) Urdu

  6,658

  6,660

  6,370

  6,497

  6,677

  (b) Bengali

  2,116

  2,220

  2,146

  2,152

  2,041

  (c) Gujerati

  1,313

  1,309

  1,026

  1,189

  1,200

  (d) Hindi

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (e) (f) Chinese

  1,956

  2,048

  1,937

  1,917

  2,028

  (g) All modern languages

  450,244

  444,639

  460,186

  472,010

  476.050

  GCE A-level

  (a) Urdu

  833

  837

  591

  746

  725

  (b) Bengali

  99

  98

  108

  37

  53

  (c) Gujerati

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (d) Hindi

  31

  19

  13

  8

  —

  (e) (f) Chinese

  972

  887

  1,074

  1,165

  1,225

  (g) All modern languages

  32,937

  32,340

  31,298

  30,224

  27,455

  556W
  for students in particular need; and a total of £87 million has been made available in England for the 2000–01 academic year.

  Modern Languages
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 81W, on modern languages, how many GCSE and A-level passes, in each of the language categories and years, were obtained by students at (a) independent and (b) state schools. [2836]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The number of GCSE and A-level passes, in each of the language categories and years, obtained by students in(a) independent and (b) state schools are shown in the following table.

  Pay Bands
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the pay bands are for(a) school teachers and (h) further education college lecturers. [2994]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: Main scale classroom teachers are paid on a scale from £17,001 to £24,843. We do not collect information on pay bands for further education college lecturers, however, a national review of staffing and pay in further education, undertaken by ORC International, indicates that the mean salary for full-time teachers in FE is £22,769.

  Fosters Field, Sherborne
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she plans to announce a decision on Fosters Field in Sherborne. [3195]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to announce a decision within the next few weeks.

  Secondary Schools (Hillingdon)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils in the London borough of Hillingdon have not had an offer of a secondary school place for September. [2827]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department does not collect this information. However, my officials have been in touch with Hillingdon local education authority, which has a
  557W
  duty to secure that sufficient primary and secondary schools are available for the children in its area. At present, the authority is in the process of establishing whether parents who have not accepted a place in any of the borough's own schools have accepted a place in a school in a neighbouring borough. The LEA has said that, overall, there are sufficient school places available in the borough for any local child who needs one.

  AS-levels
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many universities have indicated that they will admit students on the basis of AS qualifications alone; and if she will list these universities. [3107]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 9 July 20011: The requested information is not currently held centrally by the Department.

  Higher education institutions establish their own admissions criteria and supply summary details relating to full-time undergraduate courses to the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS). The data that UCAS hold about institutions and courses requiring AS qualifications alone are still subject to verification by the institutions but should be available for release in approximately four weeks time, when they will be placed in the Library.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what monitoring has taken place of the pilot areas on EMAs, including the travel EMAs; and what plans she has to extend them to enable more people to continue in further education. [3193]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The impact of the EMA transport pilots is being thoroughly evaluated as a discrete part of the overall evaluation of the EMA scheme. We will also draw on a mapping study of current LEA transport provision for people in learning, which will be completed in the autumn.

  The evaluation of the EMA scheme is designed to cover a three year period in order to assess the impact on achievement as well as on participation and retention in further education. Initial findings from the first stage of the EMA evaluation are encouraging. We will consider the case for further expansion of the scheme in light of further evaluation and as part of the spending review.

  Medical Degree Courses
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to review the ethnic composition of entrants to medical degree courses. [1733]

  Margaret Hodge
  I shall ask my officials to review with the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Council of Heads of Medical Schools, the number of applications and acceptances for ethnic minority students in medical schools in England.

  The number of medical school places was increased by 1,100 in 2000 and by a further 1,000 earlier this year. In both cases, when medical schools bid for extra places they were asked to demonstrate an active commitment to the
  558W
  recruitment of students from a broad range of social and ethnic backgrounds, to reflect the patterns of the population that they serve.

  Although higher education institutions are responsible for their own recruitment and admissions procedures, we have said that these should be transparent and based on published criteria so that selection is on the basis of an applicant's ability and potential. I understand that the universities are discussing progress on this issue with the Commission for Racial Equality.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cheque Shops
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from the Office of Fair Trading about the operating methods of cheque shops; and if she will make a statement. [3062]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  None.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many cheque shops(a) are and (b) were in each of the past 10 years licensed in the United Kingdom; [3053]

  (2) how many cheque shop licenses have been withdrawn in each of the past 10 years. [3058]

  Miss Melanie Jonhson
  The Director General of Fair Trading does not hold records in the form specified and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Cheques Act
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact the Cheques Act 1992 has had upon those who do not have a bank account in terms of the price of credit. [3059]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have not made any assessment.

  "Extortionate Irresponsible Lending"
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the definition of the phrase "extortionate and irresponsible lending" as used by the Office of Fair Trading. [3054]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Consumer Credit Act 1974 contains provisions on extortionate credit bargains in sections 137–141. There is no equivalent statutory definition of irresponsible lending. However, the Office of Fair Trading issued guidelines earlier this year containing information about the type of practices which might cause it to take regulatory action against consumer credit licence holders.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on levels of inward investment into the UK. [3667]
  559W
  Ms Hewitt
  With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I am pleased to inform the House that Invest UK announced in its annual review, published today, that the UK has delivered another year of outstanding inward investment performance.

  For the period between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001, the number of direct investment projects by foreign owned companies into the UK reported to Invest UK by its partner agencies in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regional development agencies totalled 869. Based on information provided by the companies at the time of the announcement, it is estimated that these projects will create 71,488 new jobs.

  This performance is proof of global confidence in the UK's economic and business environment. More overseas companies choose to invest here than anywhere else in Europe because the UK is the best place to do business.

  I am arranging for a copy of Invest UK's Annual Review to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Telecommunications Report
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she has received the report by the Director General of Telecommunications for the year 2000, as required under section 55 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. [3704]

  Mr. Alexander
  Yes. The 17th report by the Director General of Telecommunications is being published today. It covers the period 1 January to 31 December 2000. This includes initiatives to encourage the widespread provision of unmetered internet access and other initiatives to promote the interests of consumers and promote a competitive telecoms market. Copies of the report have been laid before each House of Parliament.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Digital Divide
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what policies she is pursuing to bridge the urban-rural digital divide; and if she will make a statement. [1809]

  Alun Michael
  As set out in the rural White Paper (Chapter 7.5.2–3) it is the Government's policy to stimulate and promote industry investment in higher band width services so that as many people as possible can get faster access to the internet and other information services. Policy on the costs of access and competition in the internet access market are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. My concern is to ensure that rural areas do not lose out and we have asked the Countryside Agency to monitor the rollout of broadband in rural areas. My colleagues and I will take their assessment into account in developing policy, including consideration of the case for requiring the communications industry to make higher band-width available as part of a universal service obligation.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will extend the farm business advisory scheme to form D farms; and if she will make a statement. [2944]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: The farm business advice service is available to all farm businesses in England, including those subject to form D restrictions. However, in many parts of the country the 2001–02 budget is almost fully committed. Additional funding has been made available to fund delivery of an enhanced form of the farm business advice service to all farmers in England who have had their livestock compulsorily slaughtered under the foot and mouth disease control measures.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list(a) the numbers of vets and (b) the country from which they came who have been assisting with the foot and mouth crisis from February to date. [2745]

  Mr. Morley
  Foreign veterinary assistance has been provided in two ways. Governments have loaned state veterinarians to the Department. Other foreign veterinary surgeons have also been appointed as temporary veterinary inspectors (TVIs).

  As of 9 July, 492 state veterinarians from the following countries have provided assistance during the foot and mouth disease outbreak:

  Country

  Number

  Australia

  76

  Bulgaria

  10

  Canada

  52

  Cuba

  2

  Denmark

  8

  Finland

  3

  France

  21

  Germany

  2

  Hungary

  19

  Iceland

  1

  Ireland

  18

  Israel

  1

  Italy

  1

  Netherlands

  2

  New Zealand

  25

  Norway

  1

  South Africa

  5

  Sweden

  15

  Switzerland

  5

  USA

  225

  As of 9 July, 386 foreign veterinary surgeons have been appointed as TVIs from abroad and they come from the following countries:

  Country

  Number

  Australia

  109

  Austria

  7

  Belgium

  4

  Canada

  16

  Czech Republic

  1

  Denmark

  4

  Egypt

  1

  France

  7

  Germany

  15

  561W

  Country

  Number

  Greece

  3

  Ireland

  35

  Israel

  1

  Italy

  10

  Namibia

  1

  Netherlands

  7

  New Zealand

  50

  Norway

  1

  Portugal

  1

  South Africa

  57

  Spain

  38

  Sweden

  1

  Zimbabwe

  11

  USA

  6

  These figures do not include those foreign veterinary surgeons supplied by veterinary practices in Great Britain.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations the tourist industry has made to the Government over its handling of the foot and mouth outbreak. [2572]

  Alun Michael
  The tourist industry is represented on the rural task force by the British Hospitality Association, the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourism Council; ministerial colleagues from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport also attend. Under my chairmanship and, formerly, under that of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment (Mr. Meacher), the task force has frequently discussed the impact of foot and mouth disease on tourism and how Government policies might help mitigate that impact. I and colleagues have also received extensive correspondence and held numerous meetings with representatives of tourism and other industries from the worst-hit areas.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many jobs have been lost as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak in(a) the agricultural industry and (b) rural businesses. [2570]

  Alun Michael
  It is too early to make a full assessment of the number of jobs lost as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak, and for many businesses the worst impacts are likely to occur over the autumn and winter period. Evidence on labour market impact suggests that broadly foot and mouth disease has slowed the rate at which unemployment is falling, through an effect on both job losses and recruitment. Local survey evidence suggests that the tourism industry in the worst affected areas has suffered a large loss of trade in the past four months, which is likely to have resulted in a fall in the number of seasonal employees in these areas, besides any business failures and permanent jobs lost.

  The Government have introduced a range of measures to help businesses cope with the impact of foot and mouth disease and will continue to assess the scope for further action through the rural task force, chaired by myself.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to protect(a) pedigree and (b) hefted sheep against infection by foot and mouth disease. [2557]
  562W
  Mr. Morley
  The Government are taking every possible action to eradicate the disease and so protect flocks in the future. Also owners of rare breeds of sheep and goats and hefted sheep may apply for exemptions from the cull of contiguous premises, provided they meet certain conditions including meeting high standards of biosecurity and their animals passing serological tests. The industry itself, and all those who work among it, also have a role to play in ensuring maximum biosecurity to stop the spread of the disease.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list(a) the number and (b) county of origin of vets who returned home from MAFF/DEFRA service and had not been paid before their departure from the United Kingdom. [2746]

  Mr. Morley
  Foreign veterinary assistance has been provided in two ways. Governments have loaned state veterinarians to the Department. Terms and conditions were agreed with the relevant authorities in each country prior to the vets travelling to GB. Their salaries continue to be paid by the authorities in their own country.

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

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost of the foot and mouth outbreak has been to date. [1076]

  Mr. Morley
  Our current estimate (as at 9 July) of the direct cost of the of outbreak to the Exchequer is around £2.2 billion. Among other things, this includes cost of disinfection and cleansing as well as compensation for compulsory slaughter of affected livestock.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) of the contiguous culls in Worcestershire, how many have occurred around premises believed to be infected with foot and mouth disease, but which subsequently were shown to be negative in laboratory tests; [42]

  (2) how many contiguous culls occurred in Worcestershire after negative laboratory tests for foot and mouth disease relating to the premises believed to be infected. [43]

  Mr. Morley
  Information is available only for Hereford and Worcester. Of 66 infected premises, 43 were tested, of which 30 returned negative laboratory results. These 30 cases remain designated as infected premises and are associated with 119 contiguous premises.

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

  When figures are available for Worcestershire, they will be forwarded to the hon. Gentleman.

  Cleaning Services Group
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will make a decision on the holding of a public inquiry into the explosion at the Cleaning Services Group Ltd., Sandhurst, Gloucester; and if she will make a statement. [2950]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: I fully understand the concerns of local residents about the incident and their calls for a public inquiry. We are considering this issue in the light of the latest progress report into the Environment Agency and Health and Safety Executive's joint investigation of the incidents. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Tigers (Thailand)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received on the risk to tigers in Thailand and the performance of the authorities in that country in enforcing agreements for the survival of the species; what representations Her Majesty's Government have made on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [2724]

  Mr. Meacher
  A copy of the Environment Investigation Agency's (EIA) report "Thailand's Tiger Economy" was sent to my Department in June. Since then we have received no representations on the risk to tigers in Thailand and the performance of the authorities in that country; nor have we made representations on this matter.

  The UK is committed to supporting tiger conservation worldwide but we cannot intervene directly in the protection afforded to them in other countries. However, we do work closely with other countries to promote tiger conservation through our membership of such organisations as the Global Tiger Forum (an Indian-based consortium of tiger range states and others dedicated to promoting the conservation of tigers in the wild) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). We have contributed over £150,000 to a number of tiger initiatives over the last three years, including £40,000 to help CITES establish a tiger enforcement task force to combat illicit trade in tigers worldwide.

  The UK participated as an observer at a recent meeting in Paris of the CITES standing committee where the EIA's report on Thailand's tigers was made available to the committee.

  Energy Crops
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to encourage energy crops. [409]

  Mr. Meacher
  Our energy crops scheme provides grants to encourage planting of short-rotation coppice (SRC) and miscanthus, and setting up SRC producer groups. Early uptake in the scheme depends on the markets created by projects funded under the non-fossil fuels obligation and six projects utilising energy crops have potential to make progress. Just over 230 hectares of energy crops have been planted under the scheme this year and we have two applications for producer group 564W
  funding. We are working closely with industry and others to develop electricity and heat markets and promote uptake. A good example of this is the community renewables initiative announced by the Countryside Agency on 9 July which will stimulate community based partnerships to develop renewable energy, including energy crops, in their localities.

  The Soil Association
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions her Department has had with the Soil Association. [1673]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: Officials met the director of the Soil Association and senior colleagues on 21 June. The meeting was primarily an opportunity for the Soil Association to brief the Department on recent initiatives and activities. We warmly welcome continuing contacts of this sort.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the impact of investment in(a) insulation and other energy efficiency measures in the home and (b) expansion of the gas network on (i) reducing greenhouse gas emissions, (ii) alleviating fuel poverty, (iii) upgrading housing stock and (iv) the creation of jobs. [2300]

  Mr. Meacher
  Government investment in domestic energy efficiency in this year will be around £190 million. In addition this year, local authorities plan to spend about £1.7 billion on capital works to their housing stock, some of which will contribute to improving energy efficiency.

  The Government's climate change programme, published last November, estimated domestic energy savings of between 3.9 and 5.2 million tonnes of carbon per year in 2010.

  It is estimated that the new home energy efficiency scheme, the Government's main programme for tackling fuel poverty in England, will save 0.2 million tonnes of carbon per year and treat a target of 800,000 homes over the period from 2000–04.

  It is also proposed that 50 per cent. of the benefit of the energy efficiency commitment for 2002–05 should be concentrated on a priority group, including the fuel poor.

  A recent report by the Energy Saving Trust, which looked at seven schemes, estimated that for every £1 million of expenditure in energy efficiency, including private investment, between 10 and 58 jobs are directly created.

  The Government are very aware of the potentially valuable contribution which the extension of the gas network could make to tackling all of these issues. It has set up a working group with representatives from Government, Ofgem, the gas industry and consumer bodies to look at the feasibility of extending the gas network where it is viable to do so. This group is not due to report until October and no decisions have yet been taken on investment.

PRIME MINISTER

  Constituency Visits
  Andrew George
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit the communities of west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly in the St. Ives constituency. [1916]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans at present to do so.

  Rough Sleepers Unit
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister who has ministerial responsibility for the rough sleepers unit. [3267]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Falconer of Thornton, Minister of State in the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, has responsibility for the rough sleepers unit. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the same Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), answers on the subject in this House.

  Champions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 31W, on champions, if he will list the champions. [3268]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to my previous answer.

  Voting Systems
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 93W, on voting systems, if it is his policy to hold a formal review of the voting systems for the Scottish Parliament, the

  The estimated number of people who would benefit from the abolition of hospital downrating

  Retirement pension

  Incapacity benefit

  Severe disablement allowance

  Estimated numbers benefiting from abolition of 6–52 weeks downrating

  21,100

  7.000

  14,000

  Estimated numbers benefiting from abolition of over 52 weeks downrating

  11,000

  3,000

  10,000

  Total number of beneficiaries

  31,100

  11,000

  25,000

  Notes:

  1. Caseload estimates source: 5 per cent. from the relevant computer systems in 2000.

  2. Numbers rounded to the nearest 1,000.

  3. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) on what criteria persons will be(a) selected for triennial screening for Incapacity Benefit, (b) passed for continued receipt and (c) rejected for future claims; [3083]

  (2) what opportunities will be offered for (a) access to work, (b) additional rehabilitation and (c) additional training for those rejected for Incapacity Benefit in triennial screening; [3085]

  (3) what the proposed timetable and arrangements are for (a) consultation and (b) implementation of changes in Incapacity Benefit; [3084]
  566W
  Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament, and the London Assembly within the lifetime of this Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [3063]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to my previous answer.

  Working Peers
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what his definition is of a working peer. [3145]

  The Prime Minister
  The overriding criterion I apply in recommending Labour working peers is that the individual concerned should be able to make a significant contribution to the work of the House of Lords.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pensions Education Campaign
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on what date the report of the quantitative tracking research on the pensions education campaign will be published. [2274]

  Mr. McCartney
  A summary of quantitative tracking research on the pensions education marketing campaign will be placed in the Library later in the summer.

  Hospital Downrating
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 5 July 2001,Official Report, column 269W, on hospital downrating, how many people would benefit in each case. [3269]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is in the table.

  (4) what consultations took place, and on what dates, with disability organisations before the announcement of Government plans for Incapacity Benefit on 4 July; [3089]

  (5) what categories of disabled persons will be exempt from the requirement for triennial screening for Incapacity Benefit; [3086]

  (6) what the cost of triennial screening for Incapacity Benefit will be (a) per individual case and (b) in total annual expenditure. [3087]

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what consultation he had with groups representing disabled people prior to his announcement of his plans to reform Incapacity Benefit. [3156]
  567W
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Incapacity Benefit reviews were undertaken in each of the last five years; and what is his estimate of the annual additional number of reviews that will be undertaken once his plans for reviews every three years are fully implemented. [3619]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 9 and 10 July 2001]: The Government are committed to ensuring there is full employment and opportunity for all. This means we must extend the necessary help and support to all people of working age who are out of the labour market.

  In the past, many people were moved onto Incapacity Benefit with limited help to make sure that they got the right level of support. There was no help to get people into work, nor any support or rehabilitation. Yet as the Disability Rights Commission has said, one million disabled people say they would like to work. We have a duty to help them to do so.

  From October, the first pathfinder offices of jobcentre plus will open to strengthen the services available to help people back to work. It will be a condition of benefit in these offices that all new IB claimants attend a work focused interview to discuss what options people have around work and inform them of the help available. I can announce today that regulations under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 will be laid before both Houses in the autumn. These will include a provision that no one should go more than three years without a review of their circumstances and an interview unless there are good reasons, such as the state of their health. The regulation will set out how these reviews will be implemented. Each case will be looked at on an individual basis: a further work focused interview and/or personal capability assessment will be carried out where appropriate. All new IB claimants will be affected by these changes and will be told they are subject to the regular review, initially in the 50 pathfinder sites but then rolled out nationally.

  At present, cases are looked at again if their medical condition is expected to improve. But some categories of case are exempt from medical testing. The changes I am announcing today do not change these exemptions. However, they will ensure that there is a review at least every three years to make sure people are getting all the help they need.

  I will publish an explanatory memorandum when the regulations are laid which will be placed in the Library of both Houses. We will also discuss with groups representing disabled people the precise administrative arrangements that will underpin the regulations. Operational information will become available when the pathfinder offices open.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to implement EU Council directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 on age discrimination; and if he will make a statement. [184]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.
  568W
  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.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the budget for special advisers' salaries was in Government Departments in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 2001–02. [1876]

  Mr. Leslie
  The estimated pay bill for special advisers for 2001–02 is £4.4 million. The pay bill for special advisers in 1996–97 was £1.8 million.

  Online Services
  Mr McWalter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the contribution of the e-envoy to the delivery of Government services online. [1879]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government are committed to getting services online by 2005 to ensure that the country, its citizens and its businesses derive maximum benefit from the knowledge economy. The e-envoy makes a valuable contribution towards this commitment, among others, through ensuring that the momentum in meeting it is maintained by working with Departments on developing their e-business plans.

  Mr Challen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what targets he has set for the delivery of Government services online. [1894]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Prime Minister has set a target that 100 per cent. of Government services to the citizen and business should be available electronically, and in a customer-focused form, by 2005.

  Major achievements have been made towards the overall aim of delivering 100 per cent. of Government services electronically by 2005.

  These include:
  42 per cent. of Government services are e-enabled now (73 per cent. by 2002 and 100 per cent. by 2005);
  the creation of the ukonline citizen portal and the Government Gateway.

  Brian White
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made on reaching the targets for electronic delivery of Government services. [1896]

  Mrs. Roche
  Major progress has been made towards the overall aim of delivering 100 per cent. of Government services electronically by 2005.

  These include:
  42 per cent. of Government services are e-enabled now (moving to 73 per cent. by 2002 and 100 per cent. by 2005);
  the creation of the ukonline citizen portal and the Government Gateway.

  Social Exclusion (Brent)
  Mr Gardiner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the impact of Government policies in combating social exclusion in Brent. [1880]
  569W
  Mrs. Roche
  Brent is benefiting from a variety of Government initiatives to tackle social exclusion including New Deal for Communities funding of £50 million over 10 years, a Neighbourhood Renewal Fund allocation of more than £5 million over the next three years, a Sure Start programme in central Brent since 2000, and another shortly in south Kilburn.

  Information and Communication Service
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the work of the Government Information and Communication Service. [1881]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government Information and Communication Service is a network of communication specialists working in Departments and agencies. Their role, as outlined in the guidance on the work of the GIS, is to ensure that the policies and actions of the Government of the day are fully explained and presented.

  Rough Sleepers
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of progress on the rough sleepers strategy following the social exclusion unit report on this issue. [1882]

  Mrs. Roche
  In 1998, there were approximately 1,850 people rough sleeping in England. In June 2000, published figures indicated that approximately 1,180 people were sleeping rough. This represents a 36 per cent. reduction. The Rough Sleepers Unit will publish updated figures in due course in relation to counts carried out this year.

  UK Online
  Mr Allan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the progress of the UK Online project. [1883]

  Mr. Leslie
  UK Online strategy is the Government's comprehensive programme for success in the information age, delivered in partnership with other central Government Departments, local government, agencies, and the private and voluntary sectors.

  The strategy was published as part of the e-Minister and e-envoy's first Annual Report. It set out a range of recommendations for action across the e-agenda.

  The e-envoy and the e-Minister report monthly to the Prime Minister on progress towards meeting the UK Online strategy.

  Important elements of the UK Online strategy include the ukonline.gov.uk, the Citizen's Portal, the Government Gateway, which deliver round the clock, customer-focused government services, and UK online for business, which offers expert advice to SMEs on how best to take advantage of the benefits of e-commerce.

  Cabinet Office Delivery Unit
  Mr Brazier
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the studies being carried out by the Cabinet Office delivery unit. [1884]
  570W
  Mr. Leslie
  The unit has been set up to help ensure the Government achieve our key objectives in the areas of health, education, law and order and transport. It is currently establishing its future work programme.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for the Policy Delivery Unit based in the Cabinet Office; and if he will make a statement. [1631]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Delivery Unit, led by Michael Barber, reports to the Prime Minister under the day-to-day supervision of Lord Macdonald. It will help ensure that the Government achieves key objectives in the areas of health, education, law and order and transport, so that their ambitious programme of public service reform is translated into real improvements on the ground.

  Business Regulation
  Mr Lloyd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has for reviewing the impact of regulation on business and employees. [1885]

  Mr. Leslie
  Since 1997, the Better Regulation Task Force has reviewed the impact of regulations in a number of areas ranging from farming to e-commerce, and will continue to do so.

  In addition, our manifesto for business contains a commitment to require Departments and agencies to review the impact and working of major pieces of regulation within three years of implementation. We are currently considering the best way to take this commitment forward.

  Government Departments (Regions)
  Mr Pickthall
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to move Government Departments out of London to the regions. [1886]

  Mrs. Roche
  The re are no such plans.

  Individual Departments and agencies are free to make their own decisions about location and facilities on the basis of operational requirements and value for money.

  Regional Government
  Dr Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to publish a White Paper on regional government in England. [1887]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 80W.

  Best Value
  Mr Miller
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to improve Best Value criteria in respect of public services that have a cross-departmental impact. [1888]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government have been consistent in promoting a cross-departmental approach to improving public services across the whole of the public sector. Increasingly, Government Departments are working together to improve services with overall needs of citizens at the forefront of their thinking. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 25 June 2001 a new series of
  571W
  cross-cutting reviews, building on the initiatives addressed in the previous spending round, and local service delivery has received particular attention. Best Value performance plans will set out how local authorities will approach joined-up community planning. Local strategic partnerships continue to be a key contribution to crosscutting delivery. The extension of Local Public Service Agreements will provide further opportunities for improving services.

  Public Service Delivery
  Dr Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the roles of the Cabinet Office in ensuring that public expenditure delivers effective public services complement that of the Treasury. [1889]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office has no separate rules which govern our involvement in monitoring delivery of public services. The Chancellor of the Exchequer chairs the Committee on Public Services and Public Expenditure (PSX) which has overall responsibility for monitoring delivery. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Cabinet Office are members of that Committee and my officials work closely with Treasury officials to support and inform the Committee's considerations.

  Public-Private Sector Exchanges
  Mr Kidney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the scheme for interchange between civil servants and private sector workers will operate in the next four years. [1890]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Interchange Steering Council met on 18 January 2001. The Council endorsed the Interchange Unit's strategy: to promote interchange with the private sector as well as the wider public sector and the voluntary sector; to further develop the Departmental Interchange Managers Network; to address barriers to Interchange, and to monitor and evaluate the impact on both individuals and organisations. It was also suggested that the Unit do more to develop Interchange regionally and sectorally. It is intended that this approach will be followed over the next four years.

  Regulatory Reform
  Dr Naysmith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what further regulatory reform he plans to introduce following the implementation of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. [1891]

  Mr. Leslie
  A proposal for relaxing licensing laws for this coming New Year's Eve was laid before Parliament for scrutiny on 28 June.

  During the passage of the Regulatory Reform Bill through Parliament, the Government placed in the Library of the House a list of 51 proposals that could be implemented using the power contained in the Act. I expect to see many of these brought forward over the coming months and to see more proposals being added to the list.

  Consultation on all of these proposals under section 5 of the 2001 Act has recently ended, with the exception of that for Voluntary Aided (VA) schools in England which ends in August.
  572W
  A further five proposals from the list of 51 are currently being prepared for consultation.

  Further information on potential Orders made under the Act can be found on the Cabinet Office website at: www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation/act/examples.htm.

  Devolution
  Mr Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his responsibilities with respect to regional devolution. [1892]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Prime Minister has asked my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to be responsible for a White Paper on Regional Governance, in close liaison with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and in co-operation with other Cabinet colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is also responsible for the Regional Co-ordination Unit and has overall responsibility for the Government Office network.

  Programme Delivery
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals he has to review the co-ordination and delivery of Government and EU programmes in areas of high social and economic disadvantage. [1893]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the final paragraph of my answer of 4 July 2001, Official Report, column 314W.

  Climate Change
  David Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he next expects to discuss further development on climate change negotiations with the US Administration. [1895]

  Mrs. Roche
  Ministers keep in close touch with the US and will be discussing further developments on climate change again at the sixth meeting of the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on climate change (COP6).

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what responsibility he has for developing the UK's climate change strategy; [820]

  (2) what plans he has to visit international conferences relating to climate change in the next 12 months; [803]

  (3) when he next intends to meet the French Environment Minister for discussions on climate change. [821]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I will continue to play a role in international climate change discussions and negotiations on behalf of the Prime Minster.

  Websites
  Mr Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action is being taken to ensure Government Departments better utilise websites. [1897]
  573W
  Mrs. Roche
  The Office of the e-Envoy has taken a number of steps to improve the use of departmental websites:

  We have established an infrastructure:
  The UK online portal (ukonline.gov.uk) provides the public with in-depth access to UK Government information and services on-line
  The Government Gateway will enable users to make secure electronic transactions.

  We have published a range of supporting guidance, including:
  The Government Interoperability Framework, which reflects best practice and adopts Internet and World Wide Web standards
  The Government Metadata Framework, to help citizens find our services and information without having to know which Department is directly responsible for it; and
  Guidelines for UK Government websites, which advise best practice in order to achieve government's aims for online services.

  Women's Unit
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his responsibilities for overseeing the work of the Cabinet Office women's unit. [1898]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Deputy Prime Minister does not oversee the work of the Women's Unit. The work of the Women's Unit is overseen by Baroness Morgan and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who reports directly to the Prime Minster on women's and equality issues.

  Ministerial Replies
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what mechanism exists for ensuring that replies are sent to members of the public who write to Ministers. [1877]

  Mr. Leslie
  All Departments have standards in place setting the maximum time it should take to answer correspondence from the public. Performance against these standards is monitored and the results published.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will list the Government agencies and units for which he is responsible; and if he will make a statement; [768]

  (2) if he will list the responsibilities of each Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement. [767]

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will set out his Department's responsibilities; [1933]

  (2) what plans he has to increase the number of units run from within his Department. [1940]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I head a new office of the Deputy Prime Minister in the Cabinet Office. I am supported by a Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), by a Parliamentary Secretary, my hon Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) and by Lord Macdonald of Tradeston 574W
  CBE and Baroness Morgan of Huyton for business in the House of Lords. As First Secretary of State I will continue to deputise for the Prime Minister as required, drawing on the resources of other parts of the Cabinet Office as necessary. I will oversee the work of the Social Exclusion Unit, which reports to the Prime Minister through me. I am also responsible for the Regional Co-ordination Unit and the nine Government offices of the Regions.

  On international matters I will support the Prime Minister by seeing visiting dignitaries; undertaking overseas visits; and overseeing the work of the International Public Service Unit. I also carry ministerial responsibility for the British-Irish Council and will deputise as necessary for the Prime Minister at meetings of the Council. I will continue to play a role in international climate change discussions and negotiations on behalf of the Prime Minister. In addition, I will chair new Cabinet Committees on Domestic Affairs and on Nations and the Regions; and new sub-Committees on Social Exclusion and Regeneration and on Energy Policy. I will continue to chair the Committee on the Environment.

  The Minister of State in the Deputy Prime Minister's Office supports me across the full range of my duties. She will, in particular, oversee the work of the Regional Co-ordination Unit and the Government Offices in the Regions, reporting to me on the development of their role and on the work of the regional network of the COI. She will lead on projects arising out of the work of the Social Exclusion Unit, be responsible for the work of the Business Co-ordination Unit, and will be sponsor Minister for a number of PIU projects. She will also be a member of a number of Cabinet Committees, including those on the regions and social exclusion.

  The Parliamentary Secretary will support the Minister of State and me across the range of our duties. He will also support Lord Macdonald and will be the Minister answerable in the Commons for day-to-day decisions on the Civil Service under the Prime Minister as Minister for the Civil Service.

  Baroness Morgan of Huyton, Deputy Minister for Women, will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as the Cabinet Minister for Women on: the day-to-day oversight of the Women and Equality Unit and sponsorship of the Women's National Commission. She will co-ordinate equality issues across Whitehall as Chair of a new Cabinet Sub-Committee on Equality. She will also have responsibility for implementation of Article 13 (reporting to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry) and cross-cutting equality issues (on behalf of the three lead equality Ministers).

  The right hon. Lord Macdonald of Tradeston CBE, as Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster reports direct to the Prime Minister. He has day-to-day responsibility for the work of the Delivery Unit, which supports the Prime Minister on matters to do with the delivery of public services. He will work closely with me as appropriate on related cross-cutting issues covered by the Cabinet Committees under my chairmanship. He is also responsible for the work of the Regulatory Impact Unit; and the e-envoy's unit's work on e-government. He will chair the Panel on Regulatory Accountability and will jointly chair a new

  575W
  Ministerial Group on the Manchester Commonwealth Games with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

  The Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Home Civil Service, Sir Richard Wilson, Will continue to report direct to the Prime Minister on the work of the Cabinet and Cabinet Committee Secretariats; the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Single Intelligence Vote for which he is the Accounting Officer; and the corporate management of the Civil Service (including the Government Information and Communication Service); the honours system; the Performance and Innovation Unit, which reports through him to the Prime Minister and which will provide support to the new Forward Strategy Unit in Number 10; and the new Office of Public Services Reform which will similarly report through him to the Prime Minister.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his Department's responsibilities are in relation to(a) setting and monitoring the public service agreements of Government Departments and (b) holding each Department to account; and if he will make a statement. [1630]

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his Department's responsibilities in respect of the monitoring of the performance of Departments against targets set out in public service agreements. [1937]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 95W.

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list those seconded to the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit to work on the current study of renewable energy, indicating in each case their qualifications. [1768]

  Mr. Leslie
  There are seven secondees and two external advisers working in the Performance and Innovation Unit on the current study of resource productivity and renewable energy.

  The Performance and Innovation Unit undertakes a wide search to select the most suitably qualified secondees for its projects and while it is current government practice not to disclose information on individual qualifications, details of those seconded to this particular project are on the Performance and Innovation Unit website.

  They are:

  Civil Service Secondees
  Catriona Laing—Department for International Development
  Ian Coates—Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  576W
  Private and Voluntary Sector or Academic Secondees
  Samantha Armstrong—Environmental Resources Management (ERM)
  Nick Eyre—Energy Saving Trust
  Robert Gross—Imperial College Centre for Energy Policy and Technology
  Dr. Catherine Mitchell—Warwick Business School
  William Nickerson—Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

  External Advisers
  Professor Jake Chapman—Professor of Energy Systems at the Open University
  Ian Christie—Associate Director with the consultancy Local Futures Group.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his assessment is of the impact to date of the Social Exclusion Unit; and if he will make a statement. [2131]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The Social Exclusion Unit was set up by the Prime Minister to provide solutions to specific social exclusion problems. It has completed reports on reducing truancy and school exclusions, cutting teenage pregnancy rates, reducing numbers of rough sleepers and of 16 to 18-year-olds not in training, work or education, as well as co-ordinating the work of 18 Policy Action Teams and developing the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal.

  The initial review of the unit in 1999 found the quality of its reports to be exceptional and its working practices to be a strength. There is now concrete evidence that the implementation of the unit's policies is making a significant impact on the ground.

  Examples include falling rates of permanent exclusion from school (down by nearly a third in 1999–2000 compared with 1996–97) and reduced numbers sleeping rough (down by more than a third since 1998). 1999 teenage pregnancy rates for under-16s and under-18s dropped on the previous year (down 7 per cent. and 4 per cent. respectively). Fewer teenage parents were out of training, learning or work last year compared with the previous four. And the 10 to 20 year strategy for England's poorest neighbourhoods is now being implemented by the new Neighbourhood Renewal Unit.

  The unit is currently working on four projects—on reducing rates of reoffending among ex-prisoners, on young runaways, on improving the educational attainment of children in care, and on transport and social exclusion.

  Regional Co-ordination Unit
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the purpose of the Regional Co-ordination Unit. [1433]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The Regional Co-ordination Unit's Action Plan published in October 2000 identified four key areas where the Government needed to take a new approach to developing and implementing regional policy: better co-ordination of area-based initiatives; involvement of Government offices more directly in policy-making; making the Government
  577W
  offices the key representatives of Government in the regions; and establishing the Regional Co-ordination Unit as the unified head office for the Government offices.

  The Regional Co-ordination Unit is taking forward action in these four areas in liaison with the Government offices and Government Departments.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Services Ombudsman
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she will publish the annual report of the Legal Services Ombudsman for 2000–01. [3805]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Legal Services Ombudsman has today published her 10th annual report and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the Houses.

  1911 Decennial Census
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many hon. Members have made representations to the Lord Chancellor this year to use his powers to open the 1911 Decennial Census records in 2002; and what the Lord Chancellor's response has been. [2826]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This year, the Lord Chancellor has received no letters from hon. Members concerning the 1911 Decennial Census records.

TREASURY

  Private Finance Initiative
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 4 July 2001,Official Report, column 169W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), on the private finance initiative, if he will place a copy of the National Audit Office study concerning the private finance initiative in the Library. [3419]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I am sorry that my written answer of 4 July to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) contained an inadvertent error. I mistakenly referred to a NAO report on PFI and value for money, when the information concerned was in fact set out in references to NAO value-for-money studies in the Arthur Andersen report that looked at value for money drivers in the private finance initiative. This report was published in January 2000.

  The Arthur Andersen report referred to all 11 reports on specific UK PEI projects that the NAO had produced by the end of 1999. Seven of these NAO reports judged the projects value for money against a public sector comparator (PSC). Three of the 11 projects did not have a PSC: in two cases, they pre-dated the relevant Treasury guidance on the preparation of PSCs; in the third case, the inception of the project pre-dated the Treasury guidance, and no formal PSC was prepared but an internal value for money appraisal was undertaken. One report was not a NAO value-for-money study, so did not examine the PSC.
  578W
  Analysis of the seven NAO reports that did compare costs against a PSC showed an average PFI cost saving of 20 per cent.

  Crown Estate Commissioners
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance the Crown Estate Commissioners have afforded to Ipswich borough council in their appeal to the High Court in respect of their right to levy mooring charges. [1867]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  While the Crown Estate has, at the council's request, provided some historic information about its own mooring charges, it has afforded no assistance, financial or otherwise, to the council in the preparation of its case to the Court of Appeal. The Crown Estate has, however, sought leave to intervene in the hearing in its own right, given its legitimate interest in the matters of principle raised by the case.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what expenditure the Crown Estate Commissioners have incurred in each of the last 10 years in maintenance of the Lymington river bed and foreshore. [1868]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Crown Estate owns the foreshore and bed of the tidal stretch of the river, but has no statutory duty to maintain it and no expenditure has been committed. Maintenance of the river bed and foreshore is the responsibility of the Lymington harbour commissioners, who manage the river as a small trust port in accordance with the Lymington Pier and Harbour Order 1951. The Crown has assisted the harbour commissioners in fulfilling their duties, by granting the commissioners a lease of the foreshore and bed of the river.

  Child Poverty
  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, resulting from an increase in the threshold level of income at which Working Families Tax Credit starts to be withdrawn to (i)£120, (ii) £150 and (iii) £200. [1563]

  Dawn Primarolo
  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 will have lifted over 1.2 million children out of relative poverty.

  Working Families Tax Credit (Threshold)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of increasing the threshold level of income at which Working Families Tax Credit starts to be withdrawn to(a) £120, (b) £150 and (c) £200. [1561]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated annual costs are(a) £0.7 billion, (b) £1.3 billion and (c) £2.5 billion.

  Household Income
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the impact on the incomes of(a) lone parent families and (b) couples with children in each income decile, resulting from an increase in the threshold

  579W
  level of income at which Working Families Tax Credit starts to be withdrawn to (a) £120, (b) £150 and (c) £200. [1562]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated percentage increases in income are shown in the following table. Each row of the table covers families in households in the decile group defined by the ranking of all households by equivalised net income before housing costs. The percentage increases shown are of the total net income of all families of that type and in that decile group.

  Percentage

  Lone parents Income threshold raised to:

  Couples with children Income threshold raised to:

  Equivalised income decile group of households

  (a) £120

  (b) £150

  (c) £200

  (a) £120

  (b) £150

  (c) £200

  Bottom

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  6

  3

  1

  1

  1

  3

  7

  13

  4

  2

  3

  4

  2

  5

  11

  5

  3

  6

  9

  0

  1

  4

  6

  3

  6

  11

  0

  0

  1

  7

  2

  4

  8

  0

  0

  0

  8

  1

  2

  4

  0

  0

  0

  9 and top

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Notes:

  The estimates are based on the 1999–2000 Family Resources Survey with incomes projected forward to 2001–02. The decile groups are of all households ranked by net income before housing costs (including WFTC with the current threshold of £92.90) equivalised using the McClements scale. The percentage increases are of net family incomes (not equivalised). The sample sizes are too small to yield reliable separate estimates for lone parents in the top two decile groups.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the oral statement of the Economic Secretary of 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 229, regarding the net contributions of the UK, France and Italy to the EU Budget, if he will make a statement on the net contributions of (a) the UK, (b) France and (c) Italy to the EU Budget in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001 and the projected net contributions in each case to 2006. [2961]
  580W
  Ruth Kelly
  The United Kingdom's net contribution to the EC Budget in 1999 was 5.3 billion euro. The net contributions of France and Italy in 1999 were 1.2 billion euro and 1.8 billion euro respectively. Equivalent figures in respect of 2000 are not yet available. These will be available in November this year, when the European Court of Auditors publishes its annual report.

  As the level of EC spending in any particular year is dependent on the annual budget-setting process, the Government do not forecast the contribution of other member states on an annual basis and comparable estimates are not therefore available for each of the years 2001–06. However, based on 1999 prices, the spending ceilings and the new system of own resources agreed at the Berlin European Council in March 1999 and the Berlin assumption of an enlargement taking in six new member states, it is estimated that the net contribution of France in 2006 will be around 5 per cent. of the EC Budget and that of Italy around 4 per cent. Based on the same assumptions, the United Kingdom's net contribution in 2006 would be around 5 per cent. of the EC Budget. In 1999, the United Kingdom's share was 6.41 per cent. compared with France (1.41 per cent.) and Italy (2.12 per cent.).

  Windfall Levy
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income his Department has received from the windfall levy. [3212]

  Mr. Boateng
  The windfall tax on the privatised utility companies raised £5.2 billion.

  VAT
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the VAT threshold for small businesses. [3205]

  Mr. Boateng
  Representations are made regularly about the level of the VAT registration threshold. In 1998, Customs carried out a consultation exercise to seek the views of business and their representative bodies on the effects and level of the VAT registration threshold.

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.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote
Elspeth Rosamund Morton Howe, having been created Baroness Howe of Idlicote, of Shipston-onStour in the County of Warwickshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Lockwood and the Lord Howe of Aberavon.

Lord Pendry
The Right Honourable Thomas Pendry, having been created Baron Pendry, of Stalybridge in the County of Greater Manchester, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Mason of Barnsley and the Lord Woolmer of Leeds.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

Medical Treatment: Bolam Principle
2.50 p.m.
The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is within the remit of social services departments or the jurisdiction of the courts to choose which method of competent medical treatment (according to the Bolam principle) is best for a patient where more than one type of competent treatment is available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, social services departments have no remit to determine medical treatment of patients. Where medical professionals have suggested that a range of potentially suitable medical treatments are available, in general an adult patient with capacity has the right to choose. Where an adult without capacity to choose, or a child, is the subject of relevant proceedings and there is a dispute about which treatment is in the best interests of the patient, the courts retain the ultimate right to decide what treatment should be given.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the Minister is aware of one particular case involving a child, although there are several. I understand that where a child is already following competent medical treatment, it is not within the jurisdiction of the courts to change that treatment. In view of the length of time during which I have been asking questions on this subject—it is three years since I first raised the matter with the noble Lord—can he please review the 15 well documented cases—more than in Cleveland—where
1080
social services child protection procedures have gone wrong and the families have been subjected to extremely harrowing court proceedings that have gone on for months and months? Will he also do what he can to prevent the 10 cases that are presently in the pipeline from going any further?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot comment on the specific case to which the noble Countess has drawn my attention, but I am always prepared to look at general principles. I have met the noble Countess to discuss this and I am happy to do so again. On the issue of decisions concerning clinical treatment, and where the jurisdiction of the court is concerned, many factors will be brought to bear in court proceedings relating to children. Taking child protection conferences as an example, the key decision that such a conference must make is whether or not to place a name on the child protection register. That is based on whether the conference is satisfied that the child is at continuing risk of significant harm. Such child protection conferences are not empowered to override clinical judgments as to whether or not, for instance, children should be referred for additional medical opinions.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, because of the Bolam case and the comments of the judges in the Sidaway case earlier this year, it is important that any compensation scheme, such as discussed by the committee set up by the Secretary of State yesterday, should be based not on medical negligence, which is so difficult to define, but on no fault?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, these matters have been discussed over many years. I certainly recognise the force of no fault compensation. We shall have to see the outcome of the current discussions. I am absolutely convinced that the rise in the number of medical negligence cases and the size of awards that the health service has to make put an intolerable burden on the National Health Service.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I understand that the cases that the noble Countess has raised concern ME in children. In view of the devastating effects of that disease, the difficulty of diagnosing it and of finding an effective cure, and the controversy about what may be the right cure, will the Minister consider giving guidance to local authorities on the care that needs to be taken in handling such difficult cases?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the question posed by the noble Lord. He may be aware that the Chief Medical Officer established a working group in November 1998 to review management and practice in the field of CFS/ME. As part of that, a children's subgroup was established to look specifically at guidance in relation to children and young people. We expect the working group to complete its task shortly as it is due to report to the Chief Medical

1081
Officer in August 2001. The noble Lord is right to say that this is a controversial area. There is no consensus, but I believe that the eventual publication of guidance, at least detailing the range of treatments, will be extremely helpful in such situations.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister share my view that the majority of social workers are not trained to diagnose conditions in children such as autism, Asperger's syndrome and attention deficit hyperactivity syndrome? Does he also share my concern that in all too many cases wrong conclusions are reached by social workers, sometimes involving completely false accusations of child abuse and that great damage can be done to families as a result?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I want to make it clear that it is not for social workers to make clinical judgments. However, where a decision made, for instance, by a parent is considered by the medical professionals involved not to be in the child's best interest, it would then be appropriate to seek a determination from the courts on the course of treatment that is in the child's best interest, or for social services to become involved.
I agree that we need to develop and improve training for social workers. In March, my right honourable friend the Minister of State concerned with social care announced that the professional qualification for social workers will change from a two-year diploma to a three-year degree course by 2003. In addition, the establishment of a general social care council will enhance professional training and, it is to be hoped, the esteem of the profession, which it is important to raise.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, perhaps I did not express my serious concerns sufficiently strongly. Children and childcare relationships are being seriously damaged. In one case, the child has not spoken to an adult for two years as a result of the damage done to him while in hospital. I repeat that if the Minister does not intend to conduct a review, will he please commission an independent inquiry into what is happening? These cases are as serious as the Cleveland cases—they really are. I ask the Minister to take them seriously and not just to give mealy-mouthed answers.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that that is a little unfair. I said to the noble Countess that I took the matter seriously and I met her two weeks ago to discuss a specific issue. Understandably, I am not allowed to talk about a specific case. As I said in my original Answer, I will continue the dialogue with the noble Countess to examine to general principles raised by these issues. These are ultimately matters for the courts. However, I accept that we need to ensure, particularly in the case of CFS/ME, that the most up-to-date guidance is available to social workers and clinicians as regards the conditions and range of treatments available.

Iraq: No-fly Zones
2.57 p.m.
Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will confirm that the "no-fly zone" in northern Iraq will be maintained, together with the related allied air patrols.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government remain committed with their coalition partners to maintaining and enforcing no-fly zones over both northern and southern Iraq. Regular air patrols are a key element to our efforts to prevent Saddam Hussein from using air power to repress his own people, as he did so brutally prior to the establishment of the zones 10 years ago.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, which I find most positive. Have the Government received reports that Saddam Hussein has been concentrating land forces close to the edge of the safe haven? Will the Government take one step further by at least considering the possibility of improving existing landing strips in northern Iraq so that they can be used by our allied air forces which patrol the air?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments in support of our policy. I agree with his assessment of the importance of the zone in preventing a recurrence of the dreadful scenes which we saw and about which we read some years ago. I am sure that he will join me in paying tribute to the bravery of the coalition air crew, who are regularly subjected to attack by Iraqi air defence forces.
As regards the noble Lord's question about a troop build-up, we are aware of rumours of Iraqi troop movements in areas bordering the Kurdish autonomous zone. We receive such reports from time to time and are monitoring the situation very closely. While we remain vigilant, what we have seen to date does not give rise to undue concern. Of course we shall consider the noble Lord's suggestion about airstrips. However, at present we have no plans to do as the noble Lord suggests. We are very grateful for the support for our efforts in the no-fly zone, and in particular for the use of the Incirlik air base. At the moment, we have no plans to move operations from that base.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I understood that there was to be a possible review of policy on Iraq and that there had been a UN resolution in that respect. Can my noble friend tell the House what the situation is in that regard?
Lord Bach: My Lords, it is no secret that we have been engaged with the United States in trying to secure international consensus on a new approach to Iraq. The aim is simply better to achieve our objective of containing Iraq and stopping its development of weapons of mass destruction. Our efforts have centred

1083
on trying to agree more focused controls on Iraqi weapons and illegal oil exports while easing the flow of civilian goods to the Iraqi people. That would mean an end to sanctions on ordinary imports, nailing once and for all the lie that the regime is not responsible for the ills of Iraq. But, with much regret, I must tell my noble friend that only last week the Security Council was unable to agree the details of the proposed new arrangements that I have set out. There was consensus among four permanent members of the Security Council, including China. Her Majesty's Government find it hard to understand why Russia was unable to support our resolution. Having said that, we remain committed to implementing the new approach. We are working with our allies to resolve differences and hope that other council members will be equally constructive.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's very helpful reply, can he tell the House anything about the sanctions committee of the United Nations, it being suggested in some quarters that it has held up some crucial civilian infrastructure projects? My understanding is that Ministers said they would look at that. Can the noble Lord tell the House anything further about it?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not aware of the matters of which the noble Baroness speaks, but I shall find out straight away, write to her and place a copy of the letter in the Library. Whether that was part of the proposals last week will become clear from my letter.

Mental Health Services
3.2 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jonesasked Her Majesty's Government:
What priority is being given to implementing policies designed to improve public services for people with a mental illness.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, mental health is a key priority for this Government and we have set out our policies in the national service framework and the NHS Plan. This week we have also announced a new national institute for mental health to drive forward progress in England.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's reply. There is, however, mounting evidence that the new money intended by the Government to improve mental health services is being spent on other NHS priorities. Will the noble Lord give an assurance that he will review the situation and ensure that the new cash reaches the intended mental health services?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, resources are very important. As part of the NHS Plan we made it clear that, in addition to normal revenue spending, £329 million would be devoted to mental health over the next three years. We expect NHS authorities and
1084
trusts to ensure that they devote as much priority as they can to mental health. I believe that the fact that the national service framework is such an integral part of the NHS Plan is confirmation that we take the matter very seriously.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in asking a supplementary question I must declare an interest as occasionally I give neuroscience advice to a pharmaceutical company which produces drugs used in the treatment of mental illness. I should like to ask the Minister about the use of so-called atypical antipsychotic drugs in the treatment of schizophrenia. There is now clear evidence in the recent report of the Zito Trust that in the United Kingdom the number of patients who are being given these drugs for the treatment of their illness is far lower than in many other countries. That is particularly unfortunate given that these drugs are more effective and much freer from side-effects than traditional remedies. That report of the trust demonstrates a very clear postcode prescribing problem of enormous variability across the United Kingdom. What action do the Government propose to take to try to correct that unfortunate situation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the advice I have received is that there is no strong evidence that atypical drugs are superior to the older-style antipsychotic drugs, although the incidence of side-effects, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, suggests, has been reported to be lower. However, that observation may well result, at least in part, from the fact that excess dosage of traditional drugs has tended to be used in studies which compare old and new medications. I am aware of the work that the Zito Trust has undertaken. The technology appraisal of these drugs is in the work programme of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. That is due in late November of this year, unless there are any appeals, and in turn it will feed into NICE guidelines on the management of schizophrenia which are due in 2002. The whole purpose of the work of NICE is to ensure much greater consistency of approach and bring an end to postcode prescribing.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the widespread and growing public concern about the treatment offered to sufferers of schizophrenia? Is the noble Lord aware that the level of care is severely cut from what it was a few years ago, and will he please try to recognise the concern that is expressed?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I recognise the concern going back many years about whether mental health service policies are effective and enough resources are being devoted to them by the health service. I believe that we have made considerable progress in the past few years. For example, we have increased the number of additional secure beds and established assertive outreach teams. The national service framework and the information and targets contained in the NHS Plan all show that we are

1085
determined to improve the quality of the service on offer. One factor in all this is our ability to attract more staff to work in this area. Clearly, we are keen to ensure that we increase the number of consultant psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses who can help us to provide the kind of service to which the noble Baroness refers.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if one considers mental illness and the pain that it causes to the sufferers themselves and the destruction of their families and friends in so many ways, the amount of money spent on looking after those patients is disproportionately small? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that the amount of money which goes into research to try to understand the causes of, and effect cures for, such illness is disproportionately even smaller? Can the noble Lord do something more, particularly about the latter?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there is a huge number of people in this country who in one way or another are affected by mental health problems. At the moment, 630,000 people are under the care of specialist mental health services. It is also believed that one in six people will have a mental health problem at some time in their lives. As far as concerns expenditure, the latest figures for 1998–99 indicate that for the NHS the total for mental health was just over £3 billion, and another £564 million was spent by local authorities. The NHS figure of just over £3 billion compares with the total spend for the NHS as a whole of £36.9 billion. Therefore, the proportion is just under 10 per cent. I agree that we need to ensure that we are spending sufficient resources. I believe that the impact of our policies will increase resources over time. We have a large research and development programme. One of the changes that we are making at the moment is to tie the research spend much more into our overall priorities, one of which is mental health. I very much take the point that we need to ensure that we invest enough in research in this area.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is the Minister able to report any progress on providing secure wards in general and other hospitals so that mentally ill prisoners can be transferred there and receive the treatment and care that they need?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a very important matter. We announced when we came to office that we would increase the number of additional secure beds. We have been able to do that by 500. So far as concerns the relationship between the Prison Service and the NHS, I agree that we must do everything that we can to ensure that there is appropriate co-ordination to enable the proper transfer of prisoners. There is a task force from the Home Office and the Department of Health which is concerned to improve the healthcare of prisoners and to ensure that the NHS makes a major contribution to that. That is making considerable progress.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied with the way in which information about a person suffering from mental illness is transferred when he is moved from one authority to another? When I had the Minister's job my experience was that serious matters emerged, simply because the new social security office had no idea about the past of the person concerned.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not know about the social security office, but certainly so far as concerns the National Health Service there is much that we can do to improve communications and the transfer of records. I have been given responsibility for IT in the health department. I not know what I did to deserve that. There are many improvements that we can make. The information strategy that we have developed provides the framework in which to improve the transfer of patient information.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government have conducted any research into the possible use of village-type communities for, particularly, the more severely mentally ill? The Government will be aware of the enormous cost-effectiveness and care-effectiveness of these communities for the mentally handicapped.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall certainly see whether any research has been undertaken and let the noble Lord have a copy of it. We need a range of treatments and rehabilitation available to people suffering from mental health problems. I well understand the point the noble Lord raises. There is much that we can do to improve community provision. We certainly need to redouble our efforts in that area.

Incapacity Benefit
3.12 p.m.
Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have set any target for reducing the number of people on incapacity benefit; and, if so, what they expect the proposed three-year test for disability benefits to contribute to that objective.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the Department for Work and Pensions has no target to reduce the number of people who receive incapacity benefit. However, many disabled people tell us that they want to work and our public services agreement commits us to helping them do so.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that welcome reply. The desire to help is laudable and is shared in every quarter of the House. Does the Minister agree that for almost all people with disabilities there is some form of work that they could physically undertake? However, that is no excuse for

1087
withdrawing benefits, unless, first, they have the ability and the skills to do that work; secondly, jobs of that kind exist for which they might apply; and, thirdly, they can be considered for appointment to those jobs if they apply for them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Earl has said. The changes being proposed by the Government are precisely to offer disabled people who are either coming off incapacity benefit or who perhaps continue to be eligible for incapacity benefit, the ability to come through to a Jobcentre Plus and have the opportunity to learn about new treatments, new technologies, the linking rules and the work trial experiences and so on that the rest of us take for granted. The Disability Rights Commission— not the Government—has said that there are 1 million disabled people who would like to work. So far in the past we have done too little to help them. That is the thrust of the Government's proposals.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to clear up a mystery. Last week the Secretary of State's speech on imposing the three-year check on those on disability benefits received massive publicity. It appeared to be yet another case of the Government announcing policy outside Parliament rather than to it. But when my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever asked the Minister why there had not been a Statement, the noble Baroness replied that there was no major new initiative at all and there were already repeated checks on eligibility. Why have the Government mishandled the matter in this way? They have caused widespread distress to the disabled, the voluntary organisations which were not consulted and Members of both Houses of Parliament.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as the noble Lord recognises, I tried to explain to the House in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in which the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, took part from the Opposition Front Benches, that the focus of our change was for the first time giving opportunities to disabled people because we were setting up Jobcentre Plus.
The noble Lord is absolutely right, disabled people now regularly have their benefits checked. All benefits must be checked because we are stewards of the appropriate benefits. I tried to emphasise that this was an opportunity under which disabled people would for the first time receive active support in helping them back to work at the point of those interviews. I explained at the time that, obviously, if the press chose to run stories which were not consistent with that I regretted it. But the Government's position has not changed—not one word—since the Statement I made to the House last Wednesday as I am sure the noble Lord's noble friend will confirm. I only wish that I had had the pleasure of the company of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on that occasion.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the Minister give the House some indication of the rate of increase in the totality of spending on incapacity benefit since, let us say, the mid-1990s?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the number of people on incapacity benefit since 1979 has increased fourfold. In the last couple of years the numbers have increased by a couple of hundred thousand, primarily because women for the first time now have national insurance protection and therefore are entitled to this benefit rather than alternative benefits.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, has the Minister any concern about the manner in which general practitioners sign up some of their patients as being incapable of work? Also to what extent, particularly in some of the more difficult urban areas where general practitioners are at some risk of assault from disgruntled patients, does the Minister think that they may be under undue pressure to sign people up as incapable of work when possibly they should not do so?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I share the belief that in the 1980s and to some extent in the early 1990s, in a period when there was not the relatively full employment that we now have, some GPs were encouraged, with the support perhaps of the Government but certainly without criticism from them, to help people who might in other circumstances have been on unemployment benefit to be put on to incapacity benefit. I accept that may have occurred in the past.
I take the point about intimidation of GPs. My noble friend Lord Hunt tells me that there is now a strategy in place from the Department of Health to deal with that particular issue. But across the country we now have, for the most part, full employment. The Disability Rights Commission tells us that 1 million disabled people wish to work but do not have the opportunity. With the Disability Rights Commission, and working with the employers' disability forum, it is now the appropriate time to change the culture and encourage employers to realise that disabled people can be real assets to their company. Therefore, I hope that with the approach we are adopting of offering disabled people personal advisers we can do what the whole House I am sure wants, which is to give every disabled person the rights that every one of us here expects to enjoy.

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [H.L.]
3.19 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to control the advertising and promotion of tobacco products and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Clement-Jones.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Land Registration Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 12,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 13 to 27,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 28 to 30,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 31 to 65,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 66 to 92,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 93 to 96,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 97 and 98,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 99 to 102,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 103 to 105,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 106 to 123,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 124 to 130,

Schedule 11,

Clause 131,

Schedule 12,

Clause 132,

Schedule 13,

Clause 133.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prisons
3.20 p.m.
Lord Hurd of Westwell Lord Hurd of Westwell rose to call attention to the state of Her Majesty's prisons; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank all those concerned, particularly my own Front Bench, for their understanding and support. We have just passed through a general election in which the centrepiece of argument were the public services of this country. Speeches and promises poured out on schools, transport and hospitals. Much less was said on prisons and the Prison Service. That will have come not as a great surprise to those of us who follow these matters. Discussion of prisons can be awkward for those who like to keep the discussion of crime very simple and like to portray the sending of a man or woman to prison as the just and happy end of that particular story. But when an offender is sent to prison, that is not the end of the story. The curtain does not then come down on justice done with no more to be said. On the contrary,
1090
the sending of someone to prison is the beginning of a new chapter and perhaps a new drama. The content of that chapter—what happens then—is crucial, not just for the prisoner concerned but for the society into which he or she will one day be released.
The Home Secretary said in his first speech in that position in another place that he would welcome a pause in party warfare on crime and matters related to crime. I welcome that. I have never believed that this is a good subject for partisan debate, with one party crudely arrayed against another. But that cannot mean that there should be a relaxation of parliamentary scrutiny of these matters. On the contrary, I believe that there should be considerably more scrutiny, particularly as regards prisons. That is especially so in this House because there are noble Lords in all parts of the House whose knowledge and experience can be brought to bear.
I have not had time to delve deep into the recently published Halliday report on sentencing or to analyse the Home Secretary's speech last week on that subject. At first sight it seemed to be, as many of these documents are, a mixture of good ideas and some more suspect ideas. My main point today is that it is no good having ideas and putting forward proposals if the instruments at the Government's disposal are blunt. It is no good putting forward headlines like the headline on the top of the Home Office handout, "Put the sense back into sentencing". I do not know how many times I have heard that particular phrase. Today we are discussing the Prison Service. If that instrument is blunt and damaged, it does not matter how many laws we pass and it does not matter how much money the Government spend out of the taxpayer's pocket. The purpose will not be fulfilled if the instrument is defective.
Last week it was announced that a record number of our fellow citizens—66,736—are imprisoned in England and Wales. I remind the House that about 11,000 of those have not—or at least not yet—been convicted of any offence. In 1991, the figure was just under 46,000. The Home Office forecast that it will rise by the year 2008 to 83,500. The figures are 46,000, 66,000 and 83,000. That is a formidable rise and a sad commentary on the state of our society. The cost of imprisonment is huge. A prison place costs £100,000 to provide. Keeping a prisoner in one of Her Majesty's prisons costs about £27,000 a year whereas, as I understand it, Eton College jogs along at just under £20,000 a year.
I should say at this point that there has been improvement since I knew prisons 15 years ago as Home Secretary. There has been much investment in new and modern prisons and standards in several respects are notably higher. Private involvement has become a much bigger factor. That is a subject on which I changed my mind. I started out as being hostile in principle, but experience led me to change my mind and I authorised the very first experiments on the subject. I now accept, having visited both kinds of prison several times, the dual system, under the auspices of the Home Office, with a degree of competition between the two systems. I certainly do

1091
not dismiss the improvements that have been made and the hard work that has gone into them. But we should concentrate today on what is wrong. That is our job. There is much that is wrong and in parts of the service it is right to talk of crisis.
I hope the House will join me in thanking three public servants who have helped to keep this subject alive and to tell the story as it is. The first is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales—the man who was asked in 1991 to write the report after the Strangeways riots in Manchester. Exactly 10 years later, in January this year, he gave a lecture in which he analysed what had been done and, more importantly, what had not been done to carry out the recommendations that he made after Strangeways.
The second is the Director-General of the Prison Service, Mr Martin Narey. I mention him not just because he is a notable public servant but because he made a speech earlier this year which is the most remarkable that I have read from an official in the service of the Government for many years—perhaps ever. After accepting some detailed criticisms, Mr Narey went on to say that,
"we have to decide, as a Service, whether this litany of failure and morale neglect continues indefinitely or whether we are going to reform … I have no wish to be a Director General of a Service which is going to duck these issues … unless, in addition to the unequivocal support of Ministers and the backing of an outstanding, committed and cohesive Board I believe I have the support, encouragement and determination of all of you … I'll find an easier way of earning a living. I am not prepared to continue to apologise for failing prison after failing prison. I've had enough of trying to explain the very immorality of our treatment of some prisoners and the degradation of some establishments".
There is a blazing fire behind those remarks. They were provoked, and rightly provoked, by Mr Narey's knowledge of how much remains to be done.
The third public servant I would mention is the retiring Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham. He has sounded a trumpet to break the silence of which I have been complaining. A few weeks ago I had the privilege of chairing a meeting at Church House. More than 500 people gathered together there. It seemed to some of us important that Sir David should have the opportunity for a final blast on that trumpet. He used the occasion to excellent effect. I am well aware that Sir David's brisk military prose and his clear, unequivocal conclusions did not always find favour with those to whom his reports were addressed. He is retiring in the coming weeks, but he has done a heroic job of great importance to us all. We owe him a great deal. From everything I hear, his successor, in a very different style, Anne Owers, will be equally resolute 'to ram home the necessary messages to Ministers, to Parliament and to the public.
I turn to one or two specific points. The first is overcrowding. Fifty-six of our 138 prisons are overcrowded: Preston is 78 per cent overcrowded; Shrewsbury is 89 per cent overcrowded; Leeds is 64 per cent overcrowded. The Prison Reform Trust, which I chair, received last week a letter from the Board of
1092
Visitors of Norwich Prison where a new programme is intended to increase the overcrowding. The board of visitors has allowed me to quote the letter. It states:
"The BOV at Norwich unanimously feel that the cell size in these blocks is too small on humanitarian grounds … Overcrowding inmates who are forced to live in a minute space and eat in a lavatory is not acceptable … We see no good reason why inmates should be so treated. If the conditions are not acceptable, rehabilitation will be affected and the costs of return to prison because of re-offending will be greater than any savings made".
That is why the Lord Chief Justice referred to overcrowding as the AIDS virus which is debilitating the whole of our system.
That leads to my second specific point; namely, purposeful activity. The Prison Service set one of those famous "key performance indicators", but has not met it. Purposeful activity is sustained for an average of 23.8 hours per week, which is only 10 minutes longer than it was 10 years ago. But the bureaucratic phrase, "purposeful activity", does not describe a luxury, but a necessity. Some 63 per cent of the young men in prison in this country left school before they were 16 years old. The Prison Service has stated that 65 per cent of prisoners are ineligible for 96 per cent of the jobs available. That is why the chief inspector said that,
"just locking up is a soft, not a hard option".
If one leaves it at simply locking up, those who are released, in particular the young, will find it virtually impossible to get a job. We cannot afford not to do better.
I should like to ask about community prisons, because I believe that it is extremely important that this recommendation from the Lord Chief Justice should be acted upon. I shall not dwell on the point, but recently I met a probation officer who operated in a district in the Home Counties. He had to deal with 67 different prisons which had held people now in his care in his district. What chance is there of effective aftercare when prisoners are released? It is a bureaucratic nightmare. Insufficient emphasis has been put on the need for prisons to be close to offenders.
I turn now to what I believe is a crucial point, which is the question of stable and competent leadership. There are many signs of inadequate management. I shall cite only one. It arose from Written Answers in another place. It illustrates the merry-go-round of top management in the Prison Service. Over the past five years, 58 of our prisons have had four or more governors or acting governors. That is a baleful sign which would suggest to anyone who has had experience of administration that there is a shortage of able people in the upper ranges of the Prison Service. As a result, those few able people have to be shunted quickly to places experiencing danger and difficulty. I believe that that is one of the doubts and anxieties which plagues the Director-General. I hope that the Minister will feel able to reply to these specific points when he comes to wind up the debate.
All this adds up to a powerful argument for intensifying our efforts to find appropriate punishments outside prison which will satisfy those

1093
who pass judgment on offenders. No doubt other noble Lords will wish to dwell on that point. But as regards the Prison Service, strong humanitarian reasons may be put forward in support of decent conditions—austere, but decent conditions—for those who have to go to prison.
As well as humanitarian reasons, there are reasons of public safety. I become extremely vexed when people comment that those of us who are interested in prisons should spend our time being concerned with the victims of crime. I strongly support Victim Support and what is being done in that area. However, we do no service to a victim by making a hash of the treatment of the offender. On the contrary, a prison which is overcrowded—as happens; a prison whose governor changes every year—as happens; a prison run according to the culture of an outdated trade union—as happens; a prison where locking up seems to be the be-all and end-all of life—as happens—such a prison serves as a reservoir for future crime. In such a prison, new offences and new victims are being prepared day by day.
For those reasons, it is important that we should have this debate. I appeal to the Minister—whom I remember in his giddy days as a Back-Bencher as a lively and attractive performer—not to lose his openness on this subject. I appeal, too, to this House: do not let this subject go away. We can approach it, as will the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in a moment, from the point of view of human rights and humanitarian sympathies, or we can approach it from the point of view of public safety. We can approach it as natural readers of the Guardian newspaper or as natural readers of the Daily Telegraph. But no matter what the angle from which we approach this subject, the future of our prisons is a part of the future of our society and we must make a better fist of running them than we do today.
3.35 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is my double privilege to welcome the Minister, from whom so much is expected, and to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, from whom so much has already been received and continues to be received—not least the speech we have just heard. He may feel that it is appropriate that he should speak while standing on his feet, while I am reduced to this chair, because he has put forward many glorious arguments. But after all, the noble Lord was head boy at Eton. Some noble Lords may not realise what that means. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, would do so. He was the cleverest boy to be lumped in among 1,000 others in the school. I was only number two among my number.
I know that the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that my official reason for dragging myself here with some difficulty this afternoon is to pay tribute to the retiring Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham. I venture to say that no one else in my lifetime has done so much in support of the reform of prisons. What are the other candidates for that short
1094
list? I could name Lord Butler, who was Home Secretary, Lord Gardiner, who was Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who is to follow my contribution. He was a Minister of State at the Home Office as well as being a Leader of the House. Above all, the noble Lord has written many books, which I hope that all noble Lords will have read. However, as I have said, my main object is to pay tribute to Sir David Ramsbotham, both for what he has done and for the fairness he has shown.
The state of our prisons is pretty bad. It is difficult to tell whether matters are getting any better. Recently I read a report from the Prison Reform Trust. It sets out a great many facts, some of which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. Those include overcrowding, which we all know about and which is absolutely rife. Everyone knows, too, that far more has to be done. However, there are only two ways of tackling the problem. The first is to build more prisons while the second is to have fewer prisoners. What should we be doing? I doubt whether we should be pursuing either of those courses.
It is forecast that the prison population may rise to 83,000 inmates by 2008. At its lowest point, under a Conservative government before the tenure of Mr Michael Howard as Home Secretary, the population stood at 41,000. Within a fairly short period of time, the numbers serving in prison have doubled. It is difficult to explain why that should be the case.
The other step which could be taken would be to increase the number of prisons, which would entail spending a great deal more money. Neither political party seems greatly in favour of that course at present. However, one of two courses must be taken: either we have to reduce the number of prisoners or we have to spend much more money on prisons.
Sir David Ramsbotham raised another very important point which I shall not go into in detail because it is rather new to me; namely, the cult of the manager. I think that it is fatal, but I shall leave the detail of that point to other speakers in the debate.
Before I sit down—perhaps that is not quite the right expression—before I become silent, I should like to cite one or two examples of what it means to be attacked in prison; namely, to be attacked by criminals while in prison. People sometimes think of me as being soft on crime—a "softy". I cannot judge that, but they forget that I am the only person here to introduce a Bill to help victims. But, again, that was a long time ago.
Let me turn to the present day. Not long ago, my eldest daughter, the famous historian Antonia Fraser—I hope I am not out of order in recommending her book on Marie Antoinette—was in her house in Campden Hill Square, in the afternoon, when two men carrying a crowbar descended on her, and she was threatened with her life unless she coughed up her treasure. She coughed up some of it, but I am glad to say, being very gutsy, she kept a lot of it to herself.

1095
Curiously enough—this is rather peculiar—my eldest son had had a similar experience not long before. Two men came in—in each case the invaders were masked—and said, "Cough up or we'll do you"—"do you" meaning "kill you" as far as he was concerned. He managed to get away with it quite lightly, again by being gutsy.
Those are two examples of what can happen to each of us. That does not prove anything in itself, but one has to ask oneself about those two couples. They probably were not wicked in any known sense, but somehow or other that was part of their way of life. They were young, aged about 20—I cannot be certain of their ages because they were masked—and one can only guess that they had probably been in trouble before. That is very likely. However that may be, we must assume that they had not been handled in quite the perfect way in custody.
So we are dealing with young men of 20 who go in and threaten what almost amounts to murder in two different cases. There must be many such cases. What are we going to do about these people? Even after more than 50 years' visiting prisons, I do not pretend to know the perfect answer. Who does?
I have a great new friend now, Bob Tierney, who was in prison for 17 years. He is now a probation officer who does special work under the Home Office. It must trust him. The recent Home Secretary, Mr Straw, wrote an introduction to a book produced by Bob Tierney and a companion. He is a prisoner who has made good. What does he say about his old way of life? He says that his crucial experience was meeting a special probation officer, a woman.
He is an example of what can be done in prison. It is awfully hard to expect prison officers to perform miracles. If we have to look anywhere for a big change in attitude to prisoners, it should come through a bigger involvement of the Probation Service. Bob Tierney believes that an enlightened probation officer can do far more than we ever imagine.
Of course there are other answers. My friend, Jonathan Aitken, had a very short experience of prison. He set a good example in the Christian leadership that he gave there. He said, "Drugs, drugs, drugs. You must keep them off drugs", which, of course, is a part of the wider policy process that I mentioned earlier. Above all, there should be a reduction of the numbers in prison and an increase in the resources available.
We have a tremendous task in front of us. It is very difficult to say whether things are getting better or worse, but there is obviously room for a great deal of improvement. This country has a sensitive conscience when it is pricked—which it often is not. Jesus Christ said,
"I was in prison and you came to me".
My friend Malcolm Muggeridge, many, many years later, said that Christ died also for Judas. I believe that Sir David Ramsbotham, backed up by people like the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, is the kind of man who will prick the sensitive conscience of the nation.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Earl. His final words will be ringing in our ears as the debate continues throughout today. There has been no debate on penal policy in this House during the past half-century or more which has not been an opportunity for the noble Earl to speak with the eloquence and spirit that he has shown again today. Indeed, he initiated many of them himself. I may perhaps say to him, on behalf of all Peers who are present, that although he may be in poor physical health and lacking mobility, he is certainly not lacking in spirit. We admire what he has said.
The whole House will also have listened with close attention to what was said with such authority and eloquence by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. I am open to correction by those with longer memories than myself, but I do not believe that any former Home Secretary in recent times—with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—has maintained an active interest in penal reform after having demitted office. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, has not only maintained an active interest but, as chairman of the Prison Reform Trust for a lengthy period of years, has made an important personal contribution.
The timing of the debate is opportune. There is a new Home Secretary and a relatively new Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, both outsiders in departmental terms. They will need to be aware of, and resist, the multiplicity of factors which can so quickly narrow the vision of those who assume the responsibility they both now have when faced with the perennial problems of crime and what is known optimistically as "crime control".
As recently as last week, two reports were published by the Home Office, one short and one very substantial, the latter having been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. Both documents bear directly on the subject of our debate today. The first was the report of an unannounced inspection by members of the Prisons Inspectorate at Lancaster Castle; and the second the long awaited and keenly anticipated review of the sentencing framework for England and Wales by John Halliday, a senior Home Office official, which was completed shortly before his retirement.
Lancaster Castle is one of the oldest prisons in England and Wales—if not the oldest—and it contains only category "C" prisoners. In his report, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, whom no one has ever dared to call complacent, states without reservation that an undoubted success story in recent years has been the increased standard and treatment of, and conditions for, prisoners held in category "C" training prisons.
Too often, he comments, the description "training prison" has been a caricature, but at Lancaster, in ancient buildings designed for very different purposes, the regime has been evaluated by his team and found to be positive, with a special commendation for the post-release follow-up work carried out in conjunction with NACRO and the East Lancashire ex-offenders group. I cite this example to show that good work and appropriate standards can be found in the prison

1097
system. Not all is brutality, drug-taking, overcrowding, and lack of work or of positive regimes— although unhappily all of those features are to be found elsewhere in the system.
There are many good people working in the Prison Service, led by a very effective director-general, Martin Narey, to whom tribute was paid by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. It is not the purpose of debates such as this to demoralise them.
Nevertheless, the reality is that the flaws to which I have referred persist. The chief inspector's outspoken reports have been invaluable in pointing out the inadequacy of many current policies in terms of the practical impact that they have on standards, both in individual establishments and more generally, as pointed out in thematic reports.
Above all else, as Sir David Ramsbotham insisted in his Radio 4 interview on Monday—aptly titled "Parting Shot"—more money is required to counter the prevailing Treasury-led culture of reducing the overall cost of imprisonment. He put it in vivid terms: all that he heard was "Cuts, cuts, cuts". I add my own tribute to Sir David, whom I know well, and convey my best wishes—and, I have no doubt, those of the whole House—to his admirable successor, Anne Owers, who was until recently the director of Justice.
One example of where shortage of money and inadequacy of provision coincide is to be found in the rapid growth in the number of women prisoners. Last year, a fine independent report followed a lengthy and comprehensive review undertaken for the Prison Reform Trust by a committee chaired by Professor Dorothy Wedderburn. The initial response by the then Minister of State, Paul Boateng, was disappointing to say the least. I hope that the current Minister of State, whom we welcome to penal debates in this House, will tell us what progress has been made since then as regards the report on women in prison.
The primary focus of the second of the two recent publications to which I referred in my opening remarks, entitled Making Punishment Work, is the sentencing framework. It also contains some penetrating comments about the shortcomings of the prison system as a whole and its inability, as presently organised, to achieve the objectives of protecting the public by means of reducing the levels of crime and the incidence of reoffending, as well as punishing convicted offenders.
The Halliday report, as it will be known, concludes that while the Prison Service is making efforts to increase the availability of programmes aimed at preventing reoffending, the expansion is unlikely to extend to short-sentence prisoners. I quote from the report:
"The weakness of the short prison sentence as a means of reducing crime, for the majority of those who receive it, has come through very strongly during our review".
The report reminds us that more than half of all prisoners—a significant statistic—are reconvicted of an offence within two years.
1098
So what is the remedy—if there is one? What is the most prudent course? Is it a caricature of a distinguished and thoughtful analysis—which is what Mr Halliday and his assistants have produced—to say they have concluded that the only policy likely to be effective is longer periods spent in custody? Is that what it means? If so, the unavoidable result of such a policy, if implemented, would be for England and Wales to surge even closer to the top of the international league in terms of the proportion of persons per 100,000 of the population who are in prison.
Longer prison sentences of 12 months or more were also found by Halliday to have weaknesses. Although the language used in the report is circumspect and concentrates on the proportion of the sentence to be served in custody before release, the review states that while,
"special steps are made to protect the public from further offending by the more predictably dangerous released prisoners, for the great majority of released prisoners the impact of the sentence on their behaviour after release is questionable".
I urge Ministers to take these well-informed comments into account when considering the effect of a prison sentence on future offending—namely, a focus on crime reduction—as well as the more newsworthy ones emphasising the need for punishment.
My final remarks will no doubt be echoed by other speakers. Of all the activities within the average prison, educational programmes, including literacy skills, have a scandalously low priority. Libraries are frequently closed because of staff shortages, and there is little money for books or other resources, with local education authority staff or other contract providers being few and far between. The only change for the better, so far as I can see, is the attraction of computers and the opportunity for inmates to acquire basic information technology skills within the capacity of those who have low standards of literacy and numeracy.
I declare an interest as a patron of the Prisoners Education Trust. I am delighted to see the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, on the list of speakers. She, too, is a patron of the trust, as is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. The Lord Chief Justice has gone on record more than once in declaring that the importance of education in prisons has never received the attention it deserves. It is hard for us in an assembly such as this to remember that the ability to read, write and count is not only valuable in itself, but that acquiring such skills can lead to greater self-respect and hence better relations with others, which in turn can lead to fewer occasions for offending.
The new Home Secretary was formerly Secretary of State for Education. We wish him well in his new responsibilities. He will find, I fear, as most of his predecessors at the Home Office have done, that ministerial responsibility for the prisons is an onerous and thankless burden. But he has broad shoulders. While the debate on the sentencing review gets under way—and I suspect that it will dominate public discussion for many months to come—and the ponderous system of criminal justice begins to adjust

1099
to new and radical proposals, let Mr Blunkett act now to achieve a less ambitious but far more readily attainable objective; namely, to extend the provision for basic educational skills in prisons to short-term, medium-term and longer-term prisoners alike. It would be an apt personal crusade on which to embark.
4 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I agreed with just about every word of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, especially his strictures on the practice of propelling senior managers around the prison system like objects in a pin-ball machine. If one can get the management right, many of the problems in existence at the lower level would sort themselves out as a result. I hope that the Minister will pay close attention to that part of the noble Lord's remarks.
As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, pointed out, we have a new Home Secretary, as well as a new Minister in this House whom we warmly welcome to these debates. In fact, there is no member of the original Home Office team left in Queen Anne's Gate. I hope that does not mean that we shall have a culture of "Yes, Minister", as the new boys are pushed around by their civil servants—although that is extremely unlikely to happen with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.
The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, said that we should concentrate on what is wrong in the Prison Service. I am afraid that that is what we shall have to do in this debate. I wish to begin by referring to a subject that was dealt with this morning in another place; namely, the question of asylum seekers in prison, which was also raised by my noble friend Lord Dholakia in debate on the gracious Speech. Indeed, it has been commented on in some detail by the Refugee Council. The practice has been condemned by UNHCR, Amnesty International, the BMA, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, the chief executive of NACRO, the POA and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, as well as dozens of other agencies.
The Government agree that it is wrong in principle to detain asylum seekers in prison when they have committed no criminal offence. They are committed to the provision of special purpose detention centres for those asylum seekers who need to be held in custody. In the course of the summer, three new establishments are being opened in Harmondsworth, Yarl's Wood and Dungavel, which will provide an extra 1,600 places—less the 100 at the old detention centre at Harmondsworth which is being closed. That compares with the 1,144 people who are presently detained in our prison system under the asylum Act. The additional accommodation, which will come on stream this summer, will therefore be more than enough to deal with present requirements.
The Government have explained that the main reason for the detention of asylum seekers is to speed up removals of people who reach the end of the process from the 12,000 figure they were aiming at last year to 30,000 in the current year. It was agreed in 1994 that the Prison Service would provide 500 places for the detention of asylum seekers, plus an additional
1100
500 places last year as an interim measure for about a year until the new centres came on stream. That number has already been exceeded. If possible, I should like the Minister to give an assurance that, when the new centres are fully operational, no more detainees will be held in prisons unless they have committed offences or unless there is some immediate operational reason why they cannot be placed in a detention centre. Moreover, in the case of Northern Ireland, can the Minister say whether consultations on alternatives to the use of Magilligan and Maghaberry have been completed? If so, can he tell us what decision has been made in that respect?
There is no way of telling whether the increase in detention is really accounted for by people at the end of the process, as claimed, or whether there is a growing propensity to detain people on arrival because Ministers say they cannot give any breakdown of the numbers in detention. I suspect that more are being detained at the start of the process, as evidenced by a growing number of approaches to the agencies from Liverpool, Cardiff and other prisons where the graduates from Oakington finish up. The impression gained by the Bail Circle is that virtually all the detainees in Liverpool are Oakington alumni. I am told that there are major difficulties there: lack of interpretation facilities and of specialist medical care—especially for the mentally ill— and of local access to legal advice. There are only three competent firms of solicitors in Liverpool to deal with over 100 asylum seekers detained in that prison.
The UNHCR recently visited Rochester and Belmarsh. It found that the majority of asylum seekers in those two prisons had not exhausted their appeal rights. In its view, such detention involves a prejudgment of the merits of their claims and is therefore a cause for concern. Does the Minister agree that a least a snapshot should be taken of the profile of asylum seekers in detention so that we know what stage of the process they have reached, even if it is said to be too expensive to provide statistics on a regular basis?
Some of the prisons where asylum detainees are being held are totally unsuitable for the purpose. As the Minister will be aware, a case arose just recently at the Welsh Assembly where complaints were made about conditions in Cardiff prison. My honourable friend Mark Oaten tells me that there is no education for detainees in Winchester. I understand that they are kept in their cells for 23 hours a day because of staff shortages. That is utterly intolerable. The Prison Service should be given the additional resources to enable it to deal both properly and humanely with the extra duties that have been thrust upon it.
During Question Time yesterday, my noble friend Lady Williams raised a particular case of torture victims being detained in prison, which the Minister said he would look into if the detail of such matters was drawn to his attention. I sent the noble Lord the report by the medical foundation on which my noble friend based her question. It shows that five out of the 11 people in its sample who claimed to have been tortured were detained on arrival and that three others were detained after arrival but at the beginning of the

1101
asylum process. The foundation concludes that there are no satisfactory mechanisms in place to ensure that the Government's commitment to ensuring that a history of torture should weigh strongly in favour of temporary admission is being honoured. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell the House what steps he intends to take on the matter.
Most detainees obtain bail when they apply for it under the 1971 Act. Presumably more would do so if Part III of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 was brought into operation. But solicitors and agencies helping people with bail are already experiencing enormous difficulty in keeping up with the demand. They might well be overwhelmed if they had to advise professionally on routine bail hearings after eight and 36 days, as provided in the 1999 Act. That was an important component of the legislation. It simply will not do to postpone the introduction of Part III indefinitely. The Government have a duty to ensure that agencies are resourced to cope with routine bail hearings, and they must say how and when they intend to do so. Obviously, it will be quite expensive. However, as more detainees will be freed on bail, there could be a net saving of public money. Will the Minister seek to exercise the powers under Section 53 of 1999 Act to apply the general presumption of release in Section 46 to applications for bail under the 1971 Act?
There was to have been an additional detention centre at Aldington in Kent, but that ran into trouble with the planning process. I suggested at the time that the Prison Service should sell the land for housing. Perhaps the Minister can now deal with that proposal, as his department has had three months to think about it. If the 300 places that were to have been provided at the new Aldington are no longer needed for immigration detainees, so much the better. The Prison Service can use the money for other purposes, instead of having to rely on the PFI for that amount at least.
I should like to refer briefly to the report of the Public Accounts Select Committee in another place on the refinancing of HM Prison Altcourse's PFI contract. I believe that the report should be compulsory reading for those who consider that PFI is the only way to pay for large public sector capital works. The companies involved were allowed to make a windfall profit of £10.7 million by refinancing the borrowings that they took out for the building cost. At the same time, the Treasury accepted an increase in their termination liability of £47 million in return for a miserable payment of £ 1 million. The Prison Service is, in effect, locked into the deal with the private companies until the year 2021 irrespective of how well or badly they manage the prison. At the time of the deal I understand that half of the £1 million had already been handed back in the form of a payment previously withheld because of the contractor's underperformance in delivering the required service.
Altcourse is a very well-run prison. Indeed, the chief inspector wrote a glowing report on it after an inspection in November 1999. He found that it had good management, as well as excellent relations
1102
between staff and prisoners. I wonder whether the Prison Service has tried to apply some of the lessons that were learnt at Altcourse to the public sector, as advised by Sir David. He points out, for instance, that Altcourse managed to deliver 40 hours of purposeful activity a week, as compared with the figure we have already been given of only 23 hours on average throughout the Prison Service.
Among other innovative schemes, Altcourse had become involved in a pilot project in partnership with the Liverpool Youth Service, the Liverpool Drug and Alcohol Action Team and the voluntary sector aimed at young people with a substance abuse problem. The plan was for a seamless throughcare scheme to support young people both before and after release from Altcourse. The chief inspector said that that should be evaluated as a potential model for other establishments. Has that evaluation been carried out, or has the model been adopted in any other establishments? I could not find any mention of it in Sir Duncan Nichol's What Works, the first report of the Joint Prison/Probation Accreditation Panel.
It seems clear that to cut reoffending, programmes for substance abusers need to extend into the period after release, and two other schemes described in the Nichol report do just that. But all the schemes for cutting reoffending seem to be developing within their own proprietary space, with no apparent cross-fertilisation between them. There are several different approaches to sex offenders; for example, one in the West Midlands, which appeared to be exclusively probation based, the Thames Valley Sex Offender Treatment Programme, which also appeared to be probation based, the Prison Service Sex Offender Treatment Programme, the Grendon Underwood Therapeutic Community, which deals with sex offenders and other dangerous and violent offenders, and the Gartree Therapeutic Community. Dovegate, which is opening shortly, will, I understand replicate the techniques developed over many years at Grendon.
It is, of course, particularly difficult to find out what works for long-term prisoners and lifers. The Nichol report comments on Gartree that lifers coming on to the scheme there do so early in their sentences. So any benefit may be lost before the prisoners are eligible for release. One would think that attempts to deal with offending behaviour of all kinds ought to be concentrated towards the end of a sentence and continue after release. In my opinion, we as politicians have a duty to understand how the prison and probation services are trying to tackle offending behaviour. That would be an ideal subject for a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. I know that there is strong resistance to the notion that we should have more Select Committees at this end of the Palace, but I ask the Government and the usual channels to think about that proposal. I am encouraged to make that suggestion by the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, for more scrutiny, particularly in this House.
Finally, I want to draw your Lordships' attention to a survey of young prisoners at Swinfen Hall YOI conducted by Dr Karen Bryan as part of the chief inspector's inspection of November 2000 at that

1103
prison. Swinfen Hall was dubbed a "centre of excellence" by the chief inspector. One wonders how there can be such a wide variation in standards as exists between different YOIs, with that establishment at one end of the spectrum and places such as Feltham and Stoke Heath at the other.
Dr Bryan found that a significant proportion of the young offenders had speech, language and communication difficulties. Prisoners with those impairments are more likely to leave prison with unresolved problems that could lead to reoffending. She suggested that screening for those difficulties should be developed and validated and included with educational prison entry tests. Polmont YOI in Scotland has a well established programme to deal with offenders who have speech, language and communication difficulties, states Dr Bryan. She suggests that that model could be applied elsewhere. The chief inspector in his covering report commends Dr Bryan's analysis to the director-general and to the DIES which needs to think about remedial education for those disadvantaged young men. It would be useful to know whether that idea has been pursued.
What is very worrying about Dr Bryan's findings, which are presumably typical of young offenders as a whole, is that the widespread problems she identifies among the population of young male offenders in that particular prison—which are presumably typical of the whole system—were not picked up and dealt with by the educational system. If offending behaviour is strongly associated with speech, language and communication difficulties, a far greater effort is needed to help youngsters with those difficulties while they are still at school. That might be more effective in saving them from a life of crime. Joined-up government surely requires a systematic attempt by the Prison Service, the DfES and other public authorities to identify the factors associated with crime and to deal with them before they lead to prison sentences.
Rather than spending hundreds of millions of pounds on building and operating new prisons, would not the Government do far better to put resources into pinpointing and removing the causes of criminal behaviour? The Government's crime reduction strategy concentrates on making it more difficult for people to commit offences by means of the crime and disorder reduction partnerships and initiatives such as Designing Out Crime. However, those initiatives, useful as they are, have not stopped the inexorable rise in crime because they do nothing to reduce the propensity to commit offences which is fuelled by the neglect of warning signs in the childhood of future criminals.
4.16 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, like many noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, for initiating this debate so early in the life of this new Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, has already highlighted the need to sharpen those instruments needed to deal with those convicted and in
1104
our prisons. I do not want to repeat the points he has made. However, I wish to try to take the debate a little further into new ground.
In November 1999 the Church of England's Board for Social Responsibility published a collection of essays on the situation in Britain's prisons entitled, Prisons: A Study in Vulnerability. I want to highlight two particular groups in prison who are especially vulnerable; namely, the mentally ill and young people.
I believe that the 1999 National Framework for Mental Health now applies to prisoners as much as to anyone else. That means that local prisons have to be considered when the NHS draws up its local plans. That is surely a timely and welcome step forward, as is the news that by 2004 funding will allow 300 extra staff to work in prisons in mental health. In addition, no one with severe mental illness will be discharged from prison without a care plan and a named co-ordinator.
But severe problems remain which demand urgent attention. I believe that many existing prison doctors do not hold a GP qualification. Medical staff are often clinically isolated and the heavy pressure of work makes it difficult for them to continue with their professional development. Many health centres in prisons remain relatively poorly equipped. There are insufficient inpatient units and more attention is needed to provide secure adolescent mental health services.
Behind the need to improve healthcare facilities lie some important questions. First, is the prisoner to be regarded as a patient, with the same status as a patient in a GP surgery? What rights do they have? Can the Minister give us some information on that? Secondly, in the management of dangerous people with severe personality disorders it appears that the link between treatability and intervention is to go. Mental disorder no longer has a tight definition and we are, I fear, in danger occasionally of losing sight of the fact that justice is the first virtue of all social institutions. There are real concerns among many about a reduction in confidentiality with regard to a patient's condition under the Government's new proposals, as well as fears of a real shortage of psychiatrists to make the system work.
My third area of anxiety concerns the role of the voluntary sector in mental healthcare. Have the Government any plans to extend the proven value of the splendid support and counselling service provided by schemes like the Bourne Trust's First Night in Custody scheme in Holloway to other women's prisons? These are important questions particularly for any new team in the Home Office.
I turn to children. It is a sad fact that 86 per cent more children were held in prison on 30th June 1999 compared with June 1993. The vast majority of those held have committed non-violent offences. During the 1990s 15 children aged between 15 and 17 committed suicide while held in custody. Those statistics, sadly, are well known. But they are a shocking indictment of our society. Children should not be held in prison. It is a damaging environment and is ineffective in terms of reducing reoffending. Secure accommodation should

1105
be the only form of custody for young people and should be used only as a last resort in order to protect the public.
Last November the Children's Society, supported by Barnardo's launched its report, Tough Justice, arguing for community-based projects as an alternative to custody for children. Although the Youth Justice Board has begun to administer a range of new ways to administer justice without locking children up, and all of us welcome and pay tribute to that, the state of many young offender institutions, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, commented, continues to give cause for concern, in particular with regard to the educational opportunities that they provide.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has already urged the new Home Secretary, with his experience in education, to make that a major part of his time and tenure at the Home Office. Surely children of statutory school age should have the same entitlement to education as young people in the community. Surely those with special educational needs in prison should have the same access to teaching support and specialised resources as children in the community. Sadly, that is not the case at present; and there is still a very long way to go.
There are two kinds of vulnerability in our world: an enforced vulnerability which hurts, breaks and is at risk in the world of the prison. Alongside that there is the Christian hope: the example of Jesus Christ, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, mentioned, and the freely chosen vulnerability of love. This second kind, the vulnerability of love, involves taking risks. I hope and pray that our new Home Secretary and his ministerial team will be prepared to take some risks—risks which will break new ground and give real hope to those of us who care about our prisons.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, for providing the opportunity to have this debate today. Perhaps at the outset I should declare an interest in that I am the chairman of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his kind remarks about the board's activities. I agree with him that we need to build on those approaches. That is part of my theme today.
I want to speak primarily about the position of young adult offenders aged 18 to 20, who represent about 12 per cent of the current prison population and who, in the view of many of us, represent the feeder system for many of the older prison population. However, before doing so perhaps I can give some context to my remarks by drawing on my experience of working on the youth justice changes before being chairman of the board and as chairman of the board. I do so in part because the Government have already said in their recent White Paper, Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead, that they want to build on the experience of the youth justice reforms to achieve similar
1106
improvements for all categories of offender. They reiterated that commitment more precisely in the Labour Party manifesto when they said:
"We will build on our youth justice reforms to improve the standard of custodial accommodation and offending programmes for 18 to 20 year-olds".
I want to help my noble friend the Minister to implement that manifesto commitment by offering some thoughts, perhaps as a critical friend, on how to do that.
In the juvenile part of the young offender institutions the board has used its control of the budget, extra resources and a commissioning approach to achieve a significant improvement in regimes and time-out-of-cell in the past 12 months. Among many changes, a key change has been to require through contract prison officers to undergo approved training to work with younger offenders. Sir David Ramsbotham—I pay tribute to him for his excellent reports on the young offender institutions—is regularly contrasting the improvements achieved in a short space of time in the juvenile sector with the often poor conditions in the 18 to 20 parts of the young offender institutions. That contrast is stark in places like Feltham.
I was much encouraged by the remarks of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary about dealing with more of those on short custodial sentences through robust and effective community sentences with greater emphasis on reparation and restorative justice. The case for moving quickly to change our approach to custody for 18 to 20 year-olds is very strong. The peak ages of offending are 18 and 19. The Government estimate that 50 per cent of the 100,000 or so most persistent offenders thought to commit half the crime in this country are under 21. Under-21-year-olds have the highest reconviction rates. Yet we are using a policy of often very short custodial sentences, poor custodial regimes and relatively little community-based intervention to change offending behaviour on licence.
I acknowledge that the new National Probation Service has well-developed plans to start to change the position on community penalties but it remains to be seen whether those programmes will target the most persistent offenders in this age group and those currently serving short sentences. Certainly they will have little impact on most of those in young offender institutions where 15,500 18 to 20 year-olds were received into custody in 2000. That is nearly 12 per cent of the prison population.
Of the young adult offender population, over 70 per cent have no GCSEs and many have numeracy and literacy levels up to a decade below their chronological age. Nearly a third have been taken into care as a child and many have left that care system ill-equipped to cope with the modern world. Yet our policy response to this situation has been for the courts to place about half the 18 to 20 year-olds in young offender institutions for six months or less where they serve half or less of that sentence and few are offered any programmes tackling offending behaviour and receive little attention when they are released on licence.

1107
A large proportion of the establishments in which 18 to 20 year-olds are held simply do not have programmes tackling offending behaviour. Frankly, we are wasting our time placing many of those young men in custody with few programmes on offer for those short periods of time. We would do better to change the sentencing framework and deal with more of them in the community with the kind of vigorously supervised and constructive programmes such as the intensive supervision and surveillance programme that from next week onwards we are starting to provide for 16 to 17 year-olds. I hope that my noble friend the Minister and his colleagues will use the opportunity provided by the Halliday report on more flexible sentencing to replace short custodial sentences for 18 to 20 year-olds with constructive and rigorously enforced community sentences.
Even with that change, we would still urgently need a programme to revamp a smaller young offender institution sector for 18 to 20 year-olds. Within a year, the Youth Justice Board's contracting approach, together with extra resources, has already opened up a significant gap between the regimes for under-18s and those for over-18s in YOIs. Current minimum standards for the under-18s include 30 hours of purposeful activity a week. That is to be increased to include 15 hours of personal development activity. The 18 to 20 year-olds receive much less and have no prescribed standard. Time out of cell for juveniles is provided for contractually and is now more than 25 per cent greater than for the 18 to 20 year-olds. It is due to rise further this year and next.
Juveniles receive far more physical education and more education and training. This year and next year the education components will increase dramatically for juveniles as the Youth Justice Board's £40 million education and training investment programme kicks in. There is no such investment programme for 18 to 20 year-olds, so the contrast between the two parts of the YOI estate will become starker over the next year or so. I suspect that harsher criticism is likely to be forthcoming from the new Chief Inspector of Prisons. The growing gap between the two parts of the YOI estate will also make maintaining good order in that estate much more difficult.
To change that situation, the Treasury purse strings need to he loosened in the interests of humanity and effective public policy. I want to help my noble friend the Minister and the Home Secretary. If we could find £15 million to £20 million capital and about £40 million to £50 million a year in revenue, within two years we could deliver a step-like increase in the educational, vocational training, mental health and drug services and resettlement into accommodation and employment for 18 to 20 year-olds. We could do even better if the sentencing framework was adjusted so that more of those currently on short sentences were dealt with in the community.
I suspect that the Treasury might be a bit suspicious about paring with that money if it was simply to be handed over to the Prison Service. The Treasury has a history of dark suspicions about handing over money to the Prison Service. However, the contracting
1108
relationship that the board has developed with the Prison Service and the providers of custodial and other services improves the prospects of delivering given outputs and changes in management and staff cultures through better training.
I have talked at some length about the 18 to 20 year-olds because I believe that by adopting a commissioning approach, changing the sentencing framework, drawing on the lessons of the youth justice reforms and making a relatively modest investment in the grand scheme of things, we could transform the way in which we deal with that group of offenders well within the lifetime of a single Parliament, as we have done for youth justice. My board and I are ready to help the Government in any way that we can in this area.
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I, too, commend the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, on initiating the debate. It is very timely, particularly as the Chief Inspector of Prisons is about to retire. It gives us an opportunity to commend him on his work in the past five years.
I used to say, somewhat flippantly, that I spent two years in Holloway and 24 years in Broadmoor. I am well aware that Broadmoor is a hospital, but when I first went there you would have been hard pressed to tell the difference between the hospital and a prison.
Things have changed. I resigned from Holloway—the only public appointment that I have ever resigned from—because I found the atmosphere and conditions intolerable. I have had an opportunity to visit many prisons and have been shocked at the level of filth and the behaviour of prisoners. Women prisoners are different. Sometimes they are much more difficult to handle than the men.
I do not know what has been done to the new prison building since I left, but it was an awkward building because there were bends in the corridors that made it impossible to see all the way down them. [t was difficult to know what was going on just round each bend. There were spaces where things could be thrown out of the windows and in some areas there was an accumulation of unspeakable things.
It is hardly surprising that Sir David Ramsbotham walked out. I have discovered that all the illustrations of the human body in Holloway are of men. That is bizarre for a women's prison.
Another prison that has had a deep impact on me, for a totally opposite reason, is Coldingley. I do not know whether any of your Lordships have visited it. It was built in the late 1960s as a factory prison with five workshops. The prisoners applied in the normal way to join a particular workshop and had a full working day. Some workshops were more popular than others and those who were good workers could transfer to their favourite workshop. The idea was that they would learn the work ethic—presumably that is still what it is called—and when they came out they would also have a trade. They could earn a little more money than they would normally expect.

1109
A laundry prison was built in Liverpool, but it was never put to use, because the unions felt that if prisons started providing the services that their members should be providing, there would be a loss to the union membership. The Government will have to take that on board at some stage. Sewing mailbags does not create self-respect in a human being. It is very important that time in prison should be spent building one's self-worth, self-respect and knowledge as far as possible.
The Tihar jail—an horrendous prison in India with 7,000 prisoners—was transformed under the direction of Kiran Bedi, a little lady who is now a commissioner of police in Delhi. There was nothing there for the prisoners when she became director. The prison was not even kept clean. She put the prisoners to work looking after their own needs. She found 500 teachers from within the prison. They may not have been qualified teachers, but they were literate—perhaps more than literate—and could teach. She set up classes and cleaned up the place by using the people who were in the prison to improve their own conditions. They started to take pride in the prison and worked to create better conditions for themselves. She also introduced yoga, meditation and vocational training so that most of the prisoners could go out with some simple trade that would help them not to reoffend.
If that can be done in India, surely we should not be so hide-bound in insisting that only qualified people can teach and that prisoners cannot do anything for themselves. That should be explored. It would not cost money and it would improve self-respect and self-reliance and foster a sense of responsibility among the prisoners for their own conditions.
Last but not least, I want to talk about Sir David Ramsbotham. I believe that his achievements have been quite remarkable because he has let no one off the hook. He has told us all that we—from the top to the bottom—have a responsibility towards the people whom we put in prison. I want to read the check-list that he mentioned at a recent lecture. He said:
"If prison worked, there would be work or education for every prisoner. If prison worked, we would be shutting prisons, not opening more. If prison worked, judges would not be seeing in the docks the same people over and over again. If prison worked, fewer mothers would be in prison, therefore fewer children would be in care. If prison worked, judges would not be imprisoning more people than any other European country except Turkey. If prison worked, we would be saving billions of pounds with fewer prisons, fewer care homes and fewer court cases".
I consider that to be a wonderful check-list for the new Home Secretary. It might be of help if it were to be put in front of him and, in fact, all over the place in front of whoever works in the prison system.
Over the past five years, the prison population has increased by 15,000. Every prison has been asked to make a cut of 1 per cent in so-called "efficiency savings". What does "efficiency savings" mean? It certainly does not mean looking after prisoners. Sir David says that when he inspected Parkhurst Prison, he asked the governor what the aim of the prison was. The governor replied that it was to save
1110
£500,000. Sir David said that that was not what he meant. He asked, "Why should a prisoner be sent to Parkhurst, and for what treatment?" The governor told him that he was having to devote his energies to identifying the savings.
I believe that that is a terrible indictment. On the one hand, the size of the prison population is increasing; on the other hand, its finances are being reduced. The prison cannot possibly work in that manner. Such a regime does not work in one's own home. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
Sir David Ramsbotham has done us a very important service which, as yet, I do not believe has been mentioned by other noble Lords. He has taken on the Prison Officers' Association, which contains some very reactionary and racist elements. So far as I know, no one else has really taken on the association. I hope that Sir David's successor will continue to act in a forceful way with the POA. It is extremely important that the association is in step with the rest of the country.
Finally, the Woolf report has been mentioned. In 1991 the noble Lord, Lord Baker, produced a White Paper, Custody, Care and Justice. Perhaps it is time to revisit it. At that time, the paper was approved on an all-party basis but it was never taken further forward. I hope that the Minister will have a look at it and take it on board.
4.43 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, for drawing our attention to the state of Her Majesty's prisons because, as we all know, they are the barometer of how civilised is our society. I commend him for a very fine speech. I also echo his tributes to Sir David Ramsbotham and Martin Narey—two very fine public servants. Perhaps I may add that I believe that that fine check-list was originally the work of Lady Ramsbotham.
The timing of this debate is also important. We are at the start of another term for this Government, with a new Home Secretary and an interest and concern in the subject in the country at large which is greater than at almost any time that I can remember. I believe that we are possibly entering a tide in the affairs of prisons which could lead on to better fortune. As they have been bound in such shallows and miseries for so long, I earnestly hope that that may be the case.
The fact is that our prisons are still absolutely unacceptably overcrowded and the rate of increase in the prison population remains unacceptably high. We continue to incarcerate people who represent no risk to the community, people who are mentally ill and should not be in prison at all, people whose lives and relationships are already disrupted and dysfunctional, and people whose level of education means that 70 per cent have reading ages, literacy and numeracy skills lower than those of an eight year-old—and all at the most fantastic cost.
The social cost to our communities is that 55 per cent of adult prisoners and over 80 per cent of young offenders will re-offend within two years. One of the

1111
most reliable indicators of a young person becoming involved in the criminal justice system is if he or she has a parent with experience of prison. Every year at least 100,000 children are separated from an imprisoned father and 8,000 children from an imprisoned mother.
I fear that such facts are not really taken in by politicians and sentencers because their perceptions remain that the way to protect the public effectively is to lock people up. After all, people cannot commit crimes while they are behind bars—they are "incapacitated". All other arguments pale into insignificance, including the cost and the failure to achieve the desired result. But politicians and sentencers must understand that, in protecting the public by preventing crime, which is the aim of the criminal justice system, more humane, much more effective and cheaper strategies exist for dealing with all but a small minority from whom the public really must be protected physically.
Three years ago in this place, the noble Lord, Lord Allen, called for a professional and properly thought-out campaign to try to get the facts better understood and some of the misapprehensions removed. I echo that call again today. Many years ago, I organised a "Prison Week" for the Prison Reform Trust at Winchester prison. It was dramatically eye-opening to bring magistrates and prison officers together to discuss common problems; to bring in schoolchildren to play basketball with young offenders; and to have a "brains trust" within the prison involving prisoners, prison staff, professionals and public together.
There is no substitute for exposure to and involvement in the realities of prison and its alternatives. I know how much the prison services welcome a proper interest in their work. The impossible scale of the task demanded of them might just begin to be properly understood if more sentencers and politicians, as well as the public, became aware of those realities. What we see on TV, read in the papers or hear as sound bites from the politicians are a distorting substitute. I suggest that routine, written feedback should be made available to judges, especially in relation to non-custodial sentences. Then they would see that the outcome of their decisions included successes and not merely failures who return to court. A continuity of involvement would be welcome, as indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, told me today.
I also want to ask the Government to take very seriously the recommendation in the Halliday review that review courts should be used much more generally. The review process not only offers the offender an incentive to do better but, very importantly, gives the sentencers a far clearer idea of how their decisions are working out.
I want to focus briefly on two groups which have never ceased to give me the greatest concern—women and children. Seventeen prisons now house the current population of some 3,700 women. Some 2,775 juveniles aged between 15 and 17 are in prison, and another 128 young children aged between 12 and 15 in detention training centres. This latter group I have
1112
referred to several times in your Lordships' House, and I will continue to do so because I regard it as unacceptable that we are placing these most needy and dysfunctional young children in such regimes.
I have visited Medway, which is the first of these DTCs. Smart and well-appointed buildings contained the all too familiar cells where these "trainees" are locked up at night beside a board illustrating a points system in which they could earn the privilege of an extra cuddly toy. That practice, which is the result of a policy devised by the previous government but enacted by this Government, is entirely wrong for such young children. Those groups are dealt with quite separately within the prison system, but I urge the Government to start to look at them together. They share many key characteristics, and a common philosophy and approach would help to give greater focus and consistency to meeting their—and our—needs.
There is now a women's policy group, which brings consistency to the policy and planning for women and. as we know, the Youth Justice Board deals separately with children. Last year, the Wedderburn report recommended a national women's justice board, which would in many respects parallel the Youth Justice Board. Might the Government consider that? Some common elements include the fact that both groups are entering the prison system at a faster rate than any other group. The figure for women increased by 145 per cent between 1993 and 2001— they are the fastest growing part of the entire prison population and a higher proportion are now going into prison for longer—and the figure for juveniles more than doubled during the same period. Since last December the DTC population of 12 to 15 year-olds has risen from 93 to 128. Are the DTCs now overcrowded?
Those are particularly vulnerable groups, in relation to which the family is of critical importance both for those who are inside and for those who are left behind. In that rupturing of families, everyone is damaged. Many are placed miles from home and I know of the stress and toll of sustaining visits from when I started the first visitors' centre at Pentonville more than 20 years ago. They also have particularly high levels of personal, emotional and psychological need. Mental health problems are prevalent and drug abuse is particularly worrying.
I know that prison is often entirely inappropriate—that is not to deny that many will need serious community penalties, and local authority secure accommodation will be necessary for many persistent young offenders. However, the overwhelming conclusion is that far from women and children coming first in the priorities of humane, relevant and appropriate treatment, the reverse, bizarrely, is the case. What has got into our sentencers and policy-makers that we behave in a way that makes us look Dickensian in comparison with the rest of Europe? And why is it that the rest of us comply?
Ten years ago, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf—the great Lord Woolf—recommended the reorganisation of the prison estate into community clusters of prisons. We must again look seriously at

1113
that, although the size of the prison population almost forbids it. Last week the new Home Secretary, recognising that the current system is not working, encouragingly opened the door to a greater concentration on reparation, the reduction of crime and rehabilitation.
The weight of evidence is strongly in favour of radical shifts in thinking for the groups that I have mentioned in particular and for the estate in general. It is a huge but necessary task if the public are going to be truly protected by reducing crime. I sense that perhaps—just perhaps—the Home Secretary might start to move in that direction. Otherwise—to finish my quote from "Julius Caesar"—I fear that if we do not take the current when it serves, we lose our venture.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, overcrowding, minimal purposeful activity, community prisons that are rarely available, the absence of stability and leadership within prisons and the lack of priority given to education were all matters that I knew would be competently dealt with by the distinguished noble Lords who have already spoken and that there was therefore no need for me to weary anyone with repetition.
Accordingly, I had no intention of taking part in this debate until I was told that there was a report by Mr Halliday that the Home Secretary and the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House had very much taken to heart. I managed to get a copy of it yesterday. It was rather like receiving a return brief at the Bar when one already had a busy calendar. I managed to read a fair amount of the report. It stated, without saying that this would necessarily be the case, that the additional annual public expenditure for its proposals could be between £440 million and £540 million; that,
"the prison population could increase by between 3,000 and 6,000";
and that,
"the probation service would be working at any one time with 80,000 more offenders".
I thought that that material was very relevant to our debate.
I read further in this extensive report, which makes some good points. It stated that the,
"onus is on those who propose change to show that it would be worthwhile. That is especially so after a decade that has seen more change in this field than any other in living memory. Many contributors to the review have expressed frustration over apparently incessant and disconnected changes, and pessimism about the likelihood that further change would be beneficial".
That was very much my reaction as I read a fair amount of this material.
Noble Lords know that a sentencing panel has very recently been set up in order to assist the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) with guidelines. I have been told that, although it has only just started operating, it is working very well. There have been
1114
recent proposals in regard to burglary and in regard to receiving. I should have hoped therefore that the system, which is working well, would be left to go on working as it is doing now; it has been so organised only for a matter of months. Not a bit of it. There is a proposal that is rather difficult to understand unless one assumes that there is a remarkable degree of enthusiasm for change for change's sake. I quote from paragraph 42 under the heading, "Executive Summary: Recommendations":
"New independent machinery should be established for this purpose [that is, guidelines] either using the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in a new capacity, or establishing a new body for the purpose. In either case, the remit of the Sentencing Advisory Panel should be widened to enable it to provide more general advice on sentencing issues, including draft guidelines".
I suspect those proposals because I think that they are designed for the executive to play a greater part in the guidelines, whereas up till now—leaving aside the Sentencing Advisory Panel—it is the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) that has provided many guideline judgments, none of which I have known to be criticised in this House or elsewhere. The guidelines are part of the judicial discretion. It seems to be a government tendency to try to restrict judicial discretion.
The other matter to which I wanted particularly to refer relates to the persistent offender. That created quite a measure of excitement in the report because figures and statistics show that if a person is a persistent offender, when he comes back for the next sentence, the next sentence does not go up by much—it may not go up at all. That is looked upon as being quite wrong, quite contrary to sentencing purposes and guidelines. The suggestion is that every time the persistent offender comes back, his sentence should be ratcheted up significantly. So we may reach the situation where a person is in prison for petty burglary, with a history of having done it many times, but who is serving a sentence equivalent to that imposed upon a bank robber.
I was delighted to see that, among the recent papers provided to us by the Howard League for Penal Reform, which sets out some of the disturbing statistics, in its final observation under "Sentencing", it says,
"In sentencing persistent offenders, previous convictions should be taken into account, but not in the sense that repeat offending leads automatically to a more punitive response. We do need to attempt different and possibly more intensive interventions with those people who have developed a pattern of offending".
This report does not tell your Lordships anything about the history which lies behind the treatment of the habitual offender. It goes back 100 years. In 1908 the Prevention of Crime Act provided preventive detention for habitual offenders. There were two sentences: one the ordinary sentence, if there had not been this record; and the second was the additional sentence for the habitual activity. That produced very long sentences. The judiciary considered that it was not a fair way of imposing punishment.
In 1948 the Criminal Justice Act provided preventive detention and, for the young, corrective training, which was the precursor of borstal. But in

1115
1967 preventive detention was abolished and extended sentences were provided in lieu, which was really a change in nomenclature. Again, those added sentences were not resorted to and fell largely into disuse.
In 1991 preventive detention was abolished. That Act stressed the importance of not over-emphasising a person's past record. The 1991 Act is a useful Act on which to reflect. It imposed a straightjacket on the judiciary. It made the judge ignore all previous convictions except one; all outstanding offences except one; and the response to previous detention or imprisonment. I was among others who said that it could not possibly work; that it would produce the most ridiculous consequences. Inside two or three months there was a move to change the situation by the abolition of Section 29, and that in fact occurred.
I should like to raise one question in connection with the Halliday report; namely, what about the suspended sentence? I always thought it was quite wrong that one had to find extraordinary circumstances before one could justify suspended sentences. I always felt that they were extremely useful if they were coupled with a financial penalty.
One of the first criminal cases with which I had to deal was on Assize in Wales, in Cardiff. I was sitting with Tasker Watkins QC, so I knew that I could obtain fairly good advice as to whether the sentence I imposed was a sound one. Jones the Milk, as I think he was called, had a cunning device so that when the Milk Marketing Board delivered 1,000 gallons of milk, there was a run-off from the tank and it only registered 800, so he got 200 gallons gratis every time. He was eventually charged with three offences and pleaded guilty. Of course he was the most prominent member of the church, the choir and everything that was important locally.
I gave him three suspended sentences of 18 months and fined him £750 on each of the three counts. I told Tasker, when I came back at teatime, what I had done and asked him his view: "God man!", he said, "He would rather have gone to gaol any time".
5.9 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am tempted to start by saying, "Follow that"!
This is a most important subject and the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, for securing the debate today. Like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who spoke much earlier, I agreed with every word of the introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd.
It is particularly appropriate that we should be discussing conditions in our prisons so early in the new Parliament, given the recent pronouncements about sentencing policy and the appointment of a new Home Secretary. One undoubted consequence will be to put the prisons under greater pressure over the next few years, both in terms of numbers of inmates and the expectations of what they can deliver. As we debate prison conditions, I hope that there will be general agreement in the House that prisons have to be well run, decent, safe, accountable and legitimate. Their legitimacy is particularly important because in our
1116
society prisons are the ultimate expression of the power of the state over the individual. They also say a great deal about what sort of country this is.
In this House we are regularly reminded by noble Lords on all sides that the conditions in many of our prisons remain wholly unacceptable and the source of shame for any civilised country. In the past two years the Chief Inspector of Prisons —I join others in paying tribute to him for the wonderful work that he has done—has produced damning reports on a record number of establishments: Feltham, Brixton, Birmingham, Wandsworth, Wormwood Scrubs, Stoke Heath, Portland, Exeter and Brinsford. The list appears to go on and on.
It is true that there have been some improvements. We have seen the virtual end of slopping-out and three people sharing a cell. I am told that the awful stench of urine and stale food, which was all-pervasive in most prisons, is less noticeable today. However, there are still inner city prisons that keep people locked in their cells for 23 hours a day. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke of that in relation to Winchester gaol and there are many others. Eleven thousand prisons are held two to a cell in cells designed for one person.
Therefore, there is little surprise that over the past decade more than 600 prisoners have committed suicide. The conditions for remand prisoners can be particularly grim. Often they are held in the most appalling conditions for weeks or months, while awaiting trial. In 1998, 55 people took their own lives while on remand. None of that is acceptable. With such conditions it is not surprising that the rate of re-offending is so high, with 56 per cent of prisoners reconvicted within two years of release. In the case of young prisoners, between 85 and 90 per cent will re-offend when released and almost half of them will re-offend so seriously that they will be sent back to prison.
Those statistics are shocking and they call into question the effectiveness of the prison system. At the very least the juvenile estate should be separated from the Prison Service and placed under the control of the Youth Justice Board, led so ably by my noble friend Lord Warner.
The other point to be borne in mind is that some of those serving prison sentences are not a danger to society. They may, for example, have been imprisoned for non-payment of fines; others may be guilty of minor theft. We must not dismiss crimes of that sort as of no consequence, but we should try to be more understanding as to why, especially in relation to financial matters, such offences are being committed. Surely, there are more appropriate ways in which to sentence those offenders than to put them in prison. It is a problem that affects women more harshly than men, as they are more likely to be imprisoned for nonpayment of fines than are men.
The Prison Service is not an agency of punishment. The courts do that. The content of prison regimes should not be made deliberately humiliating and degrading as a means of reinforcing the punitive effect of the sentence. Denial of freedom is, in itself, a severe

1117
punishment, as is the effect that a prison record has upon the rest of a person's life. The removal of fathers—and even more mothers—from their families is likely to increase the problems for their children. We need to consider ways in which we can ensure that parents are able, where appropriate, to maintain good contact with their children, at least to give an example of how not to lead their lives.
The commitment made by the Government to the rest of us of fairness, opportunity, inclusiveness and citizenship should also apply to offenders, so that they are treated as citizens, with citizens' rights and responsibilities. In my view, we shall have to face the issue of whether prisoners should be given the right to vote. I believe that the Human Rights Act will force that upon us even if we do not choose to do so.
One unfortunate consequence of the "prison works" philosophy is that if rehabilitation succeeds in preventing re-offending and in reforming the characters of offenders, judges and magistrates will take the view that the more people whom they send to gaol, the more they will benefit from the experience. What is more, they may as well increase the length of the sentences as well, because there is no point in sending people to prison unless they stay long enough to gain some benefit. Unless something can be done to improve the offender's family and social environment outside prison, the expectations of the "prison works" philosophy are likely to remain unrealistic and the rates of re-offending will stay depressingly high. One will then get into a thoroughly negative debate that goes along the lines of having to keep people in prison for longer and longer because that is the only place where they will not re-offend in ways that affect the population as a whole. That is just investing in failure.
Already we are seeing the consequences of that approach in terms of the number of people in prison. It is not a matter of pride that the prison population reached 67,000 by the end of June, nor that we have more people in prison as a proportion of the population than any other country in Western Europe except Portugal. We need to stabilise the prison population at a level that matches the capacity of the system to fulfil the promises being made as part of the "prison works" philosophy.
Before we pass more laws on sentencing, it is essential, as the Government intend, that they and the judiciary come to an understanding on the purpose and principles, on how large the prison population should be and on where they are to be located. There also has to be an agreement about release procedures, because until one knows how many people one can let out, one will not know how many to admit.
Some years ago we stopped building roads on the "predict and provide" principle, and that approach should not be the guiding star for the prison programme either. We need to re-examine the relationship between prisons, their local communities and other services. I doubt whether it is sensible to maintain a national, centrally-directed, monolithic service that has been in existence more or less unchanged since 1877—the year when the national
1118
system was first established. Not many commercial organisations in the private sector would try to preserve such an inflexible structure.
Should we not look at ways to devolve decision-making to a more local level, so that local communities feel that they have some "ownership" of these large establishments in their area that employ a considerable number of the local workforce? If the prison staff were made to feel that they were worthwhile members of the local community, proud of doing an important job in the public service, would that not do wonders for their self-respect, rather than—as all too often happens—feeling that they have to disguise their occupation and not tell people what they do for a living?
Recently, there have been some hopeful developments. The development of training and rehabilitation courses within prisons, particularly for drug abuse and sex offenders, is seen as successful in terms of making prisoners more prepared for life outside and preventing re-offending. Also welcome is the Government's "custody to work" programme which is aimed at doubling the proportion of prisoners going directly into jobs on release, like the effort to increase by 50 per cent the number of national qualifications that prisoners achieve while inside.
Many noble Lords have referred to John Halliday's review of sentencing, "Making Punishments Work", which was published last week. On Thursday, the new Home Secretary spoke at the inaugural conference of the National Probation Service and gave a clear indication that he was reluctant to preside over a continuing increase in the prison population. In talking about the sentencing regime he said that it,
"is not achieving what we want. Over half of those sentenced to either custodial or community sentences are back in court being sentenced again within two years. Sentencing is not doing much to discourage them".
Mr Blunkett also spoke approvingly of Halliday's criticism of short custodial sentences of less than 12 months and said that,
"they provide little or no opportunity to change the behaviour and problems which put offenders there in the first place.
And they can have a long term adverse effect on family cohesion, on employment and on training prospects—all of which are key to the rehabilitation of offenders".
He is quite right, but he will have to look at what appears to be a contradiction in the Halliday report between the dismissal of short prison sentences and the endorsement of almost automatic imprisonment as a sanction for a breach of conditions attached to a sentence.
Where Halliday is right is in emphasising the importance of deciding well before any new framework is implemented the consequences for expenditure, the prison population and the workloads of services. We should keep in front of our minds the fact that for the cost of one new prison we could build 60 primary schools or two district hospitals.
Decisions on the necessary sentencing guidelines are an important part of the process and I am certain that we shall need to move away from mandatory sentences. I also hope that politicians will resist the temptation to try to second guess the professional

1119
opinions of experts such as psychiatrists and judges on the length of sentences and the timing of release or parole.
Across the public service as a whole, the past 20 years have been a period in which professional judgment, and the wisdom and experience which go with that, have been dismissed as the expression of self-seeking provider interest. We are now seeing the consequences in the demoralisation of many public services and a decline in professional standards and relationships. The Government's new concentration on public service in this Parliament is particularly welcome, but we have a great deal of ground to pull back.
I hope that the period of consultation which will follow the Halliday report, and which was promised by the Home Secretary, will allow that wisdom and experience to be heard and respected so that there can again be a proper professional contribution to the national debate.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Chadlington: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Hurd for initiating this very important debate. I was inspired by his opening remarks. As my noble friend knows, I have spent much of my time working in prisons, supporting the Howard League for Penal Reform, and through my chairmanship of Action on Addiction I have made a special study of the problems of alcohol abuse and drug taking, consequential anti-social behaviour and the issues relating to drug use immediately prior to and during prison sentences.
Whenever we debate the prison services either in this House or in another place, so we go through the subjects one by one, exchanging statistics, offering solutions and defending our records. Whenever we debate, we come back time and again to resources, usually financial. We cannot reform because we do not have the money.
One of the great phrases of the 1997 socialist administration was, "Tough on crime: tough on the causes of crime". I wish to address one such "cause"—and I believe that it is the prime cause—of crime in this country. And with it I wish to urge a re-allocation of resources to reduce the prison population and improve radically the quality of our prisons. I speak, of course, of the issue of drugs and drug use.
Perhaps I may share with your Lordships some of the facts. The Governor of Bullingdon, speaking on Radio 4 on Monday evening, said:
"We know that if drugs were taken out of the system, out of the equation, that Bullingdon would be half empty. So, if we can do something to cut down on drug use we can do something to cut down on the amount of inmates that actually come into places like Bullingdon".
Two weeks ago I was visiting in Brixton prison and was told that 40 per cent of all incoming remand prisoners had taken some form of illicit drug in the previous 72 hours. In 1998, the Cambridge Institute of Criminology showed that 61 per cent of all those
1120
arrested had traces of drugs in their system; 46 per cent of those people had cannabis; 18 per cent heroin; and 10 per cent crack cocaine.
The National Treatment Outcome Research Study (NTORS) recently showed that no fewer than 70,000 crimes were committed by 655 drug users, mainly heroin addicts, in the three months pre-treatment. A survey conducted over the past year among those in police custody confirmed the prevalence of class A drugs with 57 per cent admitting to taking heroin in the previous month, 52 per cent to taking crack cocaine and 13 per cent to taking cocaine.
If people take drugs and commit a crime, those people appear to believe that the two actions are causally connected. Home Office research shows that actually 46 per cent of arrestees who had taken drugs in the past 12 months believed that their drug use and crime were related. Drugs and crime are no respecter of sexes. Forty-two per cent of women under sentence are drug dependent. Women offenders are more likely to be opiate and crack cocaine users than men. Twenty-one per cent of women on remand, as opposed to 11 per cent of men, report using opiates. Thirteen per cent of women, as opposed to 7 per cent of men, use crack daily or almost daily. Those drugs are most strongly linked to offending.
As we all know, particularly those of us who regularly visit prison, drug taking does not stop outside prison; it goes on inside as well. The ONS recently completed a survey which showed that more than 33 per cent of men on remand and nearly half of sentenced men reported using drugs during their prison sentence. Although suicide levels in prison are at best stabilising, they rose 34 per cent between 1997 and 1999. It would appear that drug users were over represented in that appalling statistic.
If one goes into a prison as a drug user, there is still plenty of opportunity to continue one's habit. There is also a high rate of needle sharing, leading to risks of hepatitis C and HIV. And even if one does not go into prison as a drug user, there is at least the possibility that one will, together with learning new forms of criminal behaviour, learn to take drugs while inside.
However, I must pay generous tribute to the Government for recognising that part of the drug problem in prisons by increasing the funding for drug treatment from less than £7 million in 1997–98 to more than three times that at nearly £24 million last year. I still believe that it is too little but it is an enormous step forward.
Many people have paid tribute to Sir David Ramsbotham and I want to echo that. On Monday evening a retiring chief inspector appeared on a Radio 4 programme mentioned creating "healthy prisons" where both staff and inmates feel safe. I believe that that is a brilliant choice of words. Healthy prisons are institutions which enable those who have done wrong to be punished, to show remorse and to reform. Healthy prisons are institutions where there is a degree of safety and care for one's well-being and one's physical and mental health. I believe in the need for a healthy prison system.

1121
If drug taking is indeed the cause of so much crime, surely this is the point for government action. Reduce the number of criminals by attacking the distribution and use of drugs and the resources which we have can be rebalanced and reallocated to improve and upgrade the prison system. If the Government need any persuasion, we should remember that reforming the prison system has little electoral appeal but the fear which unites all parents is that their sons or daughters will turn to drugs and perhaps to crime. It can win the minds and hearts of everyone in the land.
We know that research has benefited the treatment of drug users, the education of the young and our understanding of drugs and drug-related problems. For example, research has shown that for every £1 spent on treatment £3 is saved by society in hospital admissions, social security costs and prison places. At the moment, in the United Kingdom about 75 per cent of the drugs budget is spent on law enforcement and the prevention of drug trafficking, yet HM Customs and Excise estimates that it intercepts only 5 to 10 per cent of the drugs that come into the country.
We live in a world where it is believed to be harder and harder to find causes which unite us and for which all society can fight, yet I believe that this issue stares us in the face. The state of our society, the safety of our streets, the reforming of our prison system and many other social changes could all be affected for the better if the Government made this issue their own. The horrifying fact is that it is still cheaper to buy enough good quality heroine for an evening's use than a round of drinks.
I was greatly encouraged when I read the headlines in this evening's Evening Standard. As I studied the story underneath I realised that it did not reflect such wholehearted support by the Government for addressing the problem as I had thought initially. I should like the Minister to expand on the story as to the way that drugs and crime are related.
I finish on a personal note. My wife and I do our best to be good parents to four children aged between 10 and 17. I hope and pray that none of my children ever become addicts or criminals, although the two appear to be quite closely allied. A couple of weekends ago I asked my 17 year-old daughter, after she and a group of friends had been to a party, whether there had been drugs available that evening. She replied that there were drugs at every party she ever attended; and one of her friends told me that the simple choice was whether they tried them.
Criminal behaviour occurs in every stratum of our society. Certainly, let us do all that we can to prevent the use of drugs inside prison by spending money to help addicts there. But prisons are not intended to be, nor should they be, drug rehabilitation centres. To control drug use outside prison walls will not only save many a young person from a life of crime but release resources to upgrade our prisons so that they fulfil the reforming role which is our responsibility and duty and is vital to a healthy society.
5.33 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, for tabling this debate this afternoon. I declare an interest as a patron of Voice for the Child in Care which provides advocacy services for young people within the secure estate. I put down my name for this debate with some hesitation as I visited a young offender institution for the first time only last December and have made one repeat visit to it since. However, I should like to express some concerns.
As to prison conditions, surely it is important to reduce the number of prisoners, thereby decreasing the stress on the prison system. There is a well-documented connection between weak family structures and later offending behaviour. I congratulate the Government, therefore, on taking so many important steps since 1997 to support families and children. Only yesterday I received a letter from the National Family and Parenting Institute which described its audit of services for parents and families in England and Wales which is soon to be published. I have experienced at first hand one of the many services offered and noted the comfort that parents receive. At the meeting a single parent has the opportunity to share with others her experience in looking after children and can escape isolation for a time.
One parent with two sets of twins met peers who recognised the immense challenge that she faced. She had no English but found an interpreter who could help her communicate with other parents, which meant that she felt less isolated. This is good for the wellbeing of parents and children. That should not be regarded as a means of reducing offending by children in the long term, but I believe that that is a happy byproduct of this kind of assistance and support. Recently, the Government introduced the Care Standards Act and the Children (Leaving Care) Act. Those measures improve conditions for children in care and make them less likely to offend and enter the prison system.
On my recent visit one problem which stood out was that of retention and recruitment of staff. Before I discuss that matter I should like to follow up the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln relating to mental health issues within such institutions. On my second visit to the YOI I particularly wanted to see the mental health provision. Having spoken to a member of staff, I was heartened to hear that there had been a great reduction in the number of cases of self-harm since 1999 when the NHS took over responsibility for the provision of mental health services.
In the same radio programme to which the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, referred, Sir David Ramsbotham said that in one year there had been five different governors of the establishment that I visited. In the same institution no senior staff member had more than two years' experience in post. That is a merry-go-round which is travelling at 100 miles per hour. In the past staff who have been recruited from the north find their families far away. One prison

1123
officer may have a depressed wife and, as a consequence, may be concerned about the wellbeing of his children. If his family is far away he suffers because he is unable to interact with it and his work is affected.
The cost of housing in the South East can put £100,000 on a mortgage, which also drives prison officers away from the area. Therefore, a governor may spend most of his time training new staff and very little developing established staff. It is also the case that the bad reputation of some institutions prevents good candidates from being recruited and demoralises the workforce that is already in place. The senior management and staff of prisons are in a very difficult position, and it is hard to see what they can do. Sir David Ramsbotham pointed out that at Swinfen Hall the governor had been in place for five or six years, and that that institution was an example of the very best practice in the treatment of inmates. At Huntercombe the governor has also been in place for five or six years. Continuity of prison governorship and all staff within an institution is key to a healthy establishment.
Can the Minister tell the House how many vacant prison officer posts there are in young offender institutions in the south east of England? What plans do the Government have to remedy any shortfall? How are the problems of recruitment and retention being addressed?
The new remand criteria in the recent Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act has increased the number of under-18s in custody by 2,000 a year. So that will put an additional strain on the South East in particular. The Minister may wish to correct me, but I believe that the South East has 30 per cent of the demand for prison places but is in a position to provide only 12 per cent of those places. I observe that under the new remand criteria a child may be remanded in custody for the theft of a Mars bar. As a governor remarked to me, he thought that we were trying to move away from imprisonment for petty offences.
Given that, as Sir David Ramsbotham pointed out, 60 per cent of young offenders in young offender institutions have been in care, would it not be sensible to consider similar criteria for staff in young offender institutions, in the juvenile estate, to those which staff have in children's homes? Should there not be a similar aim of having at least 80 per cent of prison officers working with that particular group with a national vocational qualification, an NVQ of Level 3 in child and young people's development or some similar qualification? The noble Lord, Lord Warner, remarked on the training that has been introduced which lasts for six or seven days. That is a very welcome innovation, but I wonder whether more could be done.
Working with young people and children can be immensely stimulating. Working with troubled children can be most challenging. But one needs to feel supported. One needs a manager to whom one can turn. One needs one's team mates for support and to think constantly about what one is doing. Some managers of children's homes whom I have met began with no qualifications and within a few years achieved
1124
a master's degree. If one wishes to study the human condition, working with young people and children is a very good opportunity to do so. Therefore, I beg the Government to use everything in their power to support the staff working with vulnerable young people and children in custody and to make the role of the prison officer attractive, thus attracting the best people.
I applaud the measures that the Government are taking to support families. I am concerned about staff recruitment and retention in the South East and I ask the Minister for some reassurance on that matter. I ask the Government again whether they can make the role of prison officers for under-21s more interesting.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend has done a great service to the House and to the country in bringing this subject to your Lordships' notice in the glare of publicity and at the moment when we have a fresh mind in the shape of a new Home Secretary to address the problem before us.
I had a fresh mind when I first addressed the problem nearly 20 years ago. It was in April 1982 that the noble—I almost said "and gallant" although he is no soldier—Earl, Lord Longford, within a fortnight of my arrival at the Home Office demanded a full report on the state of the Prison Service. I had a very sharp learning curve, as your Lordships can imagine.
It is very appropriate that this building is almost opposite the London Eye. That grinds inexorably round and the same little coaches come around in eternity. This debate has ground round innumerable times since then, and was grinding around for many years before that. It may be worth reminding any of your Lordships who might have forgotten, but more particularly those who do not know, what I discovered in my learning curve. It was that in the 40 years from 1918 to 1958 not one brick had been put upon another in any secure adult accommodation in the Prison Service, and that there had been a doubling in the prison population. The necessary response was that from 1959 to 1981 over 13,000 places were added, bringing the total accommodation from 25,000 places to 38,860. That seemed a great many in those days. In that debate I said:
"The effect was, however, that of running very fast in order to stand still because, in the same period, the population rose from 26,000 to 44,000. The net result, therefore, was an increase in the shortfall of accommodation from 1,500 to 5,600".
Overcrowding is not a new subject.
At that moment of crisis I actually had a board in my office on which we had the total feasible—not the legal—capacity of the system to contain bodies. We were sometimes into double and, on two occasions, into single figures when there was going to be nowhere else to put them, not even in police cells. We then instituted under Lord Whitelaw what was then the biggest and most expensive prison building programme in the 20th century. He was shortly followed by my noble friend Lord Brittan who realised that this was not enough and made it an even bigger

1125
programme. Since 1979, 34 new prisons have been built, providing over 17,000 new places, and we are still heavily overcrowded. Whatever the answer to the problem is, it is not building prisons: we have been doing that since anyone can remember.
Supervised release may seem a very new idea, but in 1982 we—the Government of which at the time I was a member—rejected a proposal for supervised release. In consultation on the proposal that had been first canvassed in the review of parole the previous year, the response that the Government quite properly received from sentencers indicated clearly that this rigidity would mean that they would be bound to increase the overall length of sentences, at least in cases where protection of the public was their objective.
The Halliday report overcomes that difficulty by involving the courts—the sentencers—in the review of the sentence at the pre-release stage and also in actually having the customers back if they do not meet their requirements. I regard that as hopeful. I was encouraged—unexpectedly in view of our relative political positions—by what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, had to say on that whole spectrum of ideas.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, made our flesh creep rather by the possible cost—the noble and learned Lord is not here to correct me if I have the matter wrong, which is a great relief—of the executive overview of the Halliday report which the noble and learned Lord has had slightly longer to consider than I. It is worth mentioning that paragraph 0.25 makes it clear that the figures he quoted were the worst case figures and that there are best case figures which actually result in a reduction in both the cost and the numbers in prison. It depends not on the system but how one uses it.
All that adds up to saying that neither building prisons nor adjusting custodial sentences of themselves will result in any significant reduction in criminality or in the population of the prisons or in the cost of managing them. We have to look elsewhere. The logic is so painfully obvious that it almost embarrasses me to repeat what I have said in every debate of this nature for the past 20 years when I have been predisposed to do so. That is that it is far more sensible to get the children before they become criminals than to spend enormous resources in catching 3 per cent of those who offend and then committing a small proportion to a custodial sentence which almost guarantees that they will go back and do it again. Someone coming from elsewhere in the universe would regard that as a policy of lunacy, yet we have been pursuing it, as though hypnotised, for generation after generation.
Surely it must be right to see what is wrong with our children and what is wrong with their circumstances that results in their becoming criminals. I declare an interest as the president of the DIVERT Trust, whose objective is so to do. But it is only one of many organisations in the voluntary sector which I encourage the Home Secretary to look to and exploit and, I may say, to fund so that they can do their work better in the pursuit of this end.
1126
What do the children lack? I have met a good many of them in the time I have been interested in juvenile offending. The most fundamental, the most difficult to provide and the least popular to mention is quite simply love. As they grow older, one has to give it a name less likely to be branded soft or sloppy, so one calls it care. The effect on a juvenile potential offender or actual offender on for the first time being convinced that a confident, responsible adult actually cares what happens to him or her and is prepared to help him or her see that what happens is not a disaster but the beginning of a fulfilled personality is electric. I happened quite by chance, as an ignorant practitioner in a very large comprehensive school in a slum clearance estate, on one occasion to be such an adult and to witness to my astonishment the change in the child that happened before my very eyes. So the first thing we have to do is to prepare some kind of caring, sheltering support for children who do not have it. We have to identify them.
For the purposes of today's debate, since the sector we are looking at are those who are heading inexorably to custody or at least to crime, we look for the certain pre-indications of criminality. One of the best indicators of that is exclusion from school. Children who are excluded from school are not all naturally rebellious against the process of education. They are rebellious against repeated failure and diminution of their stature and self respect, which is what happens to too many of them when they begin to fail in our schools. This is not a debate on education and so I shall not say how that could be avoided, though I did so at some length in a report to the Government some years ago. But once one has identified children like that, one can provide them with an adult, caring input to their lives—nine times out of 10 that is what is missing—to help them straighten out.
The intelligent thing to do—I can say it with modesty because it was introduced by the chief executive at the time, Angela Sarkis, and not myself—is to identify the children who are at risk of exclusion before they are excluded so that they can be supported in school and kept there. That saves an enormous amount of money to the taxpayer, an enormous amount of grief to them, an enormous amount of damage to their surroundings and a great deal of misery to their community. It is a very simple principle that I ask the new Home Secretary to take on board. He is a humane man and I believe that he will be able to do it. I hope he does it before he, like many of us, becomes almost resigned to the endless repetition of the same arguments against the obvious truth.
I have only one other small and almost unrelated point to raise. It is a reprise really—perhaps an unexpected one. A few weeks ago we had a debate on a prison called Blantyre House, which had a successful and humane system for its inmates. It was forward-looking and it was having a beneficial effect on recidivism rates. It was wrecked. It was thuggishly wrecked by an intrusion from a different part of the Prison Service. That intrusion has never been explained and has never been apologised for. The person or perhaps persons responsible for it have never

1127
been exposed and have never been brought to book. If the Home Secretary wishes to establish himself as the friend of justice and liberty within the Prison Service as well as outside it, I hope that he will put that right. It will also be a happy note for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. I add to the chorus of praise, which doubtless brings a blush to his cheeks but which is richly deserved, for bringing the idea of justice and liberty within the Prison Service into the public domain to an extent which means that no government, least of all the present one, can ignore it.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, and, to be fair, the Conservative Opposition, for making time available for this debate. Nothing could be more important. Everyone who has spoken, and, I suspect, everyone in the House, might agree that the Prison Service is a Cinderella service. It is largely ignored by the public; it is largely demoralised; it is on the defensive; and it is habitually denigrated. If I, like others, spend time talking of its shortcomings, that is not in any spirit of denigration but simply because that seems the most purposeful thing to do.
Perhaps I may be allowed a brief personal anecdote. I started my career in the law trogging round the solicitors of the land and interviewing clients of the firm. In 1961 I found myself imprisoned in Shiraz in Iran—on bail, I may say, not convicted. I spent an enlightening 24 hours in Shiraz prison. Most people would imagine that it was a place of untold horror. The reality, as I discovered—I managed to have tea with the governor during my short visit—was that the regime was a good 20 to 30 years ahead of our own in terms of the sense with which it was administered. The prison gave meaningful work to most of the 800 prisoners. For that they received a level of reward which we still do not grant in our own prisons. I remember coming back to England with my eyes to some extent opened. The prisons I was then visiting—all the well known names—were in a benighted state. The tragedy is that in the intervening years I do not believe that we have made major strides to remove them from that benighted state.
What is the purpose of prisons? The first purpose is of course punishment. But, as few of the British public seem to understand, the punishment is being in prison, not what happens to you when you are there. It astonishes me that the prisons which our Victorian forefathers built and which are now still used were in their day an infinitely superior set of institutions to that which they are today not merely in terms of the level of occupancy but also in terms of the conditions from which many prisoners came. The crowding and destitution of the time made those prisons rather hotel-like, I suspect, for many of the prisoners.
The second purpose is rehabilitation. How are we doing? The answer is appallingly. We have heard the statistic mentioned that more than 50 per cent of prisoners come back within two years. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, gave us the alarming statistic that it costs £27,000 a year per prisoner. It costs 100,000 for
1128
a new prison place. Yet we continue to run regimes which yield this astonishing result. It is a result which shows up not only in the rates of recidivism, but also in the ever-increasing number of prisoners.
I was horrified to hear the statistic quoted earlier that by 2008, officially we expect to have 83,000 prisoners; namely, another 17,000 prisoners in our gaols. Why is that? Perhaps we should spend another day or even a week in debate in an effort to get to the bottom of this. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, put it: why does this country have such an appalling prison record, let alone the state of the prisons themselves? Perhaps if the Government simply stopped creating new systems, regimes, quangos, laws and regulations for one month and concentrated instead on why, as a nation, we are a massive failure vis-à-vis the numbers who enter our prisons, we might begin to get somewhere.
It is certain that the cost, not only financially but in terms of victims' lives and the lives of those wives and children dependent on the people entering prison, is enormous. Again, how often do we overlook the fact that crime in this country will spread in the future as a result of what is happening today? Along with others, I suggest that education is potentially the most potent force for effective rehabilitation. Many of those working in the education service in prisons do their level best; that is certainly true. But the reality is that however hard they may strive against such levels of ignorance and denigration, the resources devoted to education in prisons are woefully inadequate.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, gave the House a glint of hope when he referred to extra funds to be made available. But those funds are simply inadequate. Given that those caught up in the prison system who are of compulsory school age currently receive an average of only 15 hours' worth of education per week when, had they been attending schools outside the prison system, they would have received 24 hours' worth, and when the Government's Social Exclusion Unit suggests that 30 hours' worth of education per week—double the present amount —is what is needed for such young people, how can we be satisfied with the present situation? We know full well that teaching the kind of young people who go into prisons is 10 times more difficult than teaching any normal class. We have heard about exclusions. But how many of these young people are truants, how many have personality problems, how many have been statemented, and how many have massive special social needs? It is simply impossible remotely to deliver an adequate educational service on the resources currently being made available in prisons.
Perhaps I may cite one or two further facts. For these I am grateful to the Prisoners' Advice Service and the Howard League for Penal Reform. Incidentally, next month the league will publish a book entitled Missing the Grade which addresses these problems. One particular problem is that the assessment of young offenders entering prison is, in reality, simply absent. Often it is undertaken by clerks, although it is a very difficult task. The information that then follows the prisoner into gaol often is completely lacking. Instead

1129
of there being adequate liaison between the relevant education authority and the prison so that at least the prison receives the full educational background of the young prisoner, there is nothing.
Within prisons themselves, apart from the service being grossly overstretched, the provision of education is constantly interrupted. We have heard accounts of how prison governors and staff are shot around in a general auction; so are prisoners. The disciplinary regimes in prisons are such that very often educational programmes are constantly interrupted for what the chief inspector in his most recent report called "trivial reasons". All this and much more make what education is available fatally inadequate.
I also took particular note of the chief inspector's remarks in his last report about the narrowing of the curriculum within prisons. There is a lack of imaginative education. Many prisoners who arrive trapped in a kind of mental box from which enlightened education might help them to escape and see new horizons and new hope for themselves now have no hope of such an escape because many of those programmes are being shut down. Perhaps I may cite one example. Leeds University set up a special degree course in sociology with Full Sutton prison near York. That course has been scrapped, although it was successful and offered new opportunities to people who urgently need them. Furthermore, the fact that those people need them means that we as a society need them as well. Frankly, if all that happens is that yet more prisoners emerge from their incarceration more hard-hearted, anti-social and disengaged from society than they were when they went in, then that is a pathetic parody of rehabilitation.
It is plain that more resources and a new approach to education in prisons are desperately needed. Perhaps I may draw the attention of noble Lords to the prison rules themselves. I refer to rules passed in 1999 under the Prison Act 1952. Regulation 32 states:
"Educational classes shall be arranged … and … reasonable facilities shall be afforded to prisoners who wish to do so to improve their education by training by distance learning, private study and recreational classes, in their spare time.
Special attention shall be paid to the education and training of prisoners with special educational needs, and if necessary they shall be taught within the hours normally allotted to work".
That is not happening. Both of those subsections to Regulation 32 are being honoured in the breach. Perhaps we should have a judicial review of what has been happening, because it is plain that it is not in accordance with the law.
I shall close by making one further broad point on leadership, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. Leadership needs to come from politicians. I do not say the following in any spirit of acrimony, but I do not think that governments always deal with these highly sensitive issues of crime and punishment with the courage that they should demonstrate. It is well known that the public at large is susceptible to the crude presentation of the so-called realities of criminals and their victims. It is also well known that in this country, on these matters we have
1130
one of the most ignorant popular presses in the western world. As I have said, I do not think that governments are always courageous when it comes to pointing out the realities; namely, that what is taking place in fact goes against the national interest. It is not simply inhumane, immoral and, in some cases, illegal; it goes against the national interest.
If politicians simply made it known more widely that the extra 17,000 prisoners officially expected to enter our prisons by 2008 will cost almost half a billion pounds a year to maintain and that providing those extra places will cost a further £1.5 billion, perhaps such figures would get through to the great British public. If I was a dictator—and not a liberal one at that—I might say that anyone who wished to write in our newspapers about crime and punishment would need to spend a week in prison before doing so. In a few cases, I might throw away the key.
Unless we can educate public opinion to recognise the reality of the situation, there is little chance that the resources will be made available to undertake the improvements that every noble Lord wants to see. To be honest, there is no chance, because the money needed for prison educational services must attract a far greater foundation of public support than exists at present.
Finally, if it is said that we are being soft on crime to want these improvements, then let us own up to it and say that we are soft on crime. Of course we are not being soft on crime; we are being realistic about it. All the talk about being hard on crime and on the causes of crime should be abandoned; it merely plays to the ignorance of the public. Let us be soft on crime and proud of it, because we know that, in the end, intelligent rehabilitation is the only way forward for the country through this vexed field.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to hold this debate. I have an interest to declare, in that I am a passionate supporter of Safe Ground, a charity which works in prisons, educating some of the more resistant learners.
As has been said, the punishment is the sentence. If we judge prisons as places which are there to keep people who have been sentenced away from the public—to keep them quiet, to keep them reasonably amused with in-cell TV and nothing much else to do—then perhaps we can judge our Prison Service a success. Indeed, it often seemed to me that our two previous Home Secretaries thought of prisons as just that, and did very little else to change the picture.
But, from what I have seen of prisoners—and, I suspect, from what most speakers in the debate have seen of prisoners—it is quite clear that they are every bit as human as the rest of us. They have, for the most part, every bit as much potential as the rest of us to do well in life. We owe it to them, to ourselves as a civilised society and to our own self-interests to make sure that that potential is realised; that those prisoners who wish to are given the best possible chance of leading lives at peace with the rest of us.

1131
If you judge the Prison Service by those criteria, it is something of a mess. There are problems with management; problems with rigidity; after-care is, to say the least, disappointing; and education and rehabilitation come last, last, last in every judgment made in the service.
But I look to the future with a great deal of optimism. You cannot see the joy on the faces of prison officers when Safe Ground brings an ex-offender back into the prison where he served his sentence and not believe that the prisons are not full of people who would respond to better circumstances and better management. You cannot meet the people who are involved in Prison Service education and not believe that, were they given the money—and were the regimes to allow them to educate prisoners—there is immense potential for that aspect of prisoners' lives to he much better.
I have great hopes for the new Home Secretary. He has come out of the Education Service, where he did extremely well. He is a man whose humanity shines through him whenever he speaks. I very much hope that we shall have a lot of good from him in regard to the conduct of the Prison Service over the next four or five years.
I was immensely heartened by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who is a solid supporter of the Government. If he is able to do what he has done in his little bit of the Prison Service, it is surely possible for the Government to follow his example in the rest of it. It is not that hard to do.
The core of what is needed is political will. If the rewards for the management of the Prison Service—if the whole focus of the Prison Service—were based on the rehabilitation and education of prisoners, an awful lot of things would fall into place behind. If that is how management, prison governors, governors below them and prison officers were judged, it would be unnecessary to try to force things in the way that we have to now every time we try to make an improvement to education. The system runs against the grain. If the grain were to run the other way, the whole business would be much easier and much more could be achieved, even with the resources that are being applied now.
Secondly, there should be a considerable emphasis on educating and training prison officers. We have talked a lot about educating prisoners, but prison officers are pretty well neglected in terms of in-service training and the opportunities that they have to educate themselves. About the only facility they are offered is a gym. There is virtually nothing available for them to improve their skills at educating prisoners, which should be their job; at helping prisoners become part of society, which should be their job. That needs a lot of education and training of prison officers. It would be a much more desirable and worthwhile job if they were given that training, and it is high time that they were.
Thirdly, there is tremendous scope for imagination. Prisoners are not a sample of the general population. Indeed, they are a very particular extract of the general
1132
population. An enormous number of them have failed in education and in their lives. They carry the burden of that failure with them. They probably have underlying causes for that failure, or reasons going back to extremely unhappy childhoods. Unless we allow for that in the way that we approach prison education, we shall run straight into a brick wall.
The first attempts—before the great merger with the DfES, which occurred late in the previous Session—at introducing some kind of organised key skills into prison education were masterminded by the QCA. It produced some examinations which would have frightened an A-level student. They were written in a language which no prisoner would recognise; they asked questions which were not relevant to prisoners' lives; and they were set out in small type and hard to read. They took me back to O-levels and to t h e horrors of Latin examinations. And these were intended for people who had failed examinations.
Further, the examinations were available only every six months. How many prisoners are in the same prison six months after they have taken the course? It was not only something that was totally inappropriate to prisons but it took no account of the way in which education was delivered in prisons. It was something which, in the end, had no good effect.
But the merger between prison education and the Department for Education and Skills is, to my mind, a source of great hope. There is real experience of adult education in the DfES and the people involved there are some of its better people. It is a good ministry. If we look forward to what may be achieved there over the next few years, with goodwill from the Prison Service and it being prepared to make the adaptations to the regime which are necessary if education is to be effectively delivered in prisons, we may see some real results.
When you see something done by Safe Ground—as, I am pleased to say, the two previous prison Ministers have, and have applauded it formally—you really see the potential. Even for people who have no qualifications, who have had the most difficult levels of learning and literacy, the potential is there for them to achieve something; to care about education; to like education; to want education. We will understand what the real potential is only if we set about realising it.
It is important that the Prison Service should become a little better at handling the voluntary sector. It is no accident that so many noble Lords are prepared to speak in the debate today. There are a lot of people out there who are prepared to help with working in prisons, with rehabilitating prisoners, and with helping them to get back into the real world afterwards. But it needs organisation, commitment and structure from the Government to make that happen effectively. There is plenty of potential for doing more of that.
Measurement is another thing which is showing signs of coming in. It is essential that we set targets for what we hope to achieve and that we evaluate the processes and procedures that we bring in. We are to

1133
have Ofsted, at last, evaluating prison education. There are some very under-performing sections in prison education, just as there were in schools before Ofsted. The very fact that people are to be inspected will raise the status of prison education when it comes to prison governance.
If we are to produce our own programmes for correcting offending behaviour rather than simply hiring in American programmes, we must be innovative in what we offer. We must evaluate them properly so that everyone can see that they work.
We must be very careful what we do with money. If the Prison Service is going to grow in numbers, there will be a constant pressure on money. The Treasury will always try to reduce the amount of money that the Prison Service has available. The first thing to be cut will be education. Even when the Government announced, a few months ago, additional money for prison education, that was followed by cuts in the education budget in some areas and some prisons. There is so much pressure on the prison budget as a whole.
If we can get ourselves set so that we are looking at a steady or reducing prison population, there will be much more potential for getting prisons right than there ever will be if we allow this increase. I have heard no good reason why we should lock up more people. If we continue to lock up more people, we shall merely do worse by the people we lock up and we shall be storing up more problems for ourselves. I cannot see that as being the right way to go.
6.20 p.m.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, on initiating this important debate. I well remember the enormous amount that he achieved during his time as Home Secretary, with great courage, in moving penal policy on to a rational and effective path. I also congratulate the Prison Reform Trust on obtaining so distinguished a chairman. It is a substantial and authoritative organisation. As one who attended the meeting some 20 years ago when the idea of setting up the trust was first discussed, I am proud to see the position that the trust has attained today. Perhaps I may also add my congratulations to Sir David Ramsbotham on his enormous achievements.
I endorse the remarks of all previous speakers. I shall concentrate on a small but vital aspect of the way in which we run our prisons. I want to highlight and raise with the Minister a number of points about the movement towards introducing accredited programmes into prisons. I want to say a word about the Prison Service method of accreditation and to refer to the process, how it affects prisons and what happens to programmes that are not accredited, although they may also be very effective. I want to ask the Minister how he sees the future of this aspect of the Prison Service's work.
I begin with three illustrative anecdotes which I hope will place this theme in context. I am sure the Minister will tell me if I am misinformed, but I
1134
understand that a prison officer from Stocken prison won the Lord Woolf award, one of the highest awards from the Butler Trust—an excellent organisation with which the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, who earlier spoke so eloquently, is connected. The trust searches out outstanding initiatives in prisons and recognises them.
The prison officer from Stocken won the award for a course that he had designed and introduced. He had trained his colleagues in delivering the course and had turned it into a package that was being used in 40 other locations. The course, "Men and Violence", was designed to help men in prison to think about the violence that they had committed and to stop it. The Butler Trust evaluated his work, was deeply impressed and gave him this prestigious award.
Very soon afterwards, the programme failed to be accredited by the Prison Service and was stopped. The prison officer was not offered help in improving it; he was not sent on a training course in course design. It was simply stopped. He and his colleagues were demoralised. They thought, "Why bother?", and returned to a less interactive mode of doing their work.
I cite another example. A drama teacher, said by all those involved with her to be "inspired", worked in three prisons around London doing drama with prisoners. Such work can be very effective in helping people to face up to their problems, to think and to work with others. The teacher won a Butler Trust award last year. Then her contract with the education provider was terminated. She was told that it was not its priority, and that the concentration was on core skills. The case of the Leeds University course referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is another such example.
I hear from dedicated people in the arts world, those who work in theatres, and musicians and artists, that when they work in prisons they feel very much that they are an add-on, that they are not central. They feel that they are rarely seen as part of what the prison is trying to do; and that they are first to go when there is pressure.
The third anecdote relates to a highly respected prison governor. He said to me one day at a meeting: "I've had a really bad day. Headquarters came round to check on our accredited programmes. We got a very low mark because, instead of following the syllabus exactly as laid down, the prison officer teaching the course got involved in a discussion with the prisoners about the subject matter and strayed from the text he was supposed to be following". I wondered whether that was the real reason for the low mark, but apparently it is the case that in order to ensure "programme integrity" the course has to be followed to the letter. Many years ago, I trained as a teacher, so I found that a little odd.
Let me outline the concerns. We are talking about the introduction of programmes for which the Prison Service was able to secure funding out of the moneys made available for crime reduction. These are courses that prisoners can take on controlling anger, on sexual offending, and on learning to think and behave in a

1135
non-criminal way. I must stress that all these things are good in themselves. I spent 25 years of my life working to help criminals to see that there are better ways of living than criminal ways, and helping them to move to a stable, non-criminal life. I met many who said that they needed treatment. They knew as much, but the Prison Service had no treatment to offer them.
I do not suggest for a moment that the Prison Service should not be doing everything in its power to provide something helpful to prisoners that will affect what happens to them when they leave and which will lead them into a different way of life. I, like many other noble Lords, have been a lifelong supporter of the work done at Grendon Underwood prison, of which we can all be proud. It is right that there should be rigour in what is being done. It is right that prisoners should not be guinea-pigs for psychological experiments any more than they should be for medical ones. But my concerns are more specific. First, the Prison Service places a heavy emphasis on programmes that are accredited. These are the most valued and important programmes. Those that are not are second-class and are less likely to get resources. Prison Service performance indicators are based on achieving certain numbers of accredited programmes.
Those with a background in education will think when they hear about accreditation of City and Guilds or of the Open College Network. I know that Deerbolt Young Offenders Institution is accrediting much of its excellent work with the Open College Network. In fact, the accreditation of such programmes is done by the Home Office's own international accreditation panel. Well, it is a slightly international accreditation panel. It has on it four people from the United States and one from Canada. It costs, I believe, £208,000 a year, of which £105,000 is paid to the panel members, although the figures are for 1999–2000 and may be out of date.
The membership of the panel, although distinguished, is very narrow. One person is closely connected with developing the programmes that are subsequently accredited, but there is no one on the panel from mainstream education, from further or higher education, from community education, or from the branch of education dealing with the educationally disadvantaged—which on all the evidence prisoners are.
The panel decides which programmes pass its tests and which do not. Its decisions are based on research about the effects of certain programmes and about how they should be delivered. In this House on 15th May, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, assured us that,
"international research shows that good programmes which are delivered well can reduce re-offending by up to 33 per cent".
Later, he said:
"The research literature reveals a broad consensus of about a 10 per cent typical reduction in reconviction rates compared with those offenders who do not attend the programmes".—[Official Report, 15/5/01; col. 7.]
1136
Speaking in September 2000, the then Minister of State, Mr Boateng, said:
"accredited programmes do work with each achieving reductions in offending of the order of 15 per cent".
I am not sure which of those figures is the one that we should seize upon. Whichever it is, when one looks closely at the background, the evidence is very weak in relation to what has been built on it. The review of the Home Office on this research—Research Study 171—called it "inconclusive", and went on to say:
"It is not possible to identify precisely which particular forms of intervention are most promising".
The more one looks into it, the shakier it becomes. Evidence that certain programmes reduce reconviction rates is based on someone's assumptions about probability. Comparisons are not made between one group of prisoners who completed the programme and another who did not so as to ascertain which group performed better. There is a comparison between the actual reconviction rate after two years and the reconviction rate that would have been predicted after analysing the history and background of the prisoner.
Also, the international research is based on something called "meta-analysis", which means adding together many small studies—one, say, of 20 people in America, while another may be based on 30 people in England. They cover mostly men and very few ethnic minorities. All the results of that research are combined and the process is used to say, "Now we know what works and what doesn't". The Home Office report 171, to which I referred, says:
"Meta-analysis glosses over the disparate nature of much of this work … Over the different research designs employed in the original studies and over the various success criteria used".
None of that research in this country has been subject to external independent review. The figures all come from those responsible for the programmes. Undertaking such research is time consuming, costly and requires access to the Prison Service databases. So only certain activities have been researched: others, like, for example, drama, art or music have not been researched. Therefore, they run the danger of being seen as frills, or as recreational activities.
There is another area of concern; namely, the granting of parole. The study carried out by Professor Roger Hood and Stephen Shute found that in 96 per cent of refusals of parole mention was made of lack of progress in "addressing offending behaviour". The authors of the report conclude that this can lead to unfairness. If such weight is to be given to completing these programmes, it is vital that they should be available to all prisoners and in good time before the parole review begins.
I have a number of questions for the Minister to consider. Have the recommendations of the Hood and Shute report been implemented?—for example, are there intelligible rating scales to enable prisoners' performance on such programmes to be assessed

1137
objectively, whereby prisoners could be provided with an explanation of why they were doing the course and what it would achieve? The Bishop of Lincoln said:
"Justice is the first virtue of social institutions".
Will the Minister consider the justice of basing so many parole decisions on whether the prisoner has completed these programmes, when the programmes are scarcely available in many prisons? Can the Minister tell us when there will be an independent evaluation of these programmes by some reputable academic body? Can the noble Lord also say whether he has it in mind to review the membership of the international accreditation panel? Further, will he consider the advantages to prisoners' resettlement of having a certificate from a recognised educational institution like the Open College Network, which might impress an employer more than the Prison Service accreditation panel? Finally, will he also reflect upon whether the rigidity of the approach to these programmes is having a deadening effect on thousands of prison staff who are doing good work, being creative and trying to work with the prisoners in their prison to turn round their lives?
6.34 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, on introducing this debate on the heels of the Halliday report. I must declare that I am a vice patron of the APEX Trust. This debate is very broad in scope. I shall confine my remarks to women prisoners.
In recent years the number of women in prison has risen sharply: in 1970, there were 988 women; in 1990, there were 1,597; and, at the end of June this year, there were a record 3,736 women in prison. In response to this increase the Prison Reform Trust commissioned a committee chaired by Professor Dorothy Wedderburn to inquire into women's imprisonment. The report, entitled, Justice for Women: The Need for Reform, which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, commended, was published in February of last year.
Wedderburn argues from the outset four particular characteristics of women in custody: first, that the pattern of their offending poses lower risks to the public than that of men; secondly, that nearly half of them had children living with them at the time of their imprisonment, resulting in far greater social consequences, including costs to the state, than in the case of men; thirdly, that the psychological effects of imprisonment on them are more serious than on men; and, fourthly, that the relatively small number of women held in custody results in many being held in prisons far from their homes and constraints on the type of regime that can be provided.
The report seeks ways to reduce the number of women in custody. Wedderburn points out that in 1998 just over half of women prisoners were serving six months or less, and that three quarters of them were serving a year or less. Moreover, most women enter the prison system without having committed a serious offence and, as I said, without being a risk to the
1138
public. Wedderburn stresses the lower average persistence and seriousness of women's offending compared to that of men, and their relatively small total numbers. Paragraph 3.10 of her report says that these differences:
"Speak not only to the seriousness of female crime but also to the strength of the public demand for women's punishment".
The report points to the principle of parsimony—the state should inflict the smallest amount of punishment adequate to protect the community from crime. For all the reasons outlined, and more, the Wedderburn report emphasises the need for parsimony in the use of custody for women, and stresses the alternative of greater use of penalties within the community. The Wedderburn thinking ties in with Recommendation 12 of the Halliday report, which says:
"Unless only a prison sentence of 12 months or more would meet the needs for punishment, sentencers should consider the scope for a community sentence to meet the needs of punishment, crime reduction and reparation".
In a Written Answer on 4th July, my noble friend the Minister said of the Halliday report that the Government wanted to invite views on its recommendations before reaching final conclusions. The view that I should like to express to him is that the Government should treat women prisoners who are guilty of lesser crimes as a special case, and that, in general, they should drink in the contents of the Wedderburn report. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that Wedderburn's views on the sentencing of women for less serious crimes dovetails with Halliday's finding?
I move on to another point. At paragraphs 1.38 and 6.15 of her report, Wedderburn raises the question of women who are foreign nationals serving relatively long determinate sentences for drug offences. In 1998 such foreign women made up just over one-tenth of all women in prison. They have problems in dealing with solicitors and staff. They have terrible difficulties keeping in touch with their children and families abroad. Moreover, they can be isolated in prison by language and cultural barriers. At the end of their sentence many of them will be deported. Clearly, reintegration in their own communities abroad cannot be a realistic objective of their custody in this country.
Wedderburn recommends that the Government, with advice from the Criminal Justice Consultative Council, should, as a matter of urgency, consider the policy questions raised by women who are foreign nationals serving relatively long determinate sentences. My own visit to Holloway prison on Monday confirms these findings by Wedderburn. The quantity of foreign language books in the library, especially Spanish—which brought to mind South Americans—indicated the number of foreign prisoners. The two women from Jamaica, and the woman from Cameroon to whom I talked, emphasised their terrible difficulties in keeping in touch with their children. There were 452 prisoners in Holloway on Monday and nearly 100 of them were foreign nationals.

1139
When I went to see the deputy governor at the end of my visit, I asked him what he thought of Professor Wedderburn's proposal of an inquiry. He strongly supported her. Could my noble friend the Minister say whether the Government are considering such an inquiry?
I come to my final point. When the Wedderburn report reaches its summary of recommendations its very first proposal is that a national women's justice board should be established immediately as a statutory commissioning body which would resemble in many respects the national Youth Justice Board, as the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, stressed.
The Lord Chief Justice is of like mind to Wedderburn. In an address to the Prison Reform Trust on 31st January this year, the noble and learned Lord said,
"There should be a Board responsible for women in the criminal justice system. Its responsibilities in relation to women should be similar to that of the Youth Justice Board. It should regard its primary responsibility to be to contain the growth of the women prison population".
This quotation was put to the Government during Starred Questions on 15th February at col. 337. My noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton replied:
"The Lord Chief Justice's suggestion is very helpful and it reflects well on the work of the Youth Justice Board. We shall obviously consider the matter in the most positive light and give it very careful consideration".—[Official Report, 15/2101; col. 337.]
I wonder if my noble friend the Minister can say whether government thinking about such a board has yet crystallised. No single step could do more to show the Government's awareness of the special problems of women prisoners than to establish such a board.
6.42 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, no doubt we would wish to accept two premises as background to this debate. The first is that in Britain or elsewhere prisons can never be isolated or sidelined from the rest of society. Inevitably they form a reflection of their own countries and communities. Nor, secondly, can prisons be isolated between one country and another; otherwise, the only consequence would be to abandon comparison, analysis and even the concept of best practice itself. Clearly those methods should be constantly deployed. Within Europe and internationally, different permutations within custodial and non-custodial systems must be regularly evaluated and compared in order to help evolve and produce, here and elsewhere, far better procedures and results than those which currently obtain.
It is particularly fitting that my noble friend Lord Hurd should initiate this discussion. All of us recall the broad and. constructive approach he adopted as Home Secretary. It is just that kind of approach, which he explained to us today, that is essential to the success of the British Prison Service.
As things are—and as a number of your Lordships have stressed—regrettably our Prison Service reveals some striking anomalies. The first concerns prisoner recidivism. While we spend less than our European partners on health and education, we spend much
1140
more on prisons. Per head of population our prison numbers are higher than theirs. Yet, at 75 per cent, our prisoner recidivism level has not lowered as a result of increased expenditure. Nor has it become any lower than the European average. Nevertheless, as several of your Lordships observed, that inconsistency is sometimes condoned. It has been alleged that a significant rise in the number of prisons and prisoners is still desirable even it if fails to reduce prisoner recidivism at all. The rise in detention figures has been defended on the ground that somehow it protects communities all the better and thus somehow contributes to local and national security all the more. However, the reverse is the case. An increase in detention in itself is harmful. At both national and local levels it damages morale and confidence and it undermines families and communities.
During our recent home affairs debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, mentioned the problem facing United States communities and what is referred to there as "collateral damage" caused by the unnecessarily high level of the prison population. A further anomaly concerns the relationship between custodial and non-custodial sentences. We have seen the introduction and steady application of non-custodial sentences. However, not only have these failed to effect a proper reduction in custodial sentences, they have even co-existed with the large growth in custodial sentences already indicated. In spite of the availability of non-custodial sentences, there are still far too many—both below and above the age of 17—who are imprisoned for minor crimes and who should not be imprisoned at all. In particular, there are still far too many young people detained. Among others, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln and my noble friend Lord Elton emphasised that in the majority of cases the detention of young people is as futile as it is counter-productive.
Then, ironically enough, there is even the worrying anomaly relating to the pursuit of best practice. Recently, the Government appear to have expressed all the right sentiments. Within prisons they seek to address the task of rehabilitation systematically. Their aims include better education, improved employability and reduced drug dependency. Yet such schemes will work properly only if the number of prisoners reduces; otherwise, resources will remain too overstretched for prison staff to fulfil those objectives. Improved rehabilitation levels and reduced prisoner numbers are anyway inevitably connected for humanitarian reasons as well as those of efficient delivery. Does the Minister agree that the Government's plans for prisoner rehabilitation, while much to be welcomed, will nevertheless fail unless they correspond to proper targets for the reduction of prisoner numbers? Conversely, can he give the commitment that the Government will therefore connect targets for improved prisoner rehabilitation with those for reduced prisoner numbers?
My second theme is the scope for improvement which can arise out of comparisons between our own Prison Service and others. The focus must be upon evidence of what works best in the form of combined

1141
measures to deter crime and to promote security through improved rehabilitation and reduced re-offending.
Ironically enough, and in spite of their recent civil war, certain states within the former Yugoslavia already reveal encouraging prison management results which in several respects stand to give good guidance to ourselves and to other European states. Two such are Slovenia and Croatia. The Croatian prison service provides a clear example. It has comparatively low numbers of prisoners per head of population and it demonstrates comparatively high levels of civilian prisoner rehabilitation. As chairman of the UK Parliamentary Group for Croatia and as a Council of Europe parliamentarian, I was able to introduce our own Home Office overseas service to the Croatian prison service. This has led to the establishment of a training centre by Zagreb for the training of prison governors and other staff.
Clearly, there are many constructive channels for disseminating improved practice between different states for the better management of their prisons. Not least there are some excellent institutions which promote the exchange of information and ideas. Such institutions include the International Centre for Prison Studies and the Prison Reform Trust, chaired by my noble friend Lord Hurd. Can the Minister say what steps the Government are now taking, or propose to take, to assist the exchange of information and ideas both in the interest of our own Prison Service as well as that of others?
In summary, current challenges presented by prisons to the Government are quite plain: to reduce prisoner re-offending and thus prisoner numbers; and to enhance prisoner rehabilitation and, hence, also to improve community morale and security. The Government must acknowledge all the many deficiencies and anomalies which still obtain and which have been outlined today. They must adjust by heeding evidence and case studies. And they must set a much more responsible example and produce radically better results both within this country and its communities and for the benefit of others elsewhere.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. There is a general consensus in your Lordships' House about what is wrong in our prisons. This House is at its best when it speaks with one voice. We saw that demonstrated today. I hope that the Home Secretary will take note of what has been said but, more importantly, of what we need to do.
I consider it a great privilege to participate in this debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, who as a good and effective Home Secretary introduced many liberal and positive measures in the criminal justice system. This could not have been an easy task particularly at a time when the debate on law and order at the Conservative Party conferences centred around harsh and punitive measures.
1142
We must also not forget that much of the foundation for sound policies were laid down by such reformist Home Secretaries as my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and Lord Whitelaw. The action of those noble Lords demonstrates that we have to provide leadership on issues on which the community may not always be comfortable. They have demonstrated that given the right leadership there are no issues within the penal establishments that we cannot tackle.
Perhaps I may draw attention to the leadership shown by Martin Narey, the Director-General of the Prison Service, and the important matter of the race relations policy within the service. I am also grateful for the contribution made by Judy Clements, the Prison Service race relations adviser. Perhaps I may also add the gratitude of this side of the House for the work done by the previous inspectors of prisons, Sir Stephen Tumim and Sir David Ramsbotham. How right we were in an earlier debate in the previous Parliament to object to the Home Office plan to merge the prison and probation inspectorates. We can clearly demonstrate a positive effect: the appointment of Anne Owers; we wish her a lot of luck.
We have to go back to October 1979 to consider the key findings of the May Committee of Inquiry into the Prison Service. Its objectives are as relevant today as they were then. They were:
"to create an environment which can assist prisoners to respond and contribute to society as positively as possible; preserve and promote their self-respect; minimise to the degree of security necessary in each particular case the harmful effects of their removal from normal life; [and] prepare them for and assist them in discharge".
As many noble Lords have pointed out, in April 1990 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, produced his report on prison disturbances. Its central finding was that,
"The prison service must set security, control and justice in prisons at the right level and it must provide the right balance between them".
Many of those recommendations have been translated in the Prison Service's statement of purpose. One will see them displayed prominently outside any prison.
The question we must ask is this: are prisons meeting those objectives? If not, what are the reasons for that? More importantly, what alternatives are available to sentencers? Instead of making it less likely that the offender will offend again there is no dispute, particularly with young offenders, that a custodial sentence increases that danger. That must be a constant worry. It is the more so if costs are taken into account. Non-custodial sentences cost considerably less than custodial sentences. There is no evidence that non-custodial sentences are not at least as likely to prevent reoffending as custodial sentences. Extensive use of prisons or custodial alternatives are poor value to the public. I value the work of the Youth Justice Board and its work in relation to diverting young people away from custody. I was grateful to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, of the contribution of the Youth Justice Board.

1143
Imprisonment is not more successful in preventing re-offending because prisoners have so little responsibility for what happens to them during the period of sentence. The conditions which exist in our prisons cause a substantial number of prisoners to leave prison more embittered and hostile to society than when they arrived.
In a Question that I asked on 18th July 2000 the Government stated that £1 million spent on building and running more prisons would result in approximately 180 recorded offences being prevented annually. The corresponding figure for drug treatment programmes in prisons was 500. It was refreshing to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, on drugs and their effects in prisons.
I was delighted that in his contribution to the gracious Speech the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that he intended to examine how enacting new laws has helped in reducing crime. There has never been an official count of the number of criminal offences on the statute book. According to Justice, in 1980 it was estimated to be about 7,200. Andrew Ashworth estimates that by the year 2000 that would probably have reached 8,000. Since 1st May 1997, in an Answer from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to me the Government have confirmed that 139 new offences have been created in legislation during 1999–2000. That does not take into account all new offences created in public legislation. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, all the best in his examination of the statutes.
Surely no one can deny the direct relevance of sentencing to prison populations. Is it not time to allow legislation to bed down so that we can consider its effectiveness? What is the reality? As at 26th June the prison population stood at 67,000. It has increased by 60 per cent since 1963. We imprison a higher proportion of our population than any other country in the western world except Portugal.
There is ample evidence to suggest that prisons do not rehabilitate. They contribute to social exclusion. Family ties are severed but, more importantly—it is confirmed by the Home Office—the size of the prison population has no effect on overall levels of crime. So much for those who advocate that prison works, my Lords.
I wonder whether the Minister would care to comment on the impact on the prison population if we were to make less use of remand in custody, with an alternative to prison for fine defaulters, and directed mentally disturbed offenders away from prisons? We all share the concern expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln on matters relating to mentally ill offenders.
Anyone who listened to the Minister's reply yesterday to a question from my noble friend Lord Russell would be seriously concerned about the level of unemployment among our young people. The Minister stated yesterday that 31 per cent of men and women of the 16 to 24 age group in Bradford were not in work. Nationally the figure is 40 per cent and figures relating to all groups of all races now stand at 65 per
1144
cent. That must be a considerable contributory factor in terms of crime and criminality. It is not just the disturbance in northern cities: the impact of unemployment on crime must be worrying. Despite all the employment policies, what are the Government doing about people in this age group?
The Minister has a special responsibility for immigration and asylum matters. The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture has repeatedly drawn attention to deficiencies in our prisons. Only a few minutes ago I was handed a press release from the medical foundation about the treatment of asylum seekers, particularly those who have suffered persecution. It was most concerned about 11 cases of torture victims who had been detained in mainstream prisons instead of receiving temporary admission. The press release says:
"In each of the eleven cases, the asylum seekers were imprisoned—on average for just over 9 months, but in one case for more than 20 months—despite giving evidence of torture during initial interviews with immigration officers about their reasons for fleeing into exile".
At the beginning of a new Parliament, it is appropriate to ask the Government what steps they will take over the course of this Parliament, not just in the current legislative Session, to reduce crime. A key element of that strategy must be attempts to reduce reoffending by ex-prisoners.
I chair the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. Our resettlement surveys show that 55 per cent of prisoners were unemployed before entering prison, while another 34 per cent lost jobs because of their prison sentence. Many prisoners lack the basic skills that will help them to get jobs. The difficulty of getting jobs is compounded by discrimination by many employers against ex-offenders. In a recent survey of ex-offenders in NACRO housing and employment training projects, 60 per cent had been explicitly refused jobs because of a criminal record. In most cases, their convictions had no obvious relevance to the jobs for which they were applying.
NACRO's resettlement surveys also show that 13 per cent of prisoners were homeless before imprisonment, while another 34 per cent lost their home through imprisonment. One third of prisoners say that they have lost contact with family or friends as a result of imprisonment. Many prisoners face acute financial problems on leaving prison. The discharge grant that released prisoners receive is equivalent to just one week's income support, but it has to tide them over until they become eligible for their first benefit payment at least two weeks after release. A lack of money on release inevitably increases the temptation to reoffend.
The inadequacy of resettlement arrangements is particularly marked in relation to short-term prisoners. Most prisoners are short-term prisoners. Of the 90,000 people sentenced to imprisonment each year, 60,000 receive sentences shorter than 12 months. A further 45,000 people each year are remanded in custody for short prison terms but are subsequently

1145
acquitted or given non-custodial sentences. Short-term prisoners receive no post-release supervision from the National Probation Service. Any assistance that they receive comes from voluntary organisations, whose funding is limited and whose availability is therefore geographically variable.
The importance to the crime reduction agenda of tackling the practical problems of prisoners' housing and employment is clear from a glance at research findings. Unemployed ex-offenders are twice as likely to reoffend as those who get a job and keep it. Homeless ex-offenders are nearly two and a half times as likely to be reconvicted as those with stable accommodation. Prisoners without family support are between two and six times more likely to reoffend than those with support from a family.
The Government have taken a number of steps to improve the situation. They have issued a Prison Service standard on resettlement. From next year they will introduce a joint key performance indicator on resettlement for the Prison Service and probation service, which will set targets for increasing the number of ex-offenders who leave prison with jobs and homes to go to.
I welcome the establishment of a Prison Service custody-to-work unit with £30 million of funding over the next three years. The Government have said that they will consider introducing a new "custody plus" sentence for short-term prisoners, under which a period in custody would be followed by a period of post-release supervision by the probation service.
There are some good arguments for extending post-release supervision by the probation service to all released prisoners by means of "custody plus". That does not mean that prisoners' practical housing, employment and benefit needs will necessarily be sorted out.
There is also a range of other measures that would greatly increase the prospects for successful resettlement. My organisation has produced a number of reports. I hope that the Minister and his staff will look seriously at our suggestions. There should be national standards and robust monitoring for the valuable work that is being done.
If the overall public climate is a harsh one, fuelled by Ministers' tough-sounding rhetoric, the courts will respond by imprisoning ever more offenders. If we want a balanced sentencing and penal policy with a sparing and appropriate use of prison and a greater use of community supervision, Ministers must go out and sell the case just as strongly as some of their predecessors have sold the case for harsher punishment. In that respect, I value the contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, made when he was Home Secretary.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this has been an impressive and thoughtful debate at a very opportune time with some notable and very well-informed speeches. Like others, I thank my noble friend Lord
1146
Hurd very much for introducing the debate. I am glad that our Front Bench was able to support it. My noble friend's work with the Prison Reform Trust has rightly been commended. The work of that organisation and others means that prison issues and their place in the criminal justice system are better understood and accepted than they were a few years ago.
As my noble friend said, the debate follows an important series of speeches by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, by the Director-General of the Prison Service and, to the Prison Reform Trust itself, by the retiring Chief Inspector of Prisons—partly written by Lady Ramsbotham, as we heard. Like others, I pay tribute to Sir David for all his work. He clearly had excellent support.
I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln on the recognition that he received in the Birthday Honours for his work in connection with prisons.
The workload of the Prison Service is the result of the decisions and actions of others—the decisions by criminals to commit crime, police action to bring those offenders to justice, the decisions of judges and magistrates in passing sentences and the decisions of Parliament in setting the framework within which that is done. In Treasury-speak, the Prison Service is demand driven. The trouble is that the demand increases steadily, but the finances do not catch up. Hence the serious problem of overcrowding, which, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice made very clear in his lecture in January, makes any attempt at improving the conditions in any respect very difficult.
The problem is not new. My involvement with prisons, which is modest in comparison with that of everyone else who has spoken today, started when I was elected to another place in 1974. My constituency of South Gloucestershire included one prison, one remand centre, one young offenders centre—all new since the war—and a prison officers' training school. In 1977, the Prison Service celebrated its centenary at the Leyhill training school in my constituency. I still have somewhere the short history of that century that was given out that day. It listed the 18 professional heads of the service—their title had varied a little—over the century. There had been nine in the first 80 years and nine in the last 20. Almost all the latter had come from outside the service and, indeed, went on to serve elsewhere in public service—one, if I remember rightly, as head of the Inland Revenue. Therefore, it is no wonder that at that time the service lacked consistency of purpose and simply rumbled on as a forgotten entity.
The other striking figures were those relating to the number of people in prison during that century. The numbers had fallen fairly steadily over the early decades until the 1930s, when they stabilised at approximately 11,000 on any given day. However, following the war, the numbers increased each decade by roughly 10,000. That is still continuing. Now, 67,000 people are in prison, and the expectation is that

1147
the number will rise to more than 80,000. It is no wonder that the service can never catch up, as several noble Lords have pointed out.
I find those statistics very depressing. Frankly, I also find the forecast unacceptable. We simply cannot go on, decade after decade, planning for ever-increasing numbers on that scale. But over that period and since, prison building, at ever-increasing rates, has been constant. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, spelt out so effectively in his lecture, increasing numbers and consequent overcrowding have been the ever-present block to progress.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, also pointed us towards some of the ways to tackle the problem. There is, of course, no single solution; everything needs to move together. But since 1977 much has happened—among other things, huge investment, as set out by my noble friend Lord Elton. We have also seen the reintroduction of the post of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, abolished in 1877, the introduction of the prison ombudsman and, for that matter, agency status for the Prison Service.
On a more mundane level, slopping out was almost eliminated, although I believe that it has returned, at least for the time being. In passing, I must admit that I preferred the electronic locking system, which we tried in Northern Ireland when I had responsibility for prisons there. That system enabled a prison officer in a control room to permit prisoners access to the lavatory at night, or whenever, at the end of the corridor. It provided an alternative to keeping all prisoners locked in cells which were part lavatory—frankly, not a good arrangement.
Another thing that has occurred is the introduction of private prisons. They are, in general, proving to be a success. I share the hope of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that public sector prisons will do their best to learn from private sector prisons, as well as the other way round. In that respect, I am concerned about the position of Brixton prison. We are told by the newspapers that it will not now be privatised. I believe that it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what is happening, not necessarily this evening—he cannot reply to everything in a long and diffuse debate of this kind—but perhaps in writing.
Similarly, I am concerned about Blakenhurst prison. It was doing well as a privately run prison. It was commended by both the Select Committee of another place and the Chief Inspector. However, it has reverted to being publicly run, and I am told that prisoners are now locked up more frequently, including at 5.30 p.m. each evening, and that they must eat in their cells, which have integral sanitation. Purposeful activity has been cut back. Again, I hope that the Minister can reassure me about the position there.
The sentencing framework, which forms part of the background to this matter, has been reviewed by Mr Halliday and his colleagues. Several noble Lords have commented on that during the course of the debate. The Halliday report is important and detailed.
1148
I shall confine myself to saying that I agree with all those who have said today and on other occasions that we should try to co-ordinate more closely custodial and community sentences and that we should have overt joint combined sentences—sometimes called "seamless" sentences—so that remedial efforts, in and out of prison, for certain individuals are joined up.
Work in the youth justice field is well in hand under the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and his hoard. I noted his plan to extend that work to 18 to 20 year-olds because his board has shown up the deficiencies in that respect.
However, I do not agree with the implication which sometimes surfaces when this matter is discussed that the custodial part of a seamless sentence is the punitive bit and the community part the remedial bit. The time spent in prison, even if short, provides the best opportunity for education. As we know, the literacy and numeracy figures remain dreadful. Several noble Lords, starting with my noble friend Lord Windlesham, emphasised that point during the course of the debate.
The time spent in prison also provides the best opportunity for assessment and sometimes even for the treatment of drug use or physical or mental illness. A prisoner is in prison for 24 hours a day. His or her life will be changed for better or worse, and the time must be used to the maximum effect. I realise that that time is often short. A person sentenced to six months now usually spends only approximately six weeks in prison. But much can be accomplished even in that period.
In that context, I do not believe that it is irrelevant to mention my National Service. A very mixed bunch of highly reluctant conscripts, aged 18 plus, flooded into the Army thousands at a time. We underwent eight weeks' basic training, and it is astonishing to recall what the Army training system achieved in that time. I am not suggesting that prisoners should march about, as we did. But we received very effective tuition over that period. It was carefully thought through and adapted to the task of conveying information to us in a short space of time. However, that all requires resources and good management. That is why all the points made about overcrowding are so important.
Several noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have been members of boards of visitors. One point that I noticed in particular during a speech by the Lord Chief Justice was his suggestion that the Home Office should value more highly than it appears to do at present the boards of visitors and the work that they carry out. I believe that they play a valuable role not only on behalf of the public but also in relating the work of the Prison Service to the public. Prisons are integrated into their communities more successfully in that manner than they are, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, indicated, by localising the Prison Service.
I have said a little about education. Many noble Lords have spoken on that subject and I do not need to emphasise it further. The noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Dholakia, referred to keeping asylum seekers in prison. My noble friend Lord Hurd

1149
urged us to keep party politics out of the debate. I hope that I shall not cause him irritation by mentioning this subject. Noble Lords know that we believe that secure reception centres would help in the problem of looking after asylum seekers. However, none of us thinks that prison and prison regimes provide the answer, and we should seek to avoid them. Winchester, Cardiff and Maidstone prisons, together with some others, were mentioned in this regard. The matter of how asylum seekers are treated when they are in prison is also important. I have received reports of prisoners being taken in handcuffs to health centres and so on. That does not appear to be entirely necessary.
My noble friend Lord Chadlington spoke powerfully about drugs and their effect on prisons and overcrowding. Other noble Lords have referred to that also. If my noble friend will forgive me, I shall not discuss the drug problem outside prisons, but I want to say a word about drugs and drug-dealing in prison. My right honourable friend Michael Howard made serious assault in prison a criminal offence. It was to be tried in a court and involved a separate sentence. I believe that we should adopt that approach for those who are accused of serious drug-dealing in prison. Thus, instead of receiving loss of remission or a day or two added to their sentences, such prisoners would appear in court for drug-dealing and would receive, in the normal manner, a full sentence relevant to the offence and its circumstances.
As many noble Lords have said in different ways, we have a fine Prison Service that contains many excellent people. However, as this debate has emphasised, there is a great deal to do. We must do all that we can to reduce the rates of offending and re-offending and get to the point at which prison numbers can come down again. Prisons—in co-operation, of course, with the rest of the criminal justice system—play an increasingly important role for our society. They need our interest and support, which this debate has shown.
7.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I will do my best to respond to this debate. My honourable friend in another place, the Minister responsible for prisons, cannot sit in the other place through a debate like that which we are having on prisons; that is not how it works. As noble Lords know, I am on a very steep learning curve and my experience today is part of that.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, on the way in which he introduced this debate; he set the tone. Some noble Lords to whom I have to respond have real "hands-on" experience of the situation. My experience is not like that; I have made the odd visit over the years to my local prison, which, from time to time, gets a real "towelling" from the authorities for its standards. There was recently a seriously bad report from the Chief Inspector of Prisons. My only other experience is of visiting constituents up and down the country. When it was essential for me to meet a constituent I have been to the south coast and way up north—hundreds of miles from Birmingham.
1150
Like everyone else, I was treated like a visitor; there was no cup of tea with the governor, to which one noble Lord referred.
I came to this debate armed with a prepared text—Ministers always do. It was prepared on the basis of what it was thought the usual suspects would say, it defended our current policies and it shared some experiences. I was also supplied with notes but it would take the best part of an hour to use them to respond to individual noble Lords. Worse than that—this is the officials' nightmare—I made my own notes as the debate went along. I propose in the short time available to use a combination of all three sources in my response.
I say at the outset that noble Lords have raised serious issues and questions. I shall make it my personal business to ensure that any points to which I do not respond today are replied to in writing. The need relating to the detail of questions and the seriousness of the issues is such that it demands a response.
I do not know about Blakenhurst, but earlier today I approved a Written Answer which will be published tomorrow in Hansard regarding slopping out. The normal regime in this country at the moment is that there is no slopping out, but three wings of a prison which were expected to be demolished and which were never modernised are relevant. The prison's name currently escapes me. However, every prisoner has access to an electronic or manual control to go to the toilet during the night. It is true that in those three wings prisoners are provided with a bucket in case they do not want to ring for a prison officer. The Written Answer is more detailed than that.
On asylum seekers, I wish that I could share more with the House. There was a brief debate earlier this morning in another place—in Westminster Hall—during which my colleague, Angela Eagle, made it clear that our intention is to get asylum seekers out of prison by Christmas. My view is that we should do so by Christmas Eve, not Boxing Day. I know that an earlier date was set but it was not appropriate. That is obviously a generalisation and applies to those who have not committed any offences. Obviously I cannot go into details.
I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. As a noble Lord rightly said, he is a former Home Secretary who has stayed on watch over the years after having left that office. He has made a tremendous contribution with the Prison Reform Trust, which I congratulate on reaching its 20th anniversary.
I have not had the privilege of meeting Sir David Ramsbotham but I have listened to him in various interviews and looked at some of the reports, particularly when I was a constituency Member of Parliament in the other place. Last week—from about Monday onwards—the "Today" programme was advertising this Monday's programme virtually on a daily basis. I said, "I'll never be able to listen to the programme but make sure that I get a transcript". I read it yesterday and have it with me now. It was very

1151
interesting and I pay tribute to Sir David for his work. I make no criticism whatsoever; one does not appoint independent inspectors and ombudsman-type people to produce independent reports and then complain about what they write.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have a constructive dialogue. The same was the case in my previous department at the DSS with the pensions ombudsman. That is the role of ombudsmen; if they did not do that they would not be doing their job. I pay tribute to Sir David Ramsbotham and I hope that I shall have good contacts with his successor, Anne Owers.
The state of prisons is a major concern for this House. When I first obtained my ministerial position in the Home Office I realised that I was de facto Home Secretary in this House in the sense that I answered on all relevant matters. I said, "Look, I can't possibly be put in the position in which a noble Lord stands up and asks, 'How many prisons have you visited since you have been at the Home Office?', to which I would have to answer, 'None'. My day job relates to other areas but I have got to get round the prison estate".
I will share with the House a couple of examples. On the morning before I made my maiden speech in this House I had a quick two-hour trip to Wormwood Scrubs on my way here. Last Friday morning I was at Brinsford. There will be more visits—in fact, there will he one tomorrow morning, but I do not want to advertise it in advance; it is not an unannounced visit but it is not of great moment for the House. When I make visits around the country relating to my immigration responsibilities I try to make it my business to ensure that there are areas of the Home Office estate—particularly prisons—that I can visit. That is important because it allows me report back to this House and to share my experience with ministerial colleagues.
In my notes I wrote that the theme of the debate was education, drugs, women and young people. Other issues, including asylum seekers, were raised—I do not suggest that they are not important—but those themes were mentioned more often by noble Lords. I have a "set piece" relating to the population, funding and investment, the importance of managing the service, young offenders and resettlement. Those matters are interrelated in many ways.
It is true that the prison population is high and that it has been getting higher. We in this country are not proud of the fact that we have more people per head of population in that position than anywhere else in Europe except Portugal. That is nothing to be proud of. For the information of noble Lords, today's count is 66,874.
Last week, following the Halliday report, the Home Secretary announced a significant consultation exercise on the future of sentencing arrangements. I cannot go into great detail because there is not enough time but there will be plenty of opportunities to do so. When the Home Secretary spoke on the
1152
gracious Speech, he meant what he said; I repeated in this House the fact that we want to have a consensus if we can. We want to share and consult before key decisions are made and to have as open a debate as possible. We are almost unique among civilised countries in that we have a party-political dog-fight over the criminal justice system; it need not be like that. That arrangement does not benefit the population as a whole, let alone the prison population.
The Government are not in the business of being driven by the size of the prison population. Our starting point—our priority—is to reduce crime; it is not necessarily to look at the size of the prison population. My view, which I believe was also expressed by other noble Lords today, is that some prisoners should not be in prison; I simply do not understand why fine defaulters are in prison How can they pay the fine? How can anything positive come of that? Where there has been no offence such as theft in the sense of acquisitive burglary or violence against people, it does not make sense to send people to prison.
I read this morning of a recent case—thank goodness it was in the press otherwise it would simply have been in internal Home Office papers—involving a woman who had a disagreement of some kind about a debt of around £200. I believe she would not answer the judge in court and he said, "Contempt. Seven days' imprisonment". The woman was a thalidomide victim who had no arms and no legs. The prison had not made preparation and she had to spend two nights in a police station. What was the system thinking about in sentencing someone like that to seven days' imprisonment? It was absolutely appalling. She quite rightly won a human rights claim because the prison could not take care of her properly. It does not make sense to put that kind of pressure on the prison system. I know this may be construed as an attack on the judge but it is not meant to be personal.
Why are we sending people to prison and what are the benefits of so doing? No doubt we can all find similar examples. Of course, we are planning to increase capacity. In many ways, on a narrow interpretation of Halliday, we could have a rise in the prison population before it reduces. But it is important to remember that the aim is to reduce the numbers of people serving custodial sentences.
In relation to women in prison, I shall certainly make an effort to visit the women's estate. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, reminded us of the issues in that regard, as did many other noble Lords. As I understand it from the report of Professor Wedderburn, published in February last year, she met the former prisons Minister. The issues in that report are still being considered. I understand that the Chief Inspector of Prisons completed a follow-up to his thematic report, Women in Prison, and that was being published today.
It is a serious issue. The female prison population has almost doubled in the past five years. The increases in the sentences on women for drug offences explain 50 per cent of that net increase. Some of those are foreign nationals who came here as drug mules, which

1153
brings real difficulty. It is a major issue for their families, their children and the fact that we now have record numbers in the prisons.
In respect of drugs, I wanted to make one point. I know we have not been at all party political today, but at one point I thought I heard someone say, "the socialist government elected in 1997". It was the very powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington. I was extremely glad to be here to listen to it, as with all the other speeches. Powerful lessons can be learnt.
The noble Lord asked specifically about the story in today's Evening Standard. The issue is included in tomorrow's business when I will be bringing forward an order for the support of the House in relation to part of the process of the pilot studies for testing alleged criminals who have been arrested and charged with specific offences in connection with Class A drugs—cocaine and heroin. Those schemes are to be piloted in one part of London and in Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire. I shall give more details tomorrow. That is connected with a longitudinal study. We must find out more because drugs and acquisitive crime are closely related. We know that, particularly when it comes to Class A drugs.
I realise that I am nowhere near coping with the time constraints, but I should like to mention funding and investment. There has been an increase in funding in real terms of 13 per cent since 1997–98 and by 2003–04 it will have increased by 23 per cent from that base line. The Prison Service has focused on key priorities, spending £8 million on suicide prevention and £5 million each year over the next three years on the young offenders' estate. I cannot do better than support and reinforce the issues mentioned by my noble friend Lord Warner.
I saw the effect of that at Brinsford and the contrast between the juvenile section and the 18 to 20 section. The governor was extremely conscious of what they had been able to do for one part of Brinsford but not yet the other. There is no question but that it is a serious issue.
I spoke to two young men, both aged 18 sharing the same cell. I was not quizzing them too much. I asked how long they had been there and how many times. One offered the information that he had been there four times. He was aged 18 and had spent his 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th birthdays in Brinsford on four separate visits. I asked the other gentleman the same questions. He said that this was his first visit and then, without any further prompting from anybody, said, "But after I get out I suppose I'll be back". Those were his words. I asked why he thought that. He said, "Well, I'll be with the gang and my mates".
That is depressing in the extreme. I visited the schools and the classrooms on the upper floor at Brinsford where there were two teachers from an offshoot of the local college which had the contract, with around 12 young men of similar age. They were teaching the most basic of writing and communication skills. It is absolutely clear, without knowing anything about the backgrounds of those young men, that they
1154
had been thrown out of school years before. They were not products of the secondary education system. The schools were able to get rid of them; the prison could not. The prison could not say, "You are being disruptive. We do not want you".
But that indicates absolute failure. This is 2001. Those people were around 18. They have come through an educational system which has completely failed them. As most other noble Lords said, there is a direct link between their education and their offending. We must therefore make extra efforts in the schools. David Blunkett is very conscious of that and he will appreciate—I say so on his behalf—what has been said about him and his efforts to bring some of that ethos over to the Home Office. That is not an unimportant point. We have to do better, otherwise there will be an inexorable increase which will do nobody any good.
We can all pay tribute to the calibre of the Prison Service and the quality of the people who work and effectively live in the prisons as officers and staff, on whatever level. I freely admit that there have been problems and action has been taken against some officers. More than one officer has gone to prison for the mistreatment of prisoners. We will not tolerate that under any circumstances. We will back the governors, though it is a worry that the amount of time a governor spends in the prison raises issues of quality of management and bringing forward cadres for other skills to come forward in the governor grades.
Problems will obviously arise when there are frequent changes of governor. It is the same in a school. If it has three or four head teachers over the same number of years, obviously the school will have problems. In the prisons, if the top person changes frequently it is self-evident that problems will arise. That would be the situation in any walk of life.
I know my visit to Wormwood Scrubs was a brief visit—only a couple of hours—but I found that over 50 per cent of the prison population there are foreign nationals. That places enormous pressures on the prison management. It is a combination of Uxbridge and Heathrow. Wormwood Scrubs becomes the receiving house. Excellent work has been done by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in relation to those seeking to bring drugs into the country, but nevertheless real pressures are placed on the prison when 50 per cent of its population are foreign nationals.
In terms of the issues relating to resettlement, noble Lords got it right. It is not the case that resettlement relates to the short time after the sentence. Education has to take place over the whole of the sentence, and outside the prison. Of course if such education is conducted outside then people may not have gone to prison in the first place. We must have a more workmanlike and civilised approach, but must still take account of the reality. Until we can bring about a real reduction in crime, we shall certainly have to provide more places. I believe we will have some substantial debates on the legislation coming forward

1155
later this Session and certainly when we propose the consequences of the consultation on the Halliday report.
I regret that I have gone over time, but I would like to give a couple of facts and figures regarding the education that takes place in prison. A substantial amount of work takes place. Over the years the treatment of prisoners has improved considerably. No prisoner is held three-to-a-cell in a cell designed for one, despite the record population of the past few weeks. Fifty thousand educational certificates were achieved by prisoners last year and completion of offending behaviour programmes is up by 336 per cent on 1996/97.
I accept that there is some criticism. I am afraid I shall not be able to go into detail on the points raised by my noble friend Lady Stern. There is a major issue in terms of rehabilitation and trying to get some accreditation in a way that is rigidly rigorous. There is also the issue of achieving good academic standards, good scrutiny and, I hope, peer group assessment. I shall have to go into that further and I shall write to the noble Baroness as she asked me five specific questions to which she deserves answers.
Over the same period—from 1996/97 to the present time—the rate of positive drug tests has been halved, which is a success. Drug testing is taking place over the weekends and not just on weekdays. There has been an improvement in security. Escapes from prison establishments have been cut from 232 in 1992 to 11 last year. There is also a new strategy to prevent suicides that will target efforts where the risks are greatest. I have already said that several millions of pounds are being put into that effort this year.
Nevertheless, that is only a start; there is a great deal more to be done. This afternoon noble Lords have highlighted a number of instances in which inspection reports and other matters have revealed serious short-comings in conditions for prisoners. Establishments such as Brixton and Feltham continue to give cause for concern. That has to be addressed. Within the past year, Winson Green in Birmingham received what has been described as its worst inspection report ever.
There are serious concerns about some of our prisons, but there is an attempt within the Prison Service, led by the Director General and his staff, to raise the game. There is a repertoire of good practice and there are success stories in many prisons but that has to be shared around the rest of the country. Where the examples of Leeds, Wormwood Scrubs and Werrington have led, Birmingham, Brinsford and others can follow. I know that failure makes better news than success, but the Prison Service has to prove that it cart turn failure into success.
We also need to be realistic. Turning around a large prison population with problems is a massive task and it will not be achieved overnight. The Government have provided significant resources. I have not gone into the statistics but under the recent spending review several hundred millions of pounds have gone towards making a serious impact on the prison estate. We have made it clear that inadequate conditions cannot
1156
continue and Ministers have given every encouragement and support to those running the Prison Service.
I end as I began with Sir David Ramsbotham's comment in his speech a few weeks ago that at the end of last month he had had three of the most positive experiences of his whole time as Chief Inspector. He had inspected three establishments, Brinsford, Chelmsford and Stoke Heath, all of which he had condemned a year before.
Progress is being made and we have to ensure that the same happens to the other prisons which have been given bad reports as we have achieved for those three prisons in the past year.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, it would be silly of me to try to embroider the debate after we have heard so many speeches that have covered such a wide area. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cope for what he said. It was significant and welcome. I hope that it will be noted that this debate is taking place in official Conservative time, for which I am grateful.
On the wholly disarming speech of the Minister, there is a constitutional point in the background with which we are all familiar. Constantly in this House—this point was raised in the Royal Commission but the suggestions put forward have not yet been acted upon—a Minister replies to a debate on a subject with which he does not deal with day by day, and we put up with it. Ministers in that position have two techniques open to them. Someone as agile as the Minister could perfectly well settle for spending an hour on the brief, turning it into plain English and retreating to his cubby-hole as quickly as he can. The Chief Whip is here so I will not name names, but there have been Ministers who have adopted that technique and got away with it.
It is quite clear that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is not going to do that. He is visiting prisons; he is going to soak himself in the subject; he will go to the policy meetings and he will make a nuisance of himself, I hope. On past form, he is perfectly capable of doing that. Everyone in this House will welcome that. If that is to be his role, the least we can do is to be his critics from time to time but I hope that he will also treat us as his allies. There is plenty of material and ammunition lying around as a result of this debate.
I shall not summarise the points. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, raised a specific matter about the 18 to 20 year-olds, which is a crucial point. I did not mention women and the Wedderburn report because I knew that the noble Lord, Lord Acton, would do so, although I would have done if I had had more time. My noble friend Lord Chadlington spoke about drugs, as did the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham.
If the Minister is wise he will learn a little bit of the history—but not too much. We have had a debate in the House on the Blantyre House affair, organised by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden, and it was the subject of an extraordinary Select Committee report in the other place. It is

1157
extraordinary how such a situation could have happened. It is like a group of medieval barons who decide to raid the castle of a fellow baron, and all that in the Prison Service. It is worth looking into that and into one or two other episodes that were touched upon to see how they could have happened to ensure that they do not happen again.
I hope that the point made by the Minister is one that he really believes because it goes to the heart of what this House is about. Every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate has spoken from direct personal involvement and, as the Minister said, that is not the case in the other place. The House of Commons is not constituted like that any more; it used to be, but it is not now. If the right reverend Prelate will forgive me, the Minister is surrounded by a cloud of witnesses. I hope that he will make good use of that. Those who have spoken in this debate are the realists. Often we are accused of having our heads up in the air and knowing nothing about the subject, but the people who are unreal and who have their heads in the air are the polemicists and the politicians who bang on about punishment and crime without knowing the first thing about prisons.
If he will accept noble Lords as critics and as allies—this subject will not go away—he will be useful to the House and maybe we can be useful to him. In my view there is no subject on which it is more important that the House should operate in this way than the one that we have just discussed. I am most grateful for this opportunity and to all those who have spoken. I am also grateful to my noble friend and to the Minister for the way in which he has responded. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Television: Subtitling
7.50 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have to ensure the comprehensive subtitling of television programmes.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to declare my personal interest in the debate before the House. I was totally deaf in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. For the past eight years I have been able to hear something, but not perfectly, with the aid of a cochlear implant. I am also president of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People.
Subtitles in the 1960s and 1970s were unknown to the public, yet they were crucial to deaf people. That meant that many deaf people were unable to take advantage of what was available. For years I could not follow any television programmes; television was a medium beyond my comprehension. There were only silent pictures with no dialogue for me because there were no subtitles. "News Review", the BBC's half-hour programme, was the only subtitled television when I first lost my hearing.
As I said, for years television was a no-go area for me and for thousands of other deaf people. Even now, with a cochlear implant, it is still difficult to follow the sound on television; like many other people, I still need subtitles. Without subtitles, deaf people are deprived of the right—and it is a right—to the daily and exciting world of television. That is unfortunate and most unfair on them.
I want to pay a warm tribute to the BBC, which has voluntarily led the way without any legislative compulsion. It has been a pathfinder, brilliant and consistent. Also good value is now given by ITV. I am pleased to hear that ITV, with 63.5 per cent subtitling, has just exceeded its 61 per cent target for 2000 and greatly exceeded it on ITV2, its digital channel. Some organisations claim that they have spearheaded the campaign for subtitles. That is of course nonsense because I have been doing so for 30 years in and out of Parliament—but I do not want to dwell on that.
Recently, the RNID scrupulously researched, campaigned vigorously and strongly influenced the right people as regards subtitling. Led by David Livermore, chairman, and James Strachan, Chief Executive, their efforts have led to major advances and deaf people are indebted to them.
Furthermore, the Deaf Broadcasting Council, led by Ruth Myers, has been active and extremely helpful. It has been the voice of people relying on subtitles and it has closely monitored the availability. Many other organisations in the field have been involved and I am grateful to all of them.
One man who is neither deaf nor a member of any deaf organisation is Chris Smith. As Secretary of State at the DCMS he was perceptive, understanding and enormously helpful to deaf people in the provision of subtitles. He fought that corner very well and I and many deaf people are grateful to him. I want to pay a warm tribute to him.
It has been estimated that 5 million people use subtitles frequently and to many of them the subtitles are indispensable. Therefore, the question before the House is: why are so many broadcasting organisations still failing to provide sufficient subtitles? The costs are generally not high in the expensive world of television. They start at £400 an hour. Although the costs can be more for live subtitling, they will certainly decline as technology develops and better voice recognition systems emerge. Deaf people would happily be involved in trials of automatic subtitling.
I believe that the Government should be congratulated on their attitude to subtitles. In the Communications White Paper and the Review of Statutory Provision of Subtitles, they committed themselves to comprehensive subtitling. Those are echoes of the great work of Chris Smith.
That is very refreshing to me because I had to press Ministers to go much further than they had intended in the 1990 and 1996 Broadcasting Acts. Now, it seems, the Government are nearly as enthusiastic as deaf people—and that really is something! I must say, however, that one Minister was extremely helpful in those early days; it was David Mellor. He listened and

1159
readily changed his proposals when we pointed out their inadequacies. Full marks to David Mellor. He bulldozed the department and got those changes through and he helped deaf people enormously.
To me the increase in digital terrestrial television (DTT) subtitling targets from 50 per cent to 80 per cent by each DTT channel's 10th year is one of the most refreshing and vitally important steps in recent years. I am delighted with it and we shall be watching those developments very carefully. We hope that they will not slip.
I hope that all DTT channels will work towards the same voluntary targets as those to which BBC digital channels are now committed. The BBC is now working to 100 per cent by the 10th anniversary of the start of its DTT service. That is an annual increase of 10 per cent and it is a remarkable and very welcome commitment.
Naturally, the quality of subtitles is crucial and I regret the difference in quality which exists today. BBC subtitles are as near verbatim as possible and are generally accurate. On the other hand, other broadcasters sometimes show a person speaking for a minute and then a brief 10-word sentence appears which is supposed to cover the dialogue. Imagine the frustration of deaf people, unable to follow it. It is gigantic. 'That is by no means good enough. The frustration of deaf people in observing talking lips for minutes on end but seeing few words on the screen is appalling. A reasonable number of spelling mistakes are acceptable and I believe that we should recognise them as inevitable for live, speedy subtitling. The way in which operators get down the words is miraculous. Even with a speedy speech the words appear in perfect English, which is a miracle to me.
However, I am told that channels in the United States which have 100 per cent subtitling achieve that only by reducing the quality of the output. That is cheating and I hope that no British channel will try it. Achieving targets by lowering standards will be unacceptable to deaf viewers and I hope that no one in Britain will be tempted.
In the past, governments were great believers in persuasion. I am afraid that that does not include me. It is fine up to a point, but I have no doubt that progress will be limited without the power of the law. Now the Government have stated that they believe that the new minimum statutory requirements will need to be in place to make progress. They propose that targets for subtitles should be extended to digital, cable and satellite channels in new legislation. I welcome that most warmly; it is vital. Voluntary action is all very well but only up to a point. We need the power of the law, the power of Parliament, to ensure operation.
I have never understood why such broadcasting organisations should be able to get away with little subtitling. Why should terrestrial television face compulsion when they do not? It is unfair to regulated broadcasters as well as to deaf people. I believe that that must be remedied as soon as possible. There will be some strong opposition and some strong vested interests.
A leading official of the satellite broadcasters has said that he sees the application of the new DTT requirements on all cable and satellite channels as disproportionate and burdensome. That is a warning shot, if you like, and it is up to deaf people, organisations and Ministers to be resolute in ensuring that the requirements are imposed and observed. But it must be noted that BSkyB has decided to accelerate involvement in subtitling specifically in "Sky News". Again that is welcome news.
I am greatly concerned, as is the RNID in its excellent briefing on the subject—I know that my noble friend is listening carefully—by the uncertainty created by not knowing when a communications Bill will be introduced. I regard that as crucial for the future. The Government need to reaffirm their commitment to the first tier principle of extending subtitling requirements to cable and satellite television in the expected communications Bill. They should clarify that, if more than one such Bill is planned, the subtitling requirement will be in the first one.
I urge that as a matter of priority a communications Bill which includes subtitling should be brought forward in this Session of Parliament; otherwise, broadcasters will be upset because it will widen the very unfair gap in regulation between digital terrestrial television, digital satellite and cable. Deaf people and their organisations will be upset because of the extra frustration. I hope that today the Government can allay our anxieties. We are dealing with an issue of great importance to many people. The previous government moved, but this Government have really put their foot on the accelerator. If they keep their foot down and insist that these changes take place, against growing opposition as the costs rise—it is a minimal cost compared with the general cost of television—they can help 8½ million deaf people and certainly the 5 million people who use subtitles frequently. I should be most grateful for any assurances that my noble friend is able to give.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I have known better houses in my time, but look at the quality. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue, although I shall be unable to enjoy the luxury of a 15-minute soliloquy because I do not have all that much to say.
Access for all goes with active citizenship and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, and I have both campaigned long and hard on that. I support the noble Lord's remarks about the need to take advantage of technology in securing wider access to programmes through comprehensive subtitling of television programmes. I greatly welcome the progress made in the past year and value the cross-party enthusiasm which has helped to get us as far as we have in both planning and delivery. I particularly welcome proposals to ensure that targets for subtitling, signing and audio description on digital terrestrial television are extended to digital cable and satellite channels. The issue now is when that will happen. The momentum built up to ensure that this issue is taken seriously by all broadcasters must not be lost. That is why we ask

1161
the Government to introduce legislation soon through the proposed communication Bill, or Bills, to ensure that there is access for all.
As with much technological change, improvements to subtitling would benefit a much wider audience than one might at first imagine. The interests of deaf and hard of hearing viewers are clear and have been eloquently spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. Comprehensive subtitling can greatly increase people's access to programmes and improve the quality of the viewing experience for those who otherwise would struggle to make sense of what they were viewing. This is important whatever programme people may be watching, whether it is a news programme, documentary, sports programme, film or soap opera.
However, your Lordships will not be surprised that I want to move on to consider the needs of those with learning disabilities, many of whom do not read particularly well, and ask what we can offer them. It is known that a considerable proportion of people with Down's syndrome, for example, experience hearing loss. Through traditional subtitling they may well be able to improve their viewing experience. However, we could go further and consider plain language subtitles which reinforce and repeat key programme content and help the learning disabled viewer to get a clearer picture of what the programme is about. We have the technology to do this. A plain language subtitling track could be selected in the same way as one now accesses 888 for traditional subtitles. This could be specifically written with people with poor literacy skills in mind.
In effect, we can personalise programmes and, in so doing, increase their effective audience. I should like to remind noble Lords of the huge success of the BBC television series "Let's Go" which I had the pleasure to present. That was the first ever television series in the world for people with learning disabilities. Forty programmes in total were produced in the late 1970s and early 1980s and they were accessible to practically all. However, times have moved on and much more sophisticated methods of communication are now available. As is to be expected, there is now considerable interest in how we can improve the literacy skills of adults with learning disabilities who may have missed out on formal school and college education.
The idea of a plain language subtitling track is an excellent way to use people's viewing experiences to support their development of literacy skills. This approach has been used by the charity Libertas of which I have had the privilege to be chairman since its inception in 1988. We have worked with great success at well over 120 sites of historic and cultural interest, of which Westminster Abbey is but one and, I believe, your Lordships' House is yet another, to improve the quality of visitor experience by the provision of audio tours for people with visual impairments, learning disabilities and for those who are hard of hearing through a personal induction loop. As a small charity it is now considering the production of audio-visual
1162
tours with signing tracks and video for people with profound hearing loss. If we can see such potential offered by the new technologies that surround us, we ask others who are much more important and powerful to do the same and maximise the potential uses of digital technologies for the good of all.
If we fail to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the digital media we shall be in danger of contributing to the digital divide which has been spoken of before in your Lordships' House where some people have access to the technologies and others do not. To fail to take advantage of the potential of these technologies for the good of all disabled people would make us guilty of a serious lack of foresight and creativity. I hope that the Minister will be more than reassuring as his response echoes around this empty—well, almost empty—Chamber.
8.7 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I rise on behalf of these Benches to support in its entirety the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. He has done so much for deaf people that in this field his is a household name; likewise, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has worked for Mencap and disabled people.
Those of us who reach a certain age have parents who, towards the end of their lives, have increasing hearing problems. As people now live to a greater age than they did before, the problems in that area increase. We all know about deafness through relatives and friends. At one period during my time at school I had great difficulty in hearing for a particular reason. One is aware even from that relatively limited experience that if one is deaf one cannot hear what is going on and begins to feel lonely and excluded. That is one aspect of the particular disability which until recent times has been very much under-estimated by the general public, let alone those involved in broadcasting.
Last week I saw a girl aged about three years who was with someone whom I took to be her mother. They were conducting a vivacious conversation in sign language. It was heartening to see that little girl with a joyful face involved in those exchanges. I marvelled that that little girl with her disability was able with a smiling face, without any self-consciousness, to communicate in the street with others. But what about later on? That leads on to what we are discussing tonight. Since reading the briefing material for the debate, I have learnt that five million people use subtitles. That is a huge number in relation to the population of these islands. I do not know what the proportion is in other countries.
However, we in the United Kingdom lead the way in this area. The situation is not perfect, as the noble Lord said in introducing the debate. It is a question of changing the culture and the attitude, not only of the public at large, but of those who have a particular interest in putting into the public arena material which needs to be heard. The public service broadcaster, the BBC, has acted with great alacrity to meet the requirements.

1163
In the briefing material there was an excellent brief from ITV, but I was surprised that there was a kind of slight sourness about the BBC's brief in that it said that its was a voluntary and not a statutory commitment and that it was necessary for the BBC to lead the way. That is true to a certain extent, but it shows that there is a slight attitude that other people should be leading and we should be following. In general, looking at the briefing material, the situation is encouraging. The aims are very praise-worthy, particularly the BBC's with its target of 100 per cent subtitling in 2008. It will be difficult and expensive for them to reach that.
The noble Lord said that the cost of subtitling is small relative to the total costs of television production. However, that varies with the kind of television production that it is. There needs to be recognition by television companies and by manufacturers of videos that those who are handicapped and cannot hear must be provided for. They must make an effort to provide for them. I do not accept one of the themes of the briefing material that government and those bodies who have been named by the noble Lord should be allowed some leeway because of the costs of starting up new services. There is obviously a balance to be struck here between the costs overall and the budget for subtitling. That will increase the costs in a difficult start up. Generally speaking, that is not an excuse for doing nothing. I do not suppose that it would be used as such, but we should be wary that it is not used as an excuse for being tardy in introducing subtitling to the level that the noble Lord has said we need to reach.
I am sure that the Government are aware of and will press for the implementation of the cultural change with regard to this particular disability and the need to involve hard of hearing or deaf people in all television programming.
This morning I went to the board meeting of a company involved in video piracy. I asked them about the prospects for subtitling. They said that in the United States most large companies making videos of documentaries and feature films subtitled them in the manufacturing process. It was a normal process. What the quality is I do not know. I take the noble Lord's point that the greater extension of subtitling in America is not always of good quality. However, I was told that that level of commitment to subtitling videos is not the case here. There must be a more energetic attempt to bring that up to a more acceptable level. More and more people use videos.
Technology in due course will change. All kinds of technologies will change. Indeed, we know that we shall be switching from analogue to digital television. I expect that we shall have a great deal of discussion about that matter with the new communications Bill and thereafter, because it presents many difficulties. But there will be a great many old and disabled people with this disability and others who will not be well informed about the matter. They will have old equipment and will not want to change. It is very difficult to get people to change.
1164
I should like to mention my neighbour. This shows how deaf people are very conscious of other people's problems. I was very touched that my neighbour came to me and said that he was very hard of hearing. He said: "On summer evenings, do please tell me if my television is on too loud". I thought that that was extremely encouraging. That is another argument for increasing the arrival of subtitling because people turn up their appliances to levels which causes nuisance to neighbours. I know because my mother did that when she was reaching old age.
Generally speaking, deaf people are very conscious of other people and what other people might think of them because of their feeling of exclusion and loneliness. That is another argument for bringing forward rapidly the changes which the noble Lord has demanded and asks the Government to support.
BSkyB is leading the way, particularly with "Sky News". I am pleased about the change of attitude in the industry. It is worrying, however, that we shall have to wait for new legislation in the new Session of Parliament for an extension of the provision from digital terrestrial television to digital, cable and satellite. That is a big gap. There is still no certainty. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has pressed the Government—and I hope that the noble Lord answering the debate will be able to give some encouragement—to treat this as a priority.
I have nothing further to say, except that I have admiration for the noble Lord who introduced the debate and for the clarity with which he presented it and the force of his arguments. I do not think that anyone would disagree with them.
8.17 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for introducing the debate and for giving us the opportunity to press the Minister on this important issue.
The noble Lord has two unassailable advantages: first, he is the expert on the subject; and, secondly, he has right on his side. So I must and do give him 100 per cent support in what he has said tonight. The noble Lord's debate will also be welcomed by the five million deaf and hard of hearing people who regularly use subtitles and also the one million who depend upon subtitles in their viewing of television. As noble Lords have pointed out, the potential number of users is much greater. Indeed, even beyond the 8.7 million people who have been mentioned today, there are also people who use subtitles routinely, people who can hear perfectly well but who either work or take their leisure in surroundings where the volume on a television has to be turned down. That is vital because it educates people who have hearing in the importance of subtitles.
I was pleased to see the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's press release at the beginning of this month which announced that the Government have put into effect the broadcasting order which this House passed on 8th May. The 1996 Act made provisions for that extension to be introduced. We, on

1165
these Benches, at that time welcomed the move forward to a situation where 80 per cent of the programmed output by digital terrestrial TV must now be subtitled.
It is right as a matter of principle to ensure that as much broadcast material is subtitled as possible because everyone, as noble Lords have pointed out, loses out when hearing impaired people do not have the chance to participate fully in society. The programmes that we watch on television and video are very much the topics of everyday conversation, both at home and at work. Subtitles and signing mean that hearing impaired people can keep in touch. Limited access can leave them culturally excluded and socially side-lined. I have read much in the papers recently about politicians who use sociological language, so let us just say that it keeps us in touch with what everyone else is talking about—whether it is "Coronation Street", "East Enders" or whatever.
I welcome the progress that the industry has made since the 1996 Act came into force. I shall not repeat the details. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, gave those in a clear and concise manner. I welcome all the advances made by BSkyB, the BBC and ITV. However, there is the "but" that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley—and it is a big "but". We are still far from the goal of comprehensive subtitling of TV programmes on cable and satellite. At the moment it looks as though the Government are standing in the way of that progress. They have the opportunity today to give us an assurance that they do not intend that to be the case.
In May, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who at that time was answering in the House for the DCMS, stated that the Government were,
"keen to achieve a level playing field across all delivery platforms".
He went on to say that the Government intended,
"to extend the statutory targets—for subtitling, signing and audio description—on DTT to digital cable and digital satellite services. Primary legislation is required and we hope to introduce a draft communications Bill, to include this provision, early in the next Parliament".—[Official Report, 8/5/01; col. 2119.]
When I read that speech and saw the words "draft communications Bill", my heart dropped a little. It looked then as though one might be putting away the good day when we would have subtitling extended.
So what has happened even with that draft Bill? Nothing so far. The broadcasting companies had been led to believe during the previous Parliament that the communications Bill would be the first Bill in the next Parliament if Labour were returned to power. However, in the Queen's Speech there was reference merely to a draft Bill; and in this House we have heard nothing since. I have seen plenty of rumours in the press that we will not see that draft Bill for many months. Perhaps the Minister can tell me that the press are wrong. In the meantime, we are told that we can expect a paving Bill to set up a shadow Ofcom. That really would be extraordinary. I am not sure how it would work. I hope the Minister will take the
1166
opportunity to inform Parliament what on earth is going on. Will there be an Ofcom paving Bill? And when? Will subtitling be part of that? When will the draft communications Bill be published? Will the Government reaffirm that that will be the vehicle for subtitling changes?
I appreciate that the draft communications Bill will be a detailed, lengthy and technical Bill. Much of it will achieve all-party support but all of it will require proper parliamentary scrutiny. I am not asking the Government to rush anything through. I know they cannot do that. What I am asking the Government to do is to give the House an indication that they take seriously the matter of subtitling extension to other platforms and intend to bring forward the draft communications Bill very quickly indeed. After all, we are fortunate in this House. We normally have a rather larger participatory audience on broadcasting matters. A significant number of Peers on all sides of the House have detailed expertise in these matters. I am sure that they are ready, willing, able and keen to get to grips with the communications Bill. The best guesses in the press so far have been that we shall have to wait at least until July 2003 before the Bill will reach the statute book. I hope the Minister can tell me that that is not the case.
The Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, refers to comprehensive subtitling. The noble Lord rightly directed us to think in broader terms, first, of quantity—of going beyond 80 per cent to 100 per cent and what that would mean for the industry and for all of us who would use subtitles. The noble Lord also very properly made us think about the issue of quality of subtitling. I know that there are many views among users of subtitles about what they see as quality. I hope that we shall be able to discuss subtitling in detail as we go through the communications Bill.
Previously the Government have said that they set the present target at 80 per cent, and not 100 per cent, for DTT because some programmes are difficult to subtitle and some new start-up channels and niche programmes should be excluded. It is true that news programmes and live broadcasts present problems to broadcasters. Those who do the subtitling for such programmes are lucky if they get even a few minutes advance notice of a script and they have to work at breakneck speed. I am fortunate. I have had the chance to see them do so both at the BBC and at the facility which provides subtitles for ITV. They do an excellent job under very difficult circumstances.
I thank Chris Higgs of the Independent Television Facilities Centre for his briefing, which I know he made available to all noble Lords, and also for making it possible for me to make my visit to the ITFC a couple of years ago. He makes some pertinent points about the costs of subtitling, in particular for the new services and for new channels. He makes the point that subtitling can form quite a significant part of programming costs. He also gave interesting information about the costs of training new subtitlers and how long it takes to get them on-stream. But those are all matters that can be overcome.

1167
Where there are costs and difficulties, we have to be sensitive to what the industry can do. It has to be sensitive to the needs of users and those of us who may be users in the future, who are still impatient to proceed. It is right to strike a balance between practicability and benefit, but it is right that we should work beyond 80 per cent as soon as it is practicable. We continue to press the Government. I am sure that they will respond in a practical way as soon as they can. The Royal National Institute for Deaf People is right to continue its campaign on this matter.
I come back to the main point at issue. If we want to go from 80 per cent to 100 per cent on any platforms—and certainly to 80 per cent across all platforms—the one thing we need to see is the communications Bill. I look forward to the Minister's response. But, above all, I look forward to the chance to see the Bill.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Ashley for introducing this important subject. Under the rules of the House noble Lords must declare their interests. One of my noble friend's interests is being very much involved, as president, with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, and of course my noble friend declared as an interest his own deafness. My noble friend will forgive me if I say that we have never looked on his disability as an interest but as a disability which he has overcome in a most startling and impressive way. He is an example to everyone who suffers from disability. His contribution in this area is recognised throughout the country.
Through this debate today he has ensured that others who suffer have the opportunity of engaging as far as possible in life, particularly through the joys of television. Despite the many criticisms of British television—who does not criticise British television from time to time?—we all recognise what an important part it plays in the lives of the majority of our people. Therefore, it is enormously important that deaf people should have access to television as far as possible on exactly the same terms as the rest of us. The Government are committed to a policy of full social inclusion. We know that digital technology has enormous potential for opening up new opportunities for each and every citizen. We aim to ensure that all groups benefit.
I speak as someone who has seen the arrival of digital television in my household only in the past week. Therefore, the joys of it have not yet been fully revealed; nor can I say that I am likely to master all aspects of the technology as adroitly as I would wish. However, I am all too conscious of the fact that digital television can bring significant opportunities for everyone. Furthermore, one of the joys of the new technology is that it helps to overcome the barriers faced by the disabled, in particular the deaf, by the ways in which it can be employed. Great opportunities are being presented to us in this sphere and we should seek to make the most of them.
1168
All noble Lords who have contributed to the debate recognise that the Government have acted with speed and efficacy to ensure that the requirements put on broadcasters to increase their subtitling provision have taken place over the past months. Tributes were paid, quite rightly, to the previous Secretary of State for the groundwork he put in place and the sympathetic response he gave to representations. But I do know that the present Secretary of State took great joy in announcing at the beginning of this month the extension of the requirement and the targets set for increasing the provision of subtitling through the implementation of the order which was passed by both Houses during the last Parliament.
That means that in due course the provision of subtitles will rise to 80 per cent. However, we should record that the past performance of the Independent Television Commission is to be commended. Under the old target which stipulated 50 per cent provision, it has made steady progress year on year. In no way has the commission reneged or resiled from its commitment to extend the provision. Therefore we confidently expect to see the provision rising gradually but successfully towards the 80 per cent requirement in the not too distant future.
Tributes were paid to the BBC to the effect that its role is voluntary and thus not governed by the requirements of legislation. We should recognise the rapid progress which at present stands at 7 2 per cent provision. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, indicated that by 2009 the BBC intends to reach 100 per cent provision, which is greatly to be commended. Subtitling formed a part of the Davies review panel covering the future funding of the BBC—I hasten to say at this point that Gavyn Davies is not a relation; he is well connected, but not to me—and the aspect of digital provision featured with some significance in that report. The BBC is setting an example, as we would expect. However, it is not only setting an example, but in many respects it is fulfilling the expectations we would have of the public broadcasting authority. I do not doubt that my noble friend Lord Ashley will continue to look at the rate at which the BBC makes progress. Should he find it not totally satisfactory, I know that he will continue to press in that direction. That will be of great assistance in ensuring that the corporation reaches its ambitious targets.
The issue which we must confront this evening is that there is a substantial part of television which is not covered either by its public sector remit or by the orders. I refer here to subscription television. However, it should be recognised that progress has been made in this area, not to the same extent as has been achieved by independent television as a whole —although the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned that certain channels from BSkyB have achieved high standards on some of their programmes. Indications suggest that "Sky News" will enjoy full subtitling in the near future. It is not the case that all cable and satellite television has been tardy in responding to the needs of this important sector of our community, but it is also

1169
the case that, at present, in legislative terms we have no means of ensuring that all programmes reach at least a satisfactory minimum.
Reference has been made to the need to make exemptions, in particular for programmes which serve certain niche markets with very limited audience participation. Either full exemptions will need to be granted or lower levels of subtitling will have to be expected of them. However, we shall seek to take powers to ensure that the increasing significance of cable and satellite television channels should be able to be appreciated fully by those who require subtitles as well as by the wider population. To that end, I agree with the point made by my noble friend; namely, that we shall need to be able to scrutinise adequately the quality as well as the quantity of subtitling. It is clear that if standards are extremely poor, then the experience for the deaf person falls a long way below that for the rest of the audience. Mention was made in the debate that some elements of American television, which can boast a 100 per cent provision of subtitling, nevertheless do so at a level which is far from satisfactory in terms of quality.
That point raises an issue which has been fairly reflected in a number of contributions to the debate; namely, that good quality subtitling cannot easily be achieved overnight. We must take into account the training of the specialist stenographers. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, told the House that she had had a chance to see those skills in action. I have not done so myself, but I hope to take the opportunity to do so in the near future. I do not doubt that the skills required for the task are of a high level. I am pleased to report that I understand that effective training strategies are in hand to ensure that these skills are enhanced. A very significant increase in demand for subtitling should be anticipated and it is important to recognise that appropriate and effective training is needed to achieve those levels of skill.
I believe that all noble Lords agree that considerable progress has been made. We appreciate that progress, but one crucial area will require additional legislation. The principal question here is how soon that
1170
legislation will come into force. Perhaps I may make the obvious point. Subtitling is an important dimension, but nevertheless only one dimension, of the extremely broad issues to be addressed in the forthcoming communications Bill. An enormous amount of consultation will need to take place in regard to that Bill which, I believe, many will recognise as possibly one of the great formative Bills of our time. All concerned acknowledge the importance of television, along with the general extension of media provision facilitated by the new technologies now becoming available in the home. That will be of the greatest significance to our people.
Consequently, as everyone has recognised, the Bill will be one of the keystones of the Government's legislative achievements in this Parliament. The preparations for it are under way at present, but I cannot give a date for the introduction of the measure at this stage. When such issues become clear, the announcement to Parliament will be given at a rather loftier level than the position which I occupy in your Lordships' House and in the Government at the present time.
I appreciate that the intention of the debate is to ensure that this important feature is included in the provisions of the Bill. We have taken today a significant step to ensure that that happens. Given the broad commitment of the Government to their crucial philosophy of social inclusion, I have not the slightest doubt that they could not seek to provide a communications Bill which did not meet the representations of noble Lords who have participated in the debate.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that we do not always need a massive attendance in the House to enjoy the quality of a debate. I pay tribute to every noble Lord who has participated today. I am certain that the debate has not only given this House a chance to air the issue but has made it absolutely clear that the forthcoming Bill will need to include a commitment to advance in this area, otherwise very sharp questions indeed will be asked from all sides of the House.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  Legal Services Commission: Funding Criteria
  Legal Services Commission: Funding Criteria
  Legal Services Ombudsman's Annual Report
  Legal Services Ombudsman's Annual Report
  Asylum Appeals: Transfer to Appellate Authority
  Asylum Appeals: Transfer to Appellate Authority
  Slopping Out in Prisons
  Slopping Out in Prisons
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Peaches: EU Marketing Standards
  Peaches: EU Marketing Standards
  Clinical Negligence System: Reform
  Clinical Negligence System: Reform
  Diabetes as Cause of Death
  Diabetes as Cause of Death
  Motorway Service Station Standards
  Motorway Service Station Standards
  Rail Fare Comparisons
  Rail Fare Comparisons
  Electronic Delivery of Government Services
  Electronic Delivery of Government Services
  Broadband in the UK
  Broadband in the UK
  Regional Governance: White Paper
  Regional Governance: White Paper
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Education and Youth Council, 28 May
  Education and Youth Council, 28 May