Sitting of 16 July 2001

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

    Creative and Arts Education
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: If she will make a statement on her plans for improving creative education and arts education in schools. [2420]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): We are trying to ensure that all young people, whatever their means and background, have access to high-quality arts and creative education. We are working closely with various partners, including the Department for Education and Skills, the Arts Council of England and the National Foundation for Youth Music, on a range of policies to deliver that.
    Dr. Naysmith: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am familiar with the work of Multi A in Bristol, which comes into the category catered for by a couple of the bodies that he mentioned. It certainly does good work in Bristol;
    2
    I know that it would appreciate more funding, and I understand that the Minister is aware of that. Will he visit Bristol soon so that I can show him work in progress and further plans, especially in the context of Bristol's bid to become European city of culture in 2008?
    Dr. Howells: I will certainly visit Bristol, which has always been one of my favourite cities. Multi A is making a tremendous contribution to encouraging Bristol schoolchildren, often from difficult backgrounds, to experience the arts, including dance, choral singing and the visual arts. I was glad that its director, Vic Ecclestone, received an MBE in the Queen's birthday honours list. My Department is encouraging the funding agencies to ensure that Multi A has sufficient funds to allow it to continue to operate over the next three years.

    National Football Stadium
    Mr. Peter Pike: What discussions she has had with those involved in the building of a new national football stadium for England. [2421]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): In the light of the Football Association's announcement on 1 May, the Government have asked Patrick Carter to conduct a review of the English national stadium project to examine whether it can be funded and managed at Wembley or, if that proves impractical, at another location in England. We expect to receive his report in late August, and I shall meet the key stakeholders shortly after.
    Mr. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that for many years I have pressed for a new national stadium for both football and rugby league. Whatever facilities there are in other parts of the United Kingdom, there should be a national stadium in London, preferably at Wembley. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Football

    3
    Association and others have messed about with this and that it is becoming something of a fiasco? People in the football world want a solution as soon as possible.
    Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend has long advocated the case for Wembley, but the fact is that the projected costs of the project more than doubled during the planning stage. The FA has so far not been able to develop an effective business plan, nor has it secured any substantial financial backing. The Government support the FA's desire for a modern national stadium. However, the prime mover is the FA; the Government, in this context, are not a walking cheque book or a stadium developer. We must remember that any cost overruns that require public funding, often running into millions, represent money not spent on refurbishing inner-city sports facilities for our children who want the chance to be the champions of the future.
    Nick Harvey: In view of the continuing questions about Wembley or any other national football stadium and the linked problems with Pickett's Lock, does the Secretary of State not think it time that the Government took responsibility for taking the key decisions about whether we will bid for prestigious games? Do not the legacy of the Sheffield student games and the possible deficit of the Manchester Commonwealth games, and now the embarrassment of finding a stadium for the 2005 world athletics championships, mean that the Government should take decisions about whether we are going to bid for prestigious games? They should decide whether or not we have the resources to hold them; they should take responsibility and drive them through from start to finish.
    Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that any sports project on the scale of Wembley or Pickett's Lock can proceed only with Government support, but not, in every case, with Government as the principal or even substantial funder. There will always be infrastructure and other planning issues that require Government support to resolve them.
    Mr. Tony Banks: If we are just talking about a national football stadium, it could be anywhere in the country; it does not have to be at Wembley. But if we are talking about a national stadium for athletics, and given that, as Beijing has now been nominated to hold the 2008 Olympic games, London could possibly be a candidate city for a later Olympic games, we have to look again at the deck solution for providing athletics facilities there. Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether or not she has ruled out, or whether she has an open mind about, the original design, which involved a deck proposal for athletics at Wembley?
    Tessa Jowell: Patrick Carter's review is considering all options, but I am advised that any proposal to link a possible development at Wembley with the world athletics championships would be impractical, because a stadium would not be ready on time.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I warmly welcome the right hon. Lady to her new responsibilities,
    4
    and I wish her well and certainly better luck than, her immediate predecessor, whom I am delighted to see in his place this afternoon.
    Does the right hon. Lady agree that of all the problems that have landed on her desk since taking up her appointment—the dome, falling lottery sales, regional arts funding and the Minister for Sport's views on tennis—the most pressing by far is the crisis over Wembley? I am in danger of agreeing with the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), but was it not wrong to kick athletics out of the Wembley plans, putting at risk £120 million of lottery funding and Britain's ability to host the 2005 world athletics championships? Does she agree that, if we wave goodbye to those championships, we can wave goodbye to hosting the Olympics for at least a generation?
    Tessa Jowell: I do not accept that Wembley is the biggest issue facing me or my ministerial team. The biggest issue facing us is implementing the promises that we made to the people of this country on being re-elected on 7 June, key among which is getting sport back as part of the life of every child in the country and encouraging a generation of young sportsmen and women on to the ladder of success and opportunity; and the big sporting projects—whether Wembley, Pickett's Lock or any other—must be part of that strategy, not a distraction from it.

    Sports Coaching Facilities
    Dr. Ian Gibson: What plans she has to improve coaching facilities throughout the United Kingdom in all sports. [2422]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): The development of coaching and coaching facilities is mainly the responsibility of a number of organisations, which receive Government funding, including the national governing bodies of sport, the Sports Council, UK Sport, Sport England and Sportscoach UK. The Government's plan for sport also includes a range of initiatives to provide significant new investment in coaching and coaching education, which will assist the grass roots and clubs. The coaching taskforce, which aims to initiate action to improve coaching at all levels, had its first meeting on 28 June.
    Dr. Gibson: I start by assuring my right hon. Friend that his success in his new position will not depend on being able to answer pub-style questions. All he need know are the names of the manager and the coach of the all-conquering parliamentary football team—that is good enough. Will he seriously support a programme of major investment in coaching for all our schools and communities, based not just on producing superstars, but on developing the performance, skills, prowess and, indeed, enjoyment of everyone in our schools and communities?
    Mr. Caborn: As my hon. Friend suggests, it is very important that we get the coaching right. That is why we look to the taskforce to produce recommendations. We are already committed to a programme of investment to create 3,000 full-time paid coaching posts by 2005, but I

    5
    hope that when the report is produced in, I think, March next year, we will be able to have a debate in this place, or at least in the Select Committee or a Standing Committee.
    I do know who the coach of the all-party football club is—it is none other than my hon. Friend himself, so there was a little self-promotion in the question. May I give my hon. Friends some advice? Do not take part in pub quizzes on the radio; it is very dangerous. Still, I am more likely to get the answers to pub quizzes right than the Conservative party is to pick a leader who will win it the next general election.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Despite the new Minister's protestations, does he not recognise that what he most needs are coaching and knowledge in relation to his responsibilities? Does he not recognise that, in the eyes of the entire sporting media and the entire population, he shot himself in both hands and feet before even reaching his first Question Time? Will he not further recognise that his attempt to rehabilitate himself in this weekend's Daily Telegraph was a case of not getting the name of one of England's recent rugby heroes right and of pretending that he organised a Lords and Commons cricket tour in 1995? That showed great disrespect to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who actually knows something about sport—[Interruption.]—and as Max Boyce, another rugby legend of whom the Minister has probably never heard, would say, "I know because I was there"—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Caborn: I take no lectures from Conservative Members about sport and participating in sport. Yes, I played cricket with the hon. Gentleman in South Africa and, if he examines the record to which he has just referred, he will find out who exactly organised the tour.

    Lottery Funding (Good Causes)
    Phil Hope (Corby): If she will make a statement on her assessment of Camelot's ability to deliver its projected funding for good causes. [2423]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): The National Lottery Commission made it clear, when it awarded the licence to Camelot in December, that it thought both bidders—Camelot and The People's Lottery—were over-optimistic in their sales projections. The commission's best estimate is that sales will be maintained at their current levels of around £5 billion a year, which would mean more than £10 billion for good causes over the duration of the next licence. Of course, everyone will be delighted if Camelot achieves more than that, but that is partly in its gift and partly depends on the confidence that the British public have in the lottery.
    Phil Hope: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and welcome her to the Dispatch Box. There is a concern that there might be a shortfall in the amount of money available from Camelot going into good causes. The Furniture Turnaround project in my constituency applied to the community fund; as it is a marvellous project, everyone agreed that it should receive the money. However, not enough money was available and that was
    6
    because not enough money was coming from Camelot. Will my right hon. Friend press Camelot to make sure that, in years to come, a good proportion of the moneys that it raises goes into local good causes, because those good causes raise people's confidence in the lottery itself?
    Tessa Jowell: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point. Every single constituency has benefited from lottery funding, and it requires the powerful advocacy of individual Members of Parliament to secure the maximum available for their constituents.
    Mr. Chris Smith: May I give my warm congratulations to my right hon. Friend on taking up what is undoubtedly the best job in government? She will find that it has its ups and downs but that she has the potential to make a real difference to the lives of millions of people in this country. In that context, whatever the sum of money raised for good causes by the national lottery, will she give a firm commitment that the percentages within that sum for the arts, sport, heritage and charities will be maintained throughout the period of the current franchise?
    Tessa Jowell: I can certainly give that undertaking to my right hon. Friend, whom I thank. I know that the House will want to pay tribute to his outstanding period as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. As he will know, because he was responsible for renegotiating it, there will be a realignment of the amount allocated to each of the beneficiaries when the millennium fund ceases and the funds currently allocated to the millennium fund are allocated to the new opportunities fund, whose share will rise to 33 per cent. of the total.

    Tourism Industry (Foot and Mouth)
    Tony Baldry: What assessment she has made of the impact of foot and mouth disease on the number of overseas visitors to Britain. [2424]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): The number of overseas visits to the United Kingdom was estimated to have fallen by 6 per cent. in the three months from March to May 2001 compared with the same period last year. My predecessor as Minister had planned to address a loss of this nature when awarding the British Tourist Authority an extra £14.2 million this year. Its strategy is to stimulate the recovery of inbound tourism, and I am confident the benefits of this initiative are now emerging.
    Tony Baldry: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I am not sure that he appreciates that another Department is seeking to claim back 17.5 per cent. in supposed VAT payments out of the £14.2 million that his Department has made available to the British Tourist Authority. That seems somewhat bizarre.
    Will the Minister take this opportunity to make two announcements? First, will he confirm that the British Tourist Authority will receive the full £14.2 million? That is what it believed it would receive and it seems only fair that it should receive it. Secondly, for those of us who represent English constituencies, there is some concern that the English Tourism Council does not have a

    7
    marketing function. Will the Minister give an undertaking that it can have such a function and will receive a fair share of the benefit of that £14.2 million?
    Dr. Howells: First, I was surprised to hear that VAT payments had not been factored in. It was certainly a miscalculation on the part of the British Tourist Authority, and we are looking closely at that. Secondly, there is no question but that foot and mouth disease has severely tested present marketing arrangements. Marketing is the responsibility of regional tourist boards and, latterly, regional development agencies. We will be working very hard with them and the English Tourism Council to ensure that there are no inadequacies or slippages in the marketing of English regions in this country.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Would my hon. Friend consider the introduction of grants to local authorities where tourism has been affected by foot and mouth? In that way, we would know that the money was going to constituencies that have been directly affected.
    Dr. Howells: We are working closely with local authorities to ensure that deferments of rates, for example, do not become a burden that they cannot stand. I very much hope that the considerable packages that we have made available will see local authorities and indirectly, businesses through what promises for some to be a very hard winter.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I welcome the new Minister for tourism to the Front Bench. He has got off to a slightly ropy start. It was not the British Tourist Authority that put out press releases about £14.2 million, but his Department—without any reference to VAT.
    Does the Minister understand why the insensitive and ill-timed insults—talk of slave wage rates and rip-offs—that he levelled at the tourism industry recently have caused such outrage? With tourism facing a £5 billion shortfall in revenue this year, investment falling and thousands of jobs at risk, do not people in the tourism industry have a right to expect some support from the Minister responsible? Will he therefore take this opportunity to redeem something of his reputation and apologise to the industry for his remarks?
    Dr. Howells: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that I have some reputation left. The article to which he referred—he clearly has not read it; he has never heard of the thing—appeared in Caterer and Hotelkeeper. His comments are clearly driven by the same geniuses who proposed the last Conservative manifesto.
    The editor of the publication, David Harris, said that the
    "article makes clear his"—
    that is, my—
    "commitment to the tourist industry, expressing views held by many when he says the tourist industry must raise its game. FMD has been a body blow, but we will regain our markets by competitive pricing and with a well motivated and trained workforce which delivers further improvements in quality."
    That is precisely what I believe. I do not think that the British tourist industry will survive on the basis of slave wages. I note that Conservatives always oppose minimum wages, and will always do so because they think that they can run the economy on the cheap. That is why people do
    8
    not trust them, why they are down to the rump facing us, and why they will remain that rump until they change their views.

    Lottery Funding (Thurrock)
    Andrew Mackinlay: What proportion of lottery money has been (a) raised and (b) spent in Thurrock. [2425]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): Up-to-date information on the proportion of lottery money raised is not available. As of 5 July 2001, the total number of grants awarded to Thurrock is 79, and they are worth just over £2.5 million.
    Andrew Mackinlay: The last figures that I had showed that the number of lottery tickets purchased in my constituency was twice the national average. When I listen to such replies, I am reminded of the song:
    "It's the same the whole world over,
    It's the rich wot gets the pleasure,
    It's the poor wot gets the blame"—
    and the Minister knows what follows—
    "Ain't it all a ruddy shame?"
    There needs to be discrimination in terms of geography and class in the distribution of resources. The marketing policy is aimed at some of the poorest and most disadvantaged people in the country, which is wrong. However, if it is going to happen, there has to be funding discrimination in favour of the poorest places in our constituencies, too. What is the Minister going to do about it?
    Mr. Caborn: I thank my hon. Friend for that kind question. Camelot has carried out only one survey of ticket sales in each constituency, which it conducted on the fifth anniversary of the lottery. My hon. Friend is right: sales in his constituency were £60 million compared with the mean of about £30 million, and those figures are in the Library. The lottery distributors must develop a strategy to assess the needs of different areas. However, we must be careful if we are going to dispute the money based on the sales of lottery tickets. It is not entirely true that the better-off do not participate, because they do, and we would have to consider those figures as well.
    On 27 June, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced £150 million for initiatives to secure a fairer share of lottery money for the 50 most deprived areas. We are trying to address the questions that my hon. Friend raises.

    Sports Coaching Facilities
    John Mann (Bassetlaw): What plans she has to increase the number of sports coaches in schools throughout the country. [2426]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): We are currently carrying out a review of coaching in England, to which I referred earlier, with a view to professionalising it and to encouraging more people to consider coaching as a career option. In addition, the

    9
    1,000 school sport co-ordinators who will be in place by 2004 will have funding for, among other things, bringing sport-specific coaches into schools to coach pupils.
    John Mann: Would the Minister consider extending the sports coaching provision to those disaffected 14 and 15-year-olds who often do not attend schools in my constituency? Should he need a town that is rich in sports heritage to pilot such a scheme, may I modestly offer Worksop in my constituency as exactly the kind of town that would benefit from such expansion?
    Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend is right. Sport is clearly a major help in addressing many problems such as truancy. Worksop is obviously doing a tremendous amount in the sporting world. I understand that. Worksop football club is thinking about relocating, and the Lawn Tennis Association is also considering a development in Worksop. If he writes to me, my officials and I will consider whether a pilot scheme could be established in Worksop.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: Does the Minister agree that sport, especially team sport, for boys and young men in schools is important? I commend encouraging team sport among them to the Minister. With my judicial hat on, may I point out that young men who play a great deal of team sport are much less likely to turn to crime?
    Mr. Caborn: That is true. We need to determine how we can develop high-quality facilities with high-quality coaching, because the two go together. Coaching is essential if we are to attract more people to sport. Figures that I saw the other day show that 150,000 young people in France are being coached for tennis. Here in the UK, the number is 18,000. I think that things are the same right across the sporting spectrum, which is why, when we receive the report of the taskforce on coaching, we will give it serious consideration. I hope that there will also be a constructive debate in the House.
    Caroline Flint: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Lawn Tennis Association has had many years to get its game together and improve young people's access to tennis? It is important that we provide coaching in schools, but there should be access to good tennis courts both inside schools and outside in local parks, so that children can take what they learn in school out into their community rather than have to go through private tennis clubs.
    Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This morning, I discussed with the Sports Council how to develop a strategy nationally and firm up delivery regionally and locally. That is what we shall be working on in the coming months and years. The statistics on tennis are startling: the Lawn Tennis Association says that a third fewer people now play tennis than played six years ago. I think that that is largely down to facilities not being in the right areas. We are considering those issues and we hope to have some answers soon.
    Mr. John Greenway: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well.
    10
    With the school holidays about to begin, will the right hon. Gentleman join me in urging parents, teachers and coaches to take every possible care and precaution to ensure the safety of children who take part in outdoor activities this summer? Does he agree that, for reasons of personal safety and physical fitness, every child should have swimming lessons and be able to swim by the age of 11? Sadly, as he knows, one in five children cannot swim by that age. We share a collective responsibility to put that right. Will he tell us when the national swimming facilities strategy will be published and what financial support the Government will give for a network of teaching pools throughout the country?
    Mr. Caborn: I cannot give a precise date for the report, but I take the issue extremely seriously—especially as a parent. Both my children could swim before they could walk; I took them swimming when they were babies, which was absolutely the right thing to do. We will strive to create facilities and provide coaching to the standard necessary to ensure that every child can swim.
    The little girl who drowned recently was a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Her funeral, which was held at the weekend, serves as a reminder of our responsibility to ensure that every child in this country can swim.
    Ms Gisela Stuart: May I recommend that my right hon. Friend visit Birmingham where, through the organisation Local Leagues, Birmingham university student coaches work with local primary and secondary schools to provide sports facilities outside school hours? In addition, I urge him to work more closely with local authorities to ensure that the sports facilities and fields that were sold under the Tory Government are restored to an appropriate state so that children, especially those in inner cities, can have access to sports fields and use the support available.
    Mr. Caborn: As my hon. Friend says, it is important to have such facilities. Playing fields were being sold off at a rate of 40 a month when we came to power in 1997 and I became Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning. With others, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), then Minister for Sport, I put into operation an effective veto by the sports councils on any application to sell off a playing field. I shall take a look at Birmingham; and I hope that, in future, we shall be able to restore some of the facilities that were taken away by the Conservative Administration.

    Lottery Grants
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: What plans she has to ensure an even geographical distribution of lottery grants. [2428]
    Glenda Jackson: What measures she intends to promote the equitable geographical distribution of lottery funding. [2432]
    Paul Goggins: What action she is taking to ensure an increase in the distribution of lottery funding to disadvantaged areas. [2433]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): I understand that you have linked questions 8, 12 and 13, Mr. Speaker. With permission, I shall answer all three together.
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Lady linked the questions, not me.
    Tessa Jowell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    The Government are determined to ensure that there is a fair distribution of funding throughout the country. We have directed distributors to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom have access to lottery funds. In addition, I have asked the community fund to target £100 million, and the new opportunities fund to target an additional £50 million of its funds, to 50 areas that are both deprived and have received less lottery funding than other parts of the country. The scheme will be UK wide and will begin in April 2002.
    Mr. Hughes: I welcome my right hon. Friend to her new post, as, indeed, I welcome her answer. However, I have heard fine words before, from her predecessor. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the average for constituencies around the country is £14 million or thereabouts. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that his constituency received as little as £2.5 million. However, I have to tell the Secretary of State that my constituency had less than £1 million: the amount is £900,000 for Doncaster, North. That was despite the meetings and correspondence with my right hon. Friend's predecessors, which were all to no avail. Will my right hon. Friend now address the issue properly so that my constituents have a fair share of the money that they pay into lottery funding? In all fairness to her predecessors—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the Minister has enough to go on.
    Tessa Jowell: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's analysis. He is right about the figures for his own constituency. Nationally, the average per capita award is just over £76 but my hon. Friend's constituency received less than £11 per head of population. That is why I made my recent announcement about the investment of £150 million in precisely such areas, not only so that the lottery is fair in its distribution but so that it produces benefits for some of our most deprived communities, many of which lack the high levels of organisation and so forth that are needed to develop lottery bids. I intend to put that help in place to ensure that my hon. Friend's constituents benefit from the lottery as they should.
    Glenda Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. She is entirely right: it is not only the amounts that go to the most deprived areas—certainly in London we have the largest number of such wards in the UK—but the difficulty experienced by many community groups in
    12
    actually putting together a bid. Will she ensure that it is not as difficult to tap into her proposals to assist such communities as it is at present?
    Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Yes, we are determined—as was my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)—to ensure that the bureaucracy and administration of the lottery are as simple and as cheap as possible, consistent with efficiency. However, it is also worth comparing the per capita lottery spend of £286 per head in my hon. Friend's constituency of Hampstead and Highgate with the sum of just under £11 in Doncaster, North to which I referred earlier. That makes the case for the Government's announcement.
    Paul Goggins: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks, but in my constituency, which has two of the 100 poorest wards anywhere in the country, projects have received a little more than £4 million over the past seven years—well below the average. In future, can my constituents who spend money on the lottery look forward to more of their cash coming back to fund activities in their own community?
    Tessa Jowell: Yes.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: I, too, welcome the right hon. Lady and her team to the Front Bench. Does she agree that a number of excellent projects that had attracted millennium lottery funding, such as the Gobbins Path project in my constituency, could not proceed because of the burden that was going to be placed on the sponsor—in this case, Larne borough council—and hence on its ratepayers? Will she examine those previously approved projects that did not proceed, and give consideration to alternative matching funding to enable those worthwhile projects to proceed at some time in the future?
    Tessa Jowell: With respect, it would be a matter for the individual lottery distributors to reconsider any previously considered projects. I am sure that, as a strong advocate of his constituents and projects in his constituency, the hon. Gentleman will make sure that that step is taken if necessary.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State think that she might have fewer complaints from her own Back Benches about the distribution of lottery funds if the Government had stuck to the pledge that they gave in their July 1997 White Paper, in which they stated that they
    "don't believe that it would be right to use Lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities"?
    Perhaps if the Government were raiding the lottery funds less for health, education and environment matters, which are Government responsibilities, the right hon. Lady would not be facing criticisms of the kind that she is justifiably facing now.
    Tessa Jowell: The most important thing about the lottery is that it has the confidence of the British people, 70 per cent. of whom play the lottery. The priorities of the new opportunities fund—health, education and environment—are precisely the priorities to which people wanted their lottery spending to be devoted. We are doing

    13
    what people asked us to do. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends support the Government's position. They know that in every one of their constituencies, there are about 21 lottery-funded projects improving the quality of life of their constituents.
    Adam Price: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the recent University of Newcastle study which showed that in rural and disadvantaged areas, the community fund was responsible for providing up to 50 per cent. of the funding for voluntary and community groups. In the light of that, will the Minister explain why the Wales committee of the community fund is projecting a cut in expenditure of 43 per cent. over a three-year period, compared to a reduction in the UK of 17 per cent? Why is there such a discrepancy? The cut will be devastating to the voluntary sector in Wales. Will the Minister today agree to reverse that decision? Otherwise her protestations about a fair distribution across the UK will seem hollow.
    Tessa Jowell: I will not announce a reversal of that decision today, but I will study with care the research that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I will write to him once I have had time to consider both its conclusions and the figures that he gave the House this afternoon.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: My right hon. Friend will know that the longer a lottery exists, the less people play it. Hon. Members say that they would like much more local distribution of the spend on the lottery. Will my right hon. Friend consider the idea that 10 per cent. of the spend on a lottery ticket should stay in the local community in the first place without having to go to the centre and come back, a process the cost of which is substantial and unnecessary?
    Tessa Jowell: I have made clear in my replies the Government's intention to make sure that every part of the country benefits as it should from lottery funds and lottery investment. There will be a review of the lottery in the next two years or so. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will submit their specific proposals for further improvement of the lottery in the next licence period, although that is some years hence.

    Ofcom
    Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell): When she plans to bring forward legislation to establish the proposed media regulator Ofcom. [2429]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): The Government introduced a paving Bill on 12 July which will establish Ofcom and enable it and the existing regulators to begin the preparations for the proposed new regulatory regime. Ofcom will receive no regulatory functions until the main communications Bill is enacted.
    Chris Grayling: I have been approached in recent weeks by a number of my constituents expressing great concern about what they see as the deterioration in the standard of television material seen in prime time. Will the Minister give the House an undertaking that he will ensure that both Ofcom and the current regulators take
    14
    strong action to reverse that trend and to ensure that the material that we see on our prime time television is acceptable?
    Dr. Howells: I would like very much to be able to do that. I cannot abide "Big Brother" and I would love it to be taken off our screens. However, I think the day when politicians and Whitehall officials decided what should be on television would be a very sad one.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement, especially as one of the people who wrote "Communicating Britain's Future", in which we argued the case for an umbrella organisation such as that which he announced. Has he closed his mind to broadening that umbrella or are the current suggestions about what should be included in Ofcom cut and dried?
    Dr. Howells: No, those suggestions are not cut and dried, and the umbrella is of an indeterminate size at the moment. I have not shut my mind to anything. If I knew what my hon. Friend was on about, I might be able to answer him more specifically.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: We Opposition Members welcome honesty whenever we hear it from the Labour Benches, although some in the industry think that Ofcom might turn into Big Brother. Does the Under-Secretary accept that the paving Bill that appeared last week offers no practical benefit to the media and communications industry, whose ability to meet the rapidly changing world in which it operates is being impaired by regulations that have not changed for five years and will not do so for at least another two years? I gently remind him that the Labour party first promised to reform regulation back in 1997. Is it not odd that, now that the Bill has eventually appeared, it not only promises the establishment of Ofcom but suggests a means for its premature demise? Why is that, and what is the sense in considering proposals for the reform of media regulation without any reference to the BBC, which still has almost 40 per cent. of audience share?
    Dr. Howells: I believe in sunset clauses, because I think that when regulation is irrelevant or useless, we should get rid of it. Indeed, I should like that principle to be applied to most new regulation that comes before the House. We are sticking to our manifesto commitment to deliver Ofcom by 2003: that is what we are going to try to do. We never promised to include the regulation of the BBC—or, at least, the core of BBC regulation—as part of that new legislation.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer to the initial question, especially as it was exactly the same as an answer given in Trade and Industry questions last Thursday. I presume that that means that we will see joined-up handwriting between the two Departments on this matter in the next two years. Does he believe that universal access is one of the most urgent issues on which Ofcom must deliver? The matter is especially important at a time when many parts of the country do not have digital terrestrial television coverage, cable coverage or ADSL—asymmetric digital subscriber

    15
    line—coverage. This is a major issue for those who want the whole country and not just some parts of it to share in new technology.
    Dr. Howells: The question of coverage must be one of the major tests before there is any idea of the analogue signal being switched off. My hon. Friend, who has the great privilege of representing the Rhondda valley, will know that we have a greater concentration of relay stations in that area than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. We must ensure that the question of coverage is solved, otherwise we will disfranchise many people from their main source of information and entertainment.

    Athletics Stadium, Pickett's Lock
    Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): If she will make a statement on the construction of the new athletics stadium at Pickett's Lock, with particular reference to the commencement of site works and the completion of the project. [2430]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): I am tempted to refer the House to the answer that I gave to question 2, which concerned Wembley, as Sport England has concluded that it is not yet able to commit lottery funding to the Lee valley national athletics centre project. On 2 July, Sport England asked Patrick Carter, who is conducting the review of the English national stadium, to carry out a separate review to assess whether the project can be funded and managed in its present form. The Government welcome that review and look forward to receiving its conclusions.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: The right hon. Lady knows that, at the end of the last Parliament, her predecessor categorically stated in answer to a question from me that the Pickett's Lock project would go ahead. Will she confirm that, if it is going ahead, it must be built by 2004 to house the world athletics championships? If it is not going to go ahead, will she give an assurance that the Wembley stadium project will include an athletics track, which will be ready by 2004?
    Tessa Jowell: We have made a clear commitment to host the 2005 world athletics championships in a world-class stadium. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Pickett's Lock had been identified as the location for the stadium. However, there is a clear funding gap, and Sport England was not prepared to commit more money to the project until it was sure of its financial viability. I support that judgment and the review that Patrick Carter is carrying out.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Clergy (Conditions of Service)
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on conditions of service for the clergy. [2455]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Conditions vary slightly from diocese to diocese. However, in addition to their stipend, based on a national stipends benchmark of £16,910 from April 2001, clergy receive free accommodation or a housing allowance, and membership of a non-contributory pension scheme. In addition, their working expenses should be fully reimbursed.
    Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is anxiety about the form of the proposed clergy disciplinary tribunal and worries about the stipends review body, which, it is believed, will simply maintain the status quo? When is it intended to give the clergy conditions of service similar to those that others enjoy, appropriate contracts, and appropriate redress in cases of dismissal?
    Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend may be anticipating the Clergy Discipline Measure which will shortly be before the Ecclesiastical Committee. He knows that the Government have powers under the Employment Rights Act 1996 to give ministers of religion some employees' rights. The Government have undertaken to issue a consultation document before exercising their powers under the Act. The Archbishops Council has set up a group to co-ordinate the Church's response. I am sure that the clergy will welcome that and I hope that my hon. Friend accepts the assurance that, ultimately, they will be properly looked after.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: I am sure that the clergy will welcome that response. May I take the opportunity to pay tribute to them, especially the vicars of the hillside parishes, which have been caught up in the dreadful foot and mouth crisis? I pay tribute to their tremendous efforts, which have been beyond the call of duty, to deal with the human stress and suffering at this time.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing attention to the work of the clergy in rural areas. I also pay tribute to the Bishop of Bradford, who has worked hard in the aftermath of the riots there.

    Prelates
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement about annual expenditure on prelates. [2456]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Church Commissioners spent £15.8 million in 2000 on bishops' stipends and working costs and looking after diocesan bishops' houses, which the Commissioners own. Housing and working costs budgets are agreed annually.
    Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Member agree that, notwithstanding the recent increases, the expenses continue to represent a bargain for the Church, especially when compared with our own expenses? What will the

    17
    commissioners do to relieve prelates of administrative burdens so that they can concentrate on the teaching ministry of which the nation is in such great need?
    Mr. Bell: Fortunately for me, I am not responsible for MPs' pay structures or costs. As Sue MacGregor said on Radio 4's "Today" programme when interviewing Professor Anthony Mellows, bishops are struggling to carry out their daily tasks because of mounting financial and other burdens. Professor Mellows, who is conducting the review of bishops' needs and resources, responded by saying that there was a great difference between the public perception, which was of rather grand life styles, and the reality of the position. The hon. Gentleman's point on the way in which the Church Commissioners can help to relieve bishops of their administrative burden is well taken and will be looked at.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he has absolutely no sympathy with the nitpicking Scrooges who would deprive bishops of the opportunity to obtain modest driving assistance? It is surely not right that bishops should have to drive themselves round their dioceses to all their engagements.
    Mr. Bell: All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is, "Amen to that."

    Church Buildings (Maintenance)
    Paul Flynn: How much public funding has been invested in the maintenance of church buildings in each of the past five years. [2457]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Broadly, grants offered—as opposed to expended—over the past five years for all places of worship, including those of other denominations and faiths, and for works to contents as well as fabric, were in the order of £20 million a year.
    Paul Flynn: That is a considerable sum of money. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noted that many churches are now using some of their surplus space resulting from dwindling congregations for community purposes, such as nursery schools, youth clubs, meetings and facilities for pensioners. Will he ensure that, when these grants are given in future, the possibility of dual use for community purposes is taken into account as well as architectural and historic considerations?
    Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend says that £20 million a year is a lot of money, but the churches require something like £120 million a year. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that churches, particularly those in rural areas, are playing a greater part in the community. We welcome and encourage that, and my hon. Friend's comments will help us to do so.
    Mr. John Bercow: To what extent has public funding of the maintenance of church buildings been counteracted and offset by the revenues from VAT?
    18
    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an inherent absurdity in giving with one hand and taking away with the other?
    Mr. Bell: That inherent absurdity was taken into account by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he agreed to give grants to bring down the value of VAT from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. The VAT costs on repairs and maintenance to listed Church of England buildings is estimated to be £10 million. We are now discussing with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how we can establish procedures whereby the grants announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be brought into effect. It is worthy and important that the hon. Gentleman has referred to this matter today.

    Investment Portfolio
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): If he will make a statement on the performance of the Commissioners' investment; and how it affects their ability to support the dioceses. [2458]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): In 2000, the total return earned by the commissioners on their investments was 3.1 per cent. This compared favourably with the Wood Mackenzie all-funds universe average of minus 1.3 per cent. The commissioners were in the top 10 per cent. of funds measured by WM.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: With great respect to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, I thought that his answer was slightly complacent. He will be aware that, on investment assets of £3.1 billion, the Church's expenditure over income last year was £34 million—a loss of £34 million. That was the third year in a row in which the Church made a loss. Will the hon. Gentleman undertake carefully to look at the Church's expenditure, including the immovable costs such as pensions, to ensure that the income can better be directed to the Church's ministry as a whole, rather than being used to meet unnecessary costs?
    Mr. Bell: In relation to support for the dioceses, our good investment performance means that more money is available to support the parish ministry in areas of need and opportunity. The asset base of the commissioners is £4.5 billion, not £3.1 billion. On the hon. Gentleman's question about pensions, the commissioners have agreed to make a further £10 million available for transitional relief for pension contributions in the period 2002–04.
    Mr. Tony Banks: May I say to my hon. Friend that one would have thought that, with God on their side, the commissioners could get a rather better return on their investments? Does he accept that it would be advisable for the commissioners to consider ethical investment because it not only makes a good return but would be good for the morality of the Church and its position?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and welcome him back to Church Commissioners Question Time. He makes a perfectly valid point. We have an ethical investment unit that

    19
    considers and makes a proper statement regarding the commissioners' investments, although we take my hon. Friend's point very much on board.

    Hagg Wood, Dunnington
    Mr. John Grogan (Selby): What progress has been made in negotiations with Forest Enterprise regarding Hagg wood, near Dunnington. [2460]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I can only refer my hon. Friend to a previous answer.
    Mr. Grogan: Will my hon. Friend do everything possible to achieve a tripartite agreement between Forest Enterprise, the Church Commissioners and Friends of Hagg Wood so that the people of Yorkshire can enjoy the wood to the full and so that his name will be remembered down the centuries by the villagers?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to have my name remembered down the centuries. My hon. Friend has previously asked me a question as to the future of the matters to which he refers. We hope that such a tripartite agreement will be achieved.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) tabled an amendment that names me. He did not seek my consent before tabling it. I understand that he has withdrawn it, but can you advise whether it is in order for a Member to table an amendment without seeking the named Member's consent and whether that conforms with the normal courtesies of the House?
Mr. Speaker: Members seeking to amend these motions should ensure that their amendments conform with the provision of Standing Order No. 121(1). That requires the proposer of the amendment to endeavour to find out previously whether each Member he is proposing to add to the Committee is willing to serve. From what the hon. Lady says, it appears that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not seek to secure her agreement. I deprecate his actions, which I regard as a discourtesy to her and to the House.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has done this about 20 times, surely he has multiplied his discourtesies to such an extent that some form of friendly but disciplinary action ought to be taken?
Mr. Speaker: I need to inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman only once and I hope that that will be the last occasion that it ever happens.
Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A week ago in the Chamber, we had a Second Reading debate on the Export Control Bill. Several hon. Members protested because certain documents were not made available until the last minute. There was great concern that, although one of the most important aspects of the Quadripartite Committee recommendations was prior scrutiny, no Government response was made in the debate. The response came late on Thursday and rejected prior scrutiny.
The debate on Monday would have been very different had we known that that was to be the Government response and it is difficult for us to agree to proceed on Second Reading unless we possess all the facts. I ask you to protect the rights of Back Benchers.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that Front Benchers will have heard what the hon. Lady has had to say.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On motions, what recourse is open to Members who table an amendment that appears to be in order and that has the support of many hon. Members on both sides of the House but is not selected for debate? We have before us motions that are invidious in that they propose that individuals be taken off Committees only to
22
allow others to go on to them. Is not there a case for you to reconsider your ruling, given the number of Members who supported my amendment?
Mr. Speaker: There is no case. I have the final decision in these matters, and that is the end of it.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might be helpful if you were to tell the House whether you would consider requests for separate and individual votes on the motions on different Committees. If the House were able to do that, as I suspect that it is entitled to, and express a view on the membership of individual Committees, that would go some way towards helping the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).
Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members will be patient, I shall make a statement along those lines.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With reference to your comments a few moments ago, may I inform the House that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham did not seek my permission or communicate with me before tabling his amendment, which appears on today's Order Paper? Is that amendment in order?
Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make, which may clarify matters for the hon. Lady.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the amendments that you have selected is the very amendment that refers to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). Does that create a problem? You have said that tabling amendments without contacting the Member concerned is not a smart thing to do—it is unpleasant. However, that amendment has been selected, whereas other amendments that would have captured our attention and taken personality out of the issue have not been selected. Dare I say that that is not very clever?
Mr. Speaker: Difficult decisions had to be made on whether to accept amendments. I shall be making a statement that may clarify matters.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make it absolutely clear that I would never support an amendment to remove my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside from the Committee? She is a most useful, brilliant and hard-working member of the Committee, and contributes enormously to its work.
Mr. Frank Field: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was because of these problems that I tabled amendments regarding two of the Committees that did not name particular Members to be taken off, but instead asked the Committee of Selection to reconsider

23
the whole of the membership of Select Committees and to report back quickly to the House with a new list of names after it had listened to our debate.
Mr. Speaker: It is a difficult issue. All the motions before us refer to Members by name, so it is inevitable that some amendments remove Members from Committees and replace them with others.
Mr. Field: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of arguing the case for his amendment.
Mr. Field: I was not trying to single out any name or group of names. I was merely proposing that the Committee of Selection be asked to consider the whole membership and to report back. It may decide to propose the same group of names after listening to our debate. I was not trying to put the House in the position of having to pick off individuals Members to bring greater justice to other Members.
Mr. Speaker: In that case, the right hon. Gentleman can vote against the motion and allow the Committee of Selection to do exactly that.
Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the enormous interest in the House and among the public about the arrangements for appointments to Select Committees, and given the undue haste with which they have been made, can you advise what procedures are available to delay the whole issue? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, the Committee of Selection could come up with some new, more representative names that, I hope, would be more democratically chosen than those currently proposed.
Mr. Speaker: The procedure would be to vote against the motions before us.

Orders of the Day

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Business of the House
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Minister to move motion 2, I want to make a brief statement about proceedings on the motions concerning nominations to Select Committees.
  If the Business of the House motion is agreed to, I propose that motions 3 to 29 should be debated together. When the debate concludes, presumably at 7 pm, the Question will be put on each motion in turn. Where an amendment has been selected, the Chair will invite the hon. Member proposing it to move it formally, and the House will vote first on the amendment and then on the main motion. A list of the amendments that I have selected is available in the No Lobby.
  May I make it clear that today's proceedings are about nominations to Select Committees? That includes the process by which nominations are made, but it does not include the wider issues about the powers, functions and resources of Select Committees, which were raised during debate on Thursday 5 July.
  I have not selected either of the amendments to the Business of the House motion, and I should make it clear that the scope of debate on that motion is limited to the arrangements for today's proceedings.
  3.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I beg to move,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motion relating to the membership of Select Committees and the appointment of a Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons not later than Seven o'clock; such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; such Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business; and Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on divisions) shall apply and the Order [28th June] relating to Deferred Divisions shall not apply if, after the time for the interruption of business, the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on a Question is challenged in respect of any of the said Questions.
  I shall be brief in outlining the purpose of the business motion. In effect, the House is being asked to approve the timing of today's debates on Select Committees, including that on the establishment of the Modernisation Committee. The matter is important to the House, and I am therefore pleased that a half-day of prime parliamentary time has been provided for it.

  25
  No previous Government have set aside time for debates on the nominations for Select Committees before 10 pm. In past Parliaments, similar debates were timetabled for just one and a half hours. For example, in 1983 the issue was debated after 10 pm, for one and a half hours. That was six months after the state opening of Parliament. In 1987 the issue was again debated after 10 pm, with a limit of 90 minutes, and six months after the state opening of Parliament. In 1992 the debate was taken three months after the state opening, and again it was held after 10 pm. This year, the proposals are before the House just one month after the state opening, with more than double the time allocated for debate and the debate held in prime time.
  The motion ensures that the Questions necessary to decide these matters, including the Questions on any amendments, can be put today at 7 pm. An early decision means that the Select Committees will be able to begin their work before the summer recess—indeed, as soon as the senior member calls a meeting.
  The purpose of today's debate is to carry through the wish of the House. I urge Members on both sides to approve the motion, so that we can move on to the important debate and enable the Select Committees to be established today.
  3.43 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: So that we all understand what half a day in prime time means, let me point out that we have barely three and a quarter hours in which to deal with some 27 motions and five important amendments tabled by Members across the House and selected by you, Mr. Speaker.
  What distinguishes this debate from those in earlier years is the discontent among Back Benchers, again across the House.
  Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Browning: No, I will not. No Gentleman will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
  I was referring to the discontent across the House—
  Hugh Bayley: Nicholas Winterton.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman shouts from a sedentary position. If he had done his homework, he would know that I abstained in the vote in 1992. I am not the person at whom to direct gibes about that vote.
  This is an important matter. Clearly, we would all like the rules under which nominations are made to have been changed by now; but thanks to an intransigent Government and an earlier Leader of the House who cared little for the wishes of Back Benchers on either side, we must now conduct a very controversial debate in just three and a quarter hours.
  3.44 pm
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I am disappointed that right hon. and hon. Members will not be able to look behind the strict confines of the individual amendments that are before us. My disquiet, which is widely shared, has been aroused because we are being asked to
  26
  agree memberships of Select Committees for a full Parliament—four or five years—when many people are concerned that the names have been plucked out of the air. Would not it be better to restrict the membership of the Committees to 12 calendar months, until 16 July next year, when we could debate and vote on the recommendations of the Liaison Committee report, which are germane—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already made a statement regarding the Business of the House motion, which is very narrow. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps put that argument when we reach the next set of motions. I think that that would be the best thing for him to do.
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: The question is why the Government seek arbitrarily to limit the time that the House has to debate what is supposed to be a House of Commons matter. As usual, the Government have thought that we should not have a prolonged debate, because that might be awkward or embarrassing. The Government also do not want Members of Parliament delayed too long in the House because they must all be home and tucked up in their beds early. The Government have put on Government business after this business, although limited in time, so it is obvious that the blame for the arbitrary truncation of the debate rests squarely with the Government.
  What could possibly be the Government's motivation for the arbitrary time limit on the debate on the next set of motions? As you have kindly indicated, Mr. Speaker, it will be proper during that debate for the House to consider the method of selection of Select Committee memberships. That may be the only opportunity in this Parliament to deal properly with that question, which is now much on people's minds.
  Hugh Bayley: If the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that three and a half hours is too short a time to debate the issues before the House this afternoon, why did he think that one and a half hours was sufficient time in 1992, when the Conservative Government, of which he was a member, excluded the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) from the chairmanship of the Health Committee?
  Mr. Forth: I do not recall any argument at the time from Labour Members. They were, as usual, silent on the matter. In fact, they probably were not here.
  This matter is rightly attracting more attention from the House, which is a welcome development. However, it will be for hon. Members to decide whether we can do justice to all the implications of the many motions in the brief time that the Government are allowing for debate. After all, we will be considering the membership of 27 Committees of the House and we are entitled to take a view on each of the proposed memberships, and on the method for determining them. That will require us to gaze into some murky depths, because we all think that we know how the determination is made.
  Many hon. Members will be happy with the proposals, because they will benefit from being members of the Committee of their choice. However, an equal number will be unhappy and some may even be suspicious of the

  27
  way in which the matter has been handled. We also have six amendments to consider. If the Government wish to suggest that the membership of 27 Committees, six amendments and a debate on the procedure for determining the membership can be concluded properly in the time allowed—this will be our only opportunity in this Session and, perhaps, this Parliament—I think that few hon. Members would favour that suggestion.
  Mr. John Bercow: My right hon. Friend is addressing the House with his usual restraint and understatement. Does he agree that the allocation of time is inadequate not only because it allows fewer than four minutes for debate on each of the motions on the Order Paper but because, for the debate to be adequate, we need a reiteration by the Leader of the House of what he is reported in the news media to have declared—namely, that he personally opposes the dismissal of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)?
  Mr. Forth: I agree with my hon. Friend. It would be of considerable interest if the Leader of the House were to honour us with an idea of what he had in mind.
  The Government might want to give further consideration to withdrawing the motion if only in the light of the number of Members who are present which, I regret to say, is unusually large. I would rather that a normal number of Members were present for such a debate—that would bring great joy to my heart. If the Leader of the House were to glance around the Chamber, particularly behind him, and look at the number of his colleagues who are here for these debates, to say nothing of Members on this side of the House, he might conclude that if even a fraction of those present wanted to participate, the time allowed would be lamentably inadequate. On that basis alone, I hope that he will seek leave to withdraw the motion so that the debate can continue at the pleasure of the House and Members can allocate their own time to the matter to decide it properly.
  Surely we all agree that the creation and membership of our Select Committees is one of the most important acts that we will perform in this Parliament. For it to be performed within this ridiculously short time scale and against this guillotine, which is what the motion amounts to, is unacceptable. My plea is that, before we are forced to vote against the motion, the Government should withdraw it.
  3.52 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I support the motion. Because of the advance publicity, a large number of our constituents will probably be watching the debate live, and I believe that many of them will be bemused by what they have heard so far and will fail to understand the points that have been made. As someone who has been in the House since 1979 and has always had to participate in these debates after 10 o'clock at night, I thank the Government for giving us prime time. We still have more than three hours, and my guess is that the House will be able to make its views effectively known to the Government before the 7 o'clock motion falls.
  3.53 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that his constituents would be bemused. They should not be, because as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) rightly said, the appointment of Select Committees is one of the most important acts carried out by this Chamber. We are appointing the method by which it is generally agreed that the Government of the day are most effectively scrutinised and called to account. As he and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, that is essentially a House of Commons matter. We are seeing an attempt by the Government to control the ability of the House to select the Select Committees. In other words, the ability of the House properly to perform its functions on a House of Commons matter is being curtailed.
  David Winnick: I am one of those who is concerned with regard to the two Members in question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Government should not interfere. However, on 13 July 1992, in a debate about the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) being refused reappointment to a Select Committee by the Government of the day because he was considered too much of a hindrance, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not take the same view. In the Division Lobby, he voted against the hon. Member for Macclesfield being reappointed to the chairmanship of the Select Committee on Health. Will he explain why he did not resign his post if he considered it such a crucial matter?
  Mr. Hogg: Of course I shall. There are many things that one does in government with which one does not necessarily agree; that is the nature of collective responsibility. Indeed, having heard the Leader of the House make observations both in private and public, I suspect that he does not agree with the decision not to appoint the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
  Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
  Mr. Hogg: I shall give way in a moment.
  Because of collective responsibility, the Leader of the House is in the Chamber and will move the motion that excludes the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a narrow business of the House motion and we are going wide of it.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. I was merely going to ask my right hon. and learned Friend to admit that he was wrong on that previous occasion.
  Mr. Hogg: I doubt that I was wrong, because I would have been expressing in private the view that I am now expressing in public. The real question is whether one should always resign when one does not wish to oppose a particular measure. That is nonsense; we would never have government. I do not suppose that I was wrong; I imagine that I expressed in private what I am saying today. I just did not do it in public; I was discreet.

  29
  The substantive issue is whether the House should appoint Select Committees. Nominations for 27 or so Committees are to be decided, six amendments have been tabled and there are six substantive debates. We have four hours in which to complete that.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Three hours.
  Mr. Hogg: The idea that we can do so in three hours is absurd. The House ought to say that there should be Divisions on the motions at 10 o'clock at the earliest. The idea that we should have them at 7 o'clock is a travesty of democracy but only too typical of the Government.
  3.57 pm
  Mr. Derek Foster: I congratulate the Government on making the Select Committee appointments rapidly; that is unprecedented and has never been achieved before in my 22 years in the House. I am deeply disappointed by the outcome, but I congratulate them on the speed of the appointments and on having this debate in prime time, which is also unprecedented in my time. We have had enough procedural nonsense. Please can we get on with the substantive debate?
  3.58 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: My experience of guillotine debates and subjects that the Executive propose to guillotine is that they have a natural time span. Frankly, I do not know whether debate on the nominations would reasonably run to 7 o'clock or later. However, in total, there are more than 30 amendments and motions. Some are highly contentious. The House has rarely been as full as it is today for a debate on procedural matters. We therefore know that the issues are highly contentious. The Executive, who are controlling Committee membership through the nominations on the Order Paper, now control the time during which the House can reasonably debate them.
  I do not know whether the substantive debate will run until 7 o'clock; but, following this debate and a subsequent Division, there will be less than three hours for it. We should allow it to run its natural course. My guess is that it would probably run until just after 7 o'clock, so why waste time, as the Government increasingly do? The fact is that time to debate the present motion takes time out of the following debates, which are to run until 7 o'clock. That happens with every guillotine and it squeezes the time for debate, which means that many of us who feel strongly about such issues may not have an opportunity to speak on them.
  We are trying to reinforce the message to the Executive, who are controlling not only the timetable, but the overall debate and Committee membership, that we should be allowed to speak on those matters as we wish. A number of Members have assembled here because they know in their heart of hearts that, however strongly they wish to speak, they will not be able to under the guillotine.
  3.59 pm
  Jeremy Corbyn: I, too, hope that we take a decision on this procedural motion very quickly, but I suggest that the whole business of appointing Select Committees, rushed timetables, timetable motions and
  30
  guillotine motions does not bring Parliament into good repute anywhere outside this building. The public want Parliament to hold the Executive to account; they want Members to be able freely to question what the Executive, Ministers and agencies do; and, above all, they want Select Committees to be appointed not by the Executive or, under powers of patronage, by the Leader of the Opposition, but by non-office-holding Back Benchers.
  A debate on such an important issue should not be limited to three hours. If necessary, the debate should go on longer, and I will invite the House to vote against this timetable motion, so that we can have more time seriously to discuss all the issues. It seems that too often, too quickly and too readily the House gives up its powers or allows restrictions to be placed on them and on debate, which debases the House in the public eye. We should consider the turnout in the recent general election and think about what the turnout will be in future elections.
  If the House wants to be taken seriously, it must take itself and its role as a body of scrutiny, questioning, debate and proposal much more seriously than it does at present. We have already had a debate on "Shifting the Balance". Surely the message is that all is not well in the way that the House is run, and perhaps now is the time, during a debate on Select Committee appointments, to think about how to make the House more representative, more democratic and, above all, more effective in its work.
  4.1 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I want to make a brief point that follows from what has just been said. This debate is limited to three hours, but following your strictures on the motions and amendments, Mr. Speaker, there could be eight or nine hours of votes. Three hours of debate and perhaps 10 hours voting is a strange ratio; perhaps those on the Government Front Bench will address that point.
  Mr. Stephen Twigg: I am rapidly becoming used to being the Minister with responsibility for business of the House motions, and as such I am used to the synthetic anger conjured up by some Opposition Members, but the humbug that we have heard today takes the biscuit. We propose, if I am brief, to have three hours of debate, when on every previous similar occasion there has been only an hour and a half. We are debating the motion in prime time, when every similar debate under Conservative Governments was taken after 10 o'clock and often in the early hours of the morning. There are serious issues to contend with. We would have had three and a half hours of debate. We have lost time only because of the contributions made by Opposition Members. I suggest that we accept the motion immediately, so that we can have three hours of proper debate on the matter in hand.
  Question put:—
  The House divided:Ayes 290, Noes 160.

  Division No. 25]

  [4.3 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Baird, Vera

  Ainger, Nick

  Banks, Tony

  Alexander, Douglas

  Barrett, John

  Allen, Graham

  Barron, Kevin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bayley, Hugh

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Beard, Nigel

  Bailey, Adrian

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  31

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Bell, Stuart

  Flint, Caroline

  Benton, Joe

  Follett, Barbara

  Berry, Roger

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Blackman, Liz

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Gapes, Mike

  Brake, Tom

  Gardiner, Barry

  Brennan, Kevin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Goggins, Paul

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Grogan, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Bryant, Chris

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Burden, Richard

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Bumham, Andy

  Harvey, Nick

  Burstow, Paul

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cairns, David

  Heyes, David

  Calton, Patsy

  Hill, Keith

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hoey, Kate

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cann, Jamie

  Hope, Phil

  Caplin, Ivor

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Casale, Roger

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Challen, Colin

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Chaytor, David

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hutton, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Clelland, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Coaker, Vernon

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Coleman, Iain

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Corston, Jean

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Cousins, Jim

  Joyce, Eric

  Cox, Tom

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cranston, Ross

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Crausby, David

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Kelly, Ruth

  Cummings, John

  Kemp, Fraser

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Kidney, David

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  David, Wayne

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Davidson, Ian

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Laws, David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Laxton, Bob

  Dawson, Hilton

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Lepper, David

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dismore, Andrew

  Levitt, Tom

  Dobbin, Jim

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Linton, Martin

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Love, Andrew

  Doran, Frank

  Lucas, Ian

  Dowd, Jim

  Luke, Iain

  Drew, David

  Lyons, John

  Efford, Clive

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McCafferty, Chris

  Ennis, Jeff

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  32

  MacDougall, John

  Salter, Martin

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sanders, Adrian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McKechin, Ann

  Sawford, Phil

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McNulty, Tony

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Simon, Siôn

  McWilliam, John

  Singh, Marsha

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mann, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marris, Rob

  Southworth, Helen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Squire, Rachel

  Merron, Gillian

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Miliband, David

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moore, Michael

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Moran, Margaret

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Morley, Elliot

  Stringer, Graham

  Mullin, Chris

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stunell, Andrew

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Tami, Mark

  Oaten, Mark

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Thurso, John

  Organ, Diana

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Trickett, Jon

  Owen Albert

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverth'ton SE)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Perham Linda

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Picking, Anne

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tyler, Paul

  Pike, Peter

  Tynan, Bill

  Plaskitt, James

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pollard, Kerry

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pond, Chris

  Watson, Tom

  Pound, Stephen

  Watts, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Weir, Michael

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  White, Brian

  Pugh, Dr John

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Purchase, Ken

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pumell, James

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Willis, Phil

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wills, Michael

  Rammell, Bill

  Wishart, Pete

  Rapson, Syd

  Woodward, Shaun

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Woolas, Phil

  Rendel, David

  Worthington, Tony

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Rooney, Terry

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Ross, Ernie

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ruddock, Joan

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ryan, Joan

  Dan Norris and

  Salmond, Alex

  Mr. John Heppell.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Baldry, Tony

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Barker, Greg

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Beggs, Roy

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bercow, John

  Austin, John

  Boswell, Tim

  Bacon, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  33

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Havard, Dai

  Bums, Simon

  Hawkins, Nick

  Burt, Alistair

  Heath, David

  Butterfill, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hendry, Charles

  Cash, William

  Hinchliffe, David

  Caton, Martin

  Hoban, Mark

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Holmes, Paul

  Clapham, Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clappison, James

  Horam, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hurst, Alan

  Clwyd, Ann

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Collins, Tim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Keetch, Paul

  Cotter, Brian

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

  Cran, James

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Cryer, John (Homchurch)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Lansley, Andrew

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

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Dodds, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Etherington, Bill

  Loughton, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  McDonnell, John

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Flight, Howard

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Flynn, Paul

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Francois, Mark

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  McWalter, Tony

  Gibb, Nick

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Malins, Humfrey

  Grayling, Chris

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Greenway, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Grieve, Dominic

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Hancock, Mike

  May, Mrs Theresa

  34

  Mercer, Patrick

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

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Spink, Dr Robert

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Spring, Richard

  Ottaway, Richard

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Page, Richard

  Streeter, Gary

  Paice, James

  Swayne, Desmond

  Paterson, Owen

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Price, Adam

  Trend, Michael

  Prisk, Mark

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Viggers, Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Wiggin, Bill

  Ruffley, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Willetts, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Selous, Andrew

  Wood, Mike

  Shepherd, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Simmonds, Mark

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Mr. James Gray and

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. John Randall.

  Question accordingly agreed to
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motion relating to the membership of Select Committees and the appointment of a Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons not later than Seven o'clock; such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then he moved: such Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business; and Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on divisions) shall apply and the Order [28th June] relating to Deferred Divisions shall not apply if, after the time for the interruption of business, the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on a Question is challenged in respect of any of the said Questions.

  Select Committees

    Accommodation and Works
    4.16 pm
    Mr. John McWilliam: I beg to move,
    That Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harold Best, Tom Brake, Derek Conway, Keith Hill, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, Albert Owen, Anne Picking and Syd Rapson be members of the Accommodation and Works Committee.
    Mr. Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss motions 4 to 29.
    Mr. McWilliam: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the thoughtful way in which you have organised the debate, which might otherwise have become messy. Your wise decision will enable us to reach a conclusion in an orderly, considered and sensible fashion.
    I also thank hon. Members of all parties for their co-operation on the Committee of Selection. We were under enormous pressure to recommend the names for membership of the Select Committees before the summer recess so that they can meet to set their programmes, and hon. Members have enabled us to do that. We faced a great challenge simply because this time we had a month less in which to do that. The fact that we are discussing the motions in prime time is a testament to everyone's hard work.
    Mr. Eric Forth: How many changes did the Committee of Selection make to the recommendations made by the representatives of different political parties?
    Mr. McWilliam: None. I reasonably thought that the representatives of the various political parties had sorted the recommendations out with their members before they put them to the Committee. The parties have different systems for doing that.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: The Chairman of the Committee of Selection says that he assumed that the various political parties had sorted out the recommendations before they were given to the Committee, but how does that apply to the minority parties which are not represented on the Committee of Selection?
    Mr. McWilliam: The hon. Gentleman asks a reasonable question. Traditionally, the minority parties are represented by the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats who takes soundings to produce an agreement. That arrangement has always worked effectively. The Government, the official Opposition and the minority parties have their respective systems and they are intended to work.
    Tony Wright: I am getting a little confused. If the Committee of Selection does not select, what does it do?
    Mr. McWilliam: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The Committee of Selection recommends to the House who the Committee members should be. He might be
    36
    slightly confused because the Committee of Selection comes under the Standing Order for private business, not public business, and was established with a completely different function.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Is there really any point in having the Committee?
    Mr. McWilliam: There is a huge point. If the Committee did not exist, another Committee of a similar nature would have to be found to do the job.
    Mr. Mark Fisher: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. McWilliam: No. I should make some progress—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Let me make a couple of points first, then my hon. Friend can decide whether to intervene.
    I served with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on Select Committees for several years after the new system of Select Committees was first implemented. I was a member of one Select Committee or another from 1979, when I entered the House, until it became apparent that my duties as Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall meant that I was unable to fulfil my duties on the Select Committee on Defence. In short, I have served on Select Committees of the House for more than 20 years and it has been an honour and a privilege to do so.
    Select Committees acquit themselves extremely well. I have found all the Members of Parliament with whom I have served, whatever party they represent, to be unfailingly courteous and helpful. The Committees tend to develop an independent existence. They are a huge advantage and are of great benefit to the House in its considerations. I am not saying that they are perfect—they are not; nor do I think that they have all the powers that they should have, but I am not allowed to go further in that vein.
    Mr. Fisher: Does my hon. Friend not understand from the tone of the House that our complaint is not about the existence of the Committees, but about the fact that they are dominated by the Government? Select Committees are parliamentary Committees, not Government Committees. He says that it is a difficult task to make all the selections, but how many minutes did the Committee of Selection sit when carrying out its considerations?
    Mr. McWilliam: My hon. Friend is missing the point. I sat on Select Committees from the 1979–80 Session onward and I have to tell him that, regardless of the complexion of the Executive, Government Members have been quite happy to go along with Select Committee reports that challenge the Government of the day. That will continue and it is an entirely good thing.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Does my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) believe that failing to challenge the Government includes the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport asking the Government to prevent the scrapping of HMS Cavalier—the Minister for the Arts at the time neither agreeing not to scrap it nor even going to

    37
    see it; the Committee recommending the saving of HMS Cavalier against the policy of the Government, and the Committee succeeding?
    Mr. McWilliam: My right hon. Friend is right. I remember when the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, on which the hon. Member for South Staffordshire and I had the privilege to serve, said that student fees should not be introduced. Select Committees have a long and honourable history of challenging the Executive. It is the job of Members of Parliament to scrutinise the Executive; Select Committees are merely a system for doing that.
    We have 26 Select Committees to appoint this evening. There are six amendments, which fall into two groups.
    Sir Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman says that there are 26 Select Committees to appoint. I might have misread the Order Paper, but there does not appear to be a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Will he explain why not?
    Hon. Members: It is there.
    Mr. McWilliam: The right hon. Gentleman has missed it—it should be on the Order Paper.
    Lynne Jones: It is not there.
    Mr. McWilliam: The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) is quite right—it is not there. He has asked a very sensible question and I shall find out the answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is motion 30."] I am sorry—it is motion 30, which is not in the group that we are considering.
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. It is my understanding that it has not so far been possible to draw up a list of nominations to go before the Committee of Selection. I hope that we shall be successful in time for this Wednesday.
    Sir Brian Mawhinney rose—
    Mr. McWilliam: May I say a few words before I give way to the right hon. Gentleman? My understanding of Standing Orders is that it is not in order to intervene on an intervention—such as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was making. I give way to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire.
    Sir Brian Mawhinney: Having established that we shall not be appointing a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs tonight, may we have an assurance at some point from those on the Front Bench that such a Committee will be appointed?
    Mr. McWilliam: I can deal only with the items that have been before the Committee of Selection. That is what I am attempting to do.
    As I was saying, the six amendments fall into two groups. Amendment (c) to motion 9, amendment (c) to motion 16 and amendment (b) to motion 17 were tabled by members of the official Opposition in an attempt to
    38
    make changes in the Labour membership of Select Committees. Amendment (b) to motion 15, amendment (b) to motion 19 and the manuscript amendment to motion No. 17 seem to relate to disagreements between the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrat party as to how many SNP or Liberal Members should appear on Select Committees.
    My granny told me that it was a bad idea to intrude on private grief. That seems to be what is being attempted this evening in respect of various parties. I return to my original point: the question of how individual parties make their selections and whom they select is surely a matter for them.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. McWilliam: May I finish my point? Selection is a matter for the individual parties. When I was Chairman of the Selection Committee during the last Parliament, I was perfectly happy to acquiesce with all parties—perhaps when a mistake was made in a change or something similar. I have not moved motions—sometimes late at night—in order that such things can be sorted out. Those selection processes are a matter for the individual parties.
    The duty of the Committee of Selection is to ensure that the balance of the House is kept in terms of membership of Committees, that the motions for nomination are properly made and that the procedures are properly adhered to.
    Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. McWilliam: Before I give way to my hon. Friend, I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).
    Mr. Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman understand the dismay with which his remarks are being greeted? In fact, he is saying that the sole function of the Committee of Selection is to rubber-stamp the nominations made by those on the Front Benches of the respective parties. Surely, that is not the function of the Committee. The function of the Committee of Selection is genuinely to select names.
    Mr. McWilliam: The right hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstands. I do not know what the Conservative party does, but I know that in the Labour party all the names are put before the parliamentary Labour party and are subject to its approval. I deliberately did not attend the PLP meeting last week because, when I came to chair the Select Committee, I did not want to have in my mind any debate that might have occurred. I had to be objective. Presumably, the Conservative party does it differently.
    Mr. Salmond rose—
    Mr. McWilliam: The minority parties clearly do it differently, because the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene.
    Mr. Salmond: Earlier, the Chairman of the Committee of Selection said that he assumed that there had been

    39
    agreement between the Liberals, the SNP and Plaid Cymru. There was no such agreement. Given that fact, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Chairman of the Committee of Selection has a special responsibility to protect the rights of parties that are not represented on his Committee and thus have no ability to represent themselves?
    Mr. McWilliam: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, it is not a matter for me to interfere in the business of political parties, except in so far as to ensure that, if there is a debate or a problem about the nominations that are made, I speak to the people concerned. Unfortunately, until I saw today's amendments, nobody told me that there had been a problem.
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that later in the debate I hope to address the points that have been raised? It is perhaps not appropriate to do so at the moment.
    Mr. McWilliam: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I hope that hon. Members will realise that all I can do is represent the Committee of Selection and the fact that the Committee of Selection took nominations clearly and cleanly. Those nominations are being put to the House today.
    Lynne Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Can he confirm that in the last Parliament he was a member of the Liaison Committee? If so, did he support the report produced by that Committee, entitled "Shifting the Balance", which recommended changes to the way in which members of Select Committees are appointed? Will he place on record whether he agrees with that report, whether he would recommend those changes and whether they should be put to the House?
    Mr. McWilliam: I acquiesced with that report, certainly. The Liaison Committee is a Select Committee and, as a good Select Committee member, I would wish, where there was not some outstanding matter of fundamental principle, to go along with a Select Committee report. I happily did so.
    I do not wish to eat up any more of the time of the House, although most of the time has been taken up by interventions. I reiterate that amendment (c) to motion 9, amendment (c) to motion 16 and amendment (b) to motion 17 were tabled by members of the official Opposition and relate to members of the Government. That is interfering with private grief. It is up to the Government party to sort the matter out. Amendment (b) to motion 15, amendment (c) to motion 17 and the manuscript amendment have been tabled by the Scottish National party. It is up to the minority parties to sort themselves out, although I suspect that it is too late.
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. McWilliam: No, I will not give way again. I am certain that hon. Members want to get on with the debate, and I do not wish to prevent them from so doing.
    40
    I am deeply thankful to all sides of the House for the speed with which they have been able to operate. I realise that there is controversy; there always is. In the 20-odd years that I have been in the House, there has always been controversy about the matter. At least we can deal with it at a reasonable time of the evening. I commend my nominations to the House.
    4.32 pm
    Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton): I shall not detain the House for long. This is a Commons matter, but I wish to associate my party with my opening general comments. At a time when matters that go on in Parliament are not held in great respect outside, we can all take pride in the respect in which Select Committees are held outside the House. The same applies to hon. Members who wish to serve on Select Committees and who have served on Select Committees not just to fulfil their duty, but to play a role in the scrutiny of legislation and of Government business.
    It is important for the Leader of the House to recognise that, as will be evident from the debate, we need a change in the way that hon. Members are selected—or appointed, as they are now—to Select Committees. In particular, the chairmanship of those Committees is not just a prestigious appointment; it is extremely important to the way that Select Committees are run and the Executive are held to account. The Leader of the House has hinted in the House and outside that he recognises that the time has come to address the important report from the Liaison Committee. In the last Session we, the official Opposition, gave up our debating time on the Floor of the House so that the House could consider that report.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I find her views interesting. When her Government were in power, did she make any suggestions to them about changing the way in which Select Committees were appointed?
    Mrs. Browning: As I pointed out earlier from a sedentary position, since the day on which I entered the House in 1992, I have continually questioned the way in which Select Committee appointments are made. The record will show that within a few weeks of my election as a Member of Parliament, I was unhappy about what happened in 1992 with regard to the chairmanship of the Select Committee on Health.
    I say to the hon. Lady and to new Members on both sides of the House that the power of the Whips Office, whether its influence is exerted by cajolement or other mechanisms, to offer Select Committee appointments and chairmanships to Members of Parliament is past its sell-by date. Such appointments should not be a matter of patronage for the Whips Office, which is part of the Executive. If we are to regain—it is now a matter of regaining—the right of democratically elected Back Benchers to hold the Executive to account. Select Committee procedures must be a fundamental consideration.
    I welcome the watershed that has been reached—we have reached it because of genuine feeling on both sides of the House. Any change in the procedures of the House, including those that affect the appointment of Select Committees, needs consensus. That is why I repeat the

    41
    remarks that I made when the official Opposition gave up half a day of our allotted time to debate the Liaison Committee report. As I said when I led that debate, it was sad that the report was presented to the House as the subject of an Adjournment motion. If it had been debated as part of a substantive motion, and if the Government could have trusted the House—this was not a matter of trusting only the Opposition or Labour Back Benchersy—the tone of this debate would have been very different.
    As we have a new Leader of the House, I say to him that now is his opportunity. I hope that, apart from the long list of motions dealing with individual names and Committees, he will see the big picture that is evident in this debate, which is that we want change.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend makes a splendid point. Could not the Conservative party give the lead, as it has done on so many occasions, by introducing a system to take away the Whips' power to appoint people and to give it to hon. Members? If the Conservative party were to do that, might not the Labour party follow?
    Mrs. Browning: Yes. Not only did I make that commitment when we debated the Liaison Committee report, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has said at the Dispatch Box that he supports in principle the recommendations of the Committee. There is consensus across the House. If the Leader of the House were minded to make the changes, there would not be such an acrimonious feeling about the way in which this particular tranche of Select Committee appointments is being made.
    Mr. William Cash (Stone): Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a logical conclusion to these proposals? I do not want to press her too hard about it, because she sits on the Front Bench and it requires careful consideration. In the past three or four debates on these matters, I have pointed out that, if we want to achieve the objectives that we have set with regard to restrictions on the Executive, new Standing Orders will be required to ensure that any hon. Member or Minister of the Crown who attempts to interfere with a free vote will be in contempt of the House. Such a change would put teeth into the restrictions. I do not want to push her hard on that proposal, as it needs much consideration, but I fear that, without it, the whole thing will become an illusion.
    Mrs. Browning: I share my hon. Friend's concern. He will know that I pressed the Leader of the House during last Thursday's business questions to confirm that there would be a free vote in this debate on the Front and Back Benches. He gave his confirmation and I am sure that a free vote will occur.
    I should like to make one or two points about the motions. Perhaps it is unusual for a Conservative Member to pick up on the matter, but it is noticeable that, of the names recommended for Select Committees, no women are proposed for the Standards and Privileges Committee, the Public Accounts Committee or the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee. However, seven are proposed for the Modernisation Committee. I flag that up because it would be a great shame if some Committees were deemed to be boys' matters and others girls' matters.
    42
    My name is down for the Modernisation Committee, but, in a spirit of co-operation, I would willingly give up my place to a man if one would like to sit on that Committee.
    We heard from the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), who chairs the Committee of Selection, that it clearly does not have an overview. It does what it is told and simply acts as a rubber-stamp. That is a weakness in the conduct of our proceedings. If the Committee genuinely considered balance, the imbalance in the proposed membership of the Select Committees would not exist. It is appalling that no women have been proposed for the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. McWilliam: Would the hon. Lady like it if the Committee of Selection decided that it did not like the names that the Opposition had proposed for a specific Committee, and switched them around?
    Mrs. Browning: I am trying not to move power from the Whips to the Committee of Selection, but to give it to hon. Members, to those who are democratically elected, not appointees who rubber-stamp what the Whips Office of any party deems to be the right way forward. That is not democratic; it does not help Back-Bench Members, and it keeps power and patronage in the hands of the Executive. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does an honourable and difficult job but he described a rubber-stamping exercise when he outlined the conduct of the Committee of Selection.
    Mr. McWilliam: It may help the hon. Lady if I stress that it is not the first time that I have questioned nominations from not only the Government party but the Conservative party and the minority parties because I do not want willing horses flogged to death. I take that duty seriously.
    Mrs. Browning: We are hearing confirmation from all parties of unhappiness with the current system, which needs to be changed.
    I want to consider the amendments that we shall debate and especially the chairmanship of the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee. Like many other hon. Members, I received an e-mail from the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson). It states:
    "It is essential for our democracy that watchdogs are allowed to bark and occasionally to bite."
    I agree. Any Government must accept that Select Committees will scrutinise and sometimes criticise. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) pointed out on "Woman's Hour" today, that helps to create the checks and balances in our democratic procedures.
    It does not matter from which party a Chairman comes, we all respect the neutrality of Select Committee Chairmen. There is a feeling of great sympathy on both sides of the House for the right hon. Member for Swansea, East and for the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich.
    The hon. Lady does not need me as an advocate. She is a doughty fighter. I know that because I fought her in Crewe and Nantwich in the 1987 election. Having come into the House in 1992, like many other Members on both sides of the House, I have great respect for her as a parliamentarian. There are too few people in this place

    43
    whom we can call great parliamentarians, but the hon. Lady is one. I pay tribute to her as a parliamentarian. It would be to the detriment not only of the Transport Sub-Committee but of the reputation of the House if her expertise and dedication to this place as a parliamentarian were denied us in her capacity as Chairman of that Committee.
    I urge all Members, old and new—if I may put it that way—to ignore the ways in which the Whips and others go about their business trying to influence them. It is not true that if one does not do as one is told one never gets ministerial office or the job of Parliamentary Private Secretary.
    Jeremy Corbyn: Yes, it is.
    Mrs. Browning: No, it is not at all. I shall conduct counselling sessions for hon. Members later if it would be helpful.
    Like many other Members, as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, I voted in a certain way when it was not the wish of my party that I should do so. Ultimately, over the period of years that we all hope to spend as parliamentarians, we cannot afford as individuals simply to buckle down because of one single personal issue, when there are greater issues at stake. I want to say to all Members that this is a free vote and, in deciding how they are going to vote, they should vote for what is right for this place, and not for its history but for its future.
    The House needs its reputation to be restored. The only people who can do that are the people who sit here on these green Benches: Back Benchers and Front Benchers. That is why I say to the Leader of the House, for whom I have great respect, that this is his opportunity to hear what is being said by Members behind him and across the Dispatch Box. The way in which we deal with Select Committees now—never mind what went on in the past—could be a watershed in terms of how the House is perceived in future.
    4.47 pm
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for the tone of her speech. She asked whether I would be reviewing the system by which nominations come forward, and perhaps it would be helpful if I were to say at the outset that I will address that matter in my speech. Indeed, it will make up the bulk of my speech.
    I am also grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing out that there were seven women on the Modernisation Committee, which confirms how forward-thinking the women in the House are. As a member of that Committee, I will endeavour to make it clear that modernisation is a matter for men, too. However, I hope that the hon. Lady will reconsider her offer to give up her seat on that Committee to a man on her side of the House, because were she to do so, it would leave the Committee without a single Tory woman.
    The debate today will ensure that the Select Committees are up and running before the summer recess, which will fulfil the commitment that I gave the House
    44
    on that issue. Assuming that the motions before the House are approved tonight, Select Committees will be able to meet from tomorrow. That will set a new record for the speed with which Select Committees have been created. We will have set up the Select Committees in this Parliament within four weeks of the Queen's Speech. That compares with the five months that it took in 1987, and almost three months in 1992, under the Conservative party.
    I was sorry to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) complain earlier of unreasonable haste in bringing forward the nominations. When we returned after the election, at the time of the Queen's Speech, there was broad agreement—indeed, I think I can say that there was enthusiasm—that we should get the Select Committees set up before the recess, so as not to delay the important work of scrutiny. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who came to discuss this with me, agrees that that was the priority attached to the matter in all quarters of the House at the time.
    Andrew Bennett (Denton and Reddish): On that point, may I firmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting a move on with this issue? However, will he confirm that if the House were to decide tonight that one or two of the motions should not go through, the Committee of Selection could meet again on Wednesday, and it would be possible to put different names before the House later in the week to ensure that the Select Committees could still be set up before the recess—or at least, that they could meet in the first week of the recess?
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that it is our intention to hold a meeting of the Committee of Selection this Wednesday. Indeed, that will be necessary, partly because of the point that has already been raised: we have still to complete the selection for the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the Catering Committee and the Science and Technology Committee. That meeting could, of course, consider other matters that were appropriate.
    I would need the co-operation of the House if we had to resolve matters on Thursday, which would be the one remaining full day before the recess, but technically, what my hon. Friend says is correct. He is also correct to say that the Select Committees have the power to meet in the recess. The House does not have to be sitting for them to meet.
    I am accused of having acted in haste, but despite that haste, we have provided for additional flexibility and freedom for Select Committees. For the first time, every Select Committee has the right to decide for itself whether it wants to appoint a Sub-Committee. Every departmental Select Committee will also have the right to set up a Joint Committee with any other Select Committee. That freedom represents a response to the principle expressed by the Liaison Committee report in the last Parliament, that joined-up government requires joined-up scrutiny. We have provided for Select Committees to decide for themselves how to go about that.
    I will not disguise from the House the fact that this debate has turned out to he more controversial than I would have wished. Some comments that I have read about the nominations before the House have been a

    45
    bit overdone. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) is living proof of the willingness on this side to reappoint even the most—how shall I say it?—irrepressible Members of the previous Parliament. Nevertheless, I recognise that concern has been expressed on both sides about the lists before the House. A number of amendments address those concerns.
    I confirm to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton that on this side of the House the votes on all the amendments will be free votes. I hope that they will be free votes on her side as well. As I said to the House on Thursday, this is a matter on which all Members, whether they are in government or not, must exercise their discretion. This matter is for the House, not for a collective decision by the Government.
    Mr. Cash: Will the Leader of the House give way?
    Mr. Cook: On this occasion, but then I must make progress.
    Mr. Cash: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who will have heard my earlier intervention. In view of the reforming zeal with which he is applying himself to his job, will he consider—I put it no higher than that at the moment—changing Standing Orders to make it a contempt of the House for any Member to try either to prevent another Member from exercising a free vote or to interfere with another Member in the exercise of his conscience or the fulfilment of his duty? After all, any such change would depend on the Government and their vote.
    Mr. Cook: I listened with the greatest interest when the hon. Gentleman made his earlier intervention. I suggest to him that it might be wise on my part to try to achieve reform of the House by flanking manoeuvres rather than by hanging myself out on the barbed wire in a full frontal assault on one of the strongest strongholds in the House. I heard what he said and I hope that the Opposition Whips listened to him carefully.
    Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Cook: On this occasion, but then I must deal with how we are to address the question of changing the system.
    Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Leader of the House for giving way. Before he completes his contribution, will he say what thought he has given to the Liaison Committee report "Shifting the Balance", which is about the future appointment of Select Committees and appointments to vacancies that might occur in this Parliament? Does he accept its recommendation that those should be taken out of the power of the Whips Offices of all parties?
    Mr. Cook: If my hon. Friend lets me proceed, he will find that the rest of my speech addresses precisely those questions.
    Regardless of the outcome of tonight's votes, a wider issue must be addressed and I shall address it now. To get the Select Committees up and running before the summer recess, it was necessary to adopt this procedure. If we had embarked first on making major changes to the procedure
    46
    and amended Standing Orders, there would have been no prospect of the Select Committees being established until October or November. Even with no such changes, only in the last week before the recess have we been able to put nominations to the House.
    I have repeatedly said that it was my intention to review in the autumn the system by which nominations to Select Committees are made. I would be the first to agree that the events of the past few days have given greater urgency to the search for a more transparent system. I intend to invite the Modernisation Committee, when it meets for the first time on Wednesday, to make the system of nominations to Select Committees the first priority for its programme.
    The Modernisation Committee can address the procedures of the House, but it cannot make any recommendations about the internal process by which political parties decide which of their members to put forward.
    Jean Corston: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that within the Labour party this matter should be referred in the first instance to the parliamentary committee, so that we can come up with a process that is transparent and has the confidence of all Members?
    Mr. Cook: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said, and I welcome the commitment to a review of procedures in the parliamentary Labour party by the parliamentary committee. I particularly welcome the fact that the parliamentary committee will carry out that review, because half its members are elected by Back Benchers. One of the options that it will wish to consider is whether it should make the initial choice of which members of the Labour party should serve on which Select Committees.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: Am I right in saying that members of the Government serve on the parliamentary committee?
    Mr. Cook: I said that half the members of the parliamentary committee were elected by Back Benchers—and members of the Government have no vote in that election.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I welcome my right hon. Friend's support for the review that will be conducted by the parliamentary committee. In view of the concern about a number of people who are on several Committees, how quickly will the review be set up, and how soon will the new selection procedure be able to review the membership being proposed today?
    Mr. Cook: I hope that two separate reviews will commence this week: one by the Modernisation Committee on the procedures of the House, and the other by the Labour party's parliamentary committee on procedures in the Labour party. I give my hon. Friend an undertaking that that will be the timetable for the start of the reviews. The timetable for the conclusion of those reviews will depend in part on how quickly it is possible to build consensus on change. I hope that we will be able to return to this issue early in the autumn.
    Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman help the House? If the Modernisation Committee comes up with a

    47
    new system for appointing Select Committees, will he come to the House with a new set of proposals for membership of those Committees—one that reflects the mechanism agreed by the Modernisation Committee?
    Mr. Cook: I do not honestly think that I would have any alternative. There is no way in which changes to the system can be put in place without the agreement of the House. This is a matter for the House. Although I undertake to ensure that any agreed system is put to hon. Members, it must be the House that decides, not me.
    Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me; I am sure the fault was mine. Once we have a mechanism for choosing the membership of Select Committees, as agreed by the Modernisation Committee, can we consider the whole question again, so that we can choose new members in accordance with the procedure recommended by the Modernisation Committee?
    Mr. Cook: No, I cannot give the right hon. and learned Gentleman that assurance. The large number of hon. Members who may be appointed to Select Committees tonight would not want to begin their work on those Committees with the clear and explicit expectation that membership would be reviewed and we would start again in November. There may be opportunities to review and to change membership of Committees in the future, but it would be unwise of us to say that in three months' time we will sack those whom we appoint today.
    Mr. Salmond: Notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman has said, does he accept that there is a problem with the numbers in the lists before us, and with the principle of how minority parties are represented on the Committee of Selection?
    Mr. Cook: I agree that there is an issue to be addressed. I accept that in terms of the strict arithmetical division of Committee members, the minority parties have not been represented to reflect their full strength in the House. It is a difficult balancing act, but I recognise that there is a problem.
    When we debated the changes to Standing Orders 10 days ago, I said that one of the issues that I would like to re-examine in the autumn was the size of Select Committees. There have been proposals for them to be larger, and given the number of Labour Back Benchers who have sought membership, there is an added case for considering that matter. It is for the House to make the decision, and there are also arguments on the other side of the balance sheet, but if we decided to make the Committees larger that would, I think, help to address the problem identified by the hon. Gentleman, and possibly some of the other problems identified on the Order Paper.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): May I ask my right hon. Friend to give one simple undertaking—that whatever machinery is proposed to the House, the method by which all Select Committee members are chosen will not only be spelt out in considerable detail, but be absolutely transparent?
    Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that I see no point in our making a change unless it introduces greater
    48
    transparency. I entirely agree that that should be our priority. Fortunately, we are not short of advice on how to make the process more transparent.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
    Mr. Stunell rose—
    Mr. Cook: I will give way later, but I hope that hon. Gentlemen will forgive me if I do not do so now. I really must make some progress.
    A number of texts are available to give us guidance. A good starting point for the Modernisation Committee's review would be the Liaison Committee's report "Unfinished Business", produced during the last Parliament. I am pleased to note that I seem to have anticipated what the hon. Member for Macclesfield was going to say.
    Mr. Winterton indicated assent.
    Mr. Cook: In that report, the Liaison Committee recognised that at the start of a Parliament it was not possible for it to clear nominations. As it consists of the Chairs of other Select Committees, by definition it cannot exist in advance of those Committees. "Unfinished Business" proposed that, after the new Parliament had sat for eight weeks, the task of nominating replacements should pass to the Liaison Committee. Because the report was published in the spring shortly before Parliament was dissolved for the general election, there was no time for the Government to produce a response. I therefore think it appropriate for the Modernisation Committee to begin its review of the system with that report.
    In the last Parliament, there was a turnover of more than 50 per cent. in the membership of some Select Committees. I hope that in this Parliament there will be more stability.
    Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): Don't promote members to be Ministers, then!
    Mr. Cook: I will faithfully note my hon. Friend's observation, and ensure that that does not happen to him in the current Parliament.
    I agree with the Liaison Committee that the success of Select Committees depends on members giving commitment and priority to the work of those Committees. Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's objection, however, there will inevitably be a number of changes to Committee membership during this Parliament, and it is therefore important for us to identify an alternative system of nomination as soon as possible. We should consider whether that new system could provide a specific role for the Liaison Committee to clear nominations for future vacancies, and to be responsible for putting those nominations to the House.
    That was, of course, only one of the Liaison Committee's recommendations for reform; there were many others. The Committee mentioned, for instance, the importance of discussing Select Committee reports in the Chamber while their subject matter was still topical—possibly in a weekly half-hour slot after Question Time.

    49
    It also suggested that the House should recognise an alternative career structure through the Committees, by reflecting the work of Chairs in MPs' salary structure.
    I am conscious that no proposal for change is without problems or will be short of opponents, but I am willing to look afresh at any proposal for reform of the Select Committees that will support their vital role of scrutiny. "Unfinished Business" calls for constructive co-operation between Government and Select Committees. It is in that spirit that I am willing to work with the Liaison Committee on the shared principle that good scrutiny makes for good government.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: In my experience, the way forward for new Labour is to consult endlessly. I welcome the assurances that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has given today, but how long will his consultation with the Modernisation Committee and others take? Does he have an end date in mind for bringing forward proposals—on a Government motion, not on a motion for the Adjournment—that would enable us to take a collective decision?
    Mr. Cook: The proposals would have to be brought forward on a substantive motion, otherwise we would not be able to give effect to the decision of the House. My hon. Friend asks a question that in essence I have already addressed: I would like to make progress as quickly as possible. I certainly intend that the Modernisation Committee, having met on Wednesday, will meet again during the recess, in September, to discuss this and other matters.
    I hope that it will be possible for us to make proposals in the autumn, but that depends in part on the extent to which I am able to command consensus for change in the House. I tend to agree with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton that, in the light of the events of the past few days, it seems that if there has ever been a moment when we are likely to achieve consensus it is now. If the House reaches agreement, it can help me to make proposals more quickly than would otherwise be possible.
    The decision on who goes on to a popular Select Committee can never be made easy. Last week, with some Committees, my hon. Friends faced the challenge of choosing a dozen or fewer members from 50 or 60 applications. Whoever makes the choice in those circumstances, and however it is done, there will always be more Members who are disappointed than those who are satisfied. But the difficulty in making the choice increases the importance of ensuring that the process is seen to be transparent, fair arid under the control of the House.
    The Select Committees carry out a valuable service to this House by conducting effective scrutiny. The priority for the House now is to put above scrutiny the process by which those Select Committees are chosen. We want both press and public to have confidence in those who are nominated to exercise Parliament's role of scrutiny. We will best safeguard that confidence if we ensure that future nominations to Select Committees are seen to be fully in the hands of Members of this House.
    5.8 pm
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: This is an important and significant debate that will have far-reaching implications if we get the answers right.
    50
    The votes at the end of the debate will not be the measure of how successful it has been, and it is of the utmost importance that the Leader of the House presses ahead with the changes and reforms that he has mentioned, instead of letting them get bogged down in the morass of parliamentary delays that can so quickly accumulate.
    Select Committees are a fundamental method of holding the Executive to account, and if they do not work effectively they cannot exercise scrutiny. They can collect and chew over evidence at leisure. They can question Ministers and, importantly, civil servants and outside experts in a way that the House cannot. They can develop an esprit de corps or, put another way, they can hunt like a pack. If they get a scent, they can follow it in a way that parliamentary debate and question times do not allow.
    The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and the Leader of the House mentioned the Liaison Committee and the importance of its report. Much thinking is being done and we need to see some action following from it. The hon. Lady also spoke about the allocation of chairmanships, about which we have strong feelings. Many issues need to be addressed, and I hope that the Modernisation Committee and the House will have an opportunity to deal with them properly.
    Whatever criticisms may be made, and there are some sharp ones, I welcome the fact that we are having this debate now and that the proposals are before the House for consideration. That promptness is largely a result of the Leader of the House pressurising his colleagues, as well as the rest of the House, to deliver a package to us. However, we deprecate the purge—the cull—of senior critics of the Government through the Committee of Selection's work.
    We also regret the fact that the Leader of the House was unable to accept some of the proposals that we made a week ago to relieve the difficulties that the House faces. In particular, our proposal that the minimum size of Select Committees be increased would measurably improve the situation for Liberal Democrat and minority party candidates. It would also allow the Leader of the House to seek relief for those of his Back Benchers who are excluded under the present system.
    Although the speed with which these proposals have come before us is welcome, errors may be an inevitable consequence. Some things, however, are not errors. It can hardly have been an accident that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was excluded from membership of the Transport Sub-Committee. That was not a clerical oversight; it was not a case of rushing into things. It was, surely, deliberate exclusion, just as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) was deliberately excluded by his party in 1992—it was not an accident or a product of haste but a conscious decision.
    In both cases, a stern and effective critic of the Government has been dealt a blow by respective Governments. Not only were they stern and effective critics in their own right but they spoke for the Committee. The Select Committee is a representative body of this Parliament. We require it to hold the Government to account; the Chairman is its representative and spokesman. An attack on the Chairman, in this way, is an attack on the House.
    What could justify this cull? It is interesting that the Leader of the House did not talk about it—nor, for that matter, did the Parliamentary Secretary. The right hon.

    51
    Gentleman was silent about the process that led to the outrage that led to today's debate. He made some strong points and he made some fair ones, but he forgot to mention the one thing that is exercising the House—the reason for this decision.
    I set out the case for enlarged Committees last week. There is no doubt that enlarged departmental Committees would mean that many of the concerns that my colleagues in the minority parties are expressing today, by way of amendment and, later, by way of vote, would have been overcome. I made that point strongly last week. A Select Committee of 11 members has one place for the Liberal Democrats and the minority parties combined. A Select Committee of 13 or more members has two places for those third and minority parties. In making my best assessment of how minority places and Liberal Democrat places might properly be allocated, I have on many occasions been beset by the difficulties of the system. One of the quirks of the House is that, when it sees a pressing need it can often find a solution. Hence, on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which has 11 members, two places are allocated to the third party and minority parties. The same applies to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs.
    I do not particularly seek to justify that relationship to the House but, just as a pressing need for special dispensation revealed itself for Scottish and Welsh affairs, so there is a case for larger departmental Select Committees. Two departmental Committees have 17 members each; we shall debate those places today. Two places on each of those Committees are within the gift of the Liberal Democrat party and minority parties. In each case, of course, one place has been given to a member of a minority party. There are serious difficulties with other departmental Committees; Plaid Cymru was offered places on the Select Committees on Welsh Affairs, on Environmental Audit and on Catering. To the best of my knowledge, having submitted names, Plaid Cymru recognised that that was an appropriate allocation.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman think it unreasonable in the wholeness of things that, having examined the relative advantages of serving on a departmental Select Committee on the one hand and the Catering Committee on the other, Plaid Cymru decided that perhaps that offer did not give it or the Scottish National party full representation in the House?
    Mr. Stunell: The Clerks advised me that, proportionally, two places were to be allocated to the SNP and two to Plaid Cymru. If one aggregates those places, which, I know, the hon. Gentleman is keen to do, the total number is four. It makes no difference at all to the final toll.
    In introducing the debate, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) said that perhaps it was not an occasion to parade private grief. I simply say to my colleagues in the minority parties that, for some Members, places on the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, a Select Committee for departmental affairs in which they are interested and the Select Committees on Environmental
    52
    Audit and on European Scrutiny are not to be sneezed at. In fact, they exceed the quota that I was quoted as appropriate for minority parties.
    Pete Wishart: On how many departmental Select Committees were places secured on behalf of Plaid Cymru and the SNP outwith the Select Committees on Welsh Affairs and on Scottish Affairs?
    Mr. Stunell: None; let us be clear about that. The Committees I mentioned—the Select Committees on Standards and Privileges, on Environmental Audit and on European Scrutiny—are not departmental Committees. I would not try to persuade the House otherwise. However, a party that says that it is for Scotland in Europe but refuses to serve on the European Scrutiny Committee has, perhaps, got some questions to answer.
    I regret the amendment tabled by the minority parties, as it rather misses the point of the offers made to them. It is also misses the point of the arithmetic. I do not wish to dwell on the matter, but SNP representation on Select Committees went from six members to five, and Plaid Cymru stayed at four. My own party increased its representation by five members—or six, if one goes back to the establishment of Select Committees in 1997. In plain language, the situation and the terms of trade have changed. I know that that is a difficult point for my minority party colleagues to accept.
    I could also raise the issue of experience. We have tried to ensure that that experience is reflected in the allocations made in our quota, which covers the Liberal Democrats and the minority parties. I remind hon. Members that I am required to take into account not only Members who are expressing their discontent now but minority party Members from Northern Ireland, and we have done so.
    Last week I deployed my case for increasing the size of Select Committees, especially of departmental Select Committees, but, sadly, no Member from any of the minority parties chose to speak in support of that proposition.
    Mr. Mike Hancock: They were not here.
    Mr. Stunell: My colleague is being a little unfair; they were here, but they chose to remain silent.
    The speed of events is welcome, but it does not justify the cull of senior, experienced critics of the Government. Speed does not lead to quicker and better scrutiny if the critics are cut down. Perhaps we can accept that they are not being explicitly cut down for their own contribution; perhaps they were cut down, as used to be said, pour encourager les autres—in other words, as a warning to others. Will Labour Committee Chairmen be willing to keep their heads as high above the parapet as they should if they know that their reward at the end of their term of office is to be the same as Crewe's or Macclesfield's—victims of yet another purge?
    Speed is getting in the way of reform. Whatever the outcome of today's events, it is absolutely essential to ensure that the process of reform gains pace, not loses it, as a result of such debates. We must not just let this become an opportunity to vent steam and reduce the pressure; we must use it as an occasion to stoke the fires and ensure that we get the reform that we need. I want to

    53
    make it clear that my colleagues have a free vote tonight and that they and other hon. Members feel a real sense of unfairness. There is deep concern about the control freakery that the Government are now exercising. The worry is that this is yet another setback for Parliament in its long-standing struggle to hold the Executive to account, and our votes will be cast accordingly.
    5.22 pm
    Mr. Alan Williams: I shall be very brief. but in the unfortunate absence of the Father of the House—I know that all hon. Members wish him a very speedy recovery—I shall make a contribution that I think he would agree with, speaking as the most senior Privy Councillor in the House. I want to reflect on the current situation, based on 37 years' experience in the House, where I have been poacher and gamekeeper—depending on the role in which I was cast—with 22 years on the Front Bench and 15 years on the Back Benches. I know the pleasures of being a Minister, the miseries of being sacked and the pleasures of serving on Committees.
    I want to start with a different point, which colleagues will have heard me make on several occasions in the previous Parliament, when I was fighting for more power for the Public Accounts Committee. None the less, it has to be re-emphasised. Under our system, democracy does not exist if accountability does not exist. Accountability cannot exist with the current scale of business, the scale of Departments and the volume of money unless we have a working, informed and effective Committee system. That is what this debate is all about—scrutiny.
    Committees inevitably develop expertise that can match that of the Departments, so one can understand why Ministers regard them as a threat. I can remember the views that we expressed from the Opposition Benches and can compare them with what we hear from those who sit on them now. Opposition Members now understand the anguish of what seems to be the arrogance of Government, irrespective of whoever happens to be in government or in opposition at the time.
    The most important role of Select Committees is to be a bulwark against ministerial diktat. I pay tribute to the Conservative party for introducing the departmental Select Committees, which I regard as the best innovation in my years in this place. They have enabled Back Benchers, in a way that the generalist Committees, such as those on the nationalised industries, did not. The old Committees were so general that they were ineffective. The precise remit of departmental Select Committees and their direct target of Ministers and the departmental civil service has made them much more effective. They are not only well directed but are expert in their subject.
    The departmental Select Committee system is 20 years old and we have not made many changes to it. Resources are another matter, although perhaps not for today, but I say in passing—it will not endear me to any of the Committee Chairmen—that if money is available for Select Committees, I hope that it goes on advisers and back-up staff and not on salaries for individuals.
    Members on both sides of the House must ensure that Select Committees are independent from the patronage of the Whips. It is glaringly inconsistent that the Government can appoint on any Committee the majority of their scrutineers, which can produce all sorts of nonsense. As a result of something that my assistant said, I discovered
    54
    only this morning that the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) did not appear on any of the lists. I hope that he will forgive me for mentioning this point, but I phoned him and asked, "What's happened? Didn't you apply?" He told me that he had applied to become a member of several Committees and had entered the open caveat that he was willing to serve on any Committee on which the Government wished to put him.
    We are all aware of the experience that my right hon. Friend can bring to the House, but he does not have a place on any Select Committee. One of the Committees on which I sit—the Public Accounts Committee—is short of four members and it might have been one of the Committees in which he expressed an interest. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is very fair minded and shares my regard for the work that right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has done for Labour Members and for Parliament generally, will take the opportunity to reconsider that oversight.
    The method of appointment is not just inconsistent: it will be an insult to those who dedicate much of their time and effort to the Committee structure and to Committee work if Committee chairmanships are seen as compensation for ex-Ministers. It is not very nice to lose a job as a Minister and it is not pleasant to walk into the Tea Room no longer carrying red boxes and with a car no longer waiting outside, but Ministers have had the privilege of being Ministers, and most Members go through the House without ever having that privilege. Ministers should therefore not need compensation for the. fact that they have ceased to be Ministers. It is not a job for life. We are not children. We all know that an MP's life is transient enough and that a Minister's life is even more transient. It is nonsense and outrageous that Committee chairmanships should be regarded as palliatives for injured pride.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Would my right hon. Friend not regard it as even more invidious if former Ministers were offered posts on Select Committees so as to ensure that they did not reveal what may have happened when they were Ministers? That would result in the direct opposite of what scrutiny Committees are for.
    Mr. Williams: I am not sure that any ex-Minister could avoid the temptation of such an opportunity.
    I want to make a point with which my right hon. and hon. Friends but not Conservative Members will be familiar. In a parliamentary Labour party meeting just before the election, the then Leader of the House said that entering Parliament must be seen as a twin-track career—that there are those who go along the ministerial path and those who take the Committee route. That is rather simplistic, as I pointed out at the time, but if it is the Government's view, it must be pointed out—it was not at the time—that that twin track is for some but not others. There was no mention of the fact that there would be a first-class coach attached for ex-Ministers.
    It seems abundantly clear that, after 20 years, we need a new system to choose members of Select Committees. I welcome the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of a review, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) implied,

    55
    without a time limit such a review could be seen as just a delaying tactic. I know that my right hon. Friend would not want to link his name to such a device, so I hope that he will confirm the time limit that he will set.
    Mr. Hogg: I support what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that, if Chairmen of Select Committees are to be paid, it is even more important that nomination is made not by the Whips Office but by the House as a whole?
    Mr. Williams: That is absolutely right. There cannot be independence through a system of patronage. They are mutually incompatible; those who give can take away.
    Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend mentioned my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who has specialist knowledge. As he has started naming names in this Chamber, may I mention my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn)? My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North has a particular interest in international development and foreign affairs. His contribution in the Chamber on those subjects has been considerable over the years. Their applications to serve on Select Committees have been refused, and that has happened time and again. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) should be reinstated, and we should not forget those who want to be ordinary members of Select Committees but are just not getting a chance in this place.
    Mr. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention but regret the fact that, unfortunately, she addressed her point to the person who is probably least able to help any of those to whom she referred.
    Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, across the water in the Republic of Ireland, Chairmen of Select Committees—indeed, even the Irish Chairman of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body—receive extra parliamentary salaries, which are all in the gift of the Government or Opposition leader of the day? They are questions of patronage. Does he also agree that, inproperly—considering membership, we should also look at the powers of Select Committees? Although a Select Committee—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. There is a time limit on this debate and many Members want to participate. Will Members please make interventions brief?
    Mr. McNamara: Only the House can command that a person appear before a Select Committee. That power should go to the Select Committee so that it is not dependent on the Government majority of the day.
    Mr. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I hope you will note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the breach of my commitment to be brief is the consequence of my hon. Friends' desire to hear me speak further.
    56
    My final point is on chairmanships. Surely the logical people to choose the Chairmen are the Committee members themselves. They know the expertise and capabilities of their members, and that, too, would be a liberating factor. I urge the Leader of the House to consider that. He is in a unique position. His role provides a wonderful opportunity for anyone who wants to advance democracy and the rights of Parliament and the Back Bencher. I am sure that his heart is in the right place; I just hope that his actions will reflect his instincts.
    5.35 pm
    Sir George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). The House listened with respect to his balanced contribution. I shall seek to beat him for brevity if I cannot match him for wisdom.
    I have three points to make. The first relates to the method of choosing the names for Select Committees. I speak as a new member of the Committee of Selection. I have attended only two meetings, but that has been enough to persuade me that it does not serve the House well. It has been captured by the usual channels, and I welcome the beam of light that is being shone on that obscure body this afternoon.
    The Committee has nine members appointed by the House in the correct proportions of six, two and one. It is chaired with dispatch by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam). Of the eight remaining members, five are Whips. Had my party not generously acceded to my request to have one of our two places, six of the eight would have been Whips. There is a convention among Whips that they do not challenge the nominations of other parties. If the other side wants to put someone on a Committee or to keep someone off whose interests may be relevant but unhelpful, that is not challenged. It is no secret that I recently proposed an amendment in the Committee. Like the man in the Bateman cartoon, I was shot down in flames.
    Unlike other Committees, the substance of the discussion is not circulated beforehand. We know what Committees we are going to appoint, but we do not know the nominations. They are produced like rabbits out of a hat at the meeting and agreed, usually without discussion or division. The meetings last a matter of minutes. That may be all right for the appointment of some Committees, and I am not against the involvement of the Whips. They know Members' interests, their work load on other Committees and can get a regional balance. However, it cannot be right at the beginning of a Parliament for people to be appointed to Committees for the whole of the Parliament in that way.
    There needs to be a more rigorous and transparent process, leading to an output that commands greater confidence. The Committees should be better balanced, without being over-dominated by the Whips. The names of those nominated should be available in advance and there should be an expectation that they will be discussed and defended before they are put to the House. The House can certainly go over the course again, as we are doing this afternoon, but the Committee of Selection should be doing a proper job in the first place. I welcome the announcement by the Leader of the House of a thorough review of how the selection process operates.
    My second point is that the nominations matter; they are vital. All the recent reports on reform of the House focus on the role of independent Select Committees. They

    57
    should not be selected by the Government whom they are holding to account. Let us consider the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, which we are appointing tonight. One of the key political issues in coming months will be the tube—the private finance initiative, Bob Kiley, the Greater London assembly and so on. That requires no legislation. It will be covered briefly at Question Time and we can have an Opposition day on it, but that does not provide the opportunity to scrutinise the Executive. The Select Committee will be the only way in which the House can get behind the PFI for the tube.
    Without being discourteous to whoever takes over from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), if she is not successfully reinstated, I doubt whether her successor will give the Government as hard a time. One of the weapons of the House is not quite being put beyond use, but being wheeled away from the front line. Using the alibi of mobility of membership, several independent-minded Members have been fingered and removed from Select Committees.
    My final point relates to the membership of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. In my view, what is needed is not so much a modernising Select Committee, but a strengthening Select Committee. Parliament's prime task is to be effective and to hold the Government to account. Yes, we should also work sensible hours, use modern technology and review antiquated procedures, all of which may well strengthen the House, but strengthening, not modernising, should be the prime purpose of the Committee.
    The Select Committee that modernises or strengthens the House of Commons should not be chaired by the Cabinet Minister whose job it is to deliver the Government's often overloaded legislative programme. There could not be a clearer conflict of interest, nor an appointment more likely to short-circuit the whole machinery of accountability. The Leader of the House must be pulled two ways: between his duty to his ministerial colleagues through collective responsibility to secure the passage of their Bills, and his duty to the House to make sure that we do our job properly and have time to scrutinise the legislation.
    The Leader of the House may well have radical ideas about reform of the House. I am sure that he would be a first-class witness before the Modernisation Committee. However, I say to him what I said to his predecessor: there is no role for the Leader of the House on a Select Committee of the House in charge of modernisation. It is like the Chancellor chairing the Public Accounts Committee.
    Attempts to sort all these matters out at the end of the last Parliament were sadly unsuccessful. There can be no excuse for the House not getting it right now.
    5.41 pm
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): In the last Parliament, the Select Committee on Liaison, which consists of the Chairmen of the various Select Committees, was so concerned about how modernisation of the House was avoiding the need to develop and improve the powers of Select Committees that it produced a very balanced report in which it suggested to Parliament a way of bringing back to this place the power of scrutiny, which is what we are here for. That way was not only
    58
    to improve the information and evidence-gathering techniques offered to Select Committees and the support for those who carry out the work, but to ensure that the members of the Committees were truly representative of all corners of the House of Commons.
    I do not intend to detain the House long tonight, but I have to say that I am astonished by what has happened. I do not believe that I am irreplaceable on the Transport Sub-Committee: my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) and for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) have great knowledge of transport matters and either would make an excellent Chairman. The fact is that outside, the House, the current Parliament is perceived as not doing its job properly, and the Select Committees are regarded as a means of carefully examining not only what Whitehall and the Government are doing but what all the arms of government and their myriad agencies are doing. There is no other comparable form of machinery in the House of Commons. There is no other way of doing the job.
    Although people do not always understand the intricacies of what we do here, they ask that the Members of Parliament who are sent here fulfil the role that voters expect them to fulfil, and that is not simply to go along with everything that the Executive propose. My commitment to the Labour party is total. My commitment to what is done in the name of the Labour party is sometimes less than total. I believe that the difference is essential. I do not undermine my Government by suggesting that they are not like the pope—infallible. I do not undermine the role of independent Secretaries of State if I dare, as a Committee member with other Committee members, to produce a report that examines their actions in detail.
    What the Select Committees do matters. It matters because the House of Commons must never become a great morass of people doing what they are told not by the electorate but by the Executive. That is why it is important that we vote tonight on who serves on which Committee. That is why it is important to say to the electorate as a whole that we do a vital job. Give us more powers. Give us more support. Do not give us more money. As Chairman of a Committee, I do not want money: what I need is the right to question, to examine and to produce reports on what Her Majesty's Government are doing in the name of government.
    It is because I have faith in the ability of the Labour party and a Labour Government to take just decisions that I know that they will not be frightened of the role of Select Committees in checking what they have done, what they are doing and what they intend to do. That is why I was elected. It is why we were all elected. If we forget that, the electorate will not.
    5.45 pm
    Sir John Stanley: I address my remarks to the composition of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, with special reference to the Government side. In this Parliament, as in the previous one, seven Members were nominated from the Government side. Of those Members who sat on the Committee during the last Parliament, three were proposed for renomination. Of the remaining four, two have retired from the House, and one—the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—

    59
    did not want to serve on the Committee because of her commitments. Thus, of the previous Members of the Committee on the Government side who were willing and able to serve, only one—the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson)—was sacked from the Committee.
    I certainly acknowledge that there could well be occasions when it is right to dispense with the services of the Chairman of a Select Committee. It would be legitimate to do so, for example, if the Chairman did not have an adequate grasp of the subject matter before the Committee. However, as the House knows, that is most certainly not so in the case of the right hon. Gentleman. He was, of course, a professional diplomat before he entered the House. He has spent years on foreign affairs in the House, including service as a Front-Bench spokesman for his party. He is a member of the North Atlantic Assembly. He has given years of service to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and, throughout most of the last Parliament, he was the chairman of its UK branch. I can tell the House firmly that, of all the members of the Committee during the last Parliament, no one had a greater or deeper knowledge of foreign affairs than he did. The breadth and depth of his knowledge certainly exceeded that of most of us.
    It would be right to dispense with the services of a Chairman if the Chairman was indolent. I share with the House the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was extremely diligent. If we consider the many, many informal meetings of the Committee as well as the hours spent in formal meetings, his attendance record was superior to that of any other member of the Foreign Affairs Committee during the last Parliament.
    It would be legitimate to dispense with the services of a Committee Chairman if the Committee failed to deliver the goods, in terms of reports to the House. On that count, the facts speak for themselves. After a helpful tip given to me in the cafeteria by the then Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Foreign Affairs Committee adopted the practice followed by the Home Affairs Committee of printing on the inside of each of its reports the full list of reports published by the Committee thus far in the Parliament. If the House looks at the final report, which we produced days before the Dissolution, it will see that the Foreign Affairs Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Swansea, East produced in four years flat a total of 37 reports to the House, including major reports on human rights, weapons of mass destruction, the Kosovo war, European Union enlargement and several other equally important subjects. So the Committee, under his chairmanship, most certainly delivered the goods.
    Finally, it might be legitimate to sack the Chairman of a Select Committee if his chairmanship skills were seriously deficient. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that there may have been one or two occasions when his natural Welsh loquacity got the better of him and landed him in hot water, but essentially his chairmanship of the Committee was eminently satisfactory. He chaired the Committee in a way that was fair minded, consensual and patient, and that delivered the goods. The facts speak for themselves.
    60
    Regrettably, the only conclusion that one can draw as to why the right hon. Gentleman has been sacked from the Committee—a matter on which, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) rightly pointed out, the Leader of the House was entirely silent in his opening remarks—is that the Foreign Affairs Committee produced a number of criticisms of the Government's foreign policy in the last Parliament.
    I wish to make it clear to the House that those criticisms were not from one party on the Select Committee. They were not overwhelmingly from just part of the Select Committee. Such criticisms as there were in those 37 reports were overwhelmingly criticisms made by every member of the Select Committee and by every party on the Select Committee in reports that were unanimously agreed.
    Therefore it is necessary to ask whether the House is prepared to tolerate a situation in which the Chairman of a Select Committee can be sacked for the supposed sin of having chaired a Select Committee that made criticisms of the Government. In posing that question, I say straight away that this is not an issue on which the official Opposition can make political capital. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), the shadow Leader of the House, was wholly right not to do so. I, like most members of the official Opposition, remember with dismay and embarrassment the events that occurred at the opening of Parliament in 1992 when, in almost mirror circumstances, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) was not re-appointed to the Health Committee of which he had been Chairman, because that Committee had criticised the health policy of the Government of the day.
    This is not an issue for party points. It is, however, an issue for House of Commons points. I state such a point, as I see it, in simple terms. If the Government are allowed to get away with the sacking of the right hon. Member for Swansea, East and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the message that will be sent not only to every Chairman of a Select Committee in this Parliament but to every member of a Select Committee in this Parliament is that, if they have the temerity to criticise the Government in the course of their Select Committee's work in this Parliament, they run the risk that they will be sacked at the beginning of the next Parliament.
    That is not an acceptable proposition. It is not an acceptable system of duress of this legislature by the Executive. At the end of this debate, above all debates in this Parliament, I ask that we as a House put party last and the House of Commons first. We must make it clear to the Government that the right hon. Member for Swansea, East and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich should be reinstated to their respective Select Committees, from which they should never have been sacked.
    5.56 pm
    Mr. Frank Field: I, too, shall be brief. I shall make two comments, the first to the Leader of the House and the second to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who I am sure will be back in the Chamber in a moment to hear my comments.
    My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has an ability with words which no other hon. Member can equal. Those who have such a gift know that it is easy for them

    61
    so to wave a wand and paint a picture that we are unaware of the message that we are supposed to receive. I stress that today my right hon. Friend was extremely clear about the directions that he wishes the reform of the House of Commons to take. He was sensibly silent about the membership of a couple of Select Committees. I shall return to that in a moment.
    I make a plea to my right hon. Friend. It would help the House if, at some suitable opportunity—obviously not today—he, with his considerable abilities, began to spell out for us what he and the Government see as the functions of the House of Commons. In my 22 years in this place, the Executive seem to have been terrorised by a view of the House of Commons which might have been true in the middle of the 19th century, but is no longer true today. It is not our function to make and unmake Governments, to introduce major Bills or to trip up the progress of Government Bills.
    We clearly have a job of scrutiny, but the function that the monarch had in the 19th century is now ours. We have the right to be consulted, to advise and to warn, but if the Government choose to ignore us, they will probably get away with it. However, there are people outside who are attentive and who build up an image of the way in which Administrations behave and perform. One—only one—of the reasons why the Opposition are in such poor health, if I put it as kindly as I can, is that when we were unelectable, they in government thought that they could do anything. The electorate had to put up with it, but the electorate did not forget. Once we were in a position to form a Government, the revenge of the electorate was mighty, and will clearly extend over more than one Parliament—perhaps over two or three.
    There is a message to my right hon. Friend. The Government might get away tonight with sacking two hon. Members who should be members of Select Committees, and they might think little of it, but in the last Parliament, and in this Parliament, sadly, they continue to present an image of what they are like which, I am sure, is totally inaccurate. The image suggests that they believe that one can ride roughshod, and grab and take anything. The impression of a belief that we rule, no matter what people say, is being marked down on our card outside. When we are in difficult times, we will find, like the shambles of the Conservative party, that it is too late to reform. The electorate will have marked our card indelibly, and when the moment comes, retribution will be visited upon us.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will help this place by recognising that our main function is a continuous five-year election campaign. As all the parties will be setting out their stalls and trying to create good images of themselves and bad ones of other people, it is within that interplay that our checks and balances operate. For example, if the Government get away with what they want to do, they will be playing out part of that continuous election campaign. We might agree and say that it does not matter and that the Government should have the issue. Of course, we might also say that they are beginning to build an image that will make re-election that much more difficult. We who usually want the Government to have their programme—we have been put here to ensure that it is delivered—might want to say that it is in the best interests of ourselves and Parliament for us not to let that happen. That was the first point that I wanted to make.
    62
    Hon. Members kindly said earlier that I had applied to become a member of any Committee. My first such activity in this House was back in 1979, when the then Opposition thought that Select Committee chairmanships should be used to provide a sort of restart interview for ex-Cabinet members who wished to make their way back in the House of Commons. After a couple of weeks, the Whips gave way. David Ennals was not appointed, but Renee Short gained the position that she should have assumed. Later, I had a chance to serve on a Select Committee only because the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said that I should be on that Committee when the Whips attempted to keep me away from it.
    That Committee behaved in the way that has been described by all hon. Members. It did not try to trip up the Government or to prove silly little points. We tried to begin a new agenda, and because we did so, the Government and the Opposition felt themselves to be free and secure enough to begin to rethink their position on welfare reform. In the long run, I do not believe that there is a conflict between good government and strong Select Committees. Select Committees are not in business to pretend that we are a Government in exile or that we are about 19th—century Members thinking that they can bring down Administrations. Rightly, we do not have the power to introduce Bills. If we had such characteristics, this country would no longer have responsible government. Come the elections, Governments could say, "We did our best, guv'nor, but all those Select Committees that you wanted us to establish kept defeating our programme, time after time." There is a role for Select Committees in terms of independence and setting new agendas. There is also a role for us to say—as I am now—that the Government are wrong and should think again.
    I want now to make my plea to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who has tabled a number of amendments. I should tonight call him my right hon. and learned Friend. By tabling his amendments, he has ignited a debate that has probably surpassed his best expectations. Obviously, he will wish to speak, but I ask him not to press his amendments. Labour Members will be loth to pick on some of our colleagues and execute them while supporting other colleagues, whom we might want to be appointed. We do not want to deal with the matter in public.
    In the 1983 election, I rushed up to a house in which seven voters lived, thinking that they must be Labour supporters. I asked the woman who opened the door whether they were voting for us this time. She said, "No way." I asked, "Is your husband voting for us?" The answer was, "No way." I asked whether any of the children were voting Labour. "No way," came the answer. I then said, "Have any of you got jobs?" The woman said, "None of us." I asked whether they were all voting Tory. The woman said, "Yes; that bloody woman got us into this mess, and that woman can get us out of it." Similarly, we do not want to pick on individual Members and put others in their place. If I may say so, the Committee of Selection got us into this bloody mess and it can get us out of it. Even if the amendment that seeks to reject the membership proposals for two Committees and ensure that the Committee of Selection reports back early on Wednesday cannot be accepted, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will note that that is the wish of the Committee.
    6.6 pm
    Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that she was not irreplaceable, but I should tell her that many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish that she had not been replaced and hope that something can be done about that in the next few hours.
    I want to speak about the sub-plot that has been running in this debate. I refer to the private grief, as the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) called it, between the Liberal Democrat party and the minority parties—or certainly the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. I want also to make a few remarks about the composition of Select Committees in general.
    In speaking to amendments (b) to motions 15 and 19, and to the manuscript amendment to motion 17, I must say that I thought that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) gave us a touch of candour when he said that he was beset by difficulties as a representative of the Liberal Democrats and the minority parties on the Committee of Selection. He said that he faced difficulties in deciding on certain occasions whether to nominate a Liberal Democrat or an SNP or Plaid Cymru Member in respect of a departmental Select Committee. He must have agonised about that choice. On the three such occasions that arose for him, he plumped for a member of the Liberal party.
    I have some sympathy for the hon. Gentleman. I can imagine the difficulty of trying to say to the parliamentary Liberal party, "I had the opportunity of appointing one of you, but I thought that the SNP and Plaid Cymru had a better claim." I do not think that he would have been re-appointed to his current position if he had made such a remark. I do not underrate the difficulty that he faced, but I slightly resent his trying to gild the matter over and to say that it was a question only of numbers or experience. If it was a question of numbers, he has done a superb job. He has managed to get the Liberal party, which has 8 per cent. of Members of Parliament, 9.1 per cent. representation in the Committees—an overrepresentation of four hon. Members. The SNP and Plaid Cymru have an under-representation of one hon. Member both in the general and departmental Committee lists. Under- representation by one person might seem to be neither here nor there, but when a party has only two places on departmental Select Committees, one of them becomes proportionally very important.
    The hon. Gentleman also said that selection was a question of experience. It is true that a large number of my hon. Friends are new Members of Parliament. However, when there was a choice in respect of the Select Committee on the Treasury between a new Member of Parliament from the Liberal party and a rather more experienced one from the SNP, he suddenly decided to give youth a chance, and nominated the Liberal Democrat. I do not mind the fact that he faced some difficulty, but I resent the humbug that is presented to the House. Its effect is such that even the Chairman of the Committee of Selection was not told about any difficulty regarding the Liberal party and others. I do not think that such behaviour does the party any credit. On the contrary, it gives me the impression that, for all the deserved criticisms that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove made of the Labour party, the outcome of the selection process would have been exactly the same if the Liberal
    64
    Democrats had been in charge of it; the only difference would have been the level of sanctimony with which the selections were proposed.
    Although it is true that it is generally invidious for hon. Members to consider amendments that propose replacing one Member with another, replacing a Liberal Member with a Scottish National Member or Plaid Cymru Member is justified under the current circumstances.
    I have some experience of what the Leader of the House is going through. Two years ago, in the Scottish Parliament, there were three minority parties with one Member each. We had a Green Member, a Scottish Socialist and an independent. In statistical terms, such representation could not have guaranteed them places on the Committees of the Scottish Parliament. Those Committees are much more influential than Select Committees or even Standing Committees at Westminster. There was an agreement, which I helped to broker as Leader of the Opposition, to ensure that those minorities had a place on the Committees despite the statistics. That was the right decision. Instead of under-representing minorities, it would be wiser and fairer to over-represent them when possible to ensure that distinctive views are expressed. That would benefit Select Committees.
    I know that the Leader of the House has an open mind on the matters that we are considering. I read his article in The Times last week and I listened carefully to his speech. I reluctantly agreed with much of what he said. He referred to Committee practice in the Scottish Parliament—and in the Welsh Assembly, which can take policy if not legislative initiatives—and I know that he will try to include some of that experience in Select Committees in the House of Commons.
    I served on the Select Committee on Energy from 1987 to 1992. I therefore know that the dispatch of independent Committee members is not a new practice. That Select Committee was independent minded when it began its work in 1987. It produced a series of reports that were critical of the Government of the day. As time went on, members were selected who were described by other members as Whips' narks. On one occasion, two Conservative Members came to blows as they discussed who was informing the Whips about the various discussions in the Committee.
    Mr. McNamara: Who were they?
    Mr. Salmond: One of them has passed away, so I shall not identify them. None the less, a Select Committee was nobbled. It is not a new phenomenon, but I stress to any Labour loyalists who are present that that does not make it right. Just because the Tories did it does not make it right for the Labour party.
    There are only two forms of checks and balances in this place. They are the revising Chamber, whose Members are increasingly appointed and is therefore the poodle rather than the watch dog of the constitution, and the Select Committee system. I hope that the role of the latter will be expanded. Select Committees constitute an early warning system of approaching trouble in legislation or Government practice. If they become neutered and their members are simply appointed, and if they are subject to intimidation and replacement, neither the early warning system nor the revising Chamber will be effective.

    65
    The Leader of the House, perhaps cleverly, as one of his hon. Friends suggested, said that he was open to change, which was inevitable. He also said that he was sympathetic to changes in the way in which all parties nominate Select Committee members. However, it would strengthen his arm in fighting for change if the House demonstrated its independence and rejected at least some of the Select Committee nominations this evening.
    6.14 pm
    David Winnick: We should distinguish between some of the humbug and mischief making in the first part of the debate and the genuine anxiety that many of us feel about nominations for the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee. Some may say, "Look what happened in 1992. They did it." However, we would make a mistake if we repeated such actions tonight. If we support the recommendations of the Committee of Selection, we commit an action to which we strongly objected in 1992 when we were in opposition.
    Moreover, such actions did not do the Tories much good. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) spoke about the arrogance of the previous Government. The decision in 1992 was a relatively minor factor in their self-destruction; nevertheless, it affected the morale of Tory Members of Parliament. It would be a mistake to repeat such actions.
    Let me put the argument differently. If my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) had been re-appointed, would any Labour Member have been surprised? The opposite is true: we would have taken it as a matter of course. We are therefore surprised that they have not been re-appointed. Several hon. Members wish to speak, and I shall briefly express three reasons why I hope that our large majority, about which I am pleased, will not be used tonight to support what is basically wrong. We have been told that we have a genuinely free vote.
    First, there is no justification for not re-appointing my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East. If we consider all the criteria that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) set out—ability, knowledge, attendance and conscientiousness—it is clear that they should be re-appointed. The Leader of the House has given no explanation for not re-appointing them. If the Government had at least given a reason, we could take it into account. We are entitled to an explanation; we should not simply act as a rubber-stamp. Perhaps some hon. Members believe that the decision is correct, but if we believe that it is wrong we should not rubber-stamp it.
    The second reason is more important than individuals, if I may say that to my two hon. Friends. We need to reassert the authority of the House of Commons. There are many reasons for arguing among ourselves—for example, we may not like a policy—but we were elected as Labour Members of Parliament, not independents. We are entitled to stand as independents, but we know what the result would be. Like my colleagues, I want to be here only as a Labour Member of Parliament. I have no wish to sit in the House of Commons other than as a Labour Member. We therefore give the Government the benefit of the doubt on many issues, as happened in the last
    66
    Parliament. Sometimes I was not happy with this or that, but on the majority of issues, I am pleased to support the Government. However, if we simply rubber-stamp a decision, which I, like many others, believe to be wrong, we act against the interests of the House and the parliamentary Labour party.
    We cannot claim that there are political reasons that we should take into account. There is no general election for at least four years, no mid-term election and no crucial by-election. In those circumstances, we would say, "We'd better rally round. It would be unfortunate if the press got the impression that we were a divided party." To put it generously, we are not likely to experience difficulties from the Opposition, at least for a while. If we believe that the Government are wrong, there is no better time than the beginning of a Parliament to vote against them for all the reasons that I have expressed.
    The final reason is that, if we rubber-stamp this decision tonight, this Government and other Governments in the future will say, "We got away with it, like they got away with it in 1992." The future Labour Government whom I hope will be re-elected might say that in the next Parliament. However, there has been enough of a row, and enough media difficulties—caused not by us on the Back Benches but by the Government—and if the Government do not get their way tonight, it is my humble view that that would make any Government far more reluctant to repeat what has been done.
    I hope that I have not taken up too much of the House's time. For the three reasons that I have given, I hope that we will decide tonight not to approve the membership of the two Committees in question: the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee.
    6.20 pm
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I know that the hour is late and that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be brief and make my remarks in compressed form.
    The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked me not to move my amendment. With the consent of the House, I propose not to move it. However, I propose to vote against the substantive motion. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for lifting the secrecy from the Committee of Selection. The plain truth that we must face is that that Committee does not exercise a judgment; it simply rubber-stamps the nominations of the parties. In reality, the Whips are choosing the Select Committees, and that cannot be right.
    I hope that the House will forgive me for drawing on my personal experience. I was a Minister for 13 years, and have also been a Whip. During that time I never—or very rarely—found myself under pressure in the Chamber. However, I sometimes found myself under pressure when I was before a Select Committee. I believe that the Select Committees are the most important form of scrutiny that the House has, and if that is the case, we must reserve to the House the nominations for their membership.
    I welcome what the Leader of the House said about the Modernisation Committee determining a new way of selecting the Select Committees. However, I hope that it will approach that task with a view to reducing the amount

    67
    of control that the Executive, or any party, exercises over its own members. I must point out to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) that I am increasingly the enemy of party. I want to diminish the influence of party in the House. That has always been my position, although I find it rather easier to express now than I did during my 13 years in government.
    May I say to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and to the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) that the hon. Lady's speech demonstrated why we value her so much? She and the right hon. Gentleman are parliamentarians of distinction. If one were to ask why they were not re-appointed to the two Select Committees of which they were Chairmen, there would be no sensible answer, save that they presided over Committees that expressed authoritative criticism of the Front Bench from time to time. That is what they were meant to do, and that is what I hope they will continue to do in this Parliament.
    The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)—who has been here throughout the debate—and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) will have noted that I have tabled amendments to take them off the Select Committees in question. There is nothing personal in that. I am afraid that if one is trying to put two people on those Committees, one has to take two people off. I hope that they will accept that I was not making any personal criticism of them.
    Alan Howarth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he intends nothing personal in his amendments. Earlier, he waxed eloquent on matters of parliamentary propriety. Will he therefore apologise to the House for having tabled amendments proposing that individual Members be appointed to Committees even though he had not consulted them?
    Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman may not have spotted the fact that I do not intend to move those amendments. I came to the conclusion that those hon. Members were unelectable, apart from any other reason, and that it was therefore not right for the House to consider their nominations. I therefore wished to withdraw my amendments.
    The functions of the Select Committees are critical. We value the independence of the leading Chairmen that we have had. I do not want to divide—in any sense—the consensus that has been building up in the House. I hope that the right hon. Member for Swansea, East and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich will again be able to serve on those Select Committees, and I do not want to reduce that possibility by moving my amendments. So, if the House will permit it, I shall not move them when they are called.
    6.25 pm
    Andrew Bennett (Denton and Reddish): I welcome the decision of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) not to move his amendments. That is extremely helpful.
    I want to talk about the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and I shall start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe
    68
    and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). The whole House, and the nation, have made it quite clear that we all respect the knowledge that she brought to that Select Committee in the last Parliament, and we cannot understand why we are not going to be able to use that knowledge in this Parliament. It is important that the House should show its respect for the knowledge that my hon. Friend brought to that Select Committee.
    Less well recorded is my hon. Friend's work rate. There were times last year when she chaired both the Transport Sub-Committee and the main Committee of the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and also attended the Environment Sub-Committee. That would be a formidable task for most people. However, in addition, my hon. Friend chaired Westminster Hall, as well as being a member of the Chairmen's Panel. She was therefore putting in far more work than many other hon. Members, and was doing so with a great deal of skill. That must be placed firmly on record. My hon. Friend would, of course, admit that she can be a little bit awkward on occasions, and she can certainly be disrespectful—but her work does the House of Commons proud, and it diminishes us all if we cannot find a place for her on a Select Committee at this time.
    I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham decided not to move his amendments. He was a little unfair on my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), because she was one of the people on the Select Committee who came very close to equalling the record of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich. She has an extremely good knowledge of regional and local government, and was excellent on questions of urban regeneration. It is unfortunate that her name was picked out as someone who should come off the Select Committee. She, too, had an extremely good work rate.
    If one put a report before the Committee, one would know that the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside tabled would be based on the fact that she had read the evidence and the whole of the report. There is always the temptation for a member of a Select Committee to flick through a report, find a particular page and table a few amendments, to pretend that they have been participating. In contrast, one always knew that my hon. Friend had done her homework, that she was a real participator, and one of the most skilful questioners. The House is therefore faced with a dilemma. However we get out of it, if we are not careful we shall have to take one person off a Select Committee to put someone else on. We should not run away from that fact.
    How should the House move forward tonight? I plead with the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to acknowledge that, having listened to the debate, it would be perfectly easy for him not to move one or two of the particularly critical motions. He could decline to move them—the rest could be carried—and we could return to them later. if he insists on moving them, I would argue with my hon. Friends that we should vote them down. Having done so, we could then go back to the Committee of Selection on Wednesday and still get the whole process through—but it is no good our taking the easy option of voting the motions down unless we have considered the way forward.
    There are ways of dealing with the matter. The first, and easiest, would be to amend Standing Orders to enlarge the membership of the two Committees in question by

    69
    one, so that there would be a place for the Member concerned on each one. That would involve two resolutions, which would be easy for the Leader of the House to introduce, to amend Standing Orders to make those extra places. That, in a sense, is the simple way forward, but Opposition Members, if they are so keen to make a change, would have to put up with a slight alteration in the party percentages on those Committees.
    There are other ways forward that need to be considered. One problem with the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee is that the Department is primarily responsible for England. Most of the issues that it covers are devolved in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, but one proposed member represents a Northern Ireland constituency and two represent Scottish constituencies. They would consider the Committee's work even though 90 per cent. of it would not affect their constituents. There is no reason why a Member of the House who represents one part of the United Kingdom should not scrutinise events in any other part, but is the right balance struck by proposing for a Committee of 17 Members three who represent areas that are not directly affected by 90 per cent. of the Committee's work?
    If Opposition parties are so keen for independent scrutiny to take place, why do they always press for their percentage on Select Committees? Why could they not consider proposing Members from other parties, particularly as in the last Parliament the Conservative party had considerable difficulty in finding Members to serve who turned up regularly? There are ways forward, and this is my plea to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection: do not move those particular motions. If they are moved, my plea to my hon. Friends will be to vote them down, on the understanding that the Committee of Selection can return to the matter on Wednesday and find a solution. There are solutions, and the Select Committees could still be set up before the recess.
    6.31 pm
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Although I cannot go along with everything that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) said, he has presented the House with a realistic solution to the dilemma facing us this evening. I hope that it commends itself to the Leader of the House and the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, who is not in his place.
    The Leader of the House made an interesting speech, and I hope that it will be regarded as significant. I believe that he is genuinely anxious to improve Select Committees and their selection, and that he wants them to hold the Government properly to account. He can prove that by ensuring that the two motions are not moved. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has done precisely the right thing, and will not move his amendments. It is invidious for the House, and for Government Members in particular, to face a choice between two Members. My right hon. and learned Friend has withdrawn one dilemma and it is up to the Leader of the House and the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to withdraw the other.
    We are at the beginning of a new Parliament and the Government once again enjoy a very large majority, but I already detect signs in our debates that Government Members are conscious of the fact that huge majorities
    70
    breed arrogance. I already detect a view that Government Members want to play a fuller part than they played in the last Parliament in holding the Government to account and in subjecting their actions to scrutiny.
    We have heard a number of admirable speeches. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made a splendid contribution, as did the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick). Both proclaimed their genuine pride in being members of the Labour party and supporters of a Labour Government, yet both called on their colleagues to consider what is proposed.
    This Government are not the first to be guilty of making such proposals, and I have been in a position similar to that of the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. In 1979 I served on the Education, Science and Arts Committee, which was chaired by a Labour Member, Christopher Price. He chaired the Committee with great distinction and authority, but lost his seat in 1983.
    My party, which was in government with a huge majority—almost as big as that enjoyed by the present Government—decided that it wanted to take the chairmanship of the Committee to itself. I was the senior member, but I was considered far too dangerous and was bypassed. I was not allowed to be Chairman. I did not make a great issue of that at the time, because an ex-Minister for whom I had great personal affection was put in place, but it was wrong.
    The name of the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, appears, as does mine, in the motion on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have a great regard for him, and he knows that to be true, but it is wrong to shoehorn a former Cabinet Minister straight into the chairmanship of a Select Committee. That is not the right way to behave.
    We heard an admirable speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), who served on the Foreign Affairs Committee with great distinction in the last Parliament. He has personal experience, so he elaborated as perhaps no one else could on the important role played by the right hon. Member for Swansea, East in chairing that Committee. My right hon. Friend showed beyond any peradventure that removing the right hon. Gentleman was an act of malice or spite. It was not a constructive action or a recognition of his contribution to the affairs of the House.
    The same can be said of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. She is a doughty champion of Parliament, and although she is proud to be Labour just as I am proud to be Conservative, she puts her parliamentary duties above all others. She has served not only her party but the whole of Parliament by the way in which she has discharged those duties. To have a Select Committee system—or rather, a selection system—that ejects two Members of such quality and such independence of mind and spirit is an indictment of the system itself.
    I couple with the names of those two Members that of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I did not know that he had sought to serve the House as a Select Committee member until I heard it in the debate. He had not even been particular as to which Committee it should be; he was happy to serve on virtually any Committee. A selection system that will not allow a man with one of

    71
    the best forensic minds in the House, and whose reputation for integrity and independence is second to none, to serve the House as a member of a Select Committee is appalling. Frankly, that made me almost as angry as the exclusion of the two former Chairmen.
    What would Members say if we proposed that the Crown Prosecution Service not only select the judges, but appoint the juries? They would laugh such a scheme to scorn, yet in effect, the Government—[Interruption.] Well, they may laugh, but the selection system would allow the Government to select the jury and the judge to pass judgment on their own policies. That is nonsense.
    I hope that the Leader of the House will heed the wise words of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the former shadow Leader of the House. As he and I have said before, it is wrong for the Leader of the House to be Chairman of the Modernisation Committee. It is right to have such a Committee—although I would prefer to call it an improvement Committee. My right hon. Friend wanted to call it a strengthening Committee. We want to strengthen and improve this place and the way in which it holds Governments to account, and it is wrong that the Leader of the House is on that Committee. Of course he should give evidence, and of course he should put papers and schemes before it, but he should not chair its deliberations.
    We need to examine all our systems. The Modernisation Committee must be more demonstrably independent, and the Committee of Selection must be less demonstrably a rubber stamp. It is nonsense to have a Committee that merely receives the nominations from the two or three sets of Whips and says, "Yes, we'll have those." There should be a proper opportunity for Members to apply to a thoroughly independent Selection Committee, and to say on what Select Committees they wish to serve. I cannot think that any such independent Selection Committee would turn down applications from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich or from the right hon. Members for Swansea, East and for Birkenhead.
    Jeremy Corbyn: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about applications. Does he also believe that all those who apply for membership of Committees should have their names published, so that it is transparent who applied and who was subsequently appointed?
    Sir Patrick Cormack: That is a perfectly acceptable suggestion. I see no harm in that, and it would encourage Members to put their names forward. Over the years, many people have paid lip service to this other ladder. Far too many people come to the House so anxious to serve on the Front Bench that they subdue their own instincts. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) would never fall into that category, so he has never been on the Front Bench and will find it difficult to get on to any Select Committee on which he really wants to serve.
    We should have a transparent system with a proper Selection Committee and proper applications. Members of House should know who has applied, and people should be selected to serve on Committees to which they can bring proper expertise, a true interest and true diligence.
    72
    The attendance record of Select Committees is not always what it should be. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members are nodding vigorously. It is important that those who are given this duty should discharge it properly, because they are acting on behalf of us all.
    I shall finish where I began. The Leader of the House has gone—[Interruption.] Oh, no, he is still present. I apologise to him. I hope that he will heed what I have said, and will not press those particular motions, so that just as we have been spared having to make an invidious comparison between individual Members, we will be spared having to exclude two people of enormous worth, who have served the House in a fine manner over many years.
    6.43 pm
    Donald Anderson: It was Adlai Stevenson who said, "With a tribute like that, I can hardly wait to hear myself speak." Yes, I am a victim—along with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—but whether I am an innocent victim will be for the House to decide. I am most grateful to all my hon. Friends who have paid tribute to me. I am deeply honoured by what the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) said. He was the Opposition leader on the Committee. We have had some differences, but I have always had enormous respect for him as a parliamentarian.
    When I chaired the Welsh Affairs Select Committee 20 years ago, an academic accused me of being a democrat because of the way in which I ran the Committee. I pleaded guilty to that charge, and I hope that I ran the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in the same way.
    The key factor is not the personal, but the principle. Parliament is falling into some disrepute. Coverage in the newspapers has plummeted. The public has switched off, as was shown by the apathy during the general election. What signal are we giving to the public? The last century was extremely hard on Parliaments because the professional civil service was far more expert, and because of the secrecy, the speed of events and globalisation. Select Committees are by far the best instrument for Parliament to be expert in dealing with experts. They must be seen to be independent if Parliament is to enhance its role.
    My right hon. Friend has the ability to be a great Leader of the House. I have noticed, as no doubt have colleagues, that there was a difference between the tone of his admittedly positive speech to the Hansard Society last Thursday and what he said today. There was a gaping black hole in his speech last Thursday: there was no reference to what the Hansard Society and the Liaison Committee had said about the role of the Whips. Today, he grasped that nettle, and said something of significance about a review. I rejoice at that. Parliament faces a challenge, and I know that we will not fail.
    6.46 pm
    Sir Teddy Taylor: It is wonderful that everyone has talked of the importance of preserving our democracy and fighting for the rights of individuals. I have been in the House for a long time, and I have heard that said on many occasions, but the interesting question is what we intend to do about it. If

    73
    my party feels as strongly as it says it does about this rotten and devious system of appointing Members to Select Committees merely on the instructions of Whips, what the blazes does it intend to do about it? If we really care, should not we say that we will make changes in the way in which we appoint Members to Select Committees? Nothing has sickened me more in my long time in Parliament than to hear Opposition Members shouting about what should be done when they can do something about it. If we think that democracy is at risk, we should do something about it.
    If we really care, hon. Members should examine not just the chairmanship of two Committees but some of the decisions made about individuals, including the Member to whom I refer to in my amendment (b) to motion 17. For a brief period, I had the pleasure of serving on the Treasury Committee. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), with whom I do not agree on anything, was in my opinion one of its most effective members. To some degree, he was more effective than all the others put together.
    The hon. Gentleman did not follow the rules. Members of the Treasury Committee do not decide what questions they ask: they are supplied to them by Clerks. At the beginning of a meeting, we had a bidding session to decide which of the named questions we wanted to ask. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch was different from others, in that he tended to ask his own questions. He upset things totally, and was a complete rascal.
    I am worried about the question of ability. The House of Commons is different from most places of work, in that for most jobs people need A-levels, O-levels or university degrees. Parliament is unique: there are no qualifications for membership. To be a Member of Parliament people do not need to be able to read, write or count. A law that was laid down back in 1864 says that peers, lunatics or convicted criminals cannot be an MP. That offers us a wide scope to choose from, but it is amazing how one or two of each of those categories slips through from time to time.
    The Members who have been chucked off Committees have great ability and are being discriminated against. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, with whom I hardly agree on anything, is one of the most highly qualified Members of the House. He was a successful graduate of Oxford, he is a barrister, and he has a constituency with some of the greatest social problems of the world. It made me sick to see him being chucked off while others were left on. My point is about democracy—it was not made in a party sense.
    The House must wake up to the fact that, if we genuinely believe that Select Committees can achieve something and that democracy is in danger, we must make room for Members who are different, clever or on their own.
    Another point, which, of course, is very much against the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, is that, as an individual, he did not always agree with everyone. Some members of our party do the same, and, as is probably known, there is currently a rule that we should not talk about the EEC at any time or in any way, because it is divisive and difficult. The Labour party has its rules too, and the hon. Gentleman sometimes breaks them.
    74
    The one thing we want, and it is desperately needed, is for the House of Commons to hear about democracy. We should give the Whips some idea of what we think. I believe that the right message would be conveyed if Members voted for amendment (b) to motion 17—with the agreement of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, whom I consulted before I tabled the amendment. I think he was rather surprised.
    There is no point in just changing round some of the clever people who talk, and who always agree on everything. What is crucial is to preserve individuals.
    Much has been said about the importance of Select Committees. I feel that there is a danger of our overstating that: democracy is far more important. I therefore hope that what I have said will be considered, for if such a message is conveyed to the Whips it will, I think, do more good than anything else.
    Finally and most importantly, let me say to my own wonderful party that while it is great to hear us praising democracy, we must do something rather than just talking about it.
    6.51 pm
    Mr. Derek Foster: I am grateful to be called, and very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). This has proved, as I hoped, to be an extremely important debate in terms of the relationship between Parliament and the Executive.
    I am deeply embarrassed to refer to my own position, but I am one of those who have been chucked out. I was joint Chairman of the Education and Employment Committee for four years, and was dispensed with rather summarily.
    Two aspects of the debate, however, have been immensely encouraging. We have heard a constructive response from the Leader of the House, and we have witnessed the death throes of a wholly discredited system—a system that I operated for 10 years as Labour Chief Whip. At the end of my tenure I concluded that the rough justice that had been meted out was no longer tenable, and it was I who advocated in the Liaison Committee that Select Committee membership should be removed from the power of the Whips. I am delighted that the Liaison Committee agreed; I am also delighted that, with their silly behaviour, my right hon. Friends have underlined the wisdom of the Committee's decision.
    I think that something very good will come out of this debate. I think the Leader of the House will prove a very progressive Leader: I think he will grasp the unique and historic opportunity to advance the power of Select Committees, and really begin to restore the dignity—as well as the power—of the House of Commons.
    6.53 pm
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: Once again, we have had the opportunity to engage in a serious and important debate. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for outlining possible proposals for modernisation that would address some of the criticisms advanced today. There is no doubt that if that is done he will have the Opposition's co-operation and support, as has already been made clear to him.

    75
    The fact that that is being promised, however, does not mean we should suspend our judgment on the motions. We have a right and a duty to exercise our judgment, and if what is coming from the Committee of Selection is wholly unfortunate and misplaced we should examine each motion and have the courage to reject those that appear flagrantly to fly in the face of common sense.
    I hope that the House will be willing to consider particularly the motions relating to transport and foreign affairs, and decide whether the interests of the House are being properly served in the rejection of Members whose views have been valid and trusted in the past. I await some reassurance from the Minister that the problems raised by so many today are being addressed.
    6.55 pm
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I thank all who have spoken. I shall try to respond to some of their comments, but I have only five minutes in which to do so.
    The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) suggested that speed was getting in the way of reform. The Government have no desire for that to happen. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said on many occasions, we have tried to have the Select Committees up and running in time for the summer, and that is still our intention. As has been acknowledged by Members on both sides of the House, however, and as we have made clear, reform will now take place.
    As my right hon. Friend said, when the Modernisation Committee meets on Wednesday—assuming that we appoint it tonight—he will want it to give priority to the way in which Committee members are appointed. I do not think we could have a clearer indication that there are no delaying tactics, and no attempts by my right hon. Friend to ensure that that speed gets in the way of reform.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that there was no conflict between good government and strong Select Committees. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) gave the House the benefit of his considerable experience, and described Select Committees as the best innovation he had seen during his time in the House. I think Members in all quarters want to ensure that that innovation is advanced, and that reform takes place.
    As a number of Members said, we have benefited not just from the Liaison Committee's report—my right hon. Friend said that it would form a basis for the Modernisation Committee's consideration on Wednesday—but from the important contributions of the Hansard Society, chaired by Lord Newton, and the Norton commission, appointed by the official Opposition. All those studies and reports will contribute to the important debate that the Modernisation Committee will launch on Thursday.
    The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) could not stay, but passed me a note to explain why. Both he and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) again raised the question of my right hon. Friend's chairing the Modernisation Committee. I think that my right hon. Friend's commitment to chairing the Committee reaffirms his personal commitment to making modernisation a priority.
    76
    I see no contradiction between that and saying that we want to modernise, strengthen and improve the House. What my right hon. Friend and the Government are saying by proposing that he chair the Committee is that we place reform, renewal and improvement of the House and its Select Committee system at the heart of our priorities. That is reflected in what my right hon. Friend has said today, as well as in his important speech to the Hansard Society last week. We place modernisation of the House at the head of the priorities of its Leader.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) raised the question of payment of Committee Chairs. The proposal has appeared in a number of the reports to which I have referred, and we have made it clear that we will consult widely on it. It will form part of the inquiry conducted by the Modernisation Committee, and only if it enjoys wide support will it be put to the SSRB.
    We have an opportunity to settle the issue, and to allow the work of the Select Committees to begin. Labour Members have a free vote. This is a matter for the House to decide, but I commend our proposals.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harold Best, Tom Brake, Derek Conway, Keith Hill, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, Albert Owen, Anne Picking and Syd Rapson be members of the Accommodation and Works Committee.
    It being 7 o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [this day], to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    Accommodation and Works

      ADMINISTRATION
      Ordered,
      That Mr. Nick Ainger, Patsy Calton, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Caroline Flint, Martin Linton, Julie Morgan, Dr. Nick Palmer, Mrs. Marion Roe and David Wright be members of the Administration Committee.

      CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
      That Mr. Chris Bryant, Mr. Frank Doran, Michael Fabricant, Mr. Adrian Flook, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Alan Keen, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Rosemary McKenna, Ms Debra Shipley, John Thurso and Derek Wyatt be members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
      DEFENCE
      That Mr. David Crausby, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Mr. Kevan Jones, Jim Knight, Dr. Julian Lewis, Patrick Mercer, Syd Rapson, Mr. Frank Roy and Rachel Squire be members of the Defence Committee.
      EDUCATION AND SKILLS
      That Mr. David Chaytor, Valerie Davey, Jeff Ennis, Paul Holmes, Ms Meg Munn, Mr. Kerry Pollard, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Mr. Jonathan R. Shaw, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Bob Spink and Mr. Andrew Turner be members of the Education and Skills Committee.
      ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
      That Mr. David Borrow, Mr. Colin Breed, David Burnside, Mr. David Curry, Mr. David Drew, Patrick Hall, Mr. Andrew Hunter, Mr. Michael Jack, Mr. David Lepper, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Mr. Bill Olner, Diana Organ, Phil Sawford, Mr. Paul Stinchcombe, David Taylor and Mr. Mark Todd he members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.—[Mr. Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

      FOREIGN AFFAIRS
      Motion made, and Question put,
      That Mr. David Chidgey, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Fabian Hamilton, Mr. Eric Illsley, Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. John Maples, Mr. Greg Pope, Mr. Chris Smith, Sir John Stanley, Dr. Phyllis Starkey and Ms Gisela Stuart be members of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
      The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 301.

      Division No. 26

      [7 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Doran, Frank

      Ainger, Nick

      Dowd, Jim

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Drew, David

      Alexander, Douglas

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Ennis, Jeff

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Baird, Vera

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Banks, Tony

      Flint, Caroline

      Barron, Kevin

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Foulkes, George

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Gapes, Mike

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Gilroy, Linda

      Bell, Stuart

      Goggins, Paul

      Benn, Hilary

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Benton, Joe

      Hain, Peter

      Blackman, Liz

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Hanson, David

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Healey, John

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Heppell, John

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Browne, Desmond

      Heyes, David

      Bryant, Chris

      Hill, Keith

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Hodge, Margaret

      Bumharm, Andy

      Hood, Jimmy

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Hope, Phil

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cairns, David

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hutton, John

      Challen, Colin

      Illsley, Eric

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Jamieson, David

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Coaker, Vernon

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Corston, Jean

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Cox, Tom

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Cranston, Ross

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Crausby, David

      Joyce, Eric

      Cruddas, Jon

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Kelly, Ruth

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      78

      Lammy, David

      Purnell, James

      Laxton, Bob

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Rammell, Bill

      Lepper, David

      Rapson, Syd

      Leslie, Christopher

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Levitt, Tom

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Love, Andrew

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Luke, Iain

      Rooney, Terry

      Lyons, John

      Ross, Ernie

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ruddock, Joan

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ryan, Joan

      MacDougall, John

      Salter, Martin

      McFall, John

      Sawford, Phil

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sheridan, Jim

      McIsaac, Shona

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McKechin, Ann

      Simon, Siôn

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Singh, Marsha

      MacShane, Denis

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Soley, Clive

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Southworth, Helen

      Mann, John

      Spellar, John

      Marris, Rob

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Meale, Alan

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Merron, Gillian

      Stringer, Graham

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Tami, Mark

      Miliband, David

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Miller, Andrew

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Timms, Stephen

      Moran, Margaret

      Touhig, Don

      Morley, Elliot

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Tynan, Bill

      Norris, Dan

      Ward, Ms Claire

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Watson, Tom

      Olner, Bill

      White, Brian

      O'Neill, Martin

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Pearson, Ian

      Wills, Michael

      Perham, Linda

      Wilson, Brian

      Picking, Anne

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Pike, Peter

      Woodward, Shaun

      Pond, Chris

      Woolas, Phil

      Pope, Greg

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Pound, Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Mr. Tony McNulty and

      Purchase, Ken

      Angela Smith.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Allan, Richard

      Bennett, Andrew

      Amess, David

      Bercow, John

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Berry, Roger

      Best, Harold

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Austin, John

      Boswell, Tim

      Bacon, Richard

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Barker, Greg

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Barnes, Harry

      Brake, Tom

      Baron, John

      Brazier, Julian

      Barrett, John

      Brennan, Kevin

      Beggs, Roy

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      79

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gale, Roger

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Gardiner, Barry

      Burgon, Colin

      Garnier, Edward

      Burnett, John

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Bums, Simon

      Gerrard, Neil

      Burstow, Paul

      Gibb, Nick

      Burt, Alistair

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Butterfill, John

      Gidley, Sandra

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Calton, Patsy

      Goodman, Paul

      Cameron, David

      Grayling, Chris

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Greenway, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Grieve, Dominic

      Casale, Roger

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Cash, William

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Caton, Martin

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Hammond, Philip

      Chaytor, David

      Hancock, Mike

      Chope, Christopher

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Clapham, Michael

      Harvey, Nick

      Clappison, James

      Havard, Dai

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Hayes, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Heald, Oliver

      Clwyd, Ann

      Heath, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Coleman, lain

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Collins, Tim

      Hendry, Charles

      Connarty, Michael

      Hermon, Lady

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hoban, Mark

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hoey, Kate

      Cotter, Brian

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Cousins, Jim

      Holmes, Paul

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cryer, John (Homchurch)

      Horam, John

      Cummings, John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hurst, Alan

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      David, Wayne

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Davidson, Ian

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

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

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Keetch, Paul

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Key, Robert

      Dobbin, Jim

      Kidney, David

      Dodds, Nigel

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Doughty, Sue

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Duncan, Alan

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Efford, Clive

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lansley, Andrew

      Etherington, Bill

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Evans, Nigel

      Laws, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Fallon, Michael

      Letwin, Oliver

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Fisher, Mark

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Flight, Howard

      Lidington, David

      Flook, Adrian

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Flynn, Paul

      Lloyd, Tony

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Loughton, Tim

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Lucas, Ian

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Fox, Dr Liam

      McDonnell, John

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      80

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McNamara, Kevin

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

      McWalter, Tony

      Soames, Nicholas

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Martlew, Eric

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Mates, Michael

      Spring, Richard

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Squire, Rachel

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Steen, Anthony

      Mercer, Patrick

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Stevenson, George

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Moore, Michael

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Moss, Malcolm

      Streeter, Gary

      Mudie, George

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mullin, Chris

      Swayne, Desmond

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Syrns, Robert

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Norman, Archie

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Oaten, Mark

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Öpik, Lembit

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Organ, Diana

      Thurso, John

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Ottaway, Richard

      Trend, Michael

      Owen, Albert

      Trickett, Jon

      Page, Richard

      Truswell, Paul

      Paice, James

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Paterson, Owen

      Tyler, Paul

      Pickles, Eric

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Pickthall, Colin

      Viggers, Peter

      Pollard, Kerry

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Price, Adam

      Wareing, Robert N

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Waterson, Nigel Webb, Steve

      Pugh, Dr John

      Weir, Michael

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Whittingdale, John

      Rendel, David

      Wiggin, Bill

      Robathan, Andrew

      Wilkinson, John

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Willetts, David

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Ruffley, David

      Willis, Phil

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Salmond, Alex

      Wishart, Pete

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wood, Mike

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Worthington, Tony

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Selous, Andrew

      Wyatt, Derek

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Yeo, Tim

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Shepherd, Richard

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Simmonds, Mark

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Mr. Frank Field and

      Skinner, Dennis

      David Winnick.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Ordered,

      HEALTH
      That Mr. David Amess, John Austin, Andy Burnham, Mr. Simon Burns, Jim Dowd, Julia Drown, Sandra Gidley, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Siobhain McDonagh, Dr Doug Naysmith and Dr Richard Taylor be members of the Health Committee.
      HOME AFFAIRS
      That Mr. David Cameron, Mrs. Janet Dean, Mr. Humfrey Malins, Mr. Chris Mullin, Bridget Prentice, Mr. Gwyn Prosser, Bob Russell, Mr. Marsha Singh, Angela Watkinson, Mr. Tom Watson and David Winnick be members of the Home Affairs Committee.
      INFORMATION
      That Mr. Richard Allan, Mr. Michael Connarty, Julia Drown, Michael Fabricant, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Peter Luff, Ann McKechin, Margaret Moran and Mr. Gwyn Prosser be members of the Information Committee.
      INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
      That Mr. John Battle, Hugh Bayley, Alistair Burt, Ann Clwyd, Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Piara S. Khabra, Mr. Edward Leigh, Chris McCafferty, Mr. Andrew Robathan and Tony Worthington be members of the International Development Committee.
      SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
      That Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Mr. Peter Duncan, Mr. Eric Joyce, Mr. Mark Lazarowicz, Mr. John Lyons, Ann McKechin, Mr. David Marshall, John Robertson, Mr. Mohammad Sarwar and Mr. Michael Weir be members of the Scottish Affairs Committee.—[Mr. Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

      TRADE AND INDUSTRY
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That Mr. Roger Berry, Richard Burden, Mr. Christopher Chope, Mr. Jonathan Djanogly, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Mrs. Jackie Lawrence, Mr. Martin O'Neill, Linda Perham, Sir Robert Smith and Mr. John Whittingdale be members of the Trade and Industry Committee.—[Mr. Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
      Amendment proposed: Line 3, leave out 'Sir Robert Smith,' and insert 'Pete Wishart'.—[Mr. Salmond.]
      Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.
      Main Question put and agreed to.

      TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That Andrew Bennett, Sir Paul Beresford, Mr. Clive Betts, Mr. Gregory Campbell, Mr. John Cummings, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Mrs. Louise Ellman, Chris Grayling, Helen Jackson, Ms Oona King, Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. Bill O'Brien, Anne Picking, Dr John Pugh, Christine Russell, Mr. George Stevenson and Mr. Bill Wiggin be members of the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
      The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 308.

      Division No. 27]

      [7.16 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Blackman, Liz

      Ainger, Nick

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Alexander, Douglas

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Baird, Vera

      Brennan, Kevin

      Barron, Kevin

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Bell, Stuart

      Browne, Desmond

      Benn, Hilary

      Bryant, Chris

      Benton, Joe

      Buck, Ms Karen

      82

      Burnham, Andy

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Kelly, Ruth

      Cairns, David

      Kemp, Fraser

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Challen, Colin

      Lammy, David

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Laxton, Bob

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Lepper, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Leslie, Christopher

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Levitt, Tom

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Corston, Jean

      Love, Andrew

      Cranston, Ross

      Luke, lain

      Cruddas, Jon

      Lyons, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      David, Wayne

      MacDougall, John

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      McFall, John

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Dismore, Andrew

      McIsaac, Shona

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      McKechin, Ann

      Doran, Frank

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Dowd, Jim

      MacShane, Denis

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      McWilliam, John

      Ennis, Jeff

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Mallaber, Judy

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Flint, Caroline

      Mann, John

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Foulkes, George

      Merron, Gillian

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Gapes, Mike

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Miliband, David

      Gilroy, Linda

      Miller, Andrew

      Goggins, Paul

      Moffatt, Laura

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hain, Peter

      Moran, Margaret

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hanson, David

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Havard, Dai

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Healey, John

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Norris, Dan

      Hendrick, Mark

      Oaten, Mark

      Heppell, John

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Olner, Bill

      Hill, Keith

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hodge, Margaret

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hope, Phil

      Pearson, Ian

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Picking, Anne

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Pond, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pope, Greg

      Hutton, John

      Pound, Stephen

      Illsley, Eric

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jenkins, Brian

      Purchase, Ken

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Purnell, James

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Rammell, Bill

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Rapson, Syd

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Joyce, Eric

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Rooney, Terry

      83

      Ross, Ernie

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Timms, Stephen

      Ryan, Joan

      Todd, Mark

      Sawford, Phil

      Touhig, Don

      Sheridan, Jim

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Simon, Siôn

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Singh, Marsha

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Tynan, Bill

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Watson, Tom

      Soley, Clive

      White, Brian

      Southworth, Helen

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Spellar, John

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wills, Michael

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wilson, Brian

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stringer, Graham

      Woolas, Phil

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tami, Mark

      Mr. Tony McNulty and

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Angela Smith.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Allan, Richard

      Chaytor, David

      Amess, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Clapham, Michael

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Clappison, James

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Austin, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bacon, Richard

      Clwyd, Ann

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cohen, Harry

      Banks, Tony

      Coleman, lain

      Barker, Greg

      Collins, Tim

      Barnes, Harry

      Connarty, Michael

      Baron, John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Barrett, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Beggs, Roy

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Cotter, Brian

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cousins, Jim

      Bercow, John

      Cox, Tom

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Crausby, David

      Berry, Roger

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Best, Harold

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Cummings, John

      Boswell, Tim

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Brake, Tom

      Davidson, Ian

      Brazier, Julian

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Bruce, Malcolm

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

      Burgon, Colin

      Burnett, John

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bums, Simon

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Burstow, Paul

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Burt, Alistair

      Dobbin, Jim

      Butterfill, John

      Dodds, Nigel

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Calton, Patsy

      Doughty, Sue

      Cameron, David

      Drew, David

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Duncan, Alan

      Duncan Smith, lain

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Cann, Jamie

      Efford, Clive

      Casale, Roger

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Cash, William

      Etherington, Bill

      Caton, Martin

      Evans, Nigel

      84

      Fabricant, Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Fallon, Michael

      Letwin, Oliver

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Fisher, Mark

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Flight, Howard

      Lidington, David

      Flook, Adrian

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Flynn, Paul

      Lloyd, Tony

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Loughton, Tim

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Fox, Dr Liam

      McDonnell, John

      Francois, Mark

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Gale, Roger

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gardiner, Barry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Gamier, Edward

      McWalter, Tony

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Gibb, Nick

      Marris, Rob

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Gidley, Sandra

      Martlew, Eric

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Mates, Michael

      Goodman, Paul

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Grayling, Chris

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Meale, Alan

      Greenway, John

      Mercer, Patrick

      Grieve, Dominic

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Moore, Michael

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Mudie, George

      Hammond, Philip

      Mullin, Chris

      Hancock, Mike

      Murphy. Denis (Wansbeck)

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Harvey, Nick

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hawkins, Mick

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Hayes, John

      O'Hara, Edward

      Heald, Oliver

      Öpik, Lembit

      Heath, David

      Organ, Diana

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Osbome, George (Tatton)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hendry, Charles

      Owen, Albert

      Hermon, Lady

      Page. Richard

      Hinchliffe, David

      Paice, James

      Hoban, Mark

      Paterson, Owen

      Hoey, Kate

      Perham, Linda

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Pickles, Eric

      Holmes, Paul

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Pike, Peter

      Horam, John

      Pollard, Kerry

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Price, Adam

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Prisk, Mark

      Hurst, Alan

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Pugh, Dr John

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Rendel, David

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

      Keetch, Paul

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Key, Robert

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Kidney, David

      Ruffley, David

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Salmond, Alex

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Sanders, Adrian

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Selous, Andrew

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Lansley, Andrew

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Laws, David

      Shepherd, Richard

      85

      Simmonds, Mark

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Skinner, Dennis

      Viggers, Peter

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Walley, Ms Joan

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

      Wareing, Robert N

      Soames, Nicholas

      Waterson, Nigel

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Watkinson, Angela

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Webb, Steve

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Weir, Michael

      Spring, Richard

      Whittingdale, John

      Squire, Rachel

      Wiggin, Bill

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Willetts, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Stevenson, George

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Willis, Phil

      Streeter, Gary

      Wilshire, David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Wishart, Pete

      Syms, Robert

      Wood, Mike

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Worthington, Tony

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Taylor. Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Yeo, Tim

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Thurso, John

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Trend, Michael

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Trickett, Jon

      Mr. Frank Field and

      Truswell, Paul

      David Winnick.

      Question accordingly negatived.

      TREASURY
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That Mr. Nigel Beard, Mr. Jim Cousins, Mr. Michael Fallon, Mr. David Laws, Mr. John McFall, Kali Mountford, Mr. George Mudie, Dr Nick Palmer, Mr. James Plaskitt, Mr. David Ruffley and Mr. Andrew Tyne be members of the Treasury Committee.—[Mr. Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
      Manuscript amendment proposed: Line 1, leave out "Mr. David Laws" and insert "Mr. Alex Salmond".—[Mr. Salmond.]
      The House divided: Ayes 52, Noes 351.

      Division No. 28]

      [7.28 pm

      AYES

      Bacon, Richard

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Barker, Greg

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Baron, John

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Beggs, Roy

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Bercow, John

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Bums, Simon

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Cash, William

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Collins, Tim

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Price, Adam

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Prisk, Mark

      Flynn, Paul

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Francois, Mark

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Goodman, Paul

      Ruffley, David

      Hawkins, Nick

      Salmond, Alex

      Hayes, John

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hermon, Lady

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hoban, Mark

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Spring, Richard

      86

      Swayne, Desmond

      Whittingdale, John

      Trend, Michael

      Wiggin, Bill

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Wilshire, David

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Watkinson, Angela

      Mr. Simon Thomas and

      Weir, Michael

      Pete Wishart.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cooper, Yvette

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Corston, Jean

      Ainger, Nick

      Cotter, Brian

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cousins, Jim

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cox, Tom

      Allan, Richard

      Cranston, Ross

      Allen, Graham

      Crausby, David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Baird, Vera

      Cummings, John

      Banks, Tony

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Barnes, Harry

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Barrett, John

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Barron, Kevin

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      David, Wayne

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Davidson, Ian

      Benn, Hilary

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Benton, Joe

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

      Best, Harold

      Blackman, Liz

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dismore, Andrew

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Brake, Tom

      Doran, Frank

      Brennan, Kevin

      Doughty, Sue

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Dowd, Jim

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Duncan, Peter

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Browne, Desmond

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bryant, Chris

      Etherington, Bill

      Burden, Richard

      Evans, Nigel

      Burnett, John

      Farrelly, Paul

      Burnham, Andy

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Burstow, Paul

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Flight, Howard

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Flint, Caroline

      Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

      Follett, Barbara

      Calton, Patsy

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gapes, Mike

      Casale, Roger

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cawsey, Ian

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Challen, Colin

      Gidley, Sandra

      Chaytor, David

      Gilroy, Linda

      Chope, Christopher

      Goggins, Paul

      Clapham, Michael

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hain, Peter

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hancock, Mike

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hanson, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Connarty, Michael

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      87

      Harvey, Nick

      McKechin, Ann

      Havard, Dai

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Healey, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Heath, David

      MacShane, Denis

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McWalter, Tony

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McWilliam, John

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Heppell, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hill, Keith

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mann, John

      Hodge, Margaret

      Marris, Rob

      Holmes, Paul

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Meale, Alan

      Hope, Phil

      Mercer, Patrick

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Merron, Gillian

      Horam, John

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Miliband, David

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Miller, Andrew

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Moore, Michael

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Moran, Margaret

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morley, Elliot

      Hutton, John

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Illsley, Eric

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Jamieson, David

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jenkins, Brian

      Norris, Dan

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Oaten, Mark

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Organ, Diana

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Owen, Albert

      Joyce, Eric

      Pearson, Ian

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Perham, Linda

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Picking, Anne

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keetch, Paul

      Pike, Peter

      Kelly, Ruth

      Plaskitt, James

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pond, Chris

      Khabra, Piara S

      Pope, Greg

      Kidney, David

      Pound, Stephen

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Ladyman. Dr Stephen

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lammy, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Laxton, Bob

      Pumell, James

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Leigh, Edward

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lepper, David

      Rammell, Bill

      Leslie, Christopher

      Rapson, Syd

      Letwin, Oliver

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Levitt, Tom

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rendel, David

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lloyd, Tony

      Love, Andrew

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Lucas, Ian

      Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

      Luke, lain

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Lyons, John

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McCafferty, Chris

      Rooney, Terry

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Ross, Ernie

      MacDougall, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      McFall, John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Ryan, Joan

      88

      Salter, Martin

      Timms, Stephen

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Touhig, Don

      Sawford, Phil

      Trickett, Jon

      Sheridan, Jim

      Truswell, Paul

      Shipley. Ms Debra

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Simon, Siôn

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Singh, Marsha

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Tyler, Paul

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Tynan, Bill

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, Uew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Ward, Ms Claire

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

      Watson, Tom

      Southworth, Helen

      Webb, Steve

      Spellar, John

      White, Brian

      Squire, Rachel

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Steen, Anthony

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wills, Phil

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Wills, Michael

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wilson, Brian

      Winnick, David

      Stringer, Graham

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Wood, Mike

      Stunell, Andrew

      Woodward, Shaun

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Woolas, Phil

      Syms, Robert

      Worthington, Tony

      Tami, Mark

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Angela Smith and

      Thurso, John

      Mr. Tony McNulty.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Main Question put and agreed to.
      Ordered,
      That Mr. Nigel Beard, Mr. Jim Cousins, Mr. Michael Fallon, Mr. David Laws, Mr. John McFall, Kali Mountford, Mr. George Mudie, Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. James Plaskitt, Mr. David Ruffley and Mr. Andrew Tyrie be members of the Treasury Committee.

      WELSH AFFAIRS
      Ordered,
      That Mr. Martin Caton, Dr Hywel Francis, Mr. Martyn Jones, Julie Morgan, Albert Owen, Adam Price, Mr. Mark Prisk, Chris Ruane, Mr. Bill Wiggin, Mrs. Betty Williams and Mr. Roger Williams be members of the Welsh Affairs Committee.

      WORK AND PENSIONS
      That Miss Anne Begg, Ms Karen Buck, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. Paul Goodman, Mrs. Joan Humble, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Rob Marris, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, James Purnell, Mr. Andrew Selous and Mr. David Stewart be members of the Work and Pensions Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

      MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMMONS
      Ordered,
      That a Select Committee of fifteen Members be appointed to consider how the practices and procedures of the House should be modernised, and to make recommendations thereon;
      That the Committee have power to send for persons. papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to report from time to time and to appoint specialist advisers;
      That Mrs. Angela Browning, Ann Coffey, Mr. Robin Cook, Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons, Barbara Follett, Helen Jackson, Julie Morgan, Mr. Peter Pike, Joan Ruddock, Mr. Martin Salter, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Andrew Stunell, Mr. Paul Tyler and Mr. Nicholas Winterton be members of the Committee;
      That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament.—[Mr. Robin Cook.]
      Ordered,

      DEREGULATION AND REGULATORY REFORM COMMITTEE
      That Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. David Chaytor, Brian Cotter, John Cryer, Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson, Mr. Paul Goodman, Andy King, Dr Ashok Kumar, Mr. Andrew Love, John McDonnell, Mr. Denis Murphy, Dr Doug Naysmith, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Anthony Steen, Ian Stewart and Brian White be members of the Select Committee on Deregulation and Regulatory Reform.
      BROADCASTING
      That Mrs. Helen Brinton, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. James Gray, David Hamilton, Mr. Brian Jenkins, Mr. David Lepper, Mr. lain Luke, Mr. John Lyons, Mr. Khalid Mahmood and Mr. Alan Reid be members of the Broadcasting Committee.
      PROCEDURE
      That Alistair Burt, Mr. David Drew, David Hamilton, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Eric Joyce, Ian Lucas, Mr. John Lyons, Rosemary McKenna, Ms Meg Munn, Mr. David Rendel, Sir Robert Smith, Nicholas Winterton and David Wright be members of the Procedure Committee.
      STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES
      That Tony Baldry, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. David Chidgey, Ross Cranston, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. Michael Foster (Hastings & Rye), Mr. Tom Levitt, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. Alan Williams and Sir George Young be members of the Standards and Privileges Committee.
      ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
      That Mr. Harold Best, Mrs. Helen Brinton, Sue Doughty, Mr. Mark Francois, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. John Horam, Dr Brian Iddon, Tim Loughton, Ian Lucas, Mr. Michael Meacher, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. Malcolm Savidge, Mr. Mark Simmonds, Mr. Simon Thomas, Joan Walley and David Wright be members of the Environmental Audit Committee.
      EUROPEAN SCRUTINY
      That Mr. Colin Breed, Roger Casale, William Cash, Mr. Michael Connarty, Tony Cunningham, Mr. Wayne David, Mr. Terry Davis, Jim Dobbin, Mr. Mark Hendrick, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Jim Marshall, Anne McIntosh, Laurence Robertson, Mr. Anthony Steen and Mr. Bill Tynan be members of the European Scrutiny Committee.
      HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
      That Vera Baird, Norman Baker, Jean Corston, Tony Cunningham and Mr. Shaun Woodward be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
      PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
      That Richard Bacon, Mr. Paul Boateng, Mr. Ian Davidson, Geraint Davies, David Davis, Mr. Barry Gardiner, Mr. Brian Jenkins, George Osborne, Mr. David Rendel, Mr. Gerry Steinberg, Jon Trickett and Mr. Alan Williams be members of the Committee of Public Accounts.
      PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
      That Annette Brooke, Kevin Brennan, Mr. David Heyes, Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger, Mr. John Lyons, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Michael Trend, Brian White, Tony Wright (Cannock Chase), and Mr. Anthony D. Wright (Great Yarmouth) be members of the Public Administration Committee.—[Mr. Robin Cook.]

    Business of the House
    7.42 pm
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I wish to make a short business statement.
    In the light of the votes, the Committee of Selection will now have to consider revised proposals for nominations to the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee. I hope that that will take place on Wednesday.
    The House will be invited to consider those nominations on Thursday after the debate on the Police (Northern Ireland) Amendment Order 2001. In order for it do so, it will be necessary to agree to set aside that part of Standing Order No. 121 that requires notice of such motions to be given two sitting days before the motions are taken. It may also be necessary for the House to sit beyond 7 pm on Thursday. I hope that, in the circumstances, the House will agree to both those procedural changes so that we can respond to the will of the House and, at the same time, set up all the Select Committees before the summer recess.
    Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton): We shall, of course, be pleased to co-operate as much as possible to help the Government complete this business.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: We, too, of course, will co-operate. We recognise that the Leader of the House is trying to deal in the most sensible and expeditious way with the problem that his own side have created for him. We believe that it is important to get the Select Committees working as quickly as possible and we will do everything that we can to assist.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: I welcome the statement by the Leader of the House. It is exactly the right reaction to the important events of this evening. However, he will not forget the significant concern shown across the House at the treatment of the minority parties. That has been indicated by votes that are well above our numbers.
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to hon. Members for their responses. I have recognised the problem that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has identified and we shall look for ways of remedying it. I can only remedy some problems this week; I cannot promise to remedy them all.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Given the statement that the Leader of the House has just made, will he recommend to the Select Committees that they meet on Friday, so that they can choose their Chairmen?
    Mr. Cook: When Select Committees choose to meet is a matter for them. It is, of course, open to them to meet on Friday or, indeed, on any subsequent day. Select Committees are not tied to meeting while the House is sitting. They could, if they chose to do so, meet next week.

    Northern Ireland
    7.44 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): I beg to move,
    That the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
    I am grateful for the opportunity presented by this debate to explain the background to the order and explain why the Government believe that it is necessary to introduce it at this time.
    The order provides for the conduct of elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is being laid at this time purely as a precautionary measure. It is essential in order to keep open the option of elections if the Assembly fails to elect new First and Deputy First Ministers within six weeks. However, that does not indicate the Government's intentions nor commit the Government or the parties to this particular course of action. It is too early yet to say what will happen. This is contingency planning: all our focus presently is on working with the Irish Government to put together a package of proposals to carry forward the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement following last week's intensive discussions.
    I should like to say something about the content of the order which, of course, is understood to be compliant with the rights under the European convention on human rights. It is being made under the powers of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and replaces the original order, the New Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 1998, which provided for the original Assembly elections only.
    The provisions of this order provide for the conduct of all future Assembly elections. The content of this instrument is broadly in line with that of the original order save for the necessary modifications as a consequence of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and the Representation of the People Act 2000. One change that we have made is to the timetable for Assembly elections. All future elections will be based on a 25-day timetable rather than the 19-day one that was set for the 1998 elections. That makes sense as it brings Assembly elections in line with district council elections, which are also run on the proportional representation single transferable vote system.
    As the original order provided only for the first Assembly elections, we planned to introduce these measures at some point prior to the programmed Assembly elections that are scheduled for 1 May 2003. However, as the House will know, the resignation of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) as First Minister became effective as of 1 July and the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 rendered that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) automatically ceased to hold office of Deputy First Minister at the same time.
    The provisions of the 1998 Act state that, if the offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers become vacant, the Assembly must hold an election to fill the vacancies within six weeks. However, should this process be unsuccessful, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to exercise his statutory duty and call fresh Assembly elections.
    The order ensures that elections to the Assembly could be called if required. You, Mr. Speaker, will note that I used the word "if'. The reason we are introducing the

    93
    order at this time is to ensure that all the options laid down in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are open to us. It is an option, and it does not force either the Government or the political parties of Northern Ireland into one particular course of action. It is certainly not our intention, in laying the order, to railroad them into holding Assembly elections or to assume that the search for a new First and Deputy First Minister will be unsuccessful.
    We are continuing our efforts, with the parties and with the Irish Government, to find a way forward in implementing the Good Friday agreement and it is hoped that the process of the Assembly electing new First and Deputy First Ministers will prevail. However, it is our fundamental duty to ensure that the procedures are in place should early Assembly elections be required. For that reason, I commend the order to the House.
    7.49 pm
    Mr. John Taylor: We on the Conservative Benches are grateful to the Minister for setting out the main provisions of the order. As he has made clear, the order is technical in nature. Despite that, in the grand scheme of things, it could have profound implications for the political process in Northern Ireland—and even for the survival of the Belfast agreement.
    Under section 31(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the next elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly are due on 1 May 2003. The order enables the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to call fresh elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly in the event of a failure to elect a new First Minister and Deputy First Minister by 12 August. The only alternative open to the Government in those circumstances would be an order to suspend the institutions, such as occurred in February last year. Of course, nobody knows what the outcome of such fresh elections might be. They could produce a fresh basis for progress in the political process in Northern Ireland. Alternatively, they could simply entrench the current impasse.
    The Opposition do not necessarily oppose fresh elections, but before the option is triggered, the Government should be aware that it is far from risk-free. To borrow a phrase, such elections would be a leap in the dark. Whether they are held will be for the Government to decide in the light of what might happen in coming days and weeks, and in particular the response of parties to the document on which they are working with the Irish Government. Only then could a proper assessment be made of what is the best or, as the late Ian Gow would have put it, the least dangerous way forward.
    The fact that we are forced to debate this order is of course deeply regrettable. Many of us had hoped that, by now, all elements of the Belfast agreement would have been implemented in full by all the parties. That, alas, has not been so, and why the order is before us.
    It is important for the House to be aware of why the agreement has not been implemented in full. It is emphatically not the result of any failure to deliver on his commitments under the agreement by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—or, for that matter, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and his party. Responsibility for failing to implement the agreement—and as a result the current impasse—rests firmly with those paramilitary organisations that have failed to decommission a single gun or an ounce of Semtex.
    94
    Decommissioning was a clear obligation under the agreement that was supposed to be completed within two years of the referendum. That was by 22 May last year. The date came and went; nothing happened. Then, also in May last year, the British and Irish Governments issued a statement setting out the steps that had to be taken to ensure full implementation of the agreement by the end of June this year. That was followed by an IRA commitment to begin a process of putting arms,
    "credibly and verifiably beyond use".
    More than a year later, that has still not even begun, as the report of General de Chastelain's decommissioning commission confirmed a fortnight ago.
    The failure to decommission is not all. As well as being fully armed, paramilitary organisations remain fully intact. The beatings, shootings, murders and the orchestrated violence that we saw last week continue—yet during the same period, Sinn Fein has had Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive, 444 terrorists have been released early from prison and the morale of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has been seriously undermined.
    It is no wonder that the confidence in the agreement of many moderate law-abiding Unionists has been stretched to the limit. They have seen a process that appears to be all take and no give by the paramilitaries and their political associates, who pocket gain after gain and give nothing in return. The people of Northern Ireland—in fact, the people of the island of Ireland—did not vote by an overwhelming majority in 1998 for what has been described as an armed peace. They voted to take the gun out of Irish politics for good and for a peaceful and democratic future underpinned by the principle of consent. The refusal of paramilitaries to decommission is the obstacle to all those things and—again—the reason why we are debating the order.
    We wait to see whether the joint proposals of the British and Irish Governments are able to command the confidence and support of all pro-agreement parties, so that both options of suspension or elections can be avoided and the agreement fully implemented. We are told that those proposals will be forthcoming in the next week to 10 days. Given that the House rises for the summer recess at the end of this week, will the Minister say what opportunity there will be for Members of Parliament to examine and debate what the Governments come up with?
    We are entering a critical period affecting the future of a part of the United Kingdom. Surely it is right and proper that this Parliament—which, after all, remains sovereign in Northern Ireland—should have the opportunity to debate the situation and have its views heard. We on the Conservative Benches, for example, would have serious concerns if anything were proposed that appears to reward those who have failed at every turn to fulfil their obligations, but punishes democrats such as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and members of his party, who have done everything that has been asked of them, and more. In particular, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made clear in the House a few days ago, it would be utterly wrong to give any further ground on security or policing reform before any decommissioning.
    As the Irish Tunes put it in its editorial this morning:
    "there must be no fudge on decommissioning of weapons. Those who enjoy the privileges of democratically elected office cannot remain wedded to an armed, illegal force. Sinn Fein and the IRA

    95
    must choose politics and politics alone—as the electorate demanded of them in May 1998. If they do not do so, the operation of the Belfast Agreement is a sham."
    Decommissioning remains the key test of the seriousness of Sinn Fein-IRA intent. Is it committed to what the agreement describes as
    "exclusively peaceful and democratic means",
    or is its participation in the process simply what has been described as tactical use of the armed struggle? We on the Conservative Benches are in no doubt that responsibility for progress rests with Sinn Fein-IRA. The paramilitaries must deliver. In the event that that delivery is not forthcoming, the Government are right to retain the possibility of elections as an option, with the caveats that I mentioned at the outset. For that reason, we shall not oppose the order.
    7.59 pm
    Lembit Öpik: The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) said that we are entering a critical phase. I would say that we did so in the 1960s and that this order is simply another page in the current chapter of trying to find a solution.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: Surely we did so in the 1690s?
    Lembit Öpik: Some may say so; I would be digressing if I tried to give even a brief resume of the highlights of that time.
    It is worth stepping back and recognising that we have made quite a lot of progress towards peace. The difficulty now is the end game. The order before us is another tool in attempting to close the deal and achieve normality in the long term. Although it is regrettable that we have to face that eventuality, it is probably necessary.
    However, the timing of the order is unhelpful. According to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, if the office of the First or Deputy Minister becomes vacant, an election must be held within six weeks to fill it, so there does not have to be an election to fill the posts for another month or so. The political parties in Northern Ireland are engaged in intensive talks to resolve the crisis. If the worst comes to the worst and the Assembly is unable to elect the First Minister in August, other options can be explored before it is necessary to hold Assembly elections.
    The order allows elections for the whole Assembly to occur prior to May 2003, as set out in legislation, and is being made prior to the outcome of the talks. I am slightly concerned that the Government are sending out mixed messages to all those involved in the current process. As the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) said, there is no guarantee that elections will improve things. They may simply serve to polarise the positions in Northern Ireland and create a hardening and perhaps growing rift between the two key sides, as we saw about a month ago. Who knows whether the gamble will pay off? By tampering with the process to achieve an outcome, we are, to some extent, playing roulette because we cannot predict what will happen.
    The process of having an election may necessitate a degree of entrenchment in the eyes of various Northern Ireland politicians, and that would mean that we have not made progress. I disagree with the Conservative party's implication that the republicans lack a commitment to
    96
    show good faith to move forward. We can all agree that decommissioning has been a key sticking point. The paramilitaries—especially on the republican side, although individuals are culpable on both sides—have singularly failed to deliver that commitment. Nevertheless, the mood music has at times been more promising than the Conservatives make out. I hope that we will be careful not to hold back progress by making opportunistic comments in this place. We sometimes need to give the Government the space to have discrete conversations with those who can deliver the result.
    That said, it is clear that even if the timing is regrettable, the order is a necessary tool in the range of devices that are available to the Government to make progress in what seems to be a stagnating process, and we will not oppose it tonight. However, there is no substitute for hardliners taking the opportunity not so much to be involved in elections, but to show more good faith than they have done to date. Whatever we do with the process here, it is their attitude and actions that will determine the outcome of events in the proceeding months.
    8.3 pm
    Lady Hermon: As someone who is strongly supportive of the Belfast agreement, I take no pleasure in seeing it in its present difficult circumstances. The extent of its difficulties is merely reflected by the fact that we are debating the order this evening when we should he looking forward to the scheduled Assembly elections far away in June 2003.
    No one can gainsay that the IRA's failure to decommission its weapons is the reason—the main reason—why we have been brought to the regrettable stage of debating an order that prepares for premature elections to the Assembly. Decommissioning of illegal weapons was, and remains, an integral part of the Belfast agreement. Almost three and half years after it was signed, we are still waiting. I am on the record as having said that I am not a patient person in the best of circumstances; these are now difficult circumstances and I have completely run out of patience.
    I also deeply resent being cheated, and I do feel cheated by the IRA for reneging on its promise made to all of us in Northern Ireland on 6 May 2000. It promised that it would verifiably and completely put its weapons beyond use. On the basis of that statement, I was one of the Ulster Unionists who, on 27 May last year, stood in the Waterfront hall and, despite a great deal of heckling, urged my colleagues in the Ulster Unionist council to jump first and take Sinn Fein back into the Executive.
    We did jump first, and as a result Sinn Fein regained its two substantial Ministries within the Assembly—Health, Social Services and Public Safety and Education—but no decommissioning followed. I feel deeply cheated and, but for the resignation of the First Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Balm (Mr. Trimble) on 1 July, the Government would, I fear, have continued to tolerate no movement on the weapons issue. I am ashamed of that fact. His resignation should not have been necessary. I certainly regret that he felt compelled to resign, but I fully support his reasons for taking that step. The ensuing talks at Weston Park between the pro-agreement parties have ended without a breakthrough at all. Given that they were scheduled before 12 July, which is a sensitive enough time in Northern Ireland, it should come as no great surprise that there was no substantial or significant breakthrough.

    97
    Although Ulster Unionists have no fear of Assembly elections, I remind the Government that if there continues to be no movement on the arms issues, the D-word—decommissioning—will be the major factor in any election campaign. That is bound to polarise the two communities, as it did in the recent general election. If we head into elections in the autumn—as I say, we have no fear of them—[Interruption.] Despite the amusement of Democratic Unionist party Members, I assure them that we are confident that we will do well in the Assembly election.
    The difficulty is that the decommissioning problem will not go away even if we have elections in the autumn. So I urge the Government to give serious consideration to the other options, however unpalatable, especially suspension. They did not like it the last time, but it must be considered again. Last week we debated electoral fraud. There are no reforms in place to combat that before the Assembly elections. It does not take a crystal ball to predict that there will be a significant number of absent voters west of the Bann. I urge the Government to consider all options and remember that decommissioning must be dealt with; elections in the autumn will not take away the problem.
    8.8 pm
    Mr. Peter Robinson: We just heard the confessions of a pro-agreement Unionist who admits to having exercised poor judgment in advising colleagues to trust the IRA. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has learned to her cost that it should not have been trusted.
    Elected representatives from Northern Ireland have few powers in the House because of our numbers. The one authority that we have is to speak on behalf of those we represent and to tender advice to them. When we tender advice, we need to summon up all our experience of those whom we are being asked to trust and determine whether there is anything in their past behaviour which would show them worthy of that trust. In this case, few intelligent people would have been prepared to advise the people of Northern Ireland that they should trust the IRA and put their future in its hands.
    The Ulster Unionist party has learned the electoral price of putting its trust in the Provisional IRA—it has had to pay a heavy cost indeed. I find interesting the UUP's enthusiasm for elections while remaining willing to encourage the Government to consider other options, including suspension. The hon. Member for North Down did not clearly state her preference—whether she would prefer no institutions to institutions in which there were fewer representatives from her party—but perhaps she will get around to it at some point.
    The Minister said that the order is a necessity and that it is part of the Government's contingency planning, but he did not state in precise terms what contingency would bring it into use. Even if the circumstances that he spelled out were to arise, there is no guarantee that the Government will use this contingency measure because, as the hon. Member for North Down said, other options are open to the Government.
    I am sure that the House would regard it as a cynical exercise if the Government were to have tabled the draft order knowing full well that they had no intention of using its provisions. However, Government advisers are openly telling the press that they prefer suspension to elections.
    98
    If the Minister were to encourage some of us by stating that if the circumstances—in his terms, the "regrettable" circumstances, although I might describe them otherwise—arose in which no First Minister or Deputy First Minister was elected before the six-week period had expired, he would act under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and use the order to call elections, the House will have used its time wisely tonight. If, on the other hand, he has no intention of doing that—I shall explore some of the reasons he might have for not doing it—the Government are engaged in a cynical exercise tonight.
    I thought I detected in the speeches of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesmen a notion that is foreign to my concept of democratic principles: they advised the Government that the outcome of any election was not wholly certain and that Ministers did not really want to hold an election unless it was going to provide the desired result. The people of Northern Ireland are being told that the Government are putting through an order tonight and they will allow Assembly elections to take place, provided the people vote the way that the Government want them to. That is the message from both the Minister and the Front-Bench spokesmen for the principal Opposition parties: such is their adherence to democracy that they will allow the people of Northern Ireland to have a vote, provided they vote the way they want them to.
    In fact, the Government know that the electorate will not vote the way they want them to. Recent experience tells them that. The UUP professes enthusiasm for elections, but whatever the tough talk in the Chamber tonight we know that in the 13 of Northern Ireland's 18 constituencies in which the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party went head to head, the DUP got five Members of Parliament elected while the UUP got four, and the DUP beat the UUP in eight of those constituencies while the UUP beat the DUP in five. Taking all of the votes cast for the two parties in those 13 constituencies, the DUP got 20,000 more votes than the UUP. Those are the facts that the Minister and his colleagues will take into consideration when deciding whether or not to use the order before the House tonight. I hope that the Government get better polling information than the Belfast Telegraph managed during the general election.
    If whatever soundings they take lead them to judge that they can get an election result that suits their policy, Ministers will use the order and go to the country, but I judge that the electorate have not changed from 7 June—if anything, they have come to a stronger realisation that Sinn Fein-IRA are not fit to be in government. That was our belief from the start and it has been borne out by Sinn Fein-IRA's behaviour ever since.
    To the Unionists, the process has involved the making of concession after concession to Sinn Fein-IRA while getting next to nothing in return. The Provisional IRA has not decommissioned one weapon, one bullet, one ounce of Semtex, one detonator—it has not moved at all on that issue. Its representatives are happy to talk to people and issue statements containing well studied words, but they have not delivered the product—indeed, they do not intend to deliver the product and they were not required to do so by the Belfast agreement. The agreement required only that they make sincere and genuine efforts to do so.

    99
    A later agreement indicated that the Provisional IRA would be prepared to decommission in certain circumstances—if the context was right. That context is, of course, a united Ireland. If the Provisional IRA can see that progress towards a united Ireland is irreversible, it will be prepared to consider decommissioning. Many of us saw that back in 1998 and our views have been justified.
    I note that the Minister holds out the hope of the current round of negotiations, which is now complete. We are told that the two Governments are to go away and draw up a paper that will, according to the press—I shall be interested to hear the Minister confirm or deny this—be provided to pro-agreement parties. It would appear that the Government, indulging their fascist inclinations—[Interruption.] Government Members can tut as much as they want, but they should listen before arriving at their conclusions.
    The reality in Northern Ireland is that there are four main parties. My party is larger than both the Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Fein. The Government want to speak to Sinn Fein—they repeatedly ask for and hold meetings—and they do the same with the SDLP. However, they do not do that with the DUP; they do not want to hear views that differ from their own. The Government issue invitations to talks at Weston Park not to the DUP, but to those who hold the same views on the Belfast agreement as they do. That is the form of democracy being exercised by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
    My question is a simple one. If the tuts from Government Back Benchers are anything to go by, they expect the Minister to stand and say that on the same day as the parties that support the agreement receive the documentation, the parties that are against the agreement will do so as well. That would be the proper thing to do. A major political party, one that is bigger than the parties to which the Government are currently talking, is outside the process, but it is entitled to see what proposals are being made on the future of Northern Ireland. My party's electoral mandate means that we have a greater stake than the SDLP and Sinn Fein. I want the Minister to clarify that point.
    The hon. Member for North Down said that an alternative was available—suspension. In that, we see the hypocrisy of the SDLP. When the first suspension of the institutions in Northern Ireland was being considered to salvage the hide of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the SDLP said that the Government could not suspend—that it was dreadful even to contemplate suspension. Its representatives hightailed it to Dublin and asked the Government there to put pressure on the UK Government to ensure that the institutions of the Belfast agreement were not suspended, saying that to do so would be to ensure the death of the agreement itself.
    However, because the SDLP knows that suspension is now the alternative to an election—an election in which its strength is likely to be reduced—to save its own hide it is urging the Government to choose suspension rather than elections. Although it is not always the case that the pattern of the past is repeated in such circumstances, thus far the position has always been that the SDLP, the IRA and the Dublin Government demand one thing—namely,
    100
    suspension rather than an election—and I rather suspect that, during the next few months, there will not be too many people pulling out their copies of this order to look at the arrangements for the election process.
    The outcome will of course be determined on the basis of the paper being provided by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic. I note that although the former First Minister for Northern Ireland told us that the process he had entered into at Weston Park would address only one subject—decommissioning—the heralded paper deals with a whole series of issues, including policing, demilitarisation, or normalisation depending on how one wants to describe it, and other matters such as the equality agenda.
    It has been indicated, rightly, by the Front-Bench spokesman for the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), that there is huge concern in Northern Ireland about further concessions being offered to Sinn Fein-IRA on policing. That is a matter of concern not only within the Unionist community but for the police service itself. There is massive demoralisation in the force. At present, hundreds of people are taking sick leave. More than 800 have already left the RUC. If further concessions are offered to the IRA for political purposes, that will be a heavy blow and one from which the service will never recover.
    The hon. Gentleman said that there should be no further concessions on policing until decommissioning had taken place. I am sure that was loose wording, but it is worth clarifying the point. My view is that there should be no further concessions on policing before, during or after decommissioning takes place. The so-called concessions in the Patten commission report have been delivered. There is no requirement on the Government to go beyond that in terms of practical policing, and I do not believe that the Government should move on that issue. If the Government are seen to be providing policing concessions to Sinn Fein and the SDLP in order to extract some weapons from the IRA, that will undermine the whole political process—a process that no longer enjoys the support of Unionists.
    Mr. Tom Harris: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman made a disparaging remark about my hon. Friends. Does he agree that the majority will should hold sway in Northern Ireland in relation to reform of the police service? It is surely the overwhelming will of the people of Northern Ireland that the police services in Northern Ireland be reformed as part of the Good Friday agreement. Is he not guilty of ignoring the democratic will of the people whom he represents?
    Mr. Robinson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confused on two issues: first, as to what people voted for in the referendum, which I assume is what he refers to as the view of the people of Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland were told by the former First Minister that the Belfast agreement would save the RUC. That was the premise on which the Ulster Unionist party fought the Belfast agreement referendum. As far as Unionists were concerned and certainly for those who trusted the former

    101
    First Minister, their view was that by voting in favour of the Belfast agreement they were voting for the salvation of the RUC.
    Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Robinson: I shall give way in a moment, but I want to deal with the second point raised by the intervention of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris). Majority rule in Northern Ireland is not the policy of the hon. Gentleman's Government: it is no longer policy for Northern Ireland. The present policy for Northern Ireland, enshrined in the Belfast agreement, is that there is a requirement to have the support of a majority of both sections of our community. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is no support from the Unionist community for those proposals—not only on policing but also on other issues.
    Mr. John Taylor rose—
    Mr. Robinson: I shall give way to the hon. Member for North Down and then to the hon. Member for Solihull.
    Lady Hermon: To correct a major point made by the hon. Gentleman, those of us who actually voted for the Belfast agreement did so in the knowledge that we were voting for police reform. As he well knows, the articles and the terms of reference set down in the agreement, for which I voted, stated that the Independent Commission on Policing had to bring forward the means of encouraging widespread community support. That is what I voted for but it has not been delivered, so we do not have the form of policing that we actually voted for. We, too, are bitterly disappointed.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. After that debate within a debate, I remind the House that we are discussing the arrangements for the conduct of elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Although the debate may be wide ranging, I do not believe that it should be as wide ranging as it has become during the last few moments.
    Mr. Robinson: Thank you Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall respond briefly to the point made by the hon. Member for North Down. She has it wrong: that is not what the Belfast agreement said. It stated that the outcome had to be capable of having the support of a widespread section of the community. Is the hon. Lady saying that she will not support the new police service for Northern Ireland, because I certainly would not be saying—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just ruled. The hon. Gentleman is trying to continue the mini-debate that I suggested should be terminated.
    Mr. Robinson: Thank you Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall leave it there. I was only tying up loose ends. I give way to the hon. Member for Solihull—unless he, too, wants to take part in the mini-debate.
    Mr. John Taylor: I am cowed by your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I was about to ask the hon. Gentleman if he agreed with my interpretation of Patten: that it was intended to apply to—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Older. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be cowed.
    Mr. Robinson: The Assembly for which the order provides a process for new elections was set up under
    102
    the Belfast agreement. The Assembly was one of the key features of that agreement, but is no more or less important than those features, such as policing, decommissioning and the whole issue of prisoner releases. All those matters were the subject of the decision relating to the Belfast agreement. If the other factors of the agreement have not been delivered, the Assembly for which the order is being introduced no longer has the same meaning or the same significance: nor indeed is it a part of the same process on which the people of Northern Ireland voted in the referendum in 1998.
    In closing, I say to the Government that it is not sufficient for them to attempt to put sticking plaster on the wounds of the agreement. That simply will not work. The requirement is for the Government to make a fresh start: to recognise that the agreement has failed; that the agreement no longer has the support of the majority of Unionists; that no process can stand or live in Northern Ireland that does not have the support of the majority of Unionists; and that there is thus a requirement for a renegotiation, to have an agreement that is capable of winning the support not only of nationalists but of Unionists as well.
    8.28 pm
    Mr. John Taylor: I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is only with the leave of the House that I can speak a second time in these proceedings. I defer to you in the matter. Must that be tested or is there a ruling from the Chair?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: If no one objects, the House gives leave to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Taylor: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief.
    The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) quite fairly corrected me. He said that my text implied that we were entering a critical phase. I ought to have said "a new and difficult phase". Along with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), who made a sedentary intervention, I accept that the problems are far from new. They are well over 300 years old or even more. I shall pass on the comments of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to my speech writer.
    I was also corrected by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) about concessions on policing. I want the hon. Gentleman to know that my views are much closer to his than he may imagine. Although I know that I am trespassing now, I am coming to an end, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I always regarded Patten as being predicated on peace first, then Patten. These are, perhaps, differences between the two sides of the Chamber in an area in which we have tried to be helpful, as the record shows.
    I conclude with a short anecdote. I remember my first insight, well over 30 years ago, into Northern Ireland society. I went to play golf in Northern Ireland and was asked whether the golf club to which I belonged in England was a Catholic golf club or a Protestant golf club. Nobody had ever asked me such a question before, and it gave me an insight into a rather different society, which was none the less part of my own country.
    I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House for letting me respond briefly.
    8.31 pm
    Mr. Browne: I thank the hon. Members who contributed to the debate, and I am grateful for the expressions of support for the order from the hon. Members for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and for North Down (Lady Hermon). In this short summing-up speech I shall endeavour to respond to the comments and questions that arose during the debate.
    I assure the hon. Member for Solihull that any package that emerges over the next week or so must be acceptable to all sides if it is to be effective. The Government's aim, and the priority throughout, remains the full implementation of the Belfast agreement. If we succeed in producing a package that meets that objective, every side wins and there are no losers.
    The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) invited me to speculate on the content of the package of measures. I am not prepared to do so. At this stage, such speculation would be unhelpful. Although I cannot say what will be in the package or when it will be completed, I can assure the House that both Governments are aware of the need to make early progress on all the outstanding issues.
    The hon. Member for Belfast, East somewhat unworthily accuses the Government of cynicism. Nothing could be further from the truth. In my opening speech I made clear the Government's position as regards the order. The Government hope that the normal process will take its course and that the Assembly will elect a new First Minister and Deputy First Minister, but we must ensure that if elections are required, the necessary technical steps have been taken. That is the purpose of the
    104
    order. I am not prepared to answer hypothetical questions based on an assumption of failure in respect of that objective.
    Finally, I say to the hon. Member for Belfast, East that the Government's primary goal is to implement the remaining aspects of the Good Friday agreement, which was voted for by the majority of the electorate in the north and south of the island of Ireland. It is only natural, therefore, when formulating ways in which that agreement can finally be implemented in full, that the Government should do so in negotiation with the pro-agreement parties.
    The Government have said on numerous occasions that the agreement remains the best opportunity that we have to bring lasting peace to Northern Ireland. It is our duty to do what we can to ensure that the agreement is fully implemented. It is not up for renegotiation. We will do whatever is most helpful to the process of implementing the outstanding areas of the Good Friday agreement. That is the priority. Exactly how the proposals are delivered, and to whom they are delivered, is a secondary issue.
    As I said in opening the debate, it is essential that we set in train the mechanisms for holding Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. It may be necessary to hold such elections later this year. Elections are in any case scheduled for 2003, but no matter when they happen, we must ensure that the system for conducting them is in place. The statutory instrument will form the basis for all future elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I am grateful to the House for allowing time to consider the order this evening.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.

  Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993
  8.35 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2001–02, and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2001–02 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
  I am delighted to be here, but I am even more delighted to see the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. I thought for a minute or two that the Labour party might have to put up another "Wanted" poster while the Whips desperately tried to find him, but luckily, here we are, face to face.
  Each year, the Government are required to send information to the European Commission setting out our main economic policy measures.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Shocking.
  Ruth Kelly: Nevertheless, it is the case.
  It is important that we provide the information. The procedure is set out in articles 99 and 104 of the EC treaty, which relate to the broad economic policy guidelines, convergence and stability programmes and the excessive deficits procedure. The purpose of the reports is to help to ensure that member states' economic policies are consistent with the goals of the treaty. Those goals are set out in article 2, and include non-inflationary economic growth that respects the environment, a high level of employment and social protection, and raising the standard of living and quality of life, as is consistent with the Government's approach to economic policy. Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, which is usually known as the Maastricht Act, requires Parliament to approve the Government report that is sent to the Commission for that purpose.
  The Government's strategy for economic policy is set out in the "Budget 2001" report. Today we have the opportunity to debate that document, as it will form the basis of the information that we send to the Commission. Sharing the information in the Budget documents with our European partners allows us to influence Europe, and to bring employment and growth to Britain and other member states. "Budget 2001" describes the Government's strategy to raise Britain's national economic potential and to achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment along with rising living standards for all. The Budget will help to build a stronger economic future for Britain, through reforms that will put work, enterprise and families first.
  The key elements of the Government's economic strategy, as set out in the Budget report, are to deliver macro-economic stability to provide a platform for long-term sustainable growth and employment; to meet the productivity challenge through promoting competition, enterprise, innovation, skills, investment and public sector productivity; to increase employment opportunity for all; to ensure fairness for families and communities; and to ensure a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come, by protecting the environment.
  106
  The Government's first economic priority on coming to office in 1997 was to deliver stability for the long term, with the recognition that economic stability is a precondition for achieving our objective of high and stable growth and employment. We therefore introduced the new macro-economic policy framework, which is based on the principles of transparency, responsibility and accountability. The framework is already promoting economic stability by delivering low inflation and sound public finances.
  We have introduced an open and transparent monetary framework to deliver low and stable inflation; a new fiscal framework based on a prudent approach to the public finances and underpinned by two strict fiscal rules; and a new public spending framework, which is integrated into the fiscal framework, to provide for better long-term planning and ensure a greater focus on the quality of public service provision. We are already seeing the rewards of the new macro-economic framework.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Economic Secretary remind the House of the Government's policy for the exchange rate within that new macro-economic framework?
  Ruth Kelly: The Government want a long-term, stable and competitive exchange rate, and that is exactly what we are working towards, as we seek to provide a foundation of stability based on low inflation and prudent public finances. That is the best way of delivering a platform for stability.
  Inflation in the United Kingdom has been significantly less volatile since 1997—lower for longer than at any time since the 1960s, and in line with our target. Now, long-term interest rates are about the lowest for 35 years, reflecting a sustained reduction in inflation expectations.
  The new fiscal framework has put public finances in a healthy and sustainable position. The Government inherited public finances that were in poor shape, yet since 1997 they have been transformed. The Government have cut borrowing by more than £44 billion since 1996–97. Building on that achievement, the Budget underpins the spending plans set out in the 2000 spending review, and locks in the fiscal tightening of the previous Budget.
  The Government have ensured that we remain on track to meet our fiscal rules, while releasing resources for sustained investment in key public service priorities. Public sector net investment will more than double to 1.8 per cent. of gross domestic product by 2004–05. The spending review allocations included real average growth of more than 5 per cent. a year from 2000–01 for education, more than 5 per cent. a year for health, 20 per cent. a year for transport spending in England, and 4.2 per cent. a year for the criminal justice system in England and Wales.
  In the Budget we have been able to allocate an extra £1 billion for education, an extra £1 billion for health and an extra one third of a billion pounds to help to tackle drugs. That is over and above the sustained investment announced in last year's spending review. The Government can provide those resources because of their prudent handling of the economy. Even under the most cautious assumptions, our projections show surpluses on the current Budget in each of the next five years.
  Public sector net debt has fallen from 44 per cent. of GDP in 1996–97 to 31.8 per cent. at the end of 2000–01. It is projected to stabilise at about 30 per cent. of GDP

  107
  for the remainder of the projection period covered in the Budget. That compares with a doubling of the debt burden in the 1992–97 Parliament. Our prudent approach to the management of public finances means that the debt ratio can be combined with rising public sector investment, thus tackling years of neglect of the public infrastructure.
  A sound and credible platform of economic stability has been achieved under the Government's new frameworks for monetary and fiscal policy. Our commitment to stability and prudence is for a purpose: unemployment is now the lowest since the 1970s; since the 1997 election, employment has risen and unemployment has fallen in every region. Employment has risen by more than 1.2 million since the 1997 election, with more people in work than ever. The United Kingdom is enjoying the longest period of sustained low inflation since the 1960s.
  Growth of 2.5 per cent is expected this year, and inflation is expected to remain close to the Government's target in the period ahead. Independent forecasters agree with our assessment.
  The Budget responds to the challenge of meeting the fiscal rules over the economic cycle and underpinning the 2000 spending review by continuing to lock in stability for the long term. The platform of stability provides the basis for raising productivity. Meeting the productivity challenge offers the prospect of higher growth and increased employment opportunities, with low inflation and low interest rates. It is a key route to raising living standards. It is a moment of opportunity for the UK, and a challenge to everyone involved.
  The Government's long-term ambition is to close the productivity gap between the UK and its main competitors. To that end, we have identified five key topics for action: strengthening competition, encouraging enterprise and innovation, creating incentives for investment, investing resources in skills, and working to improve public sector productivity.
  Mr. Swayne: Does increasing productivity apply to the public as well as the private sector? The Economic Secretary said that competition was one of the methods of achieving that. Why, therefore, is competition excluded from the public sector?
  Ruth Kelly: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to me, he would have noted that I specifically spelled out that we were taking steps to improve public sector productivity. They must go hand in hand with improving our overall competitive position.
  Building on previously announced provisions, the Budget contains a package of measures to help small businesses, including implementing the pre-Budget report proposals to reduce the impact of VAT, reduce their administrative burden and improve their cash flow. Consultation will take place on proposals for a new research and development tax credit for large firms and there will be full financial flexibility for regional development agencies from 2002–03, matched by increased accountability through objectives and targets to meet their strategic goals.
  We shall be working to make capital markets more efficient by taking forward all the recommendations of the Myners review, addressing distortions in decision making
  108
  by institutional investors and expanding the scope of enterprise management initiatives. Meeting the challenges of raising productivity and closing the gap with our main competitors will help to raise living standards in the economy as a whole. However, we need to do more to build a fairer society by making work pay, giving families a better deal, and protecting the environment.
  The Government are working to deliver employment opportunity for all—the modern definition of full employment—thereby tackling a significant underlying cause of poverty and deprivation. Our strategy is based on helping people to move from welfare to work, easing the transition to work, making work pay and securing progression once people are in work. Our goal is that by the end of the decade there will be a higher proportion of people in work than ever before.
  The Government have already taken significant steps towards achieving that objective. To help make work pay and to improve work incentives, they have introduced the national minimum wage and a new 10p rate of income tax, cut the basic rate of tax to 22p, and reformed national insurance contributions. For low and middle income families with children, the introduction of the working families tax credit has made a significant difference to family incomes.
  The Budget took action to increase employment opportunities by enhancing the new deal, which has already helped more than 270,000 young people from welfare into work. In the new deal for lone parents there will be further help with training, with starting up in self-employment, and with child care costs. Resources will also be allocated to enhance the new deal and other programmes over the coming three years, focusing on employer needs, on the hardest to help, and on the most disadvantaged areas.
  To help make work pay, the Budget increased the basic credit in the working families tax credit by £5 on top of indexation, and extended the 10p rate of income tax by £300 over and above indexation, helping 2.5 million taxpayers. There is no better time to encourage the long-term unemployed, and those who have become particularly detached from the labour market, back to work. It is estimated that there are 1.2 million vacancies in the economy as a whole.
  The Government continue to work on building a fairer and more inclusive society—in particular by tackling child poverty, helping pensioners, rewarding saving, investing in public services and ensuring that the tax system is fair. Everyone should have the opportunity to fulfil their potential and enjoy the benefits of high, stable economic growth.
  Mr. Edward Davey: On the Minister's point about reducing child poverty, the Government claimed at the last election that they had taken 1.2 million children out of poverty. However, the latest statistics in a survey published this week showed that those claims were incorrect, and that the Government's measures have taken less than 500,000 children out of poverty. Will the Minister tell the House what extra measures the Government are now proposing to tackle the problem that they have so far failed to address?
  Ruth Kelly: I have just been outlining the Government's approach to tackling child poverty. The best way to do it is

  109
  to provide families with a route into employment, to make work pay and to provide a ladder of opportunity for families so that people can continue to progress once they are in work. That is the simplest and best way to tackle child poverty at its root, and it is what we are doing.
  The Budget takes further steps towards creating a fairer society. The Government are taking action to boost the incomes of hard-working families, and helping families when their children are very young. Building on record increases in child benefit, the Government introduced the children's tax credit, worth up to £520 a year for about 5 million tax-paying families, and, recognising the additional costs of a new child in the first year, in April 2002 we will increase that to £20 a week for families in the year of a child's birth. All those measures will have a significant impact on tackling child poverty.
  The Budget also includes a package of measures on maternity pay and parental leave, including increases in the flat rate of statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance, paid adoption leave from 2003 and a doubling of the threshold for small employer relief, so that about 60 per cent. of all firms paying statutory maternity pay each year can reclaim their costs in full, plus compensation. There will also be a further increase in the sure start maternity grant from April 2002.
  The Budget includes a major package of measures to boost pensioner incomes, acting to end pensioner poverty and ensuring that all pensioners share in the rising prosperity of the nation.
  As well as the measures announced in the pre-Budget report, from April 2003 the Budget raises the age-related income tax personal allowances over and above indexation, and through the remainder of the Parliament will raise those allowances by reference to rises in earnings rather than prices. About 1 million savers, many of whom are pensioners, will benefit from the widening of the 10p income tax band, which will apply to savings income. From April this year, the average pensioner household will be £600 a year better off than in 1997 as a result of the personal tax and benefit changes introduced during the last Parliament.
  The Government are building a stronger economic future for Britain. That gives a better deal for the people of Britain. It will help us to meet our objectives of high and stable growth and employment and a fairer society for all. Those are the right economic policies for Britain. They are also in line with the objectives of the European Union.
  Approving the motion will enable the United Kingdom to meet its treaty obligations, provide information and participate fully in the important process of multilateral surveillance and economic co-operation, as provided for in articles 99 and 104 of the treaty. I hope that the House will support the motion.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I begin by welcoming the Economic Secretary to the Dispatch Box and her new post. There is a distinct risk, which worries some on this side of the House, that she might prove to be a distinguished occupant of that post, but time will tell.
  The motion is highly misleading. It has hardly anything to do with the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, but much to do with the Red Book. It is a bizarre
  110
  feature of our constitutional arrangements that, having debated the Budget for I do not know how many days, we return to it for a 90-minute debate when most good folk are asleep and nobody is paying the slightest attention. That probably explains why the Economic Secretary, despite her world-renowned intellectual prowess, chose to re-read a speech that has undoubtedly been concocted on other occasions.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): It is a good speech.
  Mr. Letwin: It is an excellent speech. It was good first time round and it will be good next time round, but unfortunately it told us little that is new. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will probably be the only person in England who is listening to me by the time that I finish my remarks, I hope that you—
  Mr. Smith: Try the £20 billion.
  Mr. Letwin: I shall eschew that pleasure. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will bear with me if I depart from the norm and make an argument about the real subject of the motion—the assessment of the UK economy that is in the Red Book. I should correct myself immediately: I want to make an argument about the assessment of the UK economy that is not in the Red Book.
  It is a strange feature of our world that the old Budget report was renamed when the 1993 Act was passed. It is now called the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report and Financial Statement and Budget Report. The reason for that is to enable us to conform to the need to report to the European Communities on our economic and fiscal strategy and, indeed, the background to it—hence the assessment. Alas, however, only the name changed, not the contents. There never was a real assessment of the economic scene in those documents and there is not now.
  Let me begin at the beginning with points of agreement. We share aims, but that is a turn up for the books. There was a time when we did not share aims. There was a time when Labour Governments and Labour Oppositions had other aims that led to gross inflation, the ownership of the means of production by the state on an increasing scale, the prevalence of trade unionism and I know not what other "glorious and golden goals".
  Thank goodness—I mean this genuinely, thank goodness—we now live in a world that is more difficult for Conservative politicians because there is much in it that we share. That is well expressed in the new article 2 of the treaty on European Union, which, as the Economic Secretary said, specifically states that we are to seek
  "a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment … a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion".
  Who in their right mind could conceivably object to that?
  Mr. Eric Forth: I thought that at this point I would ask my hon. Friend what, on the face of it, may seem a banal question. If the economic indicators of most of our continental European partners were heading in the wrong direction, would we still want

  111
  our economy to converge with them? The words that my hon. Friend has just read out imply convergence at any price. Surely my hon. Friend does not believe that we should readily mould our policies with the aim of converging in an adverse direction. Will he make that quite clear?
  Mr. Letwin: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, although I disagree with him about the interpretation of the words that I read out. As the record will show, I specifically left out a phrase in new article 2, which speaks of
  "a high degree of convergence of economic performance".
  I did not read out that phrase, because I do not believe that that is a shared aim. However, the rest of the article that I read out is a shared aim. I do not believe that a high degree of convergence of economic performance is a shared aim because I do not believe that economies converge—they sometimes cross like ships in the night, as the economies of the north-east and the south-east of Britain have from time to time. Moreover, I do not believe it is a shared aim for the very reasons that my right hon. Friend gave. Convergence is good only if performance converges on the good.
  We also agree with the Government about aims. On page 1 of the Budget report, the Government state that the aims of their strategy are
  "delivering macroeconomic stability;
  meeting the productivity challenge;
  increasing employment opportunity for all;
  ensuring fairness for families and communities; and
  protecting the environment."
  Those could have been the stated aims of any Conservative Administration in the past 40 years, and we share those aims. The problem we are discussing is not about aims: it is a problem about means and about our understanding of where we stand today.
  The picture that the Economic Secretary painted of the economy was not so much glowing as utterly golden—a Midas picture in which nothing was wrong and nothing was worrying. In her description, we benefited from sustained and permanent growth, with low inflation, ever higher productivity and greater employment. From her description—I know that she does not believe this—one might have thought that the world around us was rosy in every respect.
  That is odd, because her colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was quoted in The Sunday Times as saying:
  "There are risks in the world economy at the moment. The downturn in the world economy has not reached its bottom. It is in many ways far more severe than we expected a few months ago because it has spread from America, in particular to Germany and, of course, we have no growth at all in Japan."
  The Chancellor was right about that.
  A week later, in the same journal, Stephen Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley, put it rather more bluntly:
  "We have been warning of this possibility since the start of the year. but now it's time to make it official. The world is in recession."
  There is a great difference between the surroundings of the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom itself, which, as the Economic Secretary rightly said, is not in recession. However, the world as a whole is in dreadful difficulties.
  112
  Last year, the economy of the United States grew by 5 per cent., whereas this year it is expected to grow by less than 2 per cent. US manufacturing is in recession, retail sales have slowed, capital investment is way down, US trade figures are down and there is all the reason in the world to suppose that those effects will be exported. The Chancellor was absolutely right about Japan, whose growth is unlikely to exceed 1 per cent. for the next two or three years. Germany is afraid that growth may plunge to zero in the second quarter of this year. Growth in the euro zone in the past 12 months is down a full percentage point on the previous year, and industrial production has slowed. That is why the European Central Bank has had to revise its growth forecast downwards, and Euro-inflation at 3 per cent. is well above target. Meanwhile, we have the oil problems. If the Economic Secretary had not read that speech, but had chosen to take another one off the shelf, she would have recognised all those phenomena.
  The fact is that the world in which we live is risky and difficult economically at present, and we must ask ourselves whether the United Kingdom economy is structured to resist the difficulties. Can we be not just confident but—if I may be somewhat impolite, as the Economic Secretary was—almost complacent about our economy's condition, or have we problems of our own that need attention?
  The Economic Secretary's view on that was in line with the Red Book. It is possible to comb the Red Book repeatedly and endlessly—as Labour Members will know, during the election I had a bit of time in which to ponder things repeatedly and endlessly—but nowhere in the palimpsest is it possible to find a description of the real difficulties facing the British economy. That may have nothing to do with the fact that it was produced by Her Majesty's Government, or again it may have something to do with that. One way or another, however, the problem is that it does not reveal the current state of affairs.
  I want to dwell on a specific phrase in article 2 of the treaty, which will not upset my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Article 2 refers to
  "a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities".
  We are meant to agree to report tonight that the House accepts that the assessment of the British economy in the document referred to is right, and shows that there is a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities in this country. I wonder whether, on reflection, the Economic Secretary would want to advance that argument. I should be very surprised if the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) wanted to do so, and I certainly do not. I want to advance the opposite argument, because I think it fairly clear that the UK economy currently suffers from some serious imbalances. Many of them have been obscured over the past four years by the Government's undoubted achievements in macro-economic, monetary and fiscal control; but, beneath that, there is a worrying picture of imbalance.
  Let me explain—at rather tedious length, to get the thing on the record—what I mean by imbalance. First, there are the regional imbalances. In April this year, unemployment levels in the UK as a whole averaged 5 per cent. That is not a good record in comparison with those of one or two other countries, but it is much better than has sometimes been the case. Nevertheless,

  113
  it disguises vast regional discrepancies. At the same time, unemployment in the south-east of England was 3.3 per cent., and in the north-east it was 7.7 per cent.—more than double the level in the south-east. Indeed, it is clear that the averages in the north-east, London, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are completely different from those in—if I can put it this way—the rest of England.
  Such a regional imbalance may not be deeply worrying in itself, although I suppose it would be difficult for the Government to maintain that they were not somewhat worried, because they continue their regional policy. It is a long-established doctrine that the main purpose of regional policy is to even out regional imbalances, rather than to create wealth in itself: that has been a Treasury doctrine for many years. If that is the case, it must also be the case that the Government have some worries about regional imbalance, because they clearly cannot be operating a policy aimed at removing a problem that they do not consider to be a problem.
  But alas, regional imbalances are not the only or, indeed, the most serious imbalances that the economy currently suffers. A much more serious issue is the trade imbalance. I am sure that inside the Treasury the Economic Secretary and her colleagues spend much time discussing the trade imbalance; it would be unusual were they not to do so. However, I did not hear much reference to the trade imbalance in the Economic Secretary's speech. That is surprising, because the trade imbalance is not a small matter. It is not even a medium-sized matter. It is enormous.
  The trade in goods in 2000 as a whole was in deficit by £28.8 billion. In the first quarter of this year, it was in deficit by £7.4 billion. Even when the surpluses in services are taken into account, the total trade in goods and services was almost £18 billion in deficit last year and almost £5 billion in deficit in the first quarter of this year. Those are large numbers that have persisted for some time and have been growing. The imbalance has existed for almost five years now. I checked earlier today and it is not since 1870 that a trade imbalance has afflicted the UK economy for so long.
  Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the existence of a regulatory mechanism between economies—such as a variable exchange rate—has always been the mechanism by which, over the long term, trade imbalances can be corrected? He will know that that was the case for historic variations between the pound sterling and the dollar, or the yen or the continental currencies. Has he given any thought to the significance of the possibility that we will join the euro and our possible inability then to correct the trade imbalance that he is discussing?
  Mr. Letwin: My right hon. Friend is right that one of the ways in which the trade imbalance traditionally corrects itself is through an improvement in the terms of trade—through exchange rate differentials. If the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton were right, and his party could achieve a reduction in the exchange rate, through a miracle of some sort, followed by a locking-in at a lower exchange rate, that would help to cure the imbalance. However, if we were forced to lock in at a higher exchange rate, as I suspect would happen, we would lock in the imbalance for some time.
  114
  The trade imbalance that we face is not likely to be cured by a shift in the exchange rate in the near future. It might be, but I doubt that the Economic Secretary would claim that that will happen. When the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton asked a genuine question in the middle of her brilliant but old-fashioned speech, she was unwilling to engage in debate with him about the right level of exchange rate. That was, I suspect, because the Government have eschewed the idea of targeting a specific exchange rate. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt raise that subject later, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we may yet hear that fascinating debate. However, I suspect that the Government are probably wary, as they have been for the past four years, of trying to set an exchange rate, which, as my right hon. Friend says, makes it odd that they are nevertheless talking about trying to join the euro.
  Mr. Edward Davey: When does the hon. Gentleman think that the floating exchange rate that we now have in the UK will start to address those imbalances, and when does he expect the depreciation before the automatic adjustment on which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is so keen?
  Mr. Letwin: The answer is that I, like the hon. Gentleman, do not know. I suspect that there will have to be a restraint of domestic demand, which I will come to shortly, rather than a change in the exchange rate. We will see. Nevertheless, I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me, because it is true and a matter of fact, that there is a major trade imbalance, which has persisted for an extraordinarily long period. Trade imbalances can last for extraordinarily long periods if they are financeable and, at present, ours is. I am not seeking to make any apocalyptic statement—that would be quite false. Our trade imbalance is being happily financed, but markets are fickle and moods change. Whether one can continue to finance that kind of trade imbalance for very much longer is open to question.
  If we merely had a regional and a trade imbalance, the situation would be noteworthy but not as serious as the real one. We face another kind of imbalance, more serious in many ways than either of those. We have a two-speed economy. Production industries grew in the last quarter, the first quarter of the year, by 0.7 per cent., at a time when, as the Economic Secretary made clear, the economy as a whole is growing at more than 2 per cent. and the service sector—so-called—at more than 3.7 per cent. There is a huge imbalance between two major parts of our economy.
  I am making my case stronger by making it weaker in the sense of not taking into account the exceptional cases, such as those that affect my constituency. A recession is going on in agriculture; the industry has seen negative growth for a very long time. There has been a minor recession in the construction industry for a rather shorter period.
  There is a massive imbalance between various sectors of the economy. In fact, I suspect that it is understated by the figures that are typically used. The term "service", as the Economic Secretary will be aware from her previous work with the Bank of England, which has done some noteworthy work in this field, is widely abused in the sense that it covers a multitude of things. Some are really other forms of industrial production such as telecoms

  115
  software manufacture, while some are pure services in the sense of human beings looking after one another. I suspect, although I do not know, that disentangling the one from the other would show a further imbalance that accentuates the nature of the imbalances across the economy as a whole. I suspect that the pure services sector is growing even faster than 3.7 per cent., because some things classed as services, such as software, are, if not in positive decline, nevertheless growing very slowly.
  The Economic Secretary painted a picture of continuous and unalloyed bliss across the economy. Instead, the economy suffers from marked and continuing regional imbalances, from a growing, prolonged and unprecedented trade imbalance and from significant discrepancies between various sectors of the economy in their rate of growth or decline.
  If that were all, the situation would be bad enough, but it is not all. The economy is afflicted by another very serious imbalance—that between the corporate and domestic sectors. It is quite a striking imbalance. Over the past five years, output has risen by 14.7 per cent.; domestic demand has risen by 20 per cent. We have a major problem with profits. It is affecting, and previously prospectively affected, the stock market. James Hall, the managing partner of Accenture, the strangely named management accountancy firm, says:
  "What we are seeing is a slowdown in both manufacturing and service sectors that depend on demand from businesses."
  At the same time, figures from Experian, an information service company, show that the United Kingdom is experiencing its longest period of falling profitability since the early 1990s.
  Profitability measured by the average return on capital has fallen for seven successive quarters. In the business sector, therefore, and the business-to-business sector, which depends on business, there are major problems with profitability, whereas domestic household demand remains high. To be tedious about the matter and to remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I am sure that, by now, you are the only one awake—we have regional imbalances, trade imbalances, an imbalance of services versus industrial production and a significant and sustained imbalance of the corporate sector versus the domestic sector.
  I regret that the tale does not end there, because we also have a serious imbalance in domestic savings, which is the flip side of the coin of strong domestic demand. I fear that we have made that point on numerous occasions, but it remains true. In the first quarter of this year, the savings ratio in this country dropped to 4.1 per cent. Last year, in the previous Red Book, the Treasury correctly noted that there were problems ahead if the savings ratio remained low; it has remained extremely low by historical standards and today is less than half what it was in 1997. We therefore have regional imbalances and trade imbalances; we have imbalances between production and service industries, between the corporate and domestic sector, and between saving and household expenditure.
  That is not a balanced development of economic activities. When one thinks about it, it is astonishing that the Economic Secretary—one of the few people to occupy such a post who understands these matters—made a speech about the 2001 Red Book and the governance of
  116
  the United Kingdom economy without mentioning those five vital and worrying features of our current economic circumstances. That worries me because, if she and her colleagues are not attending to those imbalances, they may become more, rather than less, worrying.
  The situation is worse than being merely imbalanced. The next item on which we, the Government and all right-thinking people agree is that, in the words of article 2 of the treaty on European Union, we wish to achieve and maintain
  "a high level of employment".
  We have a high level of employment; we have had rising employment and falling unemployment—worthy things of which the Economic Secretary was proud and made much. Alas, when one looks behind the current statistics and tries to get a sense of what is going on in the real economy, again, there are worrying signs.
  The average earnings index in the first four months of this year for the whole economy showed year-on-year percentage changes starting at 4.5 per cent. in January and rising to 5.2 per cent by April; the Economic Secretary may well have more up-to-date figures at her command. Over the whole of 2000, annualised average rates of 4 to 5 per cent. were in evidence. To a moderate degree, wage inflation is with us. However, the marginal utility of labour, which will critically affect the long-term propensity of the economy to generate employment or otherwise is not just affected by wage rates. As the Economic Secretary is clearly aware, it is also affected by on-costs, the social costs of labour, the effects of productivity—which, alas, has not risen nearly as fast as we had hoped—and the ability of firms to be more productive in their use of labour and to find ways of making more from their labour. It is in that last respect that the biggest worries arise, and I shall come to them in a moment.
  The particular employment problems that we see over the horizon are more likely to arise in small and medium firms than in large firms. Our economy is out of balance in another respect: the effects of Government action, which I shall describe in a moment, on the largest firms have almost certainly been less accentuated than on the small and medium firms, and it is in the small and medium-firm sector that we would expect to find sustained growth of employment.
  In fact, over the past few years, the rate of increase in employment and the rate of decrease in unemployment have not been as sparkling as we might have hoped, given the overall growth in demand. They have not been as sparkling as they had been in the previous few years under the previous Administration at an earlier point in the economic cycle and not as sparkling as in many other countries.
  Not only is our economy imbalanced in many ways, but it is not showing the growth of employment and the reduction of unemployment that we would have hoped for under such apparently benign economic circumstances. We must now ask ourselves whether the Government are doing something about all this. Does the Red Book, which does not describe any of what I have just described, or the Economic Secretary, who did not describe any of what I have just described, have a strategy to deal with those matters?
  Is there something in the Red Book or was there something in the Economic Secretary's speech to address those imbalances? I have to say that I may have gone to

  117
  sleep—that is unlikely because the Economic Secretary's mellifluous tones are always sufficient to keep me awake—but I did not notice anything in her speech about a strategy to deal with those problems. It is not surprising, as she did not mention the problems, that she did not mention the solutions, but the fact is that there was no such strategy. Search as I might, with however much leisure the Chief Secretary may have been able to give during the election, I was unable to find in the Red Book any strategy for solving those problems there either.
  The fact is that we have a Government of elegant ostriches; they are hiding their head in the sand of their own achievements; hence they do not see the problems to which I have alluded and, as a consequence, they do not even begin to have developed a strategy to deal with them. They are officially unproblems, thus there are unsolutions for them. However, the situation is worse than that because, at least in respect of the level of employment, the Government are taking active, well formulated, strategically designed steps to accentuate the problem.
  The comments of external observers are extremely instructive. In March this year, Herr Bernd Atenstaedt of the German Industry Association in the United Kingdom said:
  "we see the first signs of an increase in regulations, which will make Britain less attractive as a location".
  He means, of course, as a location for investment, hence for the generation of jobs.
  Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the slight reduction in the rate of increase in employment is matched by an increase in the growth and productivity that would be expected as we approach full employment? On the point about German growth, does he accept that the International Monetary Fund's latest forecasts show a 40 per cent. reduction in German growth and a halving in United States growth and that, in fact, our growth is holding up very well at about 2.6 per cent., compared with Treasury forecasts of 2.5 per cent.? The basic point is that we are very strong indeed in the world scenario and that we need no lectures from the Germans.
  Mr. Letwin: I shall soon come to some lectures, given by some Englishmen, although I do not share the hon. Gentleman's xenophobia. Had he been present at the beginning of my remarks he would have heard—
  Geraint Davies: I watched it on television.
  Mr. Letwin: Had the hon. Gentleman not been moving between the one and the other, he would have heard me acknowledge the truth of his remark that there has been a huge slowdown in many other parts of the world and that, so far, we have been remarkably insulated. The whole tenor of my arguments is that there are worrying signs that we may not sustain that magnificent isolation from world events. I do not predict that we cannot; we do not know. I hope that we can and, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, we have so far. I am portraying the worrying signs.
  Mr. Bernd Atenstaedt's remarks about our economy were not made because he is a German but because he
  118
  is an educated economist. The British Chambers of Commerce—hardly a group of Germans—says about the United Kingdom economy:
  "The bottom line is that the sheer quantity of red tape on business is damaging our economy, stifling enterprise, job creation and economic growth."
  In June 2000, Ruth Lea of the Institute of Directors said:
  "If this Government is interested in strangling business in red tape, it is succeeding. Some bosses are having to give up a day a week to cope with all the regulations."
  I could go on rather tediously quoting such sources.
  Mr. Swayne: Is not the opinion of the Germans, whom the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) mentioned, important in so far as foreign opinion is currently financing the trade imbalance?
  Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is right and, to be serious about the issue of xenophobia, the UK has always depended heavily on a large amount of external investment. It is one of our proudest achievements that, in our period in office, we reached the stage that more was invested externally in the UK than in the whole of the rest of continental Europe. I do not know, but I suspect that that may still be the case. We certainly depend on external investment.
  This country also depends on internal investment and what attracts the external investor attracts the internal investor—the entrepreneur within the UK—and vice versa. The regulations and red tape that have been introduced are beginning to have a serious effect in eroding confidence in small and medium-sized enterprises and the people who are thinking of investing in them. That is a worrying sign. That problem is not being imposed on us from without nor has it grown within the market or the private sector. It has been imposed on the market by the Government.
  There are many other sources from which one can glean the same picture. In the past year, the House passed 3,865 new regulations which, I think, is the highest figure on record. In March this year, an edition of Forbes contained a damning article on the present Government's fondness for regulation under the title "Tony Blair's Red Tape Factory". In a survey of Institute of Directors' members after the pre-Budget statement, 90 per cent. said that the Chancellor had not done much to reduce the regulatory burden on business and 44 per cent. of companies cited the regulatory burden as a barrier to growth. One can go on and on.
  What the Government have done, continue to do and—from all one cam tell from the Economic Secretary's remarks—are happy to do is to continue regulating ever increasingly the small and medium sector, which is the sector that gives rise to employment growth. They ignore regional and trade imbalances and imbalances between production and services, between the domestic and corporate sectors and between savings and the creation of extra jobs. They adopt no strategy to deal with the imbalances but a positive strategy to worsen the difficulties that small firms face in generating new jobs at the rate that we require.
  I am glad to say that I am nearing the end of my remarks. The Government are serious about their fiscal strategy and they have allowed the Bank of England to be serious about the control of the money supply. However,

  119
  if they were also serious about making it their business to deal with the serious structural problems that affect the economy, the Economic Secretary would have made a speech about that issue. She would not have said what I said, but she would have acknowledged the problems and told us what the strategies were for dealing with them. The fact that she has not is, I suspect, due not to her ineptitude, but to the fact that the Government do not have any such strategies. That is the most worrying trend of all.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: We need to remember the purpose of this debate, on which the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) touched at the beginning of his remarks. Our job is to scrutinise the documents that the United Kingdom sends to the European Commission. The ability to do so is the result of a Eurosceptic amendment to the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 on the Maastricht treaty tabled by Conservative Back Benchers who were not terribly happy with their Government, who they thought were too Euro-friendly.
  We must question why the amendment was tabled—it is a fairly good one—and why we should be scrutinising such documents. Presumably, we wanted to ensure that the UK's contributions to the debate about the eurozone and the European Union economy are well founded. That is an important part of what Ministers do at ECOFIN. We wanted to ensure that the information that our EU partners have about the UK economy is sound, so that we can improve their knowledge and understanding of it. One would have thought also that we wanted to ensure that the information that we send to our European partners would assist and enhance the UK's negotiating position in the different EU economic forums.
  Mr. Letwin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that almost certainly those who tabled the amendment did not imagine that the Red Book would be re-labelled "the assessment" and we would find ourselves debating the same item twice?
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, anticipates what I was about to say. The Red Book is certainly not written for such purposes; it is written for a domestic audience. In the last Parliament, it was not really an account of what was going on in the UK economy and public finances. Increasingly, it is becoming a document of Government spin and propaganda. The Budget 2001 document was a Panglossian pre-election propaganda sheet. It was hardly a detailed addition to economic analysis of the UK economy and public finances. That was pointed out at the time, it was a shame at the time, and to try several months later to send it off to Brussels and Strasbourg as a fair reflection of what is going on in the UK economy is total nonsense. The idea that we should approve the motion is also nonsense.
  Let us consider how the document performs the three roles to which I have referred. Does it contribute to the debate on the EU economy? The EU economy is hardly mentioned in the document. We have analysis of Group of Seven activity and analysis of the United States economy, which is understandable and one of the better parts of the document, but nothing to do with the EU.
  120
  Box 3.2 describes European economic reform following the Lisbon summit, but that is all about micro-economics and long-term productivity issues, which are important but hardly relevant to the debate of macro-economic trends in the EU to which the UK should be contributing.
  If we are bothered about influencing debates and the positions of our EU partners, surely we should be sending documents that give our view on what they are doing. This House should be debating what the Government are proposing to tell our EU partners about how their economies are performing and the eurozone is going. We are not given such information or a chance to debate a very important matter. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Government should be writing those documents, presenting them to the House and sending them to Brussels—not this absolute nonsense.
  Does the document improve the knowledge of our EU partners of the UK economy? Clearly it does not, as the hon. Gentleman set out in great detail. For obvious reasons, it is out of date. Presumably it was written in January or February and many changes have taken place in the United Kingdom and the world economies since then. For example, paragraph 2.26 on page 24 of the Red Book states:
  "Manufacturing output growth was the fastest for six years, but continued to lag behind the expansion in services."
  The document makes other references to how the manufacturing sector is doing quite well. However, according to national statistics for the first quarter of this year, manufacturing output fell by 0.7 per cent. That is a worrying development, but it is not mentioned in the Red Book, which is again Panglossian about an important sector of the UK economy.
  The Chancellor used to go on about manufacturing when he was in opposition. An evening did not seem to go by without him appearing before a television camera telling us about the importance of that industry. He seems to have forgotten that now that he is in government. His policies do not seem to be developing the manufacturing sector—the document is clearly remiss on that.
  I shall not go on about the imbalances, as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) did. I share his analysis—it is good that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have that in common. However, the document clearly failed to improve our EU partners' knowledge and understanding of the UK economy. At the summit after its publication, the forecasts for the UK's public finances for 2005–06 were available and the Chancellor was rapped over the knuckles by our EU partners in the Commission for running a sustained deficit of 1 per cent. of gross domestic product. His remarks when he returned were terse. He said that our EU partners had got it wrong; they did not understand that his approach was cautious and prudent and that the deficit related only to investment.
  I think that the Chancellor was right. I understand why he was so annoyed by the EU partners and the UK press coverage of what they said. It goes to show that the document does not properly explain the UK position. It is not written for that purpose. If we want to ensure that our EU partners understand the UK strategy, we should write a document that tries to do that. The Government are failing in their mission.
  I imagine that the Minister will say that the Commission was worried about the UK's performance not against the Maastricht criteria, but against the broad

  121
  economic policy guidelines. They are vague and have no binding effect if a country breaches them, and she would be right to explain that. Nevertheless, there is no mention of those broad economic policy guidelines in the document or of how the UK is performing against them. There is not even a proper analysis of how it is performing against the Maastricht criteria. The document has no intention of addressing the purpose for which it is supposed to be approved by the House. Again, it fails in its prime purpose.
  The third reason why we might want to send the document to the Commission and our EU partners is to enhance the UK's position in future negotiations and discussions about what is in the interests of the UK economy, perhaps because we are thinking of negotiations in the run-up to a possible entry to the single currency. The most important negotiations in the next few years are those on UK entry, except that the document is almost silent on that. There is a box on EMU preparations taken solely by the UK Treasury within the domestic economy, but it has nothing to do with negotiations or the exchange rate. That is where the document is most lacking.
  I spent an interesting 15 minutes prior to the debate trying to find references to the exchange rate. They were difficult to find. Perhaps I missed a few references in my brief flick through the document, but the first mention of the exchange rate that I found was on page 163. One might have thought that the exchange rate would be rather more important in the assessment of economic policy, but it merited no earlier mention than that.
  Mr. Letwin: We cannot allow this golden opportunity to pass without asking the hon. Gentleman whether he would like to state—for the first time ever, I think—whether the Liberal Democrat party also has an exchange rate policy, and if so, what is the target exchange rate?
  Mr. Davey: I am sorry to disabuse the hon. Gentleman, but in several speeches Liberal Democrats have explained our exchange rate policy. In the debate on the economic aspects of the Queen's Speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) set out our policy clearly, but so that the hon. Gentleman does not have to consult Hansard, I shall remind him of what my hon. Friend said.
  About 18 months ago, the Liberal Democrats commissioned a panel of experts to consider what preparations the UK should make—including in respect of the exchange rate—before putting the question on joining the single currency to the people. That panel proposed a range of values—1.25 to 1.45 euros to the pound—at which it thought that, if the UK entered the single currency, it would do so at a competitive rate.
  That conclusion was published about a year ago, so it might now be out of date, but our aim in appointing the panel and publishing its conclusions was to start a debate in this country on what might be a sustainable long-term exchange rate for the pound against the euro. That is a debate in which we would be happy to engage and one in which we hope the Conservatives and the Government will engage as well, because it is extremely important that we start to influence our EU partners in terms of a sustainable rate.
  Mr. Letwin: I did not ask the hon. Gentleman what rate his panel of experts—of which I was aware—thought
  122
  might be appropriate for entry. I asked what is the target exchange rate. Let me put it this way: would the hon. Gentleman sponsor measures to manipulate the UK exchange rate to that target rate; and if so, what measures?
  Mr. Davey: Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell. Liberal Democrats have said that the very fact of the Government saying that they intend to join the single currency and putting the issue to the people will cause a market correction.
  If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, I refer him to events that took place several weeks ago. After the Labour Government were re-elected, the markets assumed that it was more likely that the UK would enter the single currency and the pound-euro rate adjusted very quickly. Bizarrely, Her Majesty's Treasury and the Bank of England stepped in to stop a depreciation in the pound, even though that depreciation was welcomed by the manufacturing sector, agriculture and the tourism sector throughout the country—indeed, it was a depreciation that people had been seeking for some time.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Including people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
  Mr. Davey: Indeed, including people in the hon. Gentleman's West Dorset constituency. That was a valuable depreciation. That chain of events reinforces our argument that if the British Government could come clean and get rid of the ambiguity that surrounds their position—it is the only thing about their position that is clear—the markets would adjust. Then, we could begin a debate with the markets, with our EU partners and within the House on what would be a sustainable rate at which we might enter the single currency.
  Mr. Letwin: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall not pursue this issue more than one step further, but it is important that we know the answer and we appear to be getting somewhere. If the medicine that he has just recommended did not, in his view, cure the patient—in other words, if the statement of a target rate of entry did not produce an adjustment to that rate—what other active steps, if any, would the Liberal Democrats recommend taking to manipulate the exchange rate?
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman should talk to those of his colleagues who set the rate for sterling when we went into the exchange rate mechanism. They did not have measures to manipulate the rate; instead, the Government fixed a rate. Unfortunately, when fixing the rate, they failed to carry out proper negotiations with our EU partners and the other members of the exchange rate mechanism. Instead, in a move that caused great problems, they told our EU partners, "That's the rate we're going to go for."
  To answer the hon. Gentleman, it is possible that the Government could take that line. If they did not think that the market rate was correct—that it was either too low or too high—they could set a rate by negotiation with our EU partners. Indeed, that is what several countries did in the run-up to the adoption of the euro in mainland Europe. They made clear their decisions as to which direction they wanted to take, so the markets glided into sustainable rates.

  123
  The problem, and the problem with the document, is that the UK Government are not attempting to do that: there is no attempt to influence the medium-term equilibrium exchange rate for sterling and to ensure that our negotiations are built on past statements. Both last year and the year before that, I made that point in Committees that were undertaking a similar function to the one in which we are currently engaged. At that time, the Red Book seemed extremely complacent about the exchange rate—worryingly so—because the rate was causing such great problems. However, the Government's pronouncements in the Red Book seemed to deny those problems. I pointed out to the Government that it was against Britain's long-term interest to send documents to Brussels and Strasbourg stating that the current rate of exchange was not a problem.
  When those negotiations take place, our European partners will be able to dust down those documents, which we think are of no concern, and will say to the UK Government, "Hold on. In 1999, in 2000, in 2001, you sent us a document which said that the exchange rate was not a problem. You said that it was not affecting your tradeable sector, your agriculture and your tourism." That would weaken our hand in negotiations. It is a very silly thing to do.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Although I hesitate to support the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has still not answered the question about Liberal Democrat policy: if the markets did not glide into the appropriate exchange rate that he identifies as Liberal policy, what further active measures—if any—does he suggest that a Liberal Government would pursue in order to achieve that effect?
  Mr. Davey: Let me surprise the House by giving the hon. Gentleman a direct answer. He was not listening properly to my reply to the hon. Member for West Dorset. We would negotiate a rate. The rate would be fixed when we decided. That rate could be higher or lower than the rate obtaining in the market at the time. We should have to see what the rate would be.
  The serious point is that this document, which we propose sending to Brussels and Strasbourg, will be of no benefit for the long-term negotiating position of UK Ministers—whatever the Government. We are saying to our European partners that we are happy with sterling so over-valued. That message will come to haunt us.
  When the House votes on the motion, Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches will vote against it. The document does the Government no favours in the way that it sets out the UK's economic position for our EU partners. That will prejudice the long-term interests of this country.
  9.49 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) was forensic in exposing the imbalances in the economy to which the Financial Secretary did not draw attention. I share one particular view with my hon. Friend: I am not too concerned about a trade imbalance, if it can be
  124
  financed. It is worth remembering that even when this country was at the height of its economic power, as the workshop of the world, we persistently ran a balance of trade deficit on merchandise trade. At the time, that was largely financed by services, especially shipping. Now, of course, it is financed largely by inflows of capital. With the willingness to continue to finance that will come the adjustment in the exchange rate necessary to correct the overall merchandise trade imbalance. That is the economic theory. The reality will be rather less pleasant, as the correction is not necessarily one to which we should look forward in terms of its consequences for the real economy and real jobs.
  I shall concentrate on a slightly different aspect of the Minister's remarks. She set out cogently the objectives of the process—to maintain quality of life and what she called a high level of social protection. She drew attention to the Government's ability to spend, for example, £1 billion more on the health service as a consequence of the Budget.
  The Government's chosen measure of that high level of social protection and high quality of life is the health service. That is reflected in the Prime Minister's words when he promised the people world-class public services. In other words, we must compare our public services with the best. In comparisons in terms of outcomes, we are way behind those in whose league we should be. The Government, however, have chosen to measure by input and throughput. The input measure that they chose was the average spend as a proportion of gross national product on, for example, health care.
  The hon. Lady's £1 billion will not take us very far. The Government chose as a measure the average EU spend on health, but their method of measuring the average was a little awry. For example, according to the Government, the way to measure the average health expenditure of Belgium and Germany is to add the two together and divide by two—not a very precise measure of actual expenditure in those two economies on any weighted basis.
  The other trick is to include the United Kingdom in that equation, so that our lacklustre performance brings down the average that is to be our target. If we removed those distortions from the Government's calculations, I suggest that to reach the level of gross national product spend that should be the Government's target if they adhere to the criterion of world-class public services, they would need to spend another £20 billion a year. To make that up would require much more than the £1 billion to which the hon. Lady drew attention. A 30 per cent. increase in income tax would be necessary.
  The Government have ruled out the possibility of that additional resource coming from any source other than public revenue. The proportion of GNP spent by other European Governments on health is broadly the same. The difference comes from the additional resources that our economic partners get largely from private sources, which we continue to deny ourselves. On 26 June the Secretary of State for Health said in the Chamber that happily, health provision in this country is through a monopoly supplier in the form of the NHS, and so long as there is a Labour Government, that will remain.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Surely the phenomenon on

  125
  the continent that he describes is not evanescent; it is enduring. Given the advances in medical science, which we welcome, and the corollary—that whenever we devise a new cure, we create a new queue—we ought properly to focus on the way in which private resources can effectively complement the role of public provision in turning care from a word to a deed.
  Mr. Swayne: That is an important point. My concern about the Government's determination to retain a monopoly in respect of health care arose from what the Economic Secretary said about the need to increase productivity. She said that she intended to increase productivity, and to do so in the public sector in particular. That prompted my intervention, but she did not answer my question, as it concerned the role of competition. She drew attention to the fact that we needed more competition to achieve greater productivity. However, my question is this: how does that fit in with monopoly supply in the public sector? If Labour Members believe that monopoly supply is the way to produce greater productivity and a better public service, they belong in a mausoleum in Red square, rather than in a modern economy. That is what the Soviets believed, but such a system did not work or deliver.
  Let me move from that particular measure to the general rationale for the debate. The decision to publish information to be supplied to the European Union as a measure of our economic performance is not made in a vacuum. It has an aim that stems from the Maastricht treaty, whose overwhelming purpose was to secure economic and monetary union. The purpose of publishing the information and supplying it to the European Union is to provide a measure of our performance in reaching the objective of economic and monetary union.
  It was on that score that the Economic Secretary's speech was entirely lacking. She made not the slightest mention of such measurement, but it is especially important, as the Government will at some stage publish their estimate of how the United Kingdom economy is converging. It would have been interesting to have been given in this debate at least some measure of how that process is proceeding, but such information was entirely absent from her speech, which was the feast without Banquo's ghost in that respect.
  If the purpose of the Government's policy is, as we must assume, to secure an increase in economic growth over time that is steady rather than variable—in other words, to try to iron out some of the variances in the trade cycle by providing a stimulus in the trough when unemployment is increasing and a restraint at the top when full employment is approached—the issue of convergence is vital. For that policy to continue if we have the same interest rate as our Union partners, as would happen if we were to achieve the objective of economic and monetary union, it would be vital for those economies to move in the same economic cycle, so that the troughs and peaks coincided. It would be necessary to ensure not only that the stimulus of a reduced interest rate arrived at the right moment and did not exacerbate inflation, but that the reduction in the interest rate did not arrive at the wrong moment and so exacerbate unemployment.
  Those conditions are vital for any pursuance of the economic objectives of high social protection and so on to which the Economic Secretary drew our attention,
  126
  but she gave no measure of our progress towards such convergence. In that respect, I found her speech extraordinary.
  9.59 pm
  Ruth Kelly: I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for his kind words about my appointment and for introducing a lighthearted note into the debate. I am glad that he had sufficient time in the election campaign to consider the state of the world economy. Perhaps he had slightly more time than he anticipated.
  Before considering the detailed points, many of which were interesting, it may be helpful to remind hon. Members of the motion, which asks the House to approve the Government's assessment in the Budget report of the medium-term economic and budgetary position. Passing the motion will enable the United Kingdom to make an effective contribution to multilateral surveillance in the European Union.
  I shall consider some of the detailed points that were raised during the debate, and begin with those of the hon. Member for West Dorset. He was right to point out that world growth has slowed. Indeed, as we projected in the Budget, the growth rate of the world's major economies is expected to halve this year. No country can insulate itself from world economic events, but the UK policy remains well placed to respond to economic developments. We have a framework that means that we are better able to cope with any downturn in the world economy. Nearly all commentators expect continued growth with low inflation in the UK. The assessments of the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are all in the range of 2.5 per cent. to 2.7 per cent. this year.
  Mr. Letwin: Does the Economic Secretary accept that I did not challenge that? I asked whether current imbalances showed that the underlying economic trends were more worrying.
  Ruth Kelly: I was about to tackle the numerous imbalances that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. There were so many that I almost lost count; perhaps he will forgive me if I forget to mention a few.
  First, he mentioned the trade deficit. Perhaps he agrees that some increase is to be expected during an international slowdown. As he said, the trade deficit can readily be financed. The forecast in the Budget for the current account deficit is 2.25 per cent. of GDP this year, compared with a trade deficit of 4.25 per cent. under the previous Government in 1989. That did not prove difficult to finance. Total goods export volumes will be 5.5 per cent. higher this year than last year.
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman referred to the regional imbalance. The Government are taking action to improve regional economic growth with the new regional development agencies, which will play a key strategic role in driving economic development forward. In the 1980s, the Conservative Government stood back from promoting regional economic development. If they had a policy on the regions, it was to run down already disadvantaged areas so that they were in an even more desperate position.

  127
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the two-speed economy. Record employment growth clearly increased household wealth, and high consumer confidence is increasing consumer demand. As I said earlier, we cannot insulate ourselves from a downturn in the world economy, but the answer is not to massage the exchange rate down artificially, but to steer a course of stability through the economic slowdown.
  The hon. Gentleman made no suggestions for promoting a better economic policy. I was looking forward to hearing him spell out the way in which he would initiate £20 billion of spending cuts. However, he made no proposals.
  I suggest—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Division deferred till Wednesday 18 July, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001].

  Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

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

  Punjabi Community
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  10.5 pm
  John McDonnell: Sat shri kal, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is a Punjabi greeting to commence the debate on the Punjabi community in Britain. I shall start by explaining the genesis of the debate. For some years in the late 1980s and the 1990s, thanks to the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), now the Minister for Transport, a number of MPs came together under the auspices of the all-party group on human rights in the Punjab. The group took up the concerns of the Punjabi community in Britain about the abuse of human rights in the Punjab resulting from the period of troubles in that region during the 1980s and early 1990s.
  In the last Parliament, in consultation with representatives of the Punjabi community, my colleagues and I widened the scope of the all-party group to enable it to represent in Parliament the Punjabi community on the full range of issues of concern to Punjabis in Britain. In March last year, members of the all-party group secured the first debate on the Punjabi community in Britain in thehistory of the British Parliament. Our aim as a group is to secure regular debates on the issues of concern to that community. Tonight's debate provides us with an opportunity to gauge progress on the issues that we raised in our debate last year and to draw attention to the agenda of issues and the programme of work that the all-party group has set itself for the forthcoming Session of Parliament.
  That agenda of issues has been drawn together on the basis of extensive consultation with organisations representing the Punjabi community in Britain. On all those issues we need the continuing attention and support of the Government. The agenda of issues to be addressed in the coming Session is therefore a direct reflection of the concerns of the Punjabi community in Britain and the debates of the all-party group.
  A prime issue of concern to the Punjabis in Britain, which we identified in last year's debate, is the operation of the visitor visa system. The whole community has welcomed the Government's reinstatement of the visa appeals process. In last year's debate, Members expressed anxiety about the possible introduction of a bond system, and the level of charges to be levied for appeals. It was greatly appreciated, therefore, when the Government dropped the proposals for bonds and subsequently reduced the charges for appeals.
  None the less, many of our constituents continue to experience considerable problems with the visa process. Time after time, visas are refused for family members, often grandparents travelling for weddings, funerals and the birthday celebrations of grandchildren. The system still works to divide families, often in the most heart-rending way. In many instances, the appeal process serves only to rubber stamp the initial decision of the entry clearance officer, and letters of support from MPs appear to count for very little.
  The all-party group proposes that an independent review of the visa system be undertaken—a short, sharp exercise to examine how fairly the system is operating,

  129
  possibly involving an element of "mystery shopping" to test whether the process is equitable. The all-party group would be pleased to discuss with the Minister how that proposal could he implemented.
  In addition to visitor visas, constituents report continuing problems when seeking employment permits and visas for staff recruited in the Punjab. These problems have been experienced by priests and specialist teachers; even one of my local restaurants, the Saffron, which serves some of the best Indian cuisine in London, had a problem with securing the entry of a renowned Indian chef. We are aware that the Government have embarked on a debate about the future of work permits and employment quota systems, and this issue could possibly be addressed within the ambit of that discussion.
  In response to Members' requests, the Government have undertaken two further reforms in relation to visas and immigration, which were also highlighted in last year's debate. The first is the commencement this year of the scheme to register all immigration advisers. The scheme provides the opportunity not only to monitor and raise the standards of advice on visa and immigration procedures, but to drive out of existence the despicable crooks who prey on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The all-party group wholeheartedly endorses the new scheme.
  Another reform is the Government's proposal to establish a visa office in Jalandhar in Punjab where advice and assistance can be given to visa applicants. That measure responds to our plea in last year's debate, which was made on behalf of members of our constituents' families who have to undertake the long and expensive journey to Delhi in person. Sometimes up to 16 hours' travel is involved. However, in our meeting with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office last week it was sad to learn that the proposal for the new visa office, which was submitted to the Indian Government some time ago, remains on Indian ministerial desks. I want to use tonight's debate to urge the Indian Government, in the friendliest terms possible, to expedite that important initiative. It would greatly assist all our constituents.
  Another focus of the all-party group's attention is support for Punjabi culture in this country. Our view is that its maintenance and promotion in Britain represents not an argument for separatism or preference, but a means whereby people who are confident in the understanding and knowledge of their own culture can better integrate and live harmoniously with those from different backgrounds and other cultures.
  In practice, we have interpreted that commitment as support in education for the first Sikh school in the history of this country. Guru Nanak school is in my constituency, and with the award of voluntary-aided status and associated funding from the Government, it is flourishing and securing some of the best educational results in London—and in the rest of the country. However, demand for places vastly outstrips the number available, so we hope that the Government will give a sympathetic hearing to a bid for the much-needed expansion of the school in September. The catchment area goes beyond my constituency, covering Hounslow, Ealing and Slough.
  The Punjabi language is a key issue, which we addressed in last year's debate. Securing one's culture involves maintaining the ability to speak one's mother tongue, and ensuring that others have access to an
  130
  understanding of one's history, culture and beliefs. The all-party group is keen to work with the Department for Education and Skills to advise on curriculum development in relation to the Punjabi community and Sikhism.
  Fiona Mactaggart (Slough): As the Punjabi language is probably the second most spoken in this country—it is the first language for many people—is it not important to give people in that community access to radio? The Minister is not responsible for that issue, but perhaps she will pass on to her colleagues in another Department the Punjabi community's eagerness to use the new access radio licences to provide radio through the medium of Punjabi. That would enable it to use radio licences to reinforce and develop the language.
  John McDonnell: I am grateful for that intervention, and shall make a plea to the Government on the subject.
  The all-party group suggests that we assist in a survey of local education authorities to ascertain what support is provided for teaching Punjabi where parents request that facility. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) is correct: with 1.3 million Punjabi speakers in Britain, Punjabi has become this country's second language. That wealth of Punjabi speakers is a real asset in a globalised economy, and I agree that the scale of Punjabi speaking in this country should be reflected in the support given to cultural outlets available to the Punjabi-speaking community.
  The best example is the limited number of radio stations broadcasting in Punjabi. Most are on short-term licences associated with the celebration of the Versaikhi period, but several excellent applications are being prepared by the Punjabi community. Last year the all-party group organised a seminar on radio licensing, and we believe that we might have facilitated the approach to the Government that will enable them to award new licences to Punjabi-speaking community organisations.
  Greater recognition is also needed to preserve and promote Punjabi sport—kabbadi, for example, which is a form of what I can only describe as high-speed wrestling, or rugby without the ball. One day someone might explain the rules of kabbadi, which are complicated and brutal. The UK kabbadi federation is not even recognised by the visa office, and teams are often prevented from travelling to the UK from the Indian sub-continent. Many MPs have had to intervene on several occasions just to secure a player's entry to this country.
  An understanding of the history of the Punjab, especially the Sikh Khalsa, is critical to the maintenance of Punjabi culture. The recent celebration of the 300th anniversary of Versaikhi by institutions such as the Victoria and Albert museum did a great deal to promote a greater appreciation of that culture among both Sikhs and the general population. This year we will witness the celebration of the bicentenary of Maharajah Ranjeet Singh, and this month the V&A has organised a seminar on "Preserving the Sikh Heritage". The Sikh material heritage ranges from simple pieces produced in homage to Sikh gurus to precious art works and gems in museums and royal collections. The Koh-i-noor diamond, which is part of the Crown jewels, is a Sikh artefact given to Queen Victoria—some say under duress—by the last Maharajah Duleep Singh.

  131
  The all-party group is anxious to encourage a discussion of how this unique heritage can be preserved for future generations and made more accessible to the current generation. This is not an attempt to repatriate these objects, as with the Elgin marbles—the Queen can rest assured for the time being. Instead, we need to examine how co-operation between Governments and community organisations can best assist in preserving and holding in trust these priceless objects for the worldwide Sikh community.
  Another key agenda issue for the all-party group for the coming period is the development of economic links between Britain and the Punjab. Later this year, the group aims to host a seminar on the potential for economic development initiatives, which could be of mutual benefit, bringing together Government agencies, Punjab state bodies and private sector representatives from Britain and the Punjab. The objective is to examine what assistance can be provided to Punjabi commerce and agriculture, especially through enhanced opportunities for inward investment and for export via increased airport capacity. They also need help to tackle the increasing problem of water scarcity and diversion, and cropping policies in the Punjab.
  We remain interested in human rights issues. Undoubtedly, there are concerns about the Indian Government's failure to allow United Nations rapporteurs to enter the country and go to the Punjab. We will continue to press the matter until we secure a truth commission—or at least an extension of the remit of the Indian Human Rights Commission—to investigate the disappearance of large numbers of people throughout the 1980s during the crisis in the Punjab.
  That is a substantial agenda for an industrious all-party group, and we are addressing many other issues on behalf of the Punjabi community in Britain. We can succeed with that agenda only with the support of the Punjabi community, and the continuing support of the Government, which we are pleased to have received throughout their previous term of office and hope to receive throughout their present period of office.
  10.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing, for the second consecutive year, a debate on the Punjabi community in Britain. We still face many challenges on race relations. It is right to highlight the success of our many and varied communities. I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us of the significant contribution that the Punjabi community makes to the economic and cultural life of this country.
  These debates provide an important opportunity for us to be reminded at first hand of community concerns, and my hon. Friend has set those out clearly. Last year, the difficulties that many members of the Punjabi community face in travelling to Delhi to apply for a visa were explained. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) said in reply to last year's debate, the Government were aware of suggestions that there should be more visa issuing offices in the sub-continent and were examining the matter. As my hon.
  132
  Friend was happy to report, in December we asked the Indian Government for their agreement to open visa liaison offices in Jalandhar in the Punjab and a similar office in Ahmadabad in Gujarat.
  We continue to press the Indian Government for approval for the offices, at which point we can begin to recruit and train locally employed staff. This matter was raised with the Indian Government on 21 June by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). I am happy to discuss with the all-party group the issue of visas and work permits, to see how we can make the system more user-friendly. I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support on the registration of some of the legal advisers, which is going ahead as a result of legislation passed recently.
  Human rights in the Punjab were mentioned. The situation has improved greatly since the troubles ended some eight years ago, and we recognise the need to ensure that all allegations of abuses are investigated. Ministers and officials have made clear to the Indian authorities the importance of investigating abuses and bringing wrongdoers to justice, and we have consistently urged those authorities to allow access to India for international human rights groups, including the United Nations rapporteurs on torture and on extrajudicial executions.
  We have also been trying to work with the authorities in a practical way. Through our high commission in New Delhi, we have been able to engage in some human rights project work in the Punjab that aims to improve police skills. Projects have involved co-operation between UK and Indian experts and the Punjabi police training college and have focused on child-friendly policing, policing for vulnerable groups and co-operation with youth clubs and children's groups.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that promoting an understanding between different cultures to tackle racism is central to our policy. We firmly believe in the importance of teaching young people the value of diversity and of a proper sense of society and their place in it. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary introduced citizenship education to the national curriculum when he was Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
  The programme for the study of citizenship in secondary schools will be introduced as part of the national curriculum in September 2002. It is already in the primary curriculum, as part of personal social and health education. For the first time all pupils will be taught about the diversity of national, regional, religious and ethnic identities in the UK, and about the need for mutual respect and understanding.
  I will convey to the appropriate Department what my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said about Punjabi language radio licences.
  We believe that the measures we are introducing in schools will help to ensure that future generations grow up with a clear concept of citizenship—an understanding of the value of diversity, and a respect for individuals from different cultures and backgrounds. I know that those values are shared by the Punjabi community.
  We must ensure that communities have the skills and knowledge to make their views known. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes

  133
  and Harlington, for example, the local authority has secured nearly £180,000 over three years to run a community development project under the community networks support programme of the Home Office "connecting communities" grant. The money will be used to establish a consortium of minority ethnic community organisations, which will act as advocates on behalf of member organisations and the communities they represent.
  John McDonnell: One of the issues that we raised in last year's debate was the importance of funding for gurdwaras. We wanted to establish the principle that the "connecting communities" funds could be re-used to support them.
  Some of the discussions with community support organisations prompted consternation in the Punjabi community in Britain about the proscription of the International Sikh Youth Federation, which we envisaged as a key organisation working in the community for peace and harmony generally.
  Angela Eagle: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the proscription of any organisation, but I assure him that this was not done lightly or without appropriate information. If my hon. Friend wants to make any other representations, I shall naturally be more than happy to hear them.
  Kabbadi sounds like an interesting sport. As one who suggested that chess should be classed as a sport and is still trying to achieve that aim after a number of years, I know how difficult it is to introduce new sports, especially those involving rough and tumble. I wish the Kabbadi Association in Britain well, and hope that the sport spreads.
  Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned kabbadi and the issue of civic education and giving responsibility to the community. One of the problems is that those messages are contradicted in practice by the way in which some people are treated when they seek entry to Britain as visitors. In New Delhi, more than in any other post on the subcontinent, would-be visitors are pre-sifted and not properly given a chance to make their case before an entry clearance officer. Perhaps
  134
  my hon. Friend could encourage her colleagues in the Foreign Office to ensure that they advise those staff of the contradictory effect that their actions have on the feeling of success in the community here when their relatives are not even allowed to apply to visit.
  Angela Eagle: I take my hon. Friend's point. In mitigation, all I would say is that the New Delhi post is especially busy and has a huge throughput. I will certainly draw my colleagues' attention to the points she has made. We need to look at work permits, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned, to see how we can achieve an appropriate balance and deal with everyone fairly, quickly and efficiently. That is often difficult to achieve, but I assure my hon. Friends that the ministerial team at the Home Office are spending much time considering how to do so.
  The debate has done much to remind us all of the importance and benefits of living in a diverse society, and it has reinforced the reminder given by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) during Tuesday's debate on Bradford that we must not lose sight of the considerable examples of success in many of our multi-ethnic communities. It is right to concentrate on problems, but it is also important to concentrate on the positive aspects of diverse community life. Therefore, I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington on bringing this subject before the House.
  The Government welcome the positive contributions made by the Hindu, Muslim and Sikh members of the Punjabi community in Britain, and we all share the vision of a society free from prejudice in which differences between religions and ethnic communities are not only respected and valued, but celebrated and promoted. We will continue to work with the Punjabi community and all communities to ensure that that development continues. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in the House last week,
  "The vast majority of people in our society, regardless of their ethnic background, want the same things for themselves and their children."—[Official Report, 10 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 664.]
  Our aim is to create an inclusive and fair society, and local communities that meet the needs of all groups.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Project Aquatrine
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of Project Aquatrine. [4452]

  Mr. Ingram
  Project Aquatrine will transfer responsibility for the maintenance and operation of all the Ministry of Defence's water and wastewater assets and infrastructure in Great Britain to private sector service providers.

  Four consortiums are bidding for the first package of work of this £2.9 billion private financial deal. An Invitation to Negotiate will be issued to bidders for the first package of work on 16 July 2001.

  The consortiums invited to negotiate for this work, covering central southern England, western England and Wales, are:
  Brey Utilities, comprising:
  Brown and Root, Earth Tech and Yorkshire Water.
  C2C, comprising:
  Severn Trent, Costain and Arup.
  Diamond Alliance Ltd.
  Thames Water plc.
  The preferred bidder will be announced in early 2003, with the contract expected to be awarded in late 2003.

  Type 45 Destroyers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what reasons the report by RAND into the bidders for the contract to build type 45 destroyers has been delayed; [2343]

  (2) what criteria were given to RAND for their report into the bidders for the contract to build type 45 destroyers; [2346]

  (3) when the report by RAND into the bidders contract to build type 45 destroyers will be completed; and when he will make a decision; [2344]

  (4) if the Government will publish the findings of the report by RAND into the bidders for the contract to build type 45 destroyers. [2345]

  Dr. Moonie
  We commissioned RAND to do a study on a range of alternative procurement strategies for our future warship programmes over the next 15 to 20 years, with particular reference to options for the type 45 destroyers. The study is intended to help inform, not make, decisions by the Department within the context of obtaining value for money over the warship programme as a whole.

  2W
  The study has not been delayed and RAND have provided their initial findings to the Department. We used these to help assess the best way forward for the type 45 procurement strategy as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 10 July 2001, Official Report, columns 675–85. We will continue to use RAND to advise us on related issues over the next few weeks.

  We expect RAND to publish a report based on their findings in the autumn, after consultation with interested parties over the confidentiality of its content, and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Kenya
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision, in the agreement with the Kenyan Government on military training is made for the British Army to clean up live bombs after operations. [3219]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no agreement between the British Army and the Kenyan Government for the clearance of live ammunition after training. There is, however, a widely understood military protocol whereby the host nation is responsible for the clearance of military ranges and this is followed in Kenya. The British Army aims to destroy the ammunition it uses as soon as possible after it has been fired. In Kenya, destruction takes place while the units are conducting their training and at the end of the exercise period. Notwithstanding that, in the last two years the British Army has carried out clearance work in support of the Kenyan authorities.

  The British Army is alone in that it also trains on privately owned land in Kenya in addition to using Kenyan Department of Defence facilities. The British Army clears any unexploded ordnance from privately owned land as required by their agreements with local landowners.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what point the military clearance operation in North Kenya was suspended after the unexploded ordnance specialist left the area. [2795]

  Mr. Ingram
  I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the clearance operation which took place at Archer's Post earlier this year. The operation was not suspended. It was a planned activity that took place between 7 April and 16 May. The dates for the operation were agreed last year.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the procedure is for the clearing of civilians before and after military training in the Archer's Post and Dol Dol training areas of north Kenya; [2784]

  (2) what provision his Department has made to stop civilian entry into the testing grounds that the British Army use in Archer's Post and Dol Dol in northern Kenya. [2794]

  Mr. Ingram
  The responsibility for ensuring that civilians are cleared from the Archer's Post and Dol Dol training areas rests with the Kenyan Department of Defence. Wherever the British Army trains with live ammunition it must confirm that the danger area is clear before commencing training. At Archer's Post this is achieved by using range wardens, a helicopter overflight of the danger area and the deployment of danger flags and
  3W
  sentries. The sentries and range wardens act to stop civilians entering Archer's Post while training is in progress.

  The British Army does not conduct live firing at the Dol Dol area.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department will take responsibility for the deaths and injuries caused by unexploded ordnance in the Archer's Post and Dol Dol areas. [2780]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence's position is that we take responsibility for deaths and injuries where we are shown to be legally liable.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department will ensure that all signs outside training areas used by the British Army in Kenya are intelligible to people who cannot read. [2791]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are large concrete signs outside live firing areas used by the British Army in Kenya, with words of warning written in English and Samburu. The nomadic tribesman have been grazing their animals in the area for a considerable number of years and are aware that some of the area is a Kenyan Department of Defence live firing military range as it has been for many years. We therefore believe that the signs are well understood by both the local population and nomadic tribesmen that transit the area. My hon. Friend may also wish to note that the range wardens employed throughout the year by the British Army instruct the local population about the dangers posed during live firing and from touching unexploded ordnance.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any of the unexploded ordnance found in the Archer's Post and Dol Dol training areas were from the British Army. [2792]

  Mr. Ingram
  I assume my hon. Friend is referring to recent activities where the British Army, in support of the Kenyan Department of Defence, conducted limited clearance operations at Archer's Post. During 2000 a total of 32 ammunition types were recovered, only two of which were found to be unique to the British Army. The Royal Engineers are continuing to analyse the ammunition found earlier this year.

  We do not conduct live firing at the Dol Dol training area and have therefore not conducted an explosive ordnance clearance operation at the range. Any live unexploded ordnance found at Dol Dol is therefore a matter for the Kenyan authorities.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many square kilometres of the Archer's Post range were cleared in the operation from March to May. [3208]

  Mr. Ingram
  The clearance operation covered 64 square kilometres.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many live bombs were found in the recent clean-up operation of Archer's Post from March to May; how many were British made; and how many had batch numbers showing who had fired them; and of these how many had been fired by the British Army. [3207]
  4W
  Mr. Ingram
  During the recent clearance operation at Archer's Post a total of 271 live ammunition types were found. Work is continuing to establish their provenance.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the British Army first was informed that people were being(a) injured and (b) killed on the Archer's Post and Dol Dol range by live bombs. [3220]

  Mr. Ingram
  In recent times, the British Army has been aware of three incidents where civilians were killed or injured at Archer's Post. The first of these incidents is believed to have taken place in May 1999.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the British Army intends to clean up the live bombs about which they were informed by Osiligi representatives in late 2000. [3209]

  Mr. Ingram
  I understand that the ordnance to which my hon. Friend refers was found at the Dol Dol training area. The British Army does not conduct live firing at Dol Dol, and any live ammunition found there is therefore a matter for the Kenyan authorities.

  Precision-guided Missiles
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United Kingdom is part of the Netherlands-led consortium to purchase precision-guided missiles from the United States of America; and if he will make a statement. [2723]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK is not part of any Netherlands-led consortium for the procurement of precision-guided missiles from the United States of America.

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish the review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [3490]

  Mr. Ingram
  The public consultation period on the emerging findings of the review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 16 March 2001,Official Report, column 756W, ends on 31 July. A summary of the views expressed during this period and a response to them will be published when the comments have been fully considered.

  Armoured Reconnaissance Unit
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the 4th Armoured Reconnaissance Unit will be stationed at Stanley Barracks, Bovington; and which regiment will be fulfilling that role at that time. [3488]

  Mr. Ingram
  In his answer on 12 April 2000,Official Report, column 147W, the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) stated that the 4th Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment will be the Queen's Dragoon Guards who would move into barracks at Bovington in August 2003. Since then a number of factors have emerged that might affect this plan and there has therefore been a need to re-address the options. I shall write to the hon. Member when the position is clearer.

  Medical Services
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the policy is for fast-tracking of service personnel for medical treatment(a) in Ministry of Defence hospital units and (b) elsewhere. [2862]

  Dr. Moonie
  Service patients are mainly treated in Ministry of Defence Hospitals Units (MDHUs), in other NHS hospitals as NHS patients, or in Defence Secondary Care Agency (DSCA) directly managed units (DMUs) in the UK and overseas. The British Forces Germany Health Service provides secondary care for service personnel in Germany where there are generally no waiting lists.

  The DSCA has set waiting time targets for the treatment of patients from the armed forces in its DMUs and MDHUs. The contracts between MDHUs and their host NHS trusts include financial payments to encourage trusts to achieve these. The contracts also allow service personnel needed for operational deployment to receive a priority out-patient opinion. In addition, contracts were placed last year with independent sector health care providers to treat service personnel in shortage categories to relieve overstretch. Referrals under these contracts ceased in March 2001. Planning has recently been approved for another rapid treatment initiative.

  Military personnel referred to NHS hospitals outwith MDHU arrangements are treated in accordance with NHS waiting times on the basis of clinical need.

  MOD Property (Belfast)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what land and property is in the possession of his Department in North Belfast; and on what terms. [3077]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has two properties in the parliamentary constituency of North Belfast. The Regular Army is based in Girdwood Barracks, part of which we hold freehold and the remainder is leasehold. The Territorial Army is based at Dunmore Camp, which is held under freehold.

  A400M and Meteor
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the memorandums of understanding for the A400M and Meteor that he signed in Paris in June. [2969]

  Dr. Moonie
  The memoranda of understanding for the A400M and Meteor programmes will become effective when all participants have signed them. We do not anticipate all signatures being in place until September 2001. Copies of the documents will be placed in the Library of the House when they become effective.

  Helicopters
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total(a) budget and (b) cost was of purchasing and commissioning the Merlin helicopter for the Royal Navy. [4337]

  Mr. Ingram
  The total budget for purchasing the Merlin helicopter was £4,931 million. The total forecast cost of purchasing the Merlin helicopter is £4,903 million. This includes the UK element of the development costs. The development of the Merlin Mk1 was part of the 6W
  EH 101 UK/Italy collaborative project. The forecast also includes an estimate for the initial provisioning of capital spares, the cost of the avionics weapon system, the Merlin Training System and the supply of ground support equipment.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the full squadron of Royal Navy Merlin helicopters will be fully operational; and if he will make a statement. [4338]

  Mr. Ingram
  On current plans the first full squadron of Royal Navy Merlin helicopters will be fully operational in May 2002 with the further squadrons achieving this status within a rolling programme up to 2005.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if QinetiQ plc is included in the manufacturing licence agreement for the Apache AH MK I helicopter. [3487]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]: No. The Manufacturing licence for the UK Apache Attack Helicopter is between Westland Helicopters Ltd. and the Boeing Company. Westland Helicopters Ltd. is currently seeking an amendment to the licence to enable QinetiQ to access such US proprietary data as it needs to undertake its work on the UK Apache programme. US State Department approval will be required for the amendment.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the impact of the failure of the full mission simulator software on the date for operational readiness of the WAH-64 helicopter. [3572]

  Dr. Moonie
  Problems with software integration have delayed the availability of the Full Mission Simulator for the UK WAH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter. This has, in turn, delayed the start of our training programme. As a consequence, we currently expect the readiness date for the first operational Apache squadron will be August 2004, a slip of seven months.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) US and (b) UK (i) military and (ii) civilian personnel are deployed at RAF Menwith Hill. [4176]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 13 June 2001, at RAF Menwith Hill there were 459 US military, 1,012 US civilian, five UK military and 404 UK civilian personnel (excluding GCHQ staff). I am withholding the numbers of GCHQ staff under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Space Based Infra-Red System radomes to come on line at RAF Menwith Hill. [4175]

  Mr. Ingram
  At present there is no firm date for when the European Relay Ground Station for the Space Based Infra-Red System located at RAF Menwith Hill will come on line.
  7W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the legal status is of the United States personnel stationed at RAF Menwith Hill. [4180]

  Mr. Ingram
  The US personnel stationed at RAF Menwith Hill are there at the invitation of Her Majesty's Government, and are members (or dependants of members) of a visiting force or the civilian component of a visiting force to which Part 1 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 applies.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason US Menwith Hill was renamed RAF Menwith Hill. [4173]

  Mr. Ingram
  The base was renamed RAF Menwith Hill in February 1996 bringing it into line with other sites made available to United States visiting forces in the UK.

  Ministerial Visits (Menwith Hill and Fylingdales)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date a Minister from his Department last visited(a) RAF Menwith Hill and (b) RAF Fylingdales. [4174]

  Mr. Ingram
  RAF Menwith Hill was visited by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 5 July 2001. RAF Fylingdales has not been the subject of a ministerial visit since 1 May 1997.

  Roving Sands Exercises
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom personnel were involved in the exercises known as Roving Sands; and for what purpose. [4172]

  Mr. Ingram
  Exercise Roving Sands is an annual multinational Air Defence exercise hosted by the US Army at Fort Bliss, Texas, USA, involving UK, Dutch, German and Canadian Air Defence forces. The purpose is to exercise in a joint and combined integrated defence environment as part of a joint forces headquarters. This year, we planned to deploy 264 personnel from 7 Air Defence Brigade to participate in the exercise between 6 June and 1 July. Owing to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the UK, however, the US Department of Defense asked the UK not to import vehicle or heavy equipment into Texas for the exercise. The UK participation in the exercise Roving Sands 01, therefore, consisted of 22 personnel from 7 Air Defence Brigade deployed to Fort Bliss where they were integrated in the Headquarters of the 31 Air Defence Brigade, US Army.

  Sovereign Bases
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Sovereign base areas which would be defended under the terms of the Strategic Defence Review; and what plans there are to withdraw from these bases. [3915]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are two Sovereign base areas, at Episkopi and Dhekelia in Cyprus. There are no plans to withdraw from these bases.

  Tank Accident (Salisbury Plain)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cause of the fatal accident involving a Challenger II tank on Salisbury Plain was on 11 July; and if he will make a statement. [4059]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is too early to know what caused the fatal accident on Salisbury Plain, but a full investigation has begun. Clearly all our thoughts are with the families and friends of the two soldiers who died in the accident.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the terms of reference are for the Green Minister in her Department; and if she will make a statement. [3979]

  The Solicitor-General
  I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  Loizidou Case
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General what action the Attorney General proposes to take to assist in ensuring that Turkey complies with its obligations to the Loizidou case as a consequence of the resolution of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers of 26 June. [R] [2979]

  The Solicitor-General
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Congestion Tax
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the Mayor of London's proposed congestion tax on retailing within the proposed congestion tax area. [1777]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: The Mayor's congestion charging proposals are his responsibility, not the Government's. However, in 2000, before the Mayor was elected, a Government-sponsored report was published entitled "Road Charging Options for London: a Technical Assessment". This was a report by an independent group consisting of transport experts from the academic, professional and public sectors. Chapter 5 on "Impacts and Effects" discusses how the illustrative charging scenarios included in the report would affect different groups including retail businesses. The impacts on businesses are discussed at paragraphs 5.3.79 to 5.3.82. Copies of the report are available in the Library.

  Railways
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will provide the figures for the fourth quarter of 2000–01 of service disruptions due to failures in trains, signals, points and track. [2728]
  9W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack figures show that the average daily delays from all causes to services run by the franchised passenger train operators during the 12 week period beginning 7 January 2001 totalled 76,647 minutes. Around 18,500 trains ran each day under the winter timetables.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the need for additional capacity on the Cotswold railway line between Worcestershire and Oxford; and if he will make a statement. [4131]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has met the Cotswold and Malvern Line partnership who are preparing a bid for funding from the Rail Passenger Partnership scheme to improve this stretch of the line. When the bid is submitted it will be assessed against the authority's planning criteria.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what evaluations his Department has conducted into the advantages of extending southwards the railway line from Chessington South. [3643]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No evaluations have been made by my Department or the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA). I understand that evaluations have been made by Stagecoach, the franchisee of South West Trains, and that the proposal is supported by the local authority. If funding were required from Government it may be available through the Rail Passenger Partnership scheme (RPP), administered by the SRA. The SRA will assess any bids on value for money grounds against their published planning criteria. Bidding guidance has been sent to all local authorities.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will establish a method of independent oversight to ensure the study promised by GoVia into the viability of reopening the Lewes-Uckfield line is undertaken properly. [4169]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The study will be carried out by a consultant in accordance with terms of reference agreed by the Strategic Rail Authority and GoVia. The authority will consider the results of the study against planning criteria approved by Ministers. It would neither be practicable nor appropriate to introduce further parties into the evaluation process.

  London Underground
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received about the full value for money analysis in respect of London Underground proposals; what has been the response to them and by whom; and if he will make a statement. [2727]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In addition to occasional questions in the House, my Department receives a small amount of correspondence from time to time about the value for money analysis of the Government's proposals for London Underground.

  A report of the Environment, Transport and the Regional Affairs Committee published in July 2000 recommended that the National Audit Office should evaluate the public sector comparator used in the value
  10W
  for money analysis before contracts were signed. The National Audit Office produced a report into the financial analysis of our proposals for the London Underground in December 2000.

  The Select Committee also recommended that the results of the comparator tests should be published before the letting of any contracts. Our response to all such representations has been that the results of the full value for money analysis will be made publicly available once contracts have been signed. To publish the results any earlier would undermine London Underground's commercial position and damage its ability to achieve best value for the taxpayer.

  Housing
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions by what amount his Department intends to reduce the level of public subsidy to housing over the next 10 years expressed as(a) a total figure and (b) a figure per week for each tenant. [3001]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government's proposals for the new Housing Revenue Account subsidy system will not lead to any change in the overall level of subsidy in 2002–03 from that announced in the 2000 Spending Review. Thereafter the future level of subsidy will be determined as part of the general decisions in the Spending Reviews on future public expenditure.

  Local Authority Redundancy Costs
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the criteria under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 governing the use by local authorities of housing investment programme allocations for social services staff redundancy packages; and if he will make a statement. [3534]

  Ms Keeble
  Housing investment programme allocations, together with those for a number of other capital programmes, are issued in the form of Basic Credit Approvals. Authorities are free to use these for any capital purpose.

  Expenditure for capital purposes is defined in the 1989 Act, but the Act also provides, in section 40(6), for the Secretary of State to make a direction that expenditure normally defined as revenue be treated by the authority concerned as expenditure for capital purposes. Directions are not normally issued unless the expenditure:
  (a) is substantial in relation to the authority's revenue budget for the financial year concerned and was unforeseeable when that budget was adopted; or
  (b) cannot be met out of financial reserves but will result in revenue account savings in future years.
  Applications for capitalisation of redundancy costs, and similar lump-sum costs such as severance or premature retirement payments, are normally considered against test (b) as stated. In those cases, directions are not usually given unless the expenditure to be capitalised exceeds both:
  5 per cent. of the authority's available reserves (excluding Local Management of Schools (LMS) reserves) and
  0.25 per cent. of its total budgeted expenditure for the financial year in question.

  11W
  It is therefore possible, owing to the flexibility allowed to authorities in the use of BCAs, and following issue of a section 40(6) direction, for housing capital allocations to be used to fund redundancy costs. But this would only be in an exceptional case and the authority in question would still be expected to meet longer term targets for housing improvement.

  Postal Voting
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research has been undertaken on the new criteria for postal voting; what steps have been taken to promote it; what the level of use of postal votes issued was; and if he will make a statement. [3192]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Electoral Commission intends to publish by the end of July its review of the general election, including the operation of postal voting. Statistical information, including information about the numbers of postal votes issued will be in the Commission's further report expected at the end of the year. When the general election was announced an extensive Home Office publicity campaign was launched on TV, radio, in the press and through leaflets.

  Traffic Area Network
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date the Traffic Area Network computer system will be implemented in the whole of the United Kingdom. [3464]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Traffic Area Network (TAN) has embarked on a major change programme, called TAN 21, designed to modernise the way the organisation carries out its business. The programme includes complete renewal of all computer systems throughout the network. The ICT infrastructure—the hardware, the links between the offices and the new e-mail systems—was installed last year and is already operating nationally. The first phase of the new business system, which handles the processing of operator licences, is currently being piloted in the Scottish traffic area. Subject to satisfactory performance of the pilot, this phase of the system will be rolled out to the rest of the country shortly. We are aiming to complete implementation of all the new systems, which include new e-commerce services for the industry, computerisation of the compliance and local bus route registration systems and a new finance system, across the whole of Great Britain by the end of the year.

  Light rail

  Scheme

  City

  Lines

  Construction/opening date

  Tyne and Wear Metro Extension to Sunderland

  Newcastle to Sunderland

  1 line

  Construction began February 2000—opens 2002

  Nottingham Express Transit

  Nottingham

  1 line

  Construction began June 2000—opens 2003

  Manchester Metrolink Extensions

  Manchester

  3 lines

  Construction to start early 2002—planned to open in 2006

  South Hampshire Rapid Transit

  Fareham to Portsmouth

  1 line

  Construction to start late 2003–04—planned to open in 2006.

  Leeds Supertram

  Leeds

  3 lines

  Construction to start 2002—planned to open in 2006.

  Docklands Light Railway to City Airport

  London

  1 line

  Construction to start early 2002 subject to outcome of Transport and Works Act (TWA) application—aim to open during 2004–05.

  Bristol and South Gloucestershire Light Rapid Transit

  Bristol

  1 line

  Provisional construction start 2004 subject to successful economic appraisal and any subsequent TWA application—provisional completion date 2006.

  Midland Metro Extensions

  Birmingham

  2 lines

  Construction to start 2003—completion in 2006.

  Road Works
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers local authorities have to co-ordinate the excavation of roads within their areas by statutory undertakers and private companies; and what steps he is taking to review these powers. [3690]

  Ms Keeble
  Section 59 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 places an obligation on local highway authorities to co-ordinate the execution of utility street works and other works in their streets. This is intended to ensure safety, to minimise inconvenience to road users and to protect the structure of the street and any apparatus located in it. While we have no plans to review this requirement, we are looking at ways in which the co-ordination of works by authorities can be made easier and more effective.

  Tram and Guided Bus Systems
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) in which cities(a) tram and (b) guided bus systems have been opened over the past four years; [3542]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce new rapid transit lines broken down by (a) the cities in which he intends to introduce them, (b) the number of lines he will introduce in each city and (c) the date for commencement of each project; [3429]

  (3) in which cities he intends to introduce (a) new trams and (b) guided bus systems over the next 10 years indicating in each case (i) when work is expected to commence and (ii) when the system is expected to open. [3541]

  Ms Keeble
  It is for local authorities to put forward proposals for light rail or guided bus schemes as part of their Local Transport Plan, or the Mayor's Transport Strategy in the case of London. Where Government funding is sought, we require a thorough appraisal of the scheme. Since 1997, five new light rail lines have opened: two extensions to the Manchester Metrolink, the Midland Metro line to Wolverhampton, the Croydon Tramlink and the Docklands Light Railway extension to Lewisham. No new guided bus schemes have been opened within this period. The charts set out those light rail and guided bus schemes that have been approved or given provisional approval with construction and approximate opening dates.
  13W

  Guided bus

  Scheme

  City

  Construction

  Opens

  A63/A64 York Road and Selby Road

  Leeds

  Under way

  September 2001

  A641 Manchester Road

  Bradford

  Under way

  Autumn 2001

  Crawley Fastway

  Crawley to Gatwick

  Preliminary works commenced. Major works start February 2002

  Completion of all three phases by 2005

  Chester/Deeside Transport System

  Chester

  Seeking TWA Powers

  Dependent on TWA application

  Leigh

  Manchester

  Seeking TWA powers.

  Dependent on TWA application

  We are also aware of proposals for new light rail lines in Merseyside, Hull, Bath, East Lancashire and Blackpool and for further extensions to the Manchester Metrolink, the South Yorkshire Supertram, the Midland Metro, Nottingham Express Transit and the Tyne and Wear Metro. There are proposals for guided bus schemes between Luton and Dunstable, in Northampton and in Cambridge.

  For London, the Mayor's Transport Strategy includes proposals for four tram or bus transit schemes—East London Transit, Greenwich Waterfront Transit, Uxbridge Road Transit and Cross River Transit. The Mayor and Transport for London will consult on each of these proposals to decide which, if any, should be taken forward, with a view to completing planning, determining funding and financing and starting the construction of any preferred scheme or schemes by 2004.

  Buses
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much money will be invested in the Urban Bus Challenge Fund in each of the next 10 years. [3427]

  Ms Keeble
  Provision for the Urban Bus Challenge in the current three-year spending review period is as follows:

  Year

  £million

  2001–02

  8

  2002–03

  18

  2003–04

  20

  As part of the next Spending Review, which is due to be completed in the summer of 2002, provision for this scheme for 2003–04 will be confirmed, and provision agreed for 2004–05 and 2005–06. Provision for the remaining years of the 10-year Transport Plan (2006–07 to 2010–11) will be considered in the forthcoming review of the plan and in future Government Spending Reviews.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the extent to which bus passenger journeys outside London will change in the next 10 years. [3428]

  Ms Keeble
  Our assumption in the 10-year Transport Plan is that the measures, taken as a whole, would make achievable our target of a 10 per cent. increase in bus use nationally over 10 years. No separate estimates were made of the position outside London.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made towards extending the rural bus subsidy grant to cover more journeys serving market towns. [3458]
  14W
  Ms Keeble
  The White Paper "Our Countryside: The Future" last November announced our intention to extend the eligibility criteria for Rural Bus Subsidy Grant to allow for the support of services operating in and around towns of up to 25,000 (compared with 10,000 previously). We have already implemented that change to the rules from 1 April this year. We have also increased the funding available this year to £41.5 million, with further increases planned for the next two years. It is for the local authority to decide which particular services to support using these additional resources and we have given them some flexibility to fund existing as well as new services.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made towards reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents over the past 12 months. [3547]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Good progress is being made in implementing the Government's Road Safety Strategy that was launched in March 2000. Progress to date and proposed next steps on the many elements of the strategy are reported in a quarterly schedule which is placed on the DTLR website (www.roads.dtlr.gov.uk/roadsafety/strategy/imp/index.htm). The end-June 2001 schedule will be available there soon.

  The main road casualty results for 2000 were published on 14 June 2001. Fuller details will be published in September. I am pleased to say that the number of deaths and serious injuries in 2000 was 2 per cent. less than that for the previous year, and for children up to age 15, the number was 9 per cent. lower. I very much hope that this is part of a continuing downward trend and that we achieve or better the target casualty reductions set for 2010 in the strategy: a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of deaths and serious injuries, a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of child deaths and serious injuries, and a 10 per cent. reduction in the rate (by vehicle mileage) of slight injuries—all compared with the averages for 1994 to 1998.

  Community Transport Schemes
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when community transport schemes will be entitled to claim a fuel rebate. [3457]

  Ms Keeble
  Following consultation with relevant organisations earlier this year, we will be bringing forward regulations on the introduction this financial year of fuel duty rebate for a wide range of community transport services.

  Cycle and Pedestrian Routes
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many routes for safer cycling and walking have been introduced in the past 12 months; and how many are planned to be introduced in each of the next nine years. [3455]

  Mr. Spellar
  Information on cycling and walking provision is not available in the form requested. The Government have encouraged local traffic authorities in England to include strategies for increasing cycling and walking in their local transport plans (LTPs).

  Local cycling strategies contain plans for 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. Local strategies to promote walking include pedestrian routes, pedestrianisation, safety measures, better facilities for the disabled and greater accessibility to transport interchanges and facilities. A number of authorities are likely to use LTP funding to make walking more accessible, by improving pavement and footway maintenance, and removing obstructions.

  We shall 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.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will open the extension of the Docklands Light Railway to London City airport. [3543]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The powers required to extend the DLR to London City airport have been sought from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by way of an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992. A public inquiry has been held and the inspector's report is under consideration. I cannot therefore comment on the merits of the scheme or say anything which might prejudice my right hon. Friend's decision. The application will, however, be dealt with as quickly as possible. If powers were to be given, responsibility for taking forward the scheme would rest with the Mayor of London in his role as Chairman of Transport for London.

  Road Traffic Estimates
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the change in traffic levels has been since(a) May 1997 and (b) June 2000 on (i) motorways and trunk roads, (ii) other major roads and (iii) minor roads. [3551]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department estimates traffic quarterly, not monthly. These figures do not distinguish between trunk and principal 'A' class roads.

  The percentage changes in road traffic for all motor vehicles in Great Britain for the relevant quarters until the first quarter of 2001 (the latest available) are as shown in the table.
  16W

  Seasonally-adjusted

  Percentage

  Road class

  Q2 1997 to Q1 2001

  Q2 2000 to Ql 2001

  Motorway

  10

  1

  Other major roads

  5

  0

  Minor roads

  1

  -1

  Alternative Fuels
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of registered motor vehicles are equipped to run on(a) liquified petroleum gas, (b) compressed natural gas and (c) biodiesel. [3546]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Figures from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency show that, as of 31 March 2001, there were 25,540 vehicles, out of a total vehicle parc of 29,174,788, registered in Great Britain as being capable of being powered by road fuel gases. DVLA does not hold separate figures for vehicles powered by CNG and LPG. These figures do not include vehicles from Northern Ireland for which quarterly data are not collected.

  As any compression ignition engine should be able to use biodiesel without major modification, no separate figures are kept for biodiesel.

  Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when his Department's Green Minister attended meetings of the Green Ministers' Committee during the current session of Parliament; when meetings are planned to take place during the current session of Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [3991]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 13 July 2001, Official Report, column 690W.

  Fishing Fatalities
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many fatalities there were in the fishing industry following an incident when at sea in each of the last five years. [4336]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In each of the last five years the number of fatalities occurring at sea were:

  Year

  Number

  1996

  20

  1997

  28

  1998

  25

  1999

  7

  2000

  28

  Fatalities occurring in harbour, or when anchored outside harbour are not included.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what
  17W
  anti-congestion traffic measures, other than increased taxation, are being considered by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [4116]

  Ms Keeble
  We have forecast that, without the 10-year Plan for Transport, congestion will rise by 15 per cent. across the road network as a whole, and by 28 per cent. on the inter-urban trunk road network by the end of 2010.

  With the plan, overall congestion is forecast to fall relative to 2000, as would congestion on the inter-urban trunk roads. Action on relieving congestion will be focused on the most congested parts of the network and therefore much bigger improvements in journey times will be seen in these areas.

  The implementation of the 10-year Plan as a whole rather than traffic measures alone, will deliver the planned reduction in congestion, The targets in the plan to increase passenger rail use by 50 per cent. and rail freight by 80 per cent. will be important contributions, as will better local road maintenance, road improvements, the introduction of better bus and light rail services and better facilities for cyclists and pedestrians.

  Transport (Environmental Damage)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the negative environmental impacts caused from(a) road traffic and (b) aviation; what policies his Department plans to reduce the negative environmental impacts caused from (i) road traffic and (ii) aviation; and if he will make a statement. [4000]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]: Assessing environmental impacts is a well established and long standing practice in this Department and across Government. Our comprehensive policies for reducing environmental impact were set out in our White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport", in 1998. Our 10-year Plan for Transport, published in July 2000, has a number of policies specifically to reduce noise. Progress on specific commitments and announcements of our continuing plans are regularly announced.

  Bexhill Bypass
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the proposed Bexhill Bypass. [4068]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport on 12 July 2001,Official Report, column 635–37W.

  A612 Public Transport Corridor
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the progress made by Nottinghamshire county council regarding their plans for the A612 public transport corridor. [4553]

  Ms Keeble
  I understand that Nottinghamshire county council intends to submit a bid for an A612 public transport scheme to the Department at the end of July. Following receipt a full assessment will be carried out before a decision is announced in December.

  Housing Development (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many new housing developments in Coventry have been on(a) greenfield and (b) brownfield sites in the last four years; and how many are planned in each category in the next three years. [3913]

  Ms Keeble
  Detailed figures are not available centrally. Under best value, Coventry city council are required to report on the percentage of new homes built on previously-developed land. The Audit Commission are currently collecting data from all authorities and the Government expect to be able to publish estimated outturn for 2000–01 shortly.

  Planning Policy Guidance
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the introduction of public policy planning guidance on housing; and what advice has been issued to councils on responding to this guidance. [4311]

  Ms Keeble
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (PPG3) was published in March 2000. Since then, a series of good practice guides has been issued to help local authorities implement its new approach to planning for housing. We expect local authorities to update their development plans to reflect PPG3 and to test planning applications for housing development against the policies it contains.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the definition of previously-developed land in Annexe C of the PPG3 guidance is to be applied uniformly throughout the country. [4418]

  Ms Keeble
  There are various definitions of previously-developed land in use. For the purposes of applying the policies in PPG3 the definition of previously-developed land given in annexe C should be used.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the advice given to councils on withdrawing greenfield sites earmarked for housing development where no planning permission exists and where that withdrawal is in line with PPG3. [4417]

  Ms Keeble
  PPG3 introduces a new approach to planning for housing which, for most authorities, will mean their development plan will require early review and alteration in respect of housing. The most effective way of removing greenfield allocations from a plan that does not reflect the policies in PPG3 is through a formal alteration to the plan.

  Motor Insurance
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total amount collected by the Motor Insurers' Bureau is from motor policies in the latest year for which figures are available. [4074]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Industry estimates suggest that the amount levied from motor insurers last year to pay for the Motor Insurers' Bureau was approximately £200,000,000.
  19W
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average amount is that a motorist pays to the Motor Insurers' Bureau to compensate the victims of uninsured drivers. [4073]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Industry estimates suggest that the honest motorist pays from £15 to £30 extra on his premium to fund compensation of victims of uninsured drivers.

  Workboat Code
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Maritime and Coastguard Agency workboat code was last revised; and what application the Maritime and Coastguard Agency workboat code has to the aquaculture and fishing industries. [3751]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Workboat Code came into force in August 1998 and has not been revised. The code is currently under review as part of a harmonisation project designed to produce a single code of practice for all small commercial vessels. This review is due for completion in March 2002.

  The Workboat Code sets safety standards for vessels undertaking aquaculture (e.g. fish and shellfish farming). It does not apply to vessels engaged in commercial fish catching.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what central monitoring his Department undertakes of value for money obtained in private finance initiative projects; and if he will make a statement. [4461]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The value for money of private finance initiative contracts must be demonstrated against a public sector comparator, representing the costs associated with providing the same service through a conventional procurement, before approval will be given for signature of a contract. The Department ensures that the value for money benefits of a PFI contract are delivered across the life of the contract through appropriate clauses in the payment mechanism. Performance of contracts is monitored against the individual requirements of the payment mechanisms which provide incentives for the delivery of quality services.

  Dredging (Tidal Water)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers(a) he and (b) his agencies have to control maintenance dredging of estuarine channels. [4300]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The general power to control dredging in tidal waters is contained in section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 which requires the Secretary of State's consent to any operation to remove any object or any materials from any part of the seashore lying below the level of mean low water springs. Harbour authorities usually have powers in their local legislation to carry out within their harbour dredging in order to maintain or facilitate navigation and to license others to do so. These 20W
  operations are generally exempted from the requirement for CPA consent. Disposal of the dredged material will require the approval of the Secretary of State if it is placed below the level of high water.

  Wootton Creek and Ryde, Isle of Wight
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers as harbour authority are held(a) by the Queen's Harbour Master and (b) by others in respect of Wootton Creek and Ryde, Isle of Wight. [4297]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department is currently investigating the precise responsibilities, some of which overlap, of the harbour authorities in the area in the light of an application by Wightlink for consent to dredge at the Fishbourne ferry terminal. Although the application, has now been withdrawn I will write to the hon. Member when our investigations are completed.

  Waterways (Freight)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of total UK freight was transported by inland waterway in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c)1999 and (d) 2000. [3749]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The percentage of total domestic UK freight (tonne-kilometres moved) by inland waterway in each year 1997 to 1999 was 0.8 per cent. The percentage for 2000 is not yet available.

TREASURY

  Official Residences
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if refurbishment of official residences is classified as benefits in kind for tax purposes. [4171]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Yes. Where refurbishment to the accommodation consists of repairs, decoration or furniture, tax is charged on the benefit.

  The same rules apply to all office holders or employees.

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his Department's income has been from insurance premium tax on motor policies over the last three years. [4071]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is not available. Customs and Excise do not require insurers to identify the specific types of insurance policies on which insurance premium tax is paid.

  Surveillance and Security Services
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 5 July 2001,Official Report, column 311W, on surveillance and security services, if he will break down the figures provided to distinguish between expenditure on (a) GCHQ, (b) the Security Service and (c) the Secret Intelligence Service; if he

  21W
  will make it his policy to publish the public service agreements relating to each agency; and if he will make a statement. [3662]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  National security considerations preclude publication of this information, although all of it is available to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a list of the programmes for financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 where spending increases in England and Wales have resulted in an allocation under the Barnett formula of additional money to the Scottish block, indicating for each programme listed and in total, the amount allocated under the formula to Scotland in cash and percentage terms, and the equivalent increase in cash and percentage terms for each matching programme in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [3916]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Information on the departmental expenditure limits for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 for Scotland was published in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses in April 2001. Increases in the block grant to the Scottish Executive were published in the Scotland Office estimates for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 (and prior to devolution in Scottish Office Estimates). Details about the Barnett formula were published in the Statement of Funding Policy, which was updated in July 2000.

  European Community Budget
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the Statement on the 2001 Community Budget. [4779]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have today laid before Parliament the Statement on the 2001 Community Budget, entitled "European Community Finances". This White Paper is the twenty-first in the series. As in the past, it covers annual budgetary matters and includes details of recent developments in European Community financial management and in countering fraud against the Community Budget. It also describes the Community Budget for 2001 as adopted by the European Parliament, and the United Kingdom's gross and net contributions to the Community Budget between 1996 and 2001.

  I have placed copies of the White Paper in the Libraries of the House.

  Bribery
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to incorporate into UK law the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions into UK law; and if he will make a statement. [3814]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on 9 July 2001,Official Report, column 407W.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions in the last year his Department has considered bribes paid by UK companies overseas to be(a) a reasonable business cost and (b) a
  22W
  business entertainment, hospitality or gift; what the value of such bribes allowed as a business expense was; what estimate he has made of the total cost of such bribes in this period; and if he will make a statement. [3819]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.

  Public Service Delivery
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the proportion of public services demonstrating an improvement in productivity in each year since March 1999. [3811]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government are on course to meet targeted efficiency improvements covering well over half of public spending (excluding transfers).

  IT Procurement
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations his Department has received from(a) local authorities and (b) Government Departments on the legal status of GCAT and S-CAT; and if he will place copies of such representations in the Library; [3817]

  (2) what legal advice his Department has received on the legal status of GCAT and S-CAT; and if he will place copies of such legal advice in the Library. [3816]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Legal advisers are consulted as necessary on the operation of the schemes. Such legal advice is both confidential to the parties and commercially sensitive. OGC has not received any formal representation from Government Departments or local authorities on the legal status of GCat and S-CAT.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the expected cost is for the next five fiscal years of the changes to the capital gains tax system since 1997; what studies the Treasury has(a) undertaken, (b) reviewed and (c) commissioned on the efficacy of the changes to the capital gains tax system since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [4402]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The available information on the expected cost/yield of capital gains measures introduced since 1997 is published in each "Financial Statement and Budget Report". Further information on the difference in yield between the planned regime and that which would have applied if no changes had been made since 1997 could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  The Government consulted widely on the effectiveness of the reformed capital gains tax system in the light of developing market conditions before making the improvements to taper relief that were implemented in the Finance Acts 2000 and 2001.

  In the June 2001 "Enterprise for All" announcement, the Government said that they would consider whether, during the lifetime of this Parliament, changes to the regime for non-business assets are necessary in order to improve incentives for investment and help businesses attract finance. And they will also consult on whether

  23W
  there are worthwhile and good value for money options to simplify capital gains tax within the existing policy framework.

  Census
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when area—specific information from the census will become available. [3442]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 16 July 2001:

  The National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales has been asked to reply to your recent question asking when area-specific information from the Census will become available (3442). I am replying in his absence.

  Mid-2001 population estimates for local authority areas for England and Wales, based on the 2001 Census, are planned to be published around the end of August 2002.

  More detailed figures from the 2001 Census are planned to be released towards the end of 2002 and during 2003. These will provide information on the full range of topics covered in the census for geographical areas ranging from the output area and ward level up to national level.

  Advizas
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to investigate the role of the Personal Investments Authority in the acquisition of the financial adviser Advizas by Towry Law. [3166]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 11 July 2001]: Under the Financial Services Act 1986, the Personal Investment Authority regulates retail investment firms and the lead regulator, the Financial Services Authority, is responsible for ensuring that the Personal Investment Authority carries out its responsibilities under the Act. Therefore it is a matter for the Financial Services Authority.

  Endowment Policies
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish a list of endowment mortgage providers, indicating(a) how many shortfalls are associated with each company and (b) the value of orphan assets held by each company; [3720]

  Deregistered industrial and provident societies

  Reason for deregistration

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  Unclassified

  6

  8

  43

  24

  7

  Cancellation

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Transfer of engagements to another society

  30

  49

  26

  24

  7

  Final notification of liquidation

  22

  68

  67

  32

  2

  Cancellation of the registration initiated by the Registry

  58

  133

  802

  110

  25

  Liquidator appointed

  4

  3

  10

  7

  2

  Instrument of Dissolution

  0

  1

  8

  16

  3

  Multiple cancellation of the registration initiated by the Registry

  0

  0

  0

  386

  0

  Winding Up

  1

  4

  15

  11

  0

  Request to cancel from the society

  70

  87

  74

  78

  25

  24W
  (2) if he will encourage the Financial Services Authority to publish an analysis of the performance of each company endowment policy using real charges to help consumers identify the degree of risk in each company. [3718]

  Ruth Kelly
  The FSA does not collect performance information direct from firms, but the Association of British Insurers collects data from its members on the proportion and numbers of letters in each of the red, amber and green, categories and passes this on to the FSA. However, the FSA is subject to constraints under Section 179 of the Financial Services Act 1986 on publication of firm data, even if it owns it.

  In any case, the performance of individual company endowment policies is not an indication of mis-selling. Consumers should focus on what they are being told by their endowment provider and the information sent by, and available from, the FSA, and take a view and appropriate action if they believe the policy has been mis-sold. If compensation is due to consumers, the size of orphan assets is irrelevant.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ask the Financial Services Authority to ensure that the cost of compensation paid to those who were mis-sold endowment mortgage policies is borne by the companies' shareholders. [3719]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's view is that, in principle, the costs of compensating victims of any endowment mis-selling should be shared and borne in the same proportion as profits arising from mis-selling would have been.

  Efficiency Measures
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures the Treasury has developed of improvements in efficiency in delivering the Treasury's outputs; and if he will make a statement on progress in achieving these measures. [3812]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him on 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 117W.

  Industrial and Provident Societies
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those industrial and provident societies which have deregistered for each of the last five years along with the reasons given for their deregistration. [3726]

  Ruth Kelly
  The table provides details of industrial and provident societies which have deregistered each year since 1997 including the reason for their deregistration.
  25W

  Deregistered industrial and provident societies

  Reason for deregistration

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  Conversion to a limited company

  14

  9

  10

  8

  8

  Final winding up

  0

  1

  5

  9

  0

  Transfer to a company

  5

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Total

  211

  364

  1,062

  708

  82

  Grand Total

  2,427

  1 Deregistrations up to June 2001

  European Single Currency
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer further to his answer of 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 126W, if he will list those present at each meeting of the cross-party advisory group on preparations for the euro since January 2000; if he will provide a summary of discussions held at such meetings; if he will publish a list of the current membership of the advisory group; and if he will make a statement. [3703]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer to which he referred.

  Equitable Life
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Croydon, South of 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 126W, on the Financial Services Authority inquiry, when he estimates the report will be completed. [4407]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) on 13 July 2001,Official Report, column 663W.

  National Asset Register
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to publish an updated National Asset Register; and if he will make a statement. [4627]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Shortly.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Clergy Stipends and Pensions
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what contribution the Church Commissioners made to clergy stipends and pensions in the last financial year. [2461]

  Mr. Bell
  In the year ended 31 December 2000 the Commissioners contributed £22.4 million to the stipends of parish clergy, distributed mostly to the neediest dioceses, plus bishops and cathedral clergy stipends of £6.7 million.

  The Commissioners paid £90.6 million for clergy pensions and a further £11.7 million to help offset the cost of contributions payable under the new pensions scheme funded by dioceses.

  Redundant Churches
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners,26W
  if he will make a statement on the powers of the Church Commissioners to set conditions on those who purchase redundant churches. [2462]

  Mr. Bell
  Section 62 of the Pastoral Measures provides that the Commissioners may include in the conveyance of a redundant church such covenants as they think necessary to secure the suitable use of the building.

  These covenants are enforceable as if the Commissioners were owners of adjacent land and cannot be set aside by the Lands Tribunal.

  Property Portfolio
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, when the Commissioners last reviewed their property portfolio; and if he will make a statement. [2463]

  Mr. Bell
  The Church Commissioners' property portfolios are each subject to annual professional external and independent valuations. Those property holdings cover three main investment portfolios: commercial, agricultural and minerals, and residential.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Belize
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if the two public investment companies have(a) requested and (b) been sent copies of the report arising from the study commissioned from KPMG by her Department into regulation of offshore financial services in Belize. [3835]

  Hilary Benn
  Neither company has requested nor been sent copies of the report.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what dates KPMG visited Belize while conducting the study commissioned by her Department into the regulation of offshore financial services in Belize. [3821]

  Hilary Benn
  18 July to 1 August 2000.

  Mozambique
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to support the teaching of English in Mozambique. [3573]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID currently supports the advancement of English language teaching in three key areas:
  27W

  1. The development of English language teacher training through distance learning. This programme, which is currently run by the British Council but which will transfer to a Mozambican institution next month, is aimed at secondary school teachers and has cost £3 million over a five-year period.

  2. The establishment of a new Directorate within the Ministry of Education, the main goal of which will be to facilitate the expansion of distance learning in key areas (such as, inter alia, continuing education and training in the Civil Service, including the English language).

  3. The formation of a pilot secondary school distance learning programme for students unable to access conventional secondary schools, which began this year in Nampula Province, with three core subjects, one of which is English.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  School Exclusions
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to what extent, and according to what time scale, school budgets are reduced following the exclusion of pupils from schools. [3644]

  Mr. Timms
  We have significantly increased the standards fund grant available to schools and local education authorities to tackle poor behaviour and provide education to excluded pupils, from £17 million in 1996–97 to £131 million in 2000–01 and again to £174 million this year—a 10-fold increase. Before April 2000, most of this money was held centrally by local authorities to support authority-wide initiatives to tackle poor behaviour and provide education to excluded pupils. For the first time in April 2000 the majority of this funding was devolved directly to schools so that they could decide how best to tackle poor behaviour. Schools have, therefore, benefited by an additional £100 million in 2000–01 and £126 million this year. Where a child has to be permanently excluded some of the money previously held by local authorities, which is now in schools, reverts back to the local authority. The exact amount of between £3,000 and £6,000 is agreed locally. This money can be used by the authority to provide education outside school or to support a reintegration package at a new school. By September 2002, all permanently excluded pupils must be offered full-time education and not the 2–3 hours per week all too typical in the past.

  Schools delegated budget shares are also reduced following permanent exclusion under the principles introduced by the last Government. I have placed in the Library a copy of "Supplement to Circular 11/99" which explains this in more detail.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school decisions to exclude pupils were reversed by local education authorities in the last year for which figures are available. [3642]

  Mr. Timms
  Appeals against permanent exclusions from maintained schools are heard by independent appeal panels established by local education authorities. Figures published on 4 May show that in the school year 1999–2000, 948 appeals were lodged by parents. Of these, 863 were determined, 546 were rejected and 317 were allowed.

  28W
  Provisional information on exclusions was published in the statistical first release "Permanent Exclusions from Schools and Exclusion Appeals, England 1999/00" on 4 May 2001, copies of which are available from the Library, or alternatively can be accessed from the Department for Education and Skills statistical website www.dfes.gsi.gov.uk/statistics. Final exclusion figures will be published in a statistical first release on 19 July 2001.

  Standards and Effectiveness Unit
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people are employed by the standards and effectiveness unit; and what its budget was for each year since 1997. [3122]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: The SEU is responsible for taking forward key parts of the Government's agenda for raising standards in schools. Created in 1997, the unit's remit has expanded with the development of new policies. The unit has led on strategies for literacy and numeracy, for intervention in failing schools and LEAs, and for key stage 3. It is also responsible for new policies such as city academies, excellence in cities, education action zones and beacon schools. It has taken on responsibility for specialist schools and city technology colleges, and more recently, for dealings with local education authorities on a day-to-day basis across a wide range of the Department's business.

  The unit is staffed with a mix of civil servants, and education advisers appointed from outside with recent experience of education.

  At the end of May 2001, the total number of staff in the unit was 275. The running cost budget for the unit for each year since 1997 was as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98

  2.4

  1998–99

  4.8

  1999–2000

  6.4

  2000–01

  8.1

  2001–02

  10.6

  Fast Track Teacher Scheme
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many places have been accepted on the fast track teacher scheme; and how many of these teachers on the fast track scheme will be employed in(a) specialist schools, (b) city academies, (c) city technology colleges, (d) beacon schools, (e) grammar schools and (f) other maintained schools. [3360]

  Mr. Timms
  The total number of fast track places offered now stands at 135. Candidates are currently in the process of responding to these offers. Successful candidates will begin a year of high quality initial teacher training this autumn, and take up posts in schools in September 2002. All categories of school will be encouraged to identify how they could best use a fast track teacher.

  Teaching Staff (Harrow)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) teaching staff and (b) teaching assistants were employed in Harrow schools in each of the last five years. [3132]

  Mr. Timms
  The full-time equivalents of regular teachers (excluding short-term supply) and teaching assistants employed in the maintained schools sector in Harrow local authority are as follows:

  January

  Regular teachers

  Teaching assistants

  Total

  1996

  1,590

  240

  1,830

  1997

  1,580

  270

  1,850

  1998

  1,500

  270

  1,770

  1999

  1,490

  290

  1,780

  2000

  1,380

  300

  1,690

  20011

  1,490

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Provisional

  Note:

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

  n/a = 2001 data for teaching assistants are not yet available at individual local authority level.

  Specialist Schools
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many specialist schools there are in England; how many are in areas within the worst 20 per cent. of wards in England according to the DETR's index of deprivation; and what specialisms have been chosen by the schools which are situated in such areas of deprivation. [3491]

  Mr. Timms
  From September 2001, there will be 685 specialist schools of which 181 schools (26 per cent.) are in the most disadvantaged 20 per cent. of wards in England, based on the Government's index of deprivation. This comprises 100 technology, 33 sports, 25 arts and 23 language colleges.

  Teachers (Early Leavers)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the reasons for teachers leaving the teaching profession. [3645]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department has not commissioned any such research to date. A research project on this topic has, however, been included in the Department's research programme for the current year.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if it is her policy that the maximum increase in student tuition fees in(a) 2002–03, (b) 2003–04 and (c) 2004–05 will he equivalent to the rate of inflation. [3859]

  Margaret Hodge
  The level of student fee contributions at publicly funded institutions for those years will be decided in due course.

  "Schools—Building on Success"
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answers of 9 July 2001,Official Report, column 389W, on "Schools—Building on Success" if she will list the organisations with which officials have held meetings to discuss the Green Paper "Schools—Building on Success". [4365]

  Mr. Timms
  Officials have held meetings to discuss the Green Paper "Schools—Building on Success" with the following organisations:

  National Governors' Council

  National Association of Governors and Managers

  Information for School and College Governors

  Catholic Education Service

  Methodist Church (also Free Church Council)

  Board of Deputies of British Jews

  Association of Muslim Schools

  Al Furqan School and Association of Muslim Schools

  Network of Sikh Organisations

  Seventh Day Adventist Church

  Greek Orthodox Church

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

  Local Government Association

  Association of Chief Education Officers/Society of Education Officers

  National Union of Teachers

  Secondary Heads Association

  Professional Association of Teachers

  National Association of Headteachers

  Association of Teachers and Lecturers

  National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers.

  Teacher Training (Eastern Region)
  Mr. Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of the Teacher Training Agency's budget was spent in(a) the eastern region and (b) Bedfordshire in the last financial year. [4715]

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

  Education Reform White Paper
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will publish the White Paper on Education Reform. [4778]

  Estelle Morris
  The Government will issue a White Paper on education reform in early September 2001.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Communications Data Protection Directive
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's policy (1) on the change in wording in recital 10 of the revised telecommunications data protection directive (com2000/189); and if she will set out the reasons underlying the case for this recital; [3234]

  31W
  (2) in respect of the introduction of mandatory data retention on communications service providers. [3239]

  Mr. Alexander
  At the Telecommunications Council on 27 June, member states and the Commission agreed to clarify that the proposed Communications data protection directive should not alter the existing balance between individual rights to privacy and the possibility for member states to take measures necessary for law enforcement. Recital 10 of the proposed directive now makes it clear that member states will be able, but will not be required, to introduce data retention requirements provided that these are proportionate and in accordance with the general principles of Community law. The position will therefore be essentially the same as it is under the existing telecommunications data protection directive.

  The UK Government welcome this outcome, although there are no plans to introduce legislation mandating the retention of communications data here. Such a move could be considered only in the context of detailed consultation with all relevant law enforcement, industry and civil liberties interests.

  Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if it is the policy of her Department that United Kingdom manufacturers should have legal liability for the disposal of waste electrical and electronic equipment which was(a) manufactured outside the United Kingdom and (b) manufactured by companies which have ceased trading; [3900]

  (2) what regulatory impact assessment (a) has been carried out and (b) will be carried out into the proposed EU directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment; [3909]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the impact of the proposed waste electrical and electronic equipment directive upon (a) the retail price of electrical and electronic goods and (b) the competitiveness of United Kingdom manufacturers of such goods; [3910]

  (4) what assessment her Department has made of the impact upon UK manufacturers of electrical and electronic equipment of the requirement in the draft waste electrical and electronic equipment directive that they should be responsible for products sold before adoption of the directive and for products the manufacturer of which has ceased trading; [3901]

  (5) what her Department's policy is on the proposed EU waste electrical and electronic equipment directive; and if she will make a statement. [3908]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government support the common position text of the draft waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) directive agreed at the Environment Council of Ministers meeting of 7 June 2001.

  The directive will help to provide a common framework for all member states in an area where some individual member states had already started to adopt national legislation. The effect on retail price and competitiveness of UK manufacturers will partly depend on the domestic implementation option adopted. The Government will seek to achieve the environmental
  32W
  objectives while minimising the cost burden placed on business through the implementing of legislation, alongside the maintenance of a level playing field.

  The common position text would require "producers" to provide for the financing of the environmentally sound treatment, recycling and disposal of WEEE. This definition of "producer" goes wider than manufacturers. For the majority of goods manufactured outside the United Kingdom it will be the professional importer who will bear the responsibilities of "producer".

  The financing method for the management of WEEE arising from "producers" who have ceased trading will be dependent upon the United Kingdom implementing regulations. The common position text would require producers to provide for this financing either when electrical/electronic goods are placed on the market or when arising as waste. The detail of these cannot be agreed until the directive is adopted and published in the Official Journal of the European Community.

  For all goods placed on the market before adoption of the directive (historic WEEE), irrespective of whether the manufacturer is still trading or not, the common position text would require all existing producers to provide the financing on a proportionate basis.

  Initial regulatory impact assessments (RIA) have been placed in the Library of the House of Commons. There will be a further update when the formal common position text is submitted to the House following the Commission's juriste/linguiste procedure.

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the burden of European Union producer responsibility legislation upon the United Kingdom manufacturing industry; and if she will make a statement. [3911]

  Mr. Wilson
  The concept of producer responsibility for waste is central to the EC directive on end-of-life vehicles (2000/53/EC) and the proposed EC directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (COM (2000) 347 final). The implications for manufacturing industry of both these directives formed part of the regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) which the Department carried out to inform the UK's negotiating position. RIA assessments will continue to inform our consideration of the options for implementation. Copies of all RIAs have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Industrial Diseases (Compensation)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the compensation payments for respiratory diseases and vibration white finger made to recipients in(a) the Cynon Valley and (b) the rest of Wales. [3229]

  Mr. Wilson
  With regard to respiratory disease, IRISC have made 146 final and 919 interim payments amounting to £4.45 million in the constituency of Cynon Valley, as defined by the postcodes with prefixes CF 37, 44 and 45. In the whole of Wales, 1,237 final and 8,146 interim payments have been made, totalling £38.7 million.

  33W
  In relation to vibration white finger, VWF, IRISC have made 292 final and 366 interim payments amounting to £4 million in the constituency of Cynon Valley. In the whole of Wales, 4,482 final and 3,353 interim payments have been made, totalling £36.8 million.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the legal costs to date are in respect of the claims for(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger; and what the expected future costs are. [2775]

  Mr. Wilson
  Since the Department assumed liability for British Coal's coal health liabilities in 1998, the Department has paid £40.6 million to the plaintiffs legal representatives with respect to respiratory disease. In relation to vibration white finger, VWF, these costs to date have been £32.5 million. Both figures exclude trial costs.

  So far, the Department has registered over 153,200 claims and 123,705 for respiratory disease and VWF respectively. Approximately 1,300 new claims continue to be registered each week and it is difficult to estimate the eventual total number of claims and the relevant costs. At the present rate, the Department estimates that future costs of the plaintiffs' legal representatives will be £330.3 million and £92.6 million for respiratory disease and VWF respectively.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the cost of claims settled in respect of(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger; and what the anticipated cost is of all outstanding claims. [2774]

  Mr. Wilson
  Since the Department assumed liability for British Coal's coal health liabilities in 1998, the Department has paid £247.4 million in respect of respiratory disease for damages, costs to plaintiffs and their legal representatives, medical costs and compensation recovery to the Department for Work and Pensions. These costs for vibration white finger, VWF, amount to £359.8 million.

  The Department has received over 153,000 claims and 123,700 claims for respiratory disease and VWF respectively. Approximately 1,300 new claims continue to be registered each week and it is difficult to estimate the total number of claims and the relevant costs. At the present rate, the Department estimates that the cost of settling outstanding claims as defined above will be around £2.1 billion and £1.9 billion for respiratory disease and VWF respectively. These are in addition to the above amount already spent.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evaluation she has made into the claims handling procedures provided by Hays in respect of vibration white finger; what percentage of employment histories are provided within 56 days; and how many have been outstanding for more than(a) six months, (b) nine months and (c) 12 months. [3657]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 July 2001]: British Coal employment records are stored on antiquated microfiche and paper systems. Photocopying them proved very difficult. The Department therefore set up a major project with Hays which involves the scanning of claimants' records. There were some teething problems
  34W
  with this, particularly concerns about image quality of the CDs. These have now been resolved and Hays are producing approximately 5,000 record packs, on CD, each week of which 2,500 are for VWF claims.

  There was a backlog of employment record requests before the scanning project got up to speed but this has now been worked through and Hays are currently supplying to IRISC, the Department's claims handling agent, full record packs for individual claimants in approximately two to three weeks. Upon receipt of the records pack IRISC have 40 days to confirm a claimant's occupation, providing the claimant's solicitors has provided a correctly completed claims questionnaire.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 5 July 2001,Official Report, column 267W, on miners' compensation, what the average duration is between a medical assessment for former miners with (a) vibration white finger and (b) respiratory diseases, and the point at which IRISC are in possession of necessary documents to establish viability and level of compensation claims. [3725]

  Mr. Wilson
  On vibration white finger, SEMA, the company contracted to deliver the medical assessments, return 95 per cent. of medical reports to IRISC within five days of the claimant having his appointment. Once the report is received, IRISC can assess the validity of the claim and the level of compensation.

  On respiratory disease, there are two processes to be completed between a medical assessment and IRISC being able to value the claim. First, IRISC need to evaluate the medical report and secondly, the miner's employment history needs to be agreed.

  Healthcall, the company contracted to deliver the medical assessments, are now returning reports, on average, within a month. There was a backlog here but this has recently been sorted out.

  The employment history can be agreed before medical assessment, but where this is not possible, agreement has to be reached after the medical report has been received before a claim can be validated.

  The employment history details the collieries and jobs that a miner worked in. It is established using any available work records and the statements from the claimant. The time taken to agree these histories with solicitors varies widely from case to case and an average timescale is not available.

  Oldbury Nuclear Power Station
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the anticipated lifetime is of Oldbury nuclear power station; and what the anticipated peak weight loss is of graphite in major locations in the reactor core at Oldbury by the time it reaches its planned lifetime. [3009]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: I understand that the anticipated operational lifetime of Oldbury nuclear power station is 40 years, i.e. until 2008. However, this is subject to BNFL maintaining the high safety standards at Oldbury required by the HSE's nuclear installations inspectorate and to any operational review by BNFL.

  35W
  I am awaiting advice on the technically complex issue of graphite weight loss. I will write to my hon. Friend on this in due course.

  Post Office
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the average annual closure rate of sub-post offices(a) in 1997 to 2001 and (b) between 1979 and 1997. [292]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: Taking into account conversions of Crown offices to agency offices, which are then classified as sub-post offices, the net annual average rate of sub-post office closures from March 1979 to March 1997 was 196, and from March 1997 to March 2001 it was 351.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library the guidance, regulations and circulars relating to the levels of service which the Post Office must maintain in rural areas. [2742]

  Mr. Alexander
  Copies of the licence granted to Consignia plc on 23 March 2001 by the Postal Services Commission (Postcomm) by virtue of section 11 of the Postal Services Act 2000 were placed in the Library of the House in April. Section 4 of the Postal Services Act 2000 lays down the statutory minimum service which must be provided for the universal postal service in the United Kingdom.

  I am placing in the Library of the House copies of Postcomm's direction designating exceptional conditions and circumstances (relating to the universal postal service) under condition 1 of Consignia plc's licence.

  Employment Agencies
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what means recruitment companies will be advised of proposed changes to regulations relating to the industry to be introduced in the next five years. [2861]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 11 July 2001]: The Department makes information on changes to regulations available on its website, www.dti.gov.uk, and is also in regular contact with the main recruitment industry bodies.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of the impact on smaller recruitment companies of the proposed new regulations contained in the draft Employment Agencies Bill; [2859]

  (2) what steps she is taking to ensure that smaller private recruitment companies are not financially disadvantaged by the proposals in the temporary agency work directives. [2856]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 11 July 2001]: A regulatory impact assessment on the proposed new employment agency regulations has been produced and published on my Department's website. This considers the impact on small firms, and concludes that the proposed changes affect small and large firms equally.

  A draft European directive on temporary agency work is expected to be issued by the European Commission in the autumn. The Government will work to ensure that any
  36W
  such proposal supports the promotion of employment and does not reduce labour market flexibility or restrict the activities of recruitment companies whatever their size.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the definition of quarantine period is in the draft Employment Agencies Bill regulations; and if she will set out the reasons for proposing this measure. [2857]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 11 July 2001]: "Quarantine period" is a term used (though not in the regulations themselves) to describe the period following the ending of a hiring during which conditions (such as payment of a transfer fee) may be imposed when a temporary worker takes up permanent employment with the hirer or some other person. Under the current draft regulations, this period is 14 weeks from the start of the hire or eight weeks from the end, whichever is the later, where permanent employment is taken up with the hirer. Where the worker takes up work with another person (including another agency) the period is four weeks from the end of the hire. The Government believe that onerous restrictions on transfers, such as high transfer fees, restrict labour market flexibility and competition, and act as a disincentive to workers taking up permanent employment. The use of a "quarantine period" was suggested by the recruitment industry, as an alternative to restrictions on transfer fees as such.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to reintroduce licensing and the monitoring of the work of private recruitment agencies; and if she will make a statement. [2860]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 11 July 2001]: The Government have no plans to reintroduce licensing of recruitment agencies. They are monitored by my Department's employment agency standards inspectorate, which receives approximately 12,000 calls a year, and carries out full investigations in 1,200 cases. This ensures that resources are targeted on the relatively small number of agencies who break the rules or exploit clients or workers.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the prospects for small private recruitment companies over the next five years. [2858]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 11 July 2001]: The recruitment industry—a large part of which consists of small companies—is an important and successful part of the labour market, as shown by recent growth in turnover of 28 per cent. a year, and we expect it to continue to thrive.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list, by source, the targets for renewable energy by(a) 2003, (b) 2005 and (c) 2010; and if she will make a statement. [2517]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government have proposed targets of obtaining 5 per cent. of our electricity from renewable sources by 2003 and 10 per cent. by 2010, subject to the cost to consumers being acceptable. No target has been set for 2005.

  37W
  We are very reliant on the old support mechanism, the non-fossil fuel obligation, for the deployment of renewables up to 2003. The new renewables obligation will be the main driver towards achieving our 2010 target.

  The renewables obligation is a market-led approach and we will not be specifying percentage targets to be achieved by particular renewable energy technologies. By 2010, however, we envisage strong contributions from offshore wind and energy crops as well as from more established technologies.

  Trawlermen (Compensation)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications there have been for compensation from former Icelandic waters trawlermen which have been(a) successful, (b) unsuccessful, (c) put on hold and (d) which are pending a decision for each region and nation of the UK. [3902]

  Nigel Griffiths
  At 6 July 2001, 1,710 claims made under the compensation scheme had received payments. Some 3,344 claims had been assessed as unsuccessful, 905 were on hold pending consideration of representations that there should be changes in the rules for those who continued fishing on former Icelandic water trawlers after 1979 and work was in progress on a further 2,016 claims. The following table gives a breakdown of successful claims by area. There are no corresponding figures for unsuccessful and other claims.

  Area

  Number of successful claims

  Hull

  848

  Grimsby

  206

  Fleetwood

  174

  Blackpool

  27

  Cleethorpes

  53

  Newcastle

  151

  West Yorkshire

  86

  Aberdeen

  19

  All others

  146

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from fishermen from the north and north-east of Scotland about compensation awards made to former Icelandic waters trawlermen from Scotland. [3903]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have received numerous pieces of correspondence from former fishermen from the north and north-east of Scotland in connection with claims under the Government's compensation scheme for former Icelandic water trawlermen.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the appeals procedure is for former Icelandic waters trawlermen who have their requests for compensation rejected; and what the success rate is for such appeals for each nation and region of the UK. [3907]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Any former trawlerman whose claim is either rejected, or who considers that the amount of compensation received is incorrect, can apply, in the first instance, to the assistant director of the employment relations directorate responsible for the operation of the 38W
  scheme for a review of the decision. If he is still not satisfied with the outcome, he can appeal to the independent adjudicator appointed for the scheme.

  Ten appeals have been submitted to the independent adjudicator so far. One has been upheld, four disallowed and five are still under consideration. All are from the north-east. None of the appeals dealt with so far by the independent adjudicator has been from Scotland or Wales.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what estimate she has made of the number of former Icelandic waters trawlermen who are eligible for compensation but who have not yet applied from each region and nation of the UK; [3904]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the geographical distribution of applications from former Icelandic waters trawlermen; and what steps she will take to encourage applications from all parts of the UK. [3905]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The compensation scheme for former Icelandic water trawlermen has been well publicised in the main port areas throughout the United Kingdom through the port MPs and the British fishermen's associations. Payments under the scheme are available by area, but there is no similar analysis of all applications.

  As a result of the widespread publicity, I believe that most former trawlermen who are eligible for compensation under the scheme have already submitted claims. Applications can be submitted until 1 October 2002.

  Irish Sea (Pollution)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the pollution incidents involving discharges above 0.01 tonnes in the Irish Sea since 9 January to the present. indicating the date, size of incident, name of company reporting the spill and the name of the company responsible in each case. [2923]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: The information relating to oil spill incidents in the Irish sea basin, reported to the Department of Trade and Industry, from 9 January 2001 to the present date is as follows:
  Date: 4 February 2001
  Amount (tonnes): 0.1
  Reported by: BHP
  Company responsible: BHP.
  DTI only receives reports for oil spills reported from or attributed to offshore installations.

  Information Technology Industry
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what measures her Department has taken to ensure that United States law does not affect trade in software in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement; [3712]

  (2) what action she has taken in respect of the impact of US legislation on trade in information technology on the UK; and if she will make a statement; [3742]

  (3) what complaints relating to breaches of (a) UK law and (b) international law in the field of information technology her Department has received in the past year; and if she will make a statement; [3710]

  39W
  (4) what notice has been given to her Department in the last six months of breaches of UK law relating to the information technology industry; and if she will make a statement on her policy on this subject. [3426]

  Mr. Alexander
  My Department is responsible for a wide range of areas on information technology. I would ask the hon. Member to write to me indicating his specific areas of concern.

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made with the inquiry into non-domestic gas prices. [1950]

  Mr. Wilson
  There has been no formal inquiry into gas prices. However, a key part of the Government's strategy to address the problem of high gas prices is to take action against any anti-competitive behaviour. At the Government's request, the EU Commission is conducting an inquiry into the operation of the UK-Belgium interconnector.

  Meanwhile, DTI, Ofgem and OFT continue to monitor the market closely. Ofgem and OFT have strong powers under the Competition Act 1998 to act against anticompetitive behaviour if necessary.

  Innovation
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives she intends to take to support innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises. [3945]

  Nigel Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 13 June a review of all DTI business support schemes, and I cannot pre-empt the results of that review.

  In the meantime—through its agency, the Small Business Service—the DTI is continuing to support innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with schemes such as Smart and TCS. Smart helps SMEs fund research and development into innovative products and processes, or buy external consultancy to improve their use and exploitation of technology, while TCS helps businesses access the knowledge and expertise available in universities, higher education institutions and research organisations.

  The DTI also worked with the Treasury on the introduction last year of the research and development tax credit for SMEs, to help meet the costs of developing innovations.

  Export Licences (Israel)
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 88W, on export licences (Israel), what was the nature of the end use restrictions of the two SIELs granted between 1 January and 31 May. [2835]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Licences for items rated "End-use" do not usually have provisos or restrictions placed on them other than the standard conditions. I can confirm that there were no additional restrictions placed on these two licences. The rating "End Use" covers items that do not normally require an export licence but are subject to control because the exporter has been told or knows or 40W
  suspects that the items would or might be used in activities connected with weapons of mass destruction or missiles for their delivery. This is a dual-use rating under Council regulation (EC) No. 1334/2000.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will revise estimates of emissions of carbon dioxide from the electricity sector to take account of changes(a) in operational management of centralised power stations and (b) since the start of the New Electricity Trading Arrangements; and if she will make a statement. [3740]

  Mr. Wilson
  Actual CO2 emissions from the electricity generation sector since the start of the new electricity trading arrangements (NETA) are not yet available. Government projections of emissions were last published in November 2000 as energy paper 681. These are long-term projections, which we see no reason to revise at this stage. We do not, as yet, have sufficient information (including the generation fuel mix) to assess any resulting changes in the electricity sector. In any event, we are still in the early days of NETA and generator behaviour in response to the new arrangements is unlikely to have settled down. There have been particular issues regarding the impact of NETA on renewables and CHP, on which Ofgem will shortly be publishing a report.

  1 Energy Projections for the UK, 2000–20. Energy Paper 68. Published November 2000.

  Wind Farms
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Defence about the development of wind farms within the operational low flying tactical training areas; and if she will make a statement. [3416]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 July 2001]: Ministers in the two Departments discussed the issue of wind farms in May and this has been followed by meetings with officials. Both Departments are working closely together to co-ordinate policy so that we can successfully balance our efforts to address the needs of renewable energy, while ensuring that defence concerns are properly taken into account.

  NIREX
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the findings of the internal investigation by NIREX into allegations of mismanagement. [4060]

  Mr. Wilson
  I welcome the commendable efforts which NIREX has made to address the criticisms levelled against it, and its intention to adopt more positive policies in the future. This investigation is an important part of those efforts and I have placed a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Unlicensed Broadcasting
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints her Department has received about unlicensed broadcasting stations in each of the last five years. [3475]
  41W
  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 12 July 2001]: The Radiocommunications Agency has no centrally held figures for 1996, 1997 and the first quarter of 1998. On 1 April 1998, the agency's pirate radio reporting point started recording specific complaints about pirate radio interference in keeping with the provisions of the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act 1996. The figures for 1 April to 31 December 1998 and 1999–2000 are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1998

  83

  1999

  150

  2000

  187

  The number of complaints received in 2001 stands at 148 as at 13 July.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of unlicensed broadcasting stations operating in the United Kingdom. [3474]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 12 July 2001]: The Radiocommunications Agency, which is responsible for taking action against pirate radio stations, undertook operations against 231 identified stations in 2000.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many seizures of equipment from the Voice of Africa pirate radio station have been made. [3476]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 12 July 2001]: Radiocommunications Agency staff undertook 13 operations against the Voice of Africa in 2000 and six so far this year, with equipment seized on each occasion.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the deterrent effect of penalties available for unlicensed broadcasting. [3478]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 12 July 2001]: The maximum penalties on indictment for unlicensed broadcasting under section 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 are up to two years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. The actual penalties are for the courts to determine.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many convictions of unlicensed broadcasting stations under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 have been obtained in each of the last five years. [3481]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 12 July 2001]: The number of convictions secured by the Radiocommunications Agency against persons for unlicensed broadcasting in the last five years is:

  Year

  Number

  1996

  28

  1997

  41

  1998

  53

  1999

  47

  2000

  41

  42W
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many prosecutions have been undertaken against unlicensed broadcasting stations in each of the last five years. [3482]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 12 July 2001]: The number of prosecutions undertaken by the Radiocommunications Agency against persons for unlicensed broadcasting in the last five years is:

  Year

  Number

  1996

  28

  1997

  41

  1998

  53

  1999

  47

  2000

  41

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints her Department has received about unlicensed broadcasting by Voice of Africa. [3479]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 12 July 2001]: The Radiocommunications Agency has received four complaints addressed to headquarters and one to its London regional office about interference caused by Voice of Africa. All the complaints have been by an authorised broadcaster.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many seizures of equipment from unlicensed broadcasters have taken place in each of the last five years. [3477]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 12 July 2001]: The number of equipment seizures by Radiocommunications Agency staff from pirate broadcasters in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1996

  842

  1997

  820

  1998

  928

  1999

  1,414

  2000

  1,494

  The figure for seizures of equipment in 2001 stands at 801 as at 29 June.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been(a) the maximum and (b) the average fine imposed by the courts for unlicensed broadcasting in breach of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 over the last five years. [3480]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 12 July 2001]: The information is as follows:

  Year

  £ maximum

  Average

  1996

  400

  350

  1997

  500

  272

  1998

  750

  452

  1999

  500

  193

  2000

  1,400

  317

  43W
  In addition to fines, the courts have also awarded periods of community service and terms of imprisonment to those convicted of unlicensed broadcasting.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Knowledge Network
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps were taken to ensure that the information collected under the Knowledge Network Project was not used for party political campaigning in the 2001 general election; and if he will make a statement. [4309]

  Mr. Leslie
  Access to Knowledge Network by Ministers and special advisers was suspended during the general election period. Full written guidance was circulated to all Departments to ensure that the system could not be misused for party political purposes. All Departments implemented this guidance and a copy was placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will(a) list by subject the statistics that have been collected for the first time at constituency level under the Knowledge Network Project, stating in each case the date on which the first in the series was completed and (b) place a copy of the most recent of each set of statistics listed in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [4370]

  Mr. Leslie
  No statistics have been collected for the first time at constituency level specifically for the Knowledge Network Project. All statistics used have been taken from existing publicly available Government sources, with collation at the existing operational level.

WALES

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the size of the Welsh manufacturing work force employed by foreign investors who have chosen Wales(a) as a centre for operations in the single market and (b) for other reasons. [4302]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In 1997, the most recent year for which figures are available, employment in private sector enterprises of foreign nationality in Wales, classified as "manufacturing" was 53,100. No breakdown is available of the reasons for locating these jobs in Wales. However, several companies have publicly cited the quality of the Welsh work force, their reliability and eagerness to develop new skills, as important considerations.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Western Sahara
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recommendations that United Nations Special Envoy James Baker has recently made regarding the future of western Sahara. [2714]
  44W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  We supported UN Security Council Resolution 1359 which was passed unanimously on 29 June 2001 and which extended the mandate of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) until 30 November 2001. This resolution reiterated full support for the ongoing efforts of MINURSO to implement the Settlement Plan and agreements by the parties to hold a free, fair and impartial referendum for the self-determination of the people of the western Sahara. It also reaffirmed our commitment to achieve a just and lasting solution to the question of western Sahara. We fully support the efforts of the UN Secretary-General to invite all the parties to meet directly or through proximity talks, under the auspices of his Personal Envoy James Baker, to discuss the draft Framework Agreement and to negotiate any specific changes they would like to see in this proposal, as well as to discuss any other proposal for a political solution, to arrive at a mutually acceptable agreement.

  China
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the factors underlying China's increased defence spending. [2922]

  Mr. MacShane
  On 6 March, China announced a 17.7 per cent. increase in defence spending, bringing the total to US$17.07 billion. Two reasons were given: the need to improve pay and conditions, and the need to strengthen high technology capabilities. Chinese official figures give little indication of total military spending, though we estimate that spending remains low as a percentage of GDP. China is committed to military modernisation, but economic development remains the overriding national priority.

  European Court of Human Rights
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the case load of the European Court of Human Rights, including registered applications; what was the average time between a case being referred to the European Court of Human Rights and judgment in the last three years; what monetary contribution the UK Government make towards the expenditure of the European Court of Human Rights; and whether the budgeting expenditure for the European Court of Human Rights is sufficient to enable the Court to determine cases within the two year time limit set down by the Court. [3228]

  Mr. MacShane
  Figures provided by the Court's Registry indicate that the case load is 17,329 as of March 2001 and the average time between referral of a case and judgment is approximately three years. The Court aspires to reduce this to two years, but the set limit remains three years. This limit has been exceeded in about one third of the applications pending. The Court's budget is an integral pant of the Council of Europe budget, of which the UK share is 12.7 per cent. In 2001, some £2 million of the UK total contribution went to the Court. HMG are actively supporting the work of the Evaluation Group which has been established to consider all potential means to guarantee the Court's continued effectiveness in the face of rapid growth in the number of applications to it. The
  45W
  Group's recommendations, due in September, are likely to include proposals requiring an increase in the Court's budget.

  Loizidou Case
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take to ensure compliance by Turkey with its obligations in the Loizidou case following the resolution of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers of 26 June. [R] [2981]

  Peter Hain
  We supported the interim resolution of 26 June calling on Turkey to respect the European Court of Human Rights' decision in the Loizidou case. We deplore the fact that Turkey has not yet complied with the judgment and will continue regularly and strongly to remind them of the need to do so both bilaterally and in the Council of Europe.

  Visa Case
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the application for an interview from Miss Mae I. Copitco, a Filipino national born on 9 May 1971 for an interview in respect of her application to join her husband Mr. Marcus Cottham in the UK will be considered; and if he will make a statement. [3146]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not our practice to disclose details of individual visa cases in a public forum. The Joint Entry Clearance Unit will write to the hon. Member in the next few days.

  UN Voting
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many votes have taken place at the(a) UN General Assembly and (b) UN Security Council since 1 January; and of those, on how many occasions the United Kingdom cast its vote, including by abstaining, for the same outcome as the United States. [4179]

  Peter Hain
  Since 1 January 2001 the UN General Assembly has adopted 38 resolutions without a vote. The only recorded vote on a resolution in this period was on 14 June 2001 on resolution A/RES/55/180B on the financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). The outcome was 115 votes in favour (including the UK), three against (including the United States) and nine abstentions.

  In the same period, the UN Security Council has adopted 27 resolutions. 25 of these were adopted unanimously, one without a vote and one by acclamation.

  The one occasion when the Security Council's vote was split was on 27 March 2001 when the United States vetoed a draft resolution on the situation in the middle east. The United Kingdom abstained on this draft resolution.

  "Your Britain, Your Europe, Your Wales"
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what independent survey is referred to in his Department's document, "Your Britain, Your Europe, Your Wales". [4298]
  46W
  Peter Hain
  The document refers to an independent survey entitled "Out of Europe, Out of Work" produced in February 2000 by Professor Ian Begg, Professor of International Economics at the European Institute, South Bank University.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Youth Justice Board
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Youth Justice Board will publish its annual review. [4629]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Youth Justice Board annual review is published today. Copies have been placed in the Library. The Youth Justice Board was established to spearhead the reforms to the youth justice system in 1998 by Crime and Disorder Act. The review shows a year of delivering change. A new system for preventing youth crime is in place, progress in delivering the Government's pledge on delays, with a nine week reduction in the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders and robust new sentences for young offenders.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress the Prison Service has made towards improving its environmental performance; and if he will make a statement. [4474]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Prison Service is making good progress in this area. A formal greening operations policy was introduced in March 2000, the implementation of which is being overseen by a headquarters working group chaired by a member of the Prison Service management board.

  During the last year, there have been many developments in areas such as biodiversity, energy efficiency, procurement, transport and waste management. These are described in the service's first annual environmental report which is published today, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  The Director General of the Prison Service has made clear his own personal commitment to improving the environmental performance of the service and a challenging programme of further work—detailed in the report—has been set for the current year.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the Commission for Racial Equality's annual report for 2000. [4557]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Commission for Racial Equality's annual report 2000 is published today.

  I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library and for copies to be sent to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.

  Stops and Searches
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the effect
  47W
  on the level of police paperwork of the requirement to record all stops and searches; and if he will make a statement. [1249]

  Mr. Denham
  Since the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, code of practice (A) on stop and search, all stops and searches carried out under any legislative provision have been recorded. In 1999–2000, 818,203 such stops and searches were recorded.

  Stops and searches under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 are not included in the above figure and are recorded separately. There were 7,153 such searches in 1999–2000.

  Since code of practice (A) was last revised in 1999, the Lawrence steering group set up to take forward the Home Secretary's action plan in response to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report, has agreed that all persons searched should be given a copy of the record at the time of the search together with information on police powers and public rights. This does not represent an extra recording requirement and simply means that the record is routinely made available at the time of the search rather than within 12 months as was previously the practice. The group agreed that this should also apply where stops are carried out without there being any subsequent search because grounds for suspicion are eliminated as a result of questioning the person detained. It is not possible to predict exactly how many extra records this might entail, but it is not likely to be significant in terms of the overall number of records. Chief constables were requested to implement those new arrangements from 1 April 2001.

  We are also considering whether to accept recommendation 61 of the Lawrence inquiry that all stops should be recorded, whether or not a search takes place. A public consultation exercise on that by local police authorities, co-ordinated by the Association of Police Authorities, finished at the end of May. I expect the Lawrence steering group to consider the results of that consultation exercise in July.

  MI5
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions of MI5 employees have been instigated in each year since 1980 for crimes where the maximum sentence is six months imprisonment or greater. [3138]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: As far as is known, one, in 1983.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of employees within MI5 are(a) of ethnic minority origin and (b) female; and what percentage apply within the senior grades, (i) for the latest year for which figures are available and (ii) for 1990. [3139]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: Currently, 3.2 per cent. of employees of the Security Service are of ethnic origin, that is, not white European; all equivalent of senior civil service grades are white.

  48W
  Females represent 46.6 per cent. of employees of the Security Service; and represent 13.8 per cent. at the equivalent of senior civil service grades.

  James Ashley
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make arrangements for the Hoddinott report into the fatal shooting of James Ashley to be published. [2317]

  Mr. Denham
  The report by Sir John Hoddinott was into the conduct of the chief officers in charge of the operation which led to the fatal shooting of James Ashley. The report is the property of Sussex police authority and it must be their decision to publish. I met my hon. Friend and members of the Ashley family on 4 July. At the meeting I said that we would use our best endeavours to encourage the police authority to publish as much as possible, bearing in mind that the report contains confidential information that will need to be subject to considered legal advice, and the need to ensure there is no adverse impact on other proceedings.

  Asylum Seekers
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government determined that family groups of asylum seekers would be treated on arrival in the UK as one person and as individuals when departing in statistics on asylum seekers; and how this decision was published. [2026]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 4 July 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdescombe) on 4 July 2001, Official Report, column 206W.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on assisting people seeking asylum appeals who do not have the finance for the payment of legal representatives to assist them in the presentation of their case; and if he will make a statement. [2843]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Office currently provides grant-in-aid under section 81 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to three voluntary organisations: the immigration advisory service, the refugee legal centre, and the law centre (Northern Ireland). They provide free legal advice and representation to those with rights of appeal under the Act including asylum seekers. Additional funding for this purpose is also available in England and Wales in the form of franchised contracts awarded under the community legal scheme, which is administered by the Legal Services Commission (which replaced the Legal Aid Board).

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current weekly unit cost of housing an asylum seeker in Oakington detention centre; and what proportion of that cost is accounted for by(a) IND staff and related costs, (b) supervisory and care staff and related costs and (c) security staff and related costs. [3306]
  49W
  Angela Eagle
  The current weekly unit cost of housing an asylum seeker at Oakington, based on an average occupancy of 229 in June, is estimated at £1,203. This can be broken down into the immigration and nationality directorate (IND) staff and related costs of £184 and supervisory, care and security staff and related costs of £745. (The balance is attributable to other running costs, primarily the costs of interpreters and accommodation). The unit cost is subject to variation because of changes in occupancy.

  The contract for the management and operation of the establishment does not disaggregate costs for each element of the service so it is not possible to provide the information in the form requested.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) juveniles and (b) young offenders are covered by probation orders; what the average (i) length of such orders and (ii) frequency of contact with a designated probation officer is, for each of the last 12 months; how many breaches there have been of such orders; and if he will make a statement. [2100]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of juveniles1 starting community rehabilitation orders (formerly probation orders) in 1999, supervised by the Probation Service, was 2,443; the number of young offenders2 starting community rehabilitation orders in 1999, supervised by the Probation Service, was 9,772.

  The average length of community rehabilitation orders starting in 1999 was 14.99 months for juveniles and 16.25 months for young offenders.

  In 1999, breach proceedings were taken in court against 306 juveniles and 2,359 young offenders on community rehabilitation orders for failure to comply with their orders.

  National standards require at least 12 appointments within the first 12 weeks of supervision, normally once a week and one of which will be a home visit. A minimum of six appointments is required over the following 12 weeks, and thereafter contact should be no less than monthly.

  1Offenders aged 16 to 17.

  2Offenders aged 18 to 20.

  Passports
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the UK Passport Agency's criteria are for deciding to undertake a security check on a passport application. [4409]

  Angela Eagle
  All passport applications are examined to establish the identity and eligibility on nationality grounds of the applicant. The guidance notes with application forms explain this and set out what evidence is required. Further checks are made if identity and nationality cannot be satisfactorily established from the evidence sent with the application. In addition, a random sample of examined applications is re-checked before the passport is issued, as part of the United Kingdom Passport Service's quality assurance procedures.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sailing
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to promote the sport of sailing. [2431]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Sports Councils—UK Sport and Sport England—continue to work with the governing body to develop the sport at every level. To date, the national governing body of sailing has received Exchequer support of £1.9 million, and lottery support of £6.9 millions for its world class Programmes. In addition awards of £32.9 million have been made to sailing organisations in support of 142 capital projects.

  Local Museums
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to promote local museums. [2434]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government encourage the development of local museums through the work of Resource and through the development of our cultural policies. Resource are now leading a taskforce to consider the issues facing regional museums and to make recommendations about their sustainability.

  We have also allocated £10 million per annum to Resource starting next year to enable them to support regional collections.

  Local Authority Lottery Liaison.Officers
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement concerning relations between her Department and lottery liaison officers employed by local authorities. [2436]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are keen to see all areas of low take-up receiving their fair share of lottery funding. This will not happen overnight, but is an important priority for distributors. I understand that since being designated a priority area, north-east Derbyshire has received increased funding from the community fund.

  Lottery Funding (Thurrock)
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to meet Camelot to discuss their ability to deliver their projected level of funding for good causes. [2437]

  Tessa Jowell
  I met Camelot on 12 July. We discussed a range of issues, including income for good causes under the new licence period.

  Media Ownership
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she plans to introduce legislation to deal with cross-ownership in the media. [2438]

  Dr. Howells
  The White Paper, "A New Future for Communications" asked for comments on how we might reform the cross media regime. We are currently considering the responses. The Government will publish details of their proposals in a draft Bill as announced in the Queen's Speech.

  Licensing Laws
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to reform the liquor licensing laws. [2439]

  Dr. Howells
  We remain committed to bringing forward legislation, as announced on 2 May, when parliamentary time allows.

  Cricket Matches (Crowd Violence)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the problems of crowd violence at cricket matches. [2441]

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to hold further meetings with the cricketing authorities to discuss the disturbances during the recent triangular one-day international tournament. [2448]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) and I met the cricket authorities on 27 June. Following that meeting, a review group has been appointed to consider recent disorder at cricket matches and to recommend measures for ensuring the safety of spectators and players. The group includes Government officials and representatives of the cricket authorities, the police, and the Football Licensing Authority. I expect it to report by mid-August.

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the take-up of digital services for(a) Wales and (b) England. [2442]

  Tessa Jowell
  From the figures declared by the service providers, we estimate that over 31 per cent. of households in the United Kingdom have taken up digital television services. We do not have a breakdown of take-up figures by country.

  Tourism Industry (Foot and Mouth)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact of foot and mouth disease on domestic tourism. [2444]

  Dr. Howells
  Our best estimate to date is that the loss of revenue in 2001–02 by the English tourist industry is likely to be around £120 million per week averaged over the eight month tourism season (the impact in subsequent years has not yet been estimated). We are currently revising the model on which this is based in the light of the latest available data.

  Lottery Funding
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to reform the criteria for distributing national lottery funding. [2445]

  Mr. Caborn
  The criteria that are used for determining awards from national lottery funds are a matter for the lottery distributors. The criteria vary from distributor to 52W
  distributor and from funding programme to funding programme. They are based on financial and policy directions which the Government issued to lottery distributors, and also on distributors' own policies and strategic plans.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list those major millennium projects which have applied for additional national lottery funding, indicating the sum requested, the reasons given for this request and the amount of extra funding allocated in each case. [71]

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

  Arts Festivals
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support is available from her Department for town and city arts festivals. [2446]

  Tessa Jowell
  There are several programmes run by the Arts Council of England and the Regional Arts Boards to which those organising town or city festivals can apply, including the regional arts lottery programme. The National Foundation for Youth Music's music maker scheme also supports arts festivals.

  So far, a total of £10,870,781 of lottery funds has been awarded to town and city festivals by the Arts Council, the National Foundation for Youth Music and the Regional Arts Boards.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money the millennium dome has received from the national lottery. [2447]

  Dr. Howells
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has received a national lottery grant of £628 million for the millennium experience at Greenwich and for its associated national programme of events and activities.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had since 15 February with(a) Mr. Robert Bourne and (b) his associated parties regarding the future of the dome. [4257]

  Tessa Jowell
  I have had no discussions with Mr. Robert Bourne or his associated parties regarding the future of the dome.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how much money was allocated to NMEC Ltd. during 2000 by the Millennium Commission; and from which of the Commission's budgets this sum was drawn; [3650]

  (2) from what date the Millennium Commission set aside reserve funds as a contingency against the financial problems of the dome; how much was set aside; and from which budgets those funds were drawn; [3652]

  53W
  (3) for what purpose the money set aside by the Millennium Commission for unforeseen contingencies and unforeseen costs of the dome was used; [3649]

  (4) what budget was set aside by the Millennium Commission for 2000 for other good causes, excluding the dome; and what proportion of this sum was spent on such projects; [3651]

  (5) what was the total value of grant applications turned down by the Millennium Commission during (a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000; and how many applications were refused during this period; [3638]

  (6) what was the sum total of all funds paid by the Millennium Commission to (a) NMEC Ltd. and (b) other organisations involved in the design, construction, management and decommissioning of the dome; and what were the total amounts authorised for these purposes by Parliament. [3639]

  Tessa Jowell
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Ministerial Briefings (Sport)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to improve the arrangements for the provision of briefing material to Ministers on subjects related to sport. [2449]

  Mr. Caborn
  Ministers receive briefing materials on sport from the Government's expert advisers in the sports councils and from a variety of other sources, including many governing bodies of sport. I have found the arrangements for briefing to be satisfactory.

  Lottery Funding (Rugby League)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on national lottery support for rugby league. [2450]

  Tessa Jowell
  To date, Sport England has made national lottery awards to rugby league of £1,972,347, to support the national governing body's world class programmes, and £7,918,139 in support of 28 capital projects.

  British Lions (Broadcasting)
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to extend the provision for British Lions rugby tours to be broadcast on terrestrial television. [2451]

  Mr. Caborn
  The list of events of major importance to society protected under part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996 was last reviewed in 1998. Following wide consultation and the recommendations of an advisory group chaired by Lord Gordon of Strathblane, the Secretary of State extended the list to include the most prestigious events in rugby union—the rugby world cup final and the six nations tournament. The Government have no immediate plans to review the list again.

  Lottery Funding (Coalfield Areas)
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to target Lottery money on former coalfield areas. [2452]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department and lottery distributors commissioned research into the impact of the lottery on the coalfields and we are working with coalfield groups to take forward the report's recommendations. I shall report on progress later in the year.

  Regional Theatres
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her plans to increase funding for regional theatres. [2453]

  Tessa Jowell
  This remains a matter for the Arts Council of England and the Regional Arts Boards. The Arts Council has already announced significant additional funding for theatre from 2002–03 including a 91 per cent. increase for Sheffield theatres by 2003–04, the end of the current planning cycle.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the current deficit of regional theatres in receipt of public funds; and if she will make a statement. [74]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]The estimated deficit was £2.3 million as at the end of March 2001.

  Summer Play Schemes
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support her Department gives to summer play schemes. [2454]

  Tessa Jowell
  DCMS does not fund summer play-schemes; our support for children's play focuses on funding the development of playworker training, research into the provision of children's play and the funding of the national children's play information service. I certainly see enormous potential for enrichment activities for young people to take place during the school holidays and commend the work which many local authorities already do in this area.

  Local Authority (Arts and Museums) Funding
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the level of local authority funding for(a) the arts and (b) museums in each of the last four years. [68]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]I refer the hon. Member to the local authority expenditure table on page 218 of the Department's annual report 2001, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. The report can also be accessed via the Department's website at www.culture.gov.uk

  Expenditure is classified as "museums and galleries" and as "arts activities and facilities (including Theatres)" for

  55W
  capital expenditure and "other culture and heritage" for current expenditure. These figures under the headings are:

  £ million

  Current

  Capital

  Museums and galleries

  1997–98

  138

  31

  1998–99

  125

  34

  1999–2000

  141

  45

  2000–011

  169

  50

  Arts activities and facilities (including Theatres)

  1997–98

  —

  67

  1998–99

  —

  76

  1999–2000

  —

  96

  2000–011

  —

  109

  Other culture and heritage

  1997–98

  128

  —

  1998–99

  131

  —

  1999–2000

  148

  —

  2000–011

  178

  —

  1 Estimated

  BBC Digital Services
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures she has taken to ensure transparency and public accountability in the process of determining approvals for proposed new BBC digital services. [2412]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 5 July 2001]The criteria against which I will be considering the BBC's new digital services are set out in the Department's guidelines for assessing BBC public service proposals; these include a requirement for interested parties to be consulted so that their representations can be taken into account. The guidelines were published on 10 January. Copies were placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the effect on the level of take up of digital television of proposed new BBC digital services. [2416]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 5 July 2001]I am in the process of considering all relevant aspects of the BBC's new digital service proposals and responses to the Government's consultation on these.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what evidence she has received from the BBC that the Corporation's proposed new digital services will enhance the take up of digital television. [2409]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 5 July 2001]The BBC state, in their application and the additional information supplied in May (available on the DCMS website), that their evidence (eg their consultation report) bears out the report submitted to the Licence Fee Review Panel in 1999. This report concluded that licence fee funded digital services have the potential of significantly increasing digital take up.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she intends to announce her decision on the applications of the BBC to run(a) a new children's television channel and (b) Network Z. [4256]
  56W
  Dr. Howells
  The consultation period for the new BBC digital services proposals has been extended to 27 July. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State therefore hopes to be able to make an announcement about her decision in late August/early September.

  Analogue Television
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 73W, on analogue television, when she will publish a strategic plan which will lead to the United Kingdom meeting the criteria for the switch off of analogue terrestrial television broadcasts. [2703]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]The White Paper, "Opportunities for All in a World of Change", outlined the Government's commitment to working with key players in the public and private sector to develop a comprehensive action plan to maximise the benefits and public information about those benefits of digital television by December 2001.

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she last travelled on the London Underground in the course of her official duties. [3670]

  Tessa Jowell
  I have not travelled on the London Underground in the course of my official duties since my appointment on 8 June.

  Public Bodies (Reviews)
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport what plans she has to undertake reviews of the public lending right and the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester. [4027]

  Tessa Jowell
  As part of the Department's programme of quinquennial reviews of its public bodies, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts is today announcing that this summer we will be starting reviews of the Public Lending Right and the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester.

  The reviews will include an evaluation of the role and functions of these bodies and how those functions can best be carried out, and a review of the efficiency and effectiveness of the way in which they deliver services to their users. We estimate that the reviews will be completed next spring. A copy of the announcement has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what payment has been received by NMEC from the Hinduja brothers to cover the value-added tax due in connection with their donation to the Faith Zone of the Millennium Dome. [4178]

  Dr. Howells
  It was NMEC's responsibility to account to Customs and Excise for value added tax in respect of the contribution by the Hinduja Foundation to the Faith Zone of the Millennium Dome, which NMEC has done.
  57W
  NMEC has advised that it has not received, and does not expect to receive, any further payment from the foundation in relation to this.

  Digital Radio
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures she intends to introduce to ensure plurality of voice in digital radio broadcasting. [4307]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government published their proposals for the future of radio broadcasting in the White Paper, "A New Future for Communications", last December. Those proposals included a firm commitment to maintain plurality in a period of media convergence—allowing listeners a choice between different providers with different editorial styles and opinions. My Department, along with the Department of Trade and Industry, has consulted widely on the proposals and ideas set out in the White Paper; we are now carefully considering all the responses. A draft Bill will be available early next year for further consultation on more detailed proposals.

  S4C
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 10 July 2001,Official Report, column 448W, on S4C, if she will make a statement clarifying the definitions of (a) estimated weekly reach and (b) weekly viewing figures. [4314]

  Dr. Howells
  S4C's weekly reach is defined as the number of people estimated to have viewed at least three minutes or more uninterrupted of S4C's programmes during any given week. The figure is normally expressed as a percentage of the total number of people in Wales aged four or above able to receive S4C in their homes. The average weekly reach over the year as a whole provides the basis for the weekly viewing figures which are published in S4C's annual report.

  Lottery Grants (Library Buildings)
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to allow libraries to bid to the national lottery heritage fund for improvements to their buildings. [2427]

  Dr. Howells
  Decisions on funding priorities are a matter for the trustees of the heritage lottery fund, within the broad framework of their statutory powers and the policy directions set by the Government. The heritage lottery fund supports library collections and archives of historical importance but does not fund repairs or improvements to buildings that are normally the responsibility of local authorities. To date, the heritage lottery fund has awarded over £109 million to library and archive projects.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Butterflies
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of changes in the numbers of butterflies in 58W
  British resident species which have (a) become extinct in recent years and (b) suffered major declines in numbers. [2366]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]On the 54 species of butterfly resident in the UK, more than half are undergoing declines in their populations and distributions. The recently published Millennium Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland gives fresh information on which to base new assessments of conservation priorities. The atlas gives us particular cause for concern over five species which have each suffered a more than 50 per cent. loss of range over the last twenty years. These are the High Brown Fritillary, Pearl-bordered Fritillary, Marsh Fritillary, Wood White and Large Heath Butterfly. No species have become extinct in the last decade.

  Conservation action is underway through Biodiversity Action Plans for a number of butterfly and moth species that set objectives and targets to maintain and, where possible, enhance and restore populations. Six species of butterfly are also fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, with a further 19 species protected against trade.

  Waste Management
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the recommendations contained within the Fifth report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 2000–01; and if she will make a statement. [4013]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]We expect to publish the Government's response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee report on Sustainable Waste Management shortly.

  Sustainable Development
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what indicators the Government use to monitor progress in implementing its strategy for sustainable development; what progress has been made to date; how her Department plans to improve its strategy for sustainable development in the next 12 months; and if she will make a statement. [3988]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]The Government's sustainable development strategy, "A better quality of life", (Cm 4345) makes clear that headline indicators will be used to measure progress towards sustainable development. There are fifteen headline indicators, covering economic, social and environmental factors. The Government's aim is for all the headline indicators to move in the right direction over time, or, where a satisfactory level has been reached, to prevent a reversal. Where a trend is unacceptable, the Government will adjust policies accordingly, and will look to others to join them in taking action.

  The strategy commits the Government to report annually on the headline indicators and on action taken or proposed in priority areas. The first annual report—"Achieving a better quality of life"—was published in January 2001. The report makes clear that one year's data do not constitute a trend but that there was evidence of improvement in many of the indicators, across all three aspects of sustainable development.

  59W
  The Government will continue to report on an annual basis, and is committed to a full review of the strategy after five years (in 2004).

  G M Maize Trial (New Farm, Walston)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the proposed planting of genetically modified seed on New Farm, Walston, Coventry. [2866]

  Mr. Meacher
  The proposed Farm Scale Evaluation site of Genetically Modified maize at Walston was withdrawn by the farming and biotechnology industry body SCIMAC on 21 May 2001 in response to my request. I had asked them to reconsider the use of this site, as publicity surrounding its proximity to the Ryton Organic Gardens was potentially damaging to public confidence in the farm scale research programme as a whole.

  In withdrawing the site, SCIMAC noted that the Soil Association had confirmed that, as the nearest boundary of Ryton Organic Gardens was 3km from the evaluation site, organic maize production at Ryton would not be in conflict with the separation distance set by the association as a trigger for the re-assessment of organic status.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on negotiations on the draft directive on Food Supplements. [1992]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  A compromise proposal developed by the Swedish Presidency and supported by the United Kingdom was discussed in the Council of Ministers in May. However, there was insufficient support to achieve the qualified majority of votes needed to adopt the proposal. Further negotiations have yet to take place.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 4 July 2001,Official Report, column 196W, what estimate he has made of the specific provision made in the Disability Living Allowance for excess home heating costs; what proportion of people claiming (a) Incapacity Benefit and (b) other disability benefits presently receive the Disability Living Allowance; and if he will make a statement. [3663]

  Maria Eagle
  The care and mobility components in Disability Living Allowance act as broad indicators of all the extra costs of a disabled person, including heating costs.

  The available information about the proportion of people receiving incapacity and other relevant benefits who also get Disability Living Allowance is in the table.
  60W

  People in receipt of incapacity and disability benefits and the proportion who receive Disability Living Allowance (DLA)

  All recipients

  Percentage receiving DLA3 (Percentage)

  Incapacity Benefit1,4

  Incapacity Benefit

  1,509,700

  36

  Severe Disablement Allowance6

  366,100

  82

  Total

  1,875,900

  45

  Other benefits2,5

  Industrial Injuries Disablement benefit (IIDB) only

  213,300

  22

  Reduced Earnings Allowance (REA) only

  86,100

  28

  Both IIDB and REA

  67,400

  41

  Total

  366,800

  27

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to 30 November 2000.

  2. Figures relate to 1 April 2003.

  3. Figures are based on 5 per cent. data.

  4. Figures are based on 5 per cent. data and exclude a small number of clerically held cases.

  5. Figures are based on 10 per cent. data.

  6. Severe Disablement Allowance was designed to provide help for people who could not receive Incapacity Benefit because they had not paid enough National Insurance Contributions. From April 2001 it is no longer available to new claimants, and severely disabled young people may be able to receive improved support from Incapacity Benefit without meeting the normal contribution contributions.

  7. Figures may not sum owing to rounding.

  Source:

  DWP Information Centre

  Pensioners
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people(a) retired and (b) drew their state pension in each year since 1996; how many people are over (i) 60, (ii) 65, (iii) 70, (iv) 75 and (v) 80 years; how many people are (a) eligible for the Minimum Income Guarantee for pensioners and (b) actually claiming the Minimum Income Guarantee for pensioners; and if he will make a statement. [2804]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  The latest estimates show that there are 10.5 million people of state pensionable age in Great Britain.

  Numbers of retirement pensioners in receipt of Basic State Pension for the years March 1996 to March 2000

  Thousand

  Total ages

  March 1996

  10,315.4

  March 1997

  10,468.3

  March 1998

  10,633.7

  March 1999

  10,751.5

  March 2000

  10,881.9

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100 and expressed in thousands.

  2. Includes all retirement pensioners resident in Great Britain, Overseas and Channel Islands.

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System at March for each year.
  61W

  Number of people over given ages

  Men

  Women

  Total

  People aged 60 and over

  5.16

  6.72

  11.88

  People aged 65 and over

  3.79

  5.3

  9.08

  People aged 70 and over

  2.58

  3.99

  6.57

  People aged 75 and over

  1.55

  2.75

  4.3

  People aged 80 and over

  0.75

  1.64

  2.39

  Note:

  Numbers of people are in millions rounded to the nearest 10,000 people.

  Source:

  Information is from the GAD 1998 Population Projections.

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

  As at February 2001 there were 1,679,300 people in Great Britain claiming Minimum Income Guarantee.

  Notes:

  1. The figure provided for people in Great Britain claiming Minimum Income Guarantee is based on a 5 per cent. sample of cases.

  2. The figure has been rounded to the nearest 100.

  3. Claimants are those who, or their partners, are 60 years or over.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Inquiries—February 2001.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what was the average time taken by the Child Support Agency independent case examiner to conclude each case given to him in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01; [4161]

  (2) how many cases the Child Support Agency independent case examiner dealt with in (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01; [4160]

  (3) how many people were employed by the Child Support Agency independent case examiner in (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [4159]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is in the table.

  Child Support Agency independent case examiner

  Staff employed

  Cases dealt with

  Average time (weeks) to conclude cases

  1997–98

  41

  204

  17.4

  1998–99

  38

  474

  25.3

  1999–2000

  46

  665

  33.7

  2000–01

  60

  595

  38.5

  Disability Rights Commission
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the Disability Rights Commission submitted to him the draft code of practice on part HI of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and when he intends to lay it before Parliament. [4308]
  62W
  Maria Eagle
  Officials in my Department and the Commission have been working together on parts of the draft of the Code that was provided in February. The final version of the Code will be laid before Parliament when this work has been completed.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) permanent and (b) casual staff there were in his Department on (i) 1 May 1997 and (ii) the most recent date for which figures are available. [4158]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed from the Department of Social Security, Employment Service and part of the Department for Education and Employment on 11 June 2001. The following staffing figures shown relate to the component parts of the new Department. The figures for 1 May 1997 include Contributions Agency, Family Credit Unit which have since moved from the Department and the Information Technology Services Agency.

  At 1 May 1997 the Department of Social Security employed 97,625 permanent staff and 5,203 casuals. The figures for the Employment Service at that time were 32,248 permanent and 2,413 casual.

  At 31 May 2001, the Department of Social Security employed 89,599 permanent staff and 2,290 casuals. The Employment Service employed 35,067 permanent staff and 1,863 casuals.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will provide a breakdown of the recipients of Incapacity Benefit by each available age cohort; and if he will make a statement. [3660]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is available in the Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance Quarterly Summary Statistics February 2001 which are in the Library.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will provide a breakdown by(a) constituency and (b) region of the United Kingdom of the number of new claimants of Incapacity Benefit anticipated in each year until 2005–06; [3917]

  (2) what projection he has made of (a) the number of future claimants who will lose entitlement to Incapacity Benefit as a result of the proposed changes and (b) the average loss of entitlement per claimant, broken down by (i) constituency and (ii) region, of (A) Scotland, (B) England, (C) Wales and (D) Northern Ireland; [4154]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the annual saving as a result of the Government's proposed changes to Incapacity Benefit in each year up to 2005–06, broken down by (a) constituency and (b) each region of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [3920]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. The proposed changes to Incapacity Benefit are intended to help people move into work where possible, rather than reducing people's entitlement or making savings. In the past many people were moved onto Incapacity Benefit with limited help to make sure
  63W
  that they got the right level of support. There was no help to get people into work, nor any support or rehabilitation. Yet, as research has shown, one million disabled people not in work say they would like to work. We have a duty to help them do so and our proposals will help to achieve this.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people currently receive Incapacity Benefit; how many have had no test of the status of their incapacity and their ability to work within the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [3659]

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many new claimants of Incapacity Benefit will have their claims subject to the new rules proposed by the Government on entitlement to Incapacity Benefit in each year until 2005–06, broken down by(a) constituency and (b) region of (i) Scotland, (ii) England, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland; [3918]

  (2) what proportion of Incapacity Benefit claimants for each year until 2005–06 will receive their benefit under (a) existing eligibility criteria and (b) the Government's proposed changes to the entitlement rules. [3919]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Members to the written answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions gave the hon. Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 11 July 2001,Official Report, columns 565–67W.

  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of those in receipt of Incapacity Benefit are not subject to periodic medical tests because of their severe disability. [4364]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table.

  Number (Thousand)

  Percentage of all recipients

  All Incapacity Benefit (IB) recipients

  1,515.2

  100.0

  Total exemptions from the personal capability assessment

  366.7

  24.2

  Notes:

  1. The data relate to recipients of IB at 28 February 2001.

  2. The data do not include "National Insurance credits only" cases.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has for a further promotional campaign on stakeholder pensions; and what provision for such a campaign has been included in the previously announced forecasts of current year spending. [2258]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government attach great importance to providing clear information to help people make informed decisions about saving for their retirement and to encourage them to take action.

  We have undertaken work to inform both individuals and employers about stakeholder pensions. Our pensions education campaign gives individuals broad information
  64W
  about the range of pension options available, including stakeholder pensions. Our activities to inform employers about stakeholder pensions began last autumn when we mailed all employers with five or more employees and a programme of media activity has been taking place since then. In addition, we will be mailing employers with five or more employees again shortly to remind them about stakeholders.

  For individuals, we will continue to undertake pensions education publicity activity.

  Social Security (Australia)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what response he plans to make to the ending of the Social Security Agreement with Australia. [2542]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Social Security Agreement between the UK and Australia ended on 28 February 2001. The Government announced in December that the UK pension position of people who had lived in Australia when the Agreement was in force would be protected. The Agreement allowed residence in Australia to count towards the UK retirement pension of people living in the UK. Periods of residence in Australia, up to 5 April 2001, can still be used in the pension calculation for people living permanently in the UK when they retire.

  People who were already getting benefit with the help of the Agreement are not affected by its ending.

  Benefit Interviews
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what monitoring has taken place of the schemes piloting compulsory interviews for(a) lone parents and (b) disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [3066]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Compulsory work-focused interviews for lone parents and disabled people have been piloted as part of the ONE service. Qualitative research from the evaluation has recently been published.

  Lone parents and disabled people have generally reported that these compulsory interviews are a positive experience. We are taking forward the lessons learnt from these programmes in the development of Jobcentre Plus. Jobcentre Plus will provide a new service to benefit claimants of working age, offering help to those looking for work now or in the future. We are opening the door to more independence for those who feel trapped on benefit.

  New Deal (Disabled People)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what advice was given to the Rehabilitation Resource Centre at City University, London, regarding the application process for the evaluation of the New Deal for Disabled People. [3182]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]On 2 March 2001 an invitation seeking expressions of interest in tendering for the evaluation of New Deal for Disabled People was posted on the New Deal website. The website also contained information about the evaluation and about the New Deal for Disabled People.

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he last travelled on the London Underground in the course of his official duties. [3677]

  Mr. Darling
  Tuesday 10 July 2001.

  Pensioner Benefits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the numbers of pensioners claiming(a) the Minimum Income Guarantee, (b) Housing Benefit, (c) Council Tax Benefit and (d) Attendance Allowance; and how many pensioners who are eligible do not claim these benefits. [3627]

  Mr. McCartney
  The latest available information is as follows:

  (a) As at February 2001, 1,679,300 pensioners were claiming the Minimum Income Guarantee1.

  (b) As at May 1999, 1,769,000 pensioners were claiming Housing Benefit, and

  (c) 2,542,000 pensioners were claiming Council Tax Benefit2.

  (d) As at the end of November 2000, 1,291,300 pensioners were claiming Attendance Allowance3.

  Available information on take-up of benefit can be found in the publication "Income Related Benefits—Estimates of Take Up in 1998–99", a copy of which is in the Library. Up-to-date information on take-up of Attendance Allowance is not available.

  Sources:

  1 Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, 5 per cent. sample, February 2001.

  2 Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, annual I per cent. sample, May 1999.

  3 Based on 5 per cent. sample data relating to 30 November 2000.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place a copy of the new piloted minimum income guarantee claim form in the Library. [4405]

  Mr. McCartney
  We are developing a new reduced form for claiming Minimum Income Guarantee with a range of stakeholders and we expect to have it ready for use by October 2001.

  Pensions (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 270W, concerning hospital downrating, if he will estimate the annual cost of abolishing the reduction of state pensions, other contributory benefits and income-related benefits for the first 12 weeks for (a) claimants and (b) pensioners. [3747]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not available.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 7W, on the pension credit, if his response
  66W
  to the pension credit consultation document will include both a summary of the responses received and details of the organisations that provided submissions. [4406]

  Mr. McCartney
  We will be guided by the Cabinet Office Code of practice on written consultation published in November 2000, a copy of which is held in the Library.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects to receive the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority's fifth annual report; and if he will make a statement. [4777]

  Mr. Darling
  I have received the fifth report of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA). I have laid copies of the report before both Houses today.

  Social Inclusion
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library copies of the United Kingdom's national action plan on social inclusion. [4776]

  Mr. Darling
  I have today placed in the Library copies of the UK National Action Plan on Social Inclusion for 2001–03, which sets out the Government's policies for implementing the objectives in the fight against social exclusion and the eradication of poverty, agreed at the European Council held in Nice in December 2000. The plan contains information on policies and programmes that are tackling exclusion throughout the UK.

HEALTH

  Tattoo Removal
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many surgical procedures to remove unwanted tattoos on(a) women and (b) men were carried out by the NHS; and at what cost in each year since 1997. [1990]

  Yvette Cooper
  The table shows data for in-patient episodes for minor skin procedures, such as for the removal of tattoos and port wine stains, in national health service hospitals in England from 1997–98 to 1999–2000. This is the most recent information available. Information on the cost of these episodes is not collected centrally.

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Male

  77

  40

  40

  Female

  96

  58

  49

  Unknown

  2

  0

  0

  Total

  175

  98

  89

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics

  Breast Cancer
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of women diagnosed with breast cancer tested to date overexpress the HER-2 marker; [2324]

  (2) what the cost per patient is of assessing the HER-2 status of women diagnosed with breast cancer; [2319]

  67W
  (3) what guidelines he has issued to health authorities assessing the HER-2 status of women diagnosed with breast cancer; [2326]

  (4) what proportion of women diagnosed with breast cancer were assessed for the expression of the HER-2 marker (a) by the NHS and (b) privately in England in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001; [2321]

  (5) what financial support he has provided to cancer centres and units to assess the HER-2 status of women diagnosed with breast cancer; [2325]

  (6) what assessment he has made of the implications for treatment of women with breast cancer who overexpress the HER-2 marker; [2320]

  (7) what recent discussions he has had with the (a) cancer charities, (b) patient group of organisations, (c) medical profession and (d) pharmaceutical companies regarding HER-2 testing of women diagnosed with breast cancer. [2323]

  Yvette Cooper
  We do not know how many women are currently tested for the HER-2 marker, either on the national health service or privately. Some research groups working in NHS trusts will measure HER-2 status for research purposes, or prior to entry of patients into clinical trials.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is currently assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of herceptin (a drug that specifically targets the HER-2 protein) and will publish guidance shortly. As part of that appraisal process we expect that NICE will be looking at the cost of HER-2 testing. Charities, patient groups, health professionals and the pharmaceutical industry will all have had the opportunity to submit evidence to NICE during this process.

  Health authorities will be expected to meet the costs of positive recommendations from NICE from the £255 million available to them in 2001–02 for cancer services.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on women with breast cancer who overexpress the HER2 marker of non-prescription of herceptin. [4157]

  Yvette Cooper
  No assessment has been made of the impact of non-prescription herceptin in women who over express the HER2 marker. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has been asked to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of herceptin in the treatment of advanced breast cancer.

  If NICE makes a positive recommendation for herceptin health authorities will be expected to fund the treatment from the additional £255 million available to them for cancer services in 2001–02.

  Bowel Cancer
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investment his Department is making in services to combat bowel cancer. [2522]

  Yvette Cooper
  An additional £280 million is available in 2001–02 to improve the delivery of cancer care.

  68W
  Since 1998, £10 million per year has been invested to implement "Improving Outcomes" guidance on colorectal cancer. Bowel cancer patients have also benefited from the £6 million investment in nine cancer services collaborative (CSC) pilots which have been proven to reduce delays in diagnosis and treatment. The CSC is now being rolled out across all 34 cancer networks.

  The NHS cancer plan set out a commitment to a £2.5 million endoscopy training programme. Endoscopy is a key diagnostic procedure for gastro-intestinal cancers. General practitioners, nurses, surgeons and gastroenterologists will benefit from this initiative which will help in meeting an increasing demand for endoscopy.

  There is also a programme of investment in cancer equipment under way. £93 million from the new opportunities fund and £100 million from the modernisation fund will buy new and replacement equipment for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer.

  A bowel cancer screening pilot is currently under way at sites in Scotland and England. The pilot will complete in 2002, and if it demonstrates that colorectal cancer screening is appropriate, feasible and acceptable to the public we will introduce it for all people aged 50–69.

  Chrysotile Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the use of chrysotile asbestos in environmental projects for which his Department is responsible. [2521]

  Yvette Cooper
  Departmental policy is that chrysotile asbestos must not be used in any new works or projects in accordance with the provisions of the relevant health and safety legislation.

  NHS Recruitment and Retention (North Staffordshire)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the further investment announced in March to improve the recruitment and retention of general practitioners and nurses was allocated to the north Staffordshire health authority. [2669]

  Yvette Cooper
  We announced £135 million in March 2001 for recruitment, retention and returners to the national health service work force, particularly general practitioners and nurses. Allocations have not yet been made to individual health authorities.

  This additional money will be significant in enabling us to achieve the ambitious proposals set out in the NHS plan, with 7,500 more consultants, 2,000 more GPs, 20,000 more nurses, midwives and health visitors, and 6,500 more therapists and other health professionals by 2004.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to(a) monitor the implementation of NICE guidance on the use of Aricept, Exelon and Reminyl to treat mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease and (b) publish the results; [3213]

  69W
  (2) when he will direct health authorities to make funds available for the treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease with Aricept, Exelon and Reminyl. [3196]

  Jacqui Smith
  All national health service bodies and clinicians are expected to give due weight to guidance from the National Institute of Clinical Excellence and to the evidence on which it is based. The Department is monitoring implementation of NICE's guidance through its established procedures supplemented through other data sources available to the Department. We will be looking to the Commission for Health Improvement to provide more information in due course.

  We are currently preparing to implement our manifesto commitment that "local health authorities and trusts will be directed to fund drugs and treatments recommended by the NICE". We expect to announce further details shortly.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people under 16 live in care homes in England and Wales. [2847]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested for England is provided in the table for the year ending 31 March 2000, the latest year for which figures are available. Requests for information about Wales should be addressed to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Children looked after at 31 March 2000 who were placed in children's homes or residential care homes—England

  Placement

  Number

  Children's homes

  6,300

  Community homes

  4,800

  Voluntary homes

  370

  Private registered children's homes

  1,200

  Residential care homes and nursing homes (Residential Homes Act 1984

  110

  Notes:

  1. Figures for children looked after in this table exclude children accommodated under an agreed series of short-term placements.

  2. Figures are estimates derived in part from SSDA903 one-third sample of looked-after children, and include estimates for missing data and incomplete returns.

  3. Figures have been rounded and therefore the detailed figures may not sum to the total presented.

  Source:

  DH annual returns SSDA 903 and CLA 100.

  Drug Prescriptions
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what quantity of each individual antidepressant was prescribed by doctors in England in 2000; [2954]

  (2) what quantity of each individual benzodiazepine was prescribed by doctors in England in 2000. [2955]

  Jacqui Smith
  Statistics about prescription items dispensed in the community in England during 2000, at individual preparation level, are published in the publication "Prescription Cost Analysis: England 2000". The publication provides details about items dispensed, their cost, and the quantity, and covers all prescriptions dispensed in the community in England during 2000. The items are listed alphabetically within chemical entity by 70W
  British National Formulary therapeutic class. A copy has been placed in the Library. The data are also available on the intemet: www.doh.gov.uk/stats/pca2000.htm.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that labels on food products accurately reflect the country of origin; and if he will make a statement. [2946]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]The Food Standards Agency is pressing for changes to labelling rules at European and international levels to require information about country-of-origin labelling to be provided to consumers on a wider range of foods, particularly meat products, and for clear rules on the use of terms like "produce of". The FSA will shortly begin a review of the guidance notes on origin labelling, issued last year, to ensure that current legal requirements are interpreted in the way most likely to meet consumers' concerns.

  Mental Health Services
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to have collated information from health authorities and trusts in order to determine the proportion of total NHS spend used to provide mental health services in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [3828]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information from health authorities and national health service trusts showing the proportion of total NHS spend used to provide mental health services in 1999–2000 will be available in early August. Information for 2000–01 will be available early August 2002.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has received on the carcinogenic, toxic and psychotic effects of smoking cannabis; and if he will place it in the Library. [4156]

  Yvette Cooper
  A report by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, published on 11 November 1998, included a review of available evidence on the effects of cannabis. The report is available in the Library.

  The Department has funded three literature reviews of various aspects of cannabis. The following reports are also available in the Library.
  "Clinical and Pharmacological Aspects"—Professor Heather Ashton (Newcastle University)
  "Psychological and Psychiatric Aspects"—Dr. Andrew Johns (Institute of Psychiatry)
  "Therapeutic Aspects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids"—Dr. Philip Robson (Oxford University).
  A further study, "Long Term Heavy Cannabis Use: Patterns and Problems" is due to be completed in September 2001.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the proportion was of(a) women and (b) black and Asian non-executive members of health authorities and

  71W
  NHS trusts in May 1997; and what were the proportions appointed in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–01. [3489]

  Ms Blears
  The proportions of non-executive directors, including chairs, on the boards of national health service trusts and health authorities for each year since May 1997 who were women, or black or from an ethnic minority background, are shown in the table in percentage terms.

  Percentage

  May

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Proportion of non-executives and chairs who were women

  39.8

  42.6

  48.4

  49,3

  49.2

  Proportion of non-executives and chairs who were black or from an ethnic minority

  5.8

  7.8

  10.5

  11.8

  12.4

  Nursing Care (Elderly)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for the funding of the costs of nursing care for the elderly; when the first payments for funding will be made; and if payments will be made directly to elderly people. [3646]

  Jacqui Smith
  Detailed guidance will be issued for consultation shortly.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what definition his Department will apply to nursing care in a residential home. [3647]

  Jacqui Smith
  The national health service, through local community nurses, already provides for the nursing needs of residential care home residents. There is no need for this to be defined.

  A definition of what constitutes care by a registered nurse is set out at section 49 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. When commenced, this will remove the ability of councils to provide nursing care by a registered nurse in nursing homes, paving the way for NHS nursing care.

  Pilgrim Hospital, Boston (Neurology Waiting Times)
  Mr. Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he is taking to reduce waiting times for an appointment to see a consultant neurologist at the Pilgrim hospital, Boston; [4018]

  (2) if he will assess the length of waiting times for an appointment to see a consultant neurologist at the Pilgrim hospital, Boston; and if he will make a statement. [4017]

  Yvette Cooper
  The vast majority of neurology outpatients—about 95 per cent.—are seen within 26 weeks and the average waiting time in England is 11.04 weeks. More than 58 per cent. of hospitals are able to give appointments within 13 weeks. However, we recognise that on occasions, some patients, like those at Pilgrim hospital, Boston, can wait a long time for neurology treatment.

  The service at Pilgrim hospital is provided by consultants from Queen's medical centre, Nottingham. There have been difficulties in recruiting to this outreach service, but provision has been made to recruit to two additional posts, one of which will be based at Boston.
  72W
  Additional clinics and support are also being provided from Sheffield. This will help us to meet the waiting times targets in the NHS plan.

  Stroke Patients
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance he has issued to NHS trusts on ensuring that stroke patients are assessed by social services before discharge; [3493]

  (2) how many beds were available in specialist stroke units in each of the past five years. [3492]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, many hospitals already have, or plan to introduce, specialist stroke services.

  The Department published the National Service Framework for Older People (NSF) on 27 March 2001. It sets out a comprehensive strategy to ensure fair, high quality integrated health and social care and reduce variations in services for older people.

  The NSF addresses a number of specific conditions which are significant for, although not limited to, older people. It includes a standard on stroke and service models which should apply to all who need them regardless of age.

  The stroke standard provides for stroke prevention, immediate care, early and continuing rehabilitation, and long-term support as components of a service model for integrated specialist stroke services which will build on current arrangements and be in place in all general hospitals which care for people with stroke by April 2004.

  Community Equipment Services
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to monitor the effectiveness of community equipment services; [4064]

  (2) how many local authorities have established agreed budgets with their relevant NHS trust in relation to community equipment services; [4065]

  (3) what targets he has set for the number of additional people who will have access to community equipment services. [4063]

  Jacqui Smith
  The NHS plan set targets for integrating community equipment services by 2004 and, by the same date, increasing the number of people benefiting from these services by 50 per cent. To reach these targets, all councils with social services responsibility are expected to draft plans for integration, agree them with the national health service locally, and have budgets agreed with NHS colleagues by April 2002. Information on early achievement of these targets is not held centrally.

  The effectiveness of community equipment services will be monitored in a number of ways. These include regular statistical returns from councils with social services responsibilities and health authorities, monitoring through the social services inspectorate and scrutiny of local action plans. The Department is keeping the need for further performance measures under review, being advised by those in the field service users and others with an interest.

  Kayleigh Glenn
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the case of Kayleigh Glenn of Summerfield road, Solihull, and her need for emergency surgery. [4165]

  Yvette Cooper
  First, may I say how sorry I was to hear about the distressing circumstances surrounding this case.

  I can confirm, however, that a new clinical team has been assembled at the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford and that Kayleigh was admitted on the evening of Thursday 12 July and an operation was carried out on Friday 13 July. I understand that Kayleigh's condition is stable.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Electronic Conveyancing
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will publish the responses to the consultation paper "Electronic Conveyancing: A Draft Order under Section 8 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000" (cp.5/2001) published on 16 March. [4605]

  Mr. Wills
  The consultation paper period closed on 25 June. Copies of the responses have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. My Department is currently preparing an analysis of the responses and that will be published shortly.

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the departmental responsibility for(a) regional policy, (b) regional development agencies, (c) planning policy, (d) urban regeneration, (e) rural regeneration and (f) regional assemblies under the new departmental structure; and if he will make a statement on the factors underlying these new departmental responsibilities. [3965]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 9 July 2001,Official Report, column 408W.

  Black Police Association
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has received a copy of the letter dated 7 June to the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office from Chair of the Black Police Association. [4353]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, I have not received a copy of this letter.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met representatives of the Black Police Association. [4352]

  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations, it is not my practice to provide details of such meetings.

  Gifts
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister how many pictures of the House of Commons he has signed since 1 May 1997 which were intended to be given as gifts to businessmen; and what his policy is in respect of such gifts. [4306]

  The Prime Minister
  I am asked to sign a range of material by MPs. I understand that the majority of this material is intended for auctions and presents for staff.

  Ministerial Group on Biotechnology and Genetic Modification
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the membership of the ministerial group on biotechnology and genetic modification (MISC6). [3752]

  The Prime Minister
  MISC6 has now been dissolved. It has been replaced by a new ministerial sub-committee on biotechnology (SCI(BIO)). I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) on 10 July 2001,Official Report, column 452W.

  Dredging (Tidal Water)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister which Department has responsibility for controlling estuarine maintenance dredging in England. [4299]

  The Prime Minister
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has responsibility.

  Incapacity Benefit
  David Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will meet national organisations representing the disabled to discuss changes to Incapacity Benefit; and if he will make a statement. [4366]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 4 July 2001,Official Report, column 261.

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

Medical Research: Data Protection Legislation
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will amend any sections of the Data Protection Act 1998 which restrict or inhibit medical research likely to save lives.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, earlier this year there was a concern in the medical research community about the effect of the 1998 Act on medical research. An article in The Times of 15th May, which I believe the noble Lord has read, reflected that concern. However, the concern was misplaced. The problem for medical research did not arise out of the 1998 Act but from the common law of confidence which prevents a doctor passing information about his patients to a research organisation without their consent, unless—and there is uncertainty about the extent of the protection given by this qualification—disclosure can be shown to be in the public interest.
The real issue, patient confidence, has been addressed by the Government in Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. This allows the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising or requiring the disclosure of patient information for medical purposes, including research, so overriding any duty of confidence. Section 60 was supported by Sir Richard Doll and Sir Richard Peto of the Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine at Oxford.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. I am pleased that he saw the alarming report in The Times about research being delayed because of fears of prosecution if information about individuals was made public or passed to third parties. It included a quotation from a professor that the law is killing people. Can the noble and learned Lord give an assurance that the legislation cannot be misread in that way? Furthermore, is he aware of the concern that if the data collection was originally prepared for one purpose it may not be legally released for another purpose?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I cannot give an assurance that any piece of legislation will not be misread, but I have given an assurance that the Data Protection Act does not have the implication contended for. The Information Commissioner has a role in this regard which may be of interest to your
1262
Lordships. She has given considerable thought to the impact of the Act on medical research and she has recently issued for publication a most helpful document containing draft guidance on the use and disclosure of medical data. She has asked for comments by the end of August.
My officials will be more than happy to provide noble Lords interested in this matter with copies of the document in order to assist them to offer their views to the Information Commissioner.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell me when the Patient Information Advisory Group, which is intended to advise on the regulations, will be set up?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Patient Information Advisory Group must be set up by regulations under Section 61 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, to which I have referred. Draft regulations establishing it are about to be presented to Ministers, together with proposals for its membership. It is hoped that the first meeting of the group will take place as early as possible in the autumn.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that those responsible for the disease registries in particular are concerned about the timetable because of the GMC guidelines on personal information which come into effect in October? Therefore, it is extremely important that the Patient Information Advisory Group is set up well before then in order to allow the regulations under Section 60 to be approved. What assurances can the noble and learned Lord give to that effect?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that the route through all the problems lies in the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising or requiring the disclosure of patient information, so overriding any duty of competence.
The Secretary of State's proposals must be considered by the new statutory body, the Patient Information Advisory Group to be set up under Section 61, and the views of that body must be published. The regulations must then be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses and each use of the power must be reviewed annually. That will therefore take a little time, but I agree with the noble Lord that the matter is somewhat urgent.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am afraid that I am terribly confused. I try to listen carefully to what the noble and learned Lord says, but surely it is no longer merely a question of regulations by the Secretary of State. Must we not consider Article 8.1 of the convention relating to the right to the protection of private and family matters? Is it right now that confidential information, be it medical or otherwise, given for one purpose cannot be used for another purpose without the consent of those concerned? I ask only because I do not understand.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I readily agree that this area is very complicated. It arises out of the

1263
common law of confidentiality which obliges doctors not to reveal patient information without consent. On the other hand, there are those who argue that that should be capable of being overridden in limited circumstances for the benefit of medical research, and that is where the Act of 2001 comes in. Further, the Data Protection Act sanctions the use that may be made of patient data, but in a way which I believe to be balanced and sensitive to the privacy of individuals.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that for many years the existence of disease registries, particularly in the field of cancer, has played an enormously important role in informing cancer services and the treatment of patients throughout the United Kingdom? Does the Lord Chancellor also agree that it was not until some months ago that the GMC recognised that the passage of information through such registries relating to named individuals might breach the common law provision and made recommendations to the effect that such information should be passed on only with the informed consent of the individual? Can the noble and learned Lord give an assurance that the GMC should be advised not to implement its advice in November of this year as it proposes until the Patient Information Advisory Group set up under the Health and Social Care Bill has had time to report?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am no longer in the business of giving advice—nor would I consider doing so from this position—to the GMC. However, there is force in what the noble Lord says. This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, at Third Reading and at Report stage of the Freedom of Information Bill. There is undoubted concern on the part of cancer registries that they might be inhibited by the need for all personal data provided by clinicians to those registries to be subject to patient consent or to be wholly anonymised. Therefore, I entirely agree that the problem exists. I believe that the way forward is to carry into effect Sections 60 and 61 of the Health and Social Care Act, which I have already described, and it is for the General Medical Council to decide whether in these circumstances it is wise to hold its horses.

Asylum Seekers: Voucher Scheme Review
2.45 p.m.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they expect to announce the outcome of the review of the asylum seekers voucher scheme before the Summer Recess.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the accurate and precise answer to the noble Lord's Question is no. As a new ministerial team it will take a while for us to come to our conclusions and, therefore, it is not proposed to make any announcement before the Recess.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that disappointing Answer. This review was first promised at the Labour Party conference in response to a conference rebellion some nine months ago. On 13th November 2000 the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, in reply to a Question for Written Answer tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said:
"It is hoped to complete the review early next year"—[Official Report, 13/11/00; col. WA 7.]
Can the Minister tell us the reasons for this extraordinary and disgraceful delay? Is it departmental incompetence, ministerial indecision, whether on the part of old or new Ministers, or pure political cowardice?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we do not propose to make any announcement before the Recess, and it would be futile to go beyond that during the course of this exchange.
Lord Judd: My Lords, while my noble friend's Answer is refreshing in its candour, does he agree that there are many people working at the front line with asylum seekers and immigrants who believe that the stigma and humiliation involved in the scheme outweigh any possible benefits and that the sooner it can be revised the better?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that many people are concerned about the operation of the scheme, hence the Question as formulated and the reason for the review. However, it is not productive for me to speculate as to when we shall be able to publish our conclusions on the review, or how our thinking is developing as I speak.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, referring to the Minister's original Answer, why does he not publish the conclusion?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, because it is not ready.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, as part of the review will the Minister consider the possibility of asylum seekers taking paid employment, which is the case in most European countries? Is it not time that we appreciated the skills that they have to offer rather than that they should depend on something which they find very demeaning?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, that matter goes some way beyond the review of the voucher scheme and is concerned with the rules as they apply to asylum seekers. To my certain knowledge, that has been considered in the past and is always on the table. As new Ministers we are looking at the current situation. On the other hand, in some ways it could be counter-productive and lead to an enormous "pull" factor, which we would consider at the time. That is a separate issue but not one that we dismiss out of hand.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, is it possible that the review has been delayed because the new team is also reviewing the dispersal policy, which creates such difficulties? If so, does the Minister agree that that is a very good thing?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, this morning I made a quick visit to Oakington together with my honourable friend Angela Eagle. We are not a new government but a new team of Home Office Ministers and, if you like, we are reviewing everything at the moment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, are there any organisations concerned with refugees which the Government still have to consult? If so, which ones?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I believe that the answer is no. The detailed review which took place early this year included interviews, visits and submissions by many groups and organisations. I am not aware of any outstanding inquiries in that respect. It is a question of Ministers coming to conclusions and, as I have said, we are not ready to do so before the Recess.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, is the Minister aware of or can he confirm that there are outstanding applications for asylum which have not been responded to after seven years? I raised this question in the House a couple of years ago and the Leader of the House gave a very courteous reply. But can the Minister indicate that such matters remain on the desk without resolution?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, yes, I know that from my former role I probably have a couple of dozen cases floating around the system. Some of those people have been in this country for many years. Last year, 130,000 decisions were made. That was about two and a half times more than the number of decisions made the previous year. Not everyone likes quick decisions. The consequence is that we are working on the backlog of cases. In the very near future, as a consequence of the huge increase in the number of decisions made last year, there will be fewer people who have had this issue hanging around them for years. They may not like the answer, but at least they will get an answer. There is a backlog of cases which we are trying to clear as quickly as possible.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to Chapter 8 of the White Paper that preceded the 1999 Act, and as the noble Lord confirmed in his references to pull factors a moment ago, one of the main purposes of the voucher system was to deter people from seeking asylum in this country? Does the Minister agree that since the main refugee-producing countries are not famed for their devotion to freedom of information, this is an entirely useless piece of cruelty?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not accept that the policy is cruel. I do not accept the way the noble Earl puts the matter. However, there are differences in
1266
different countries. Although, in one month the largest group comes from one country, it is not the same the next month. There are variations in different countries. It is simply not possible to give one blanket answer that covers all countries.

NATO Enlargement
2.52 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaireasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support full membership of NATO for some or all of the nine current applicant states within the next three to four years.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we support the launching of the next round of NATO enlargement at the Prague summit in November 2002. It is too early to say which of the aspirants will meet the political and military criteria for membership by then. We are providing practical support to their preparations under the Membership Action Plan agreed with NATO.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can she reassure us that the British Government are playing an active part in the debate in Washington about NATO enlargement, which is clearly where the main debate is now taking place, rather than simply waiting for the Americans to decide the matter so that we can follow their decisions? Can the Minister further assure us that there will be some consultation of public opinion and Parliament in this country since a large-scale NATO enlargement taking in most of the current applicants would clearly transform NATO itself?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I can confirm that the British Government are taking a very active part in preparing the Membership Action Plans. The noble Lord will know that they cover a number of different matters—political, economic, military, legislative and security. From my personal experience in the Ministry of Defence, I can tell the noble Lord that this country is taking a very active role with aspirant countries. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that assurance from me.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government will give special attention to the need to recognise the human rights of minorities in some of the candidate countries, with particular regard perhaps to two of the Baltic countries, given the presence of tense international relations with Russia?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course the human rights of the countries concerned are very important. I believe that those are covered by the parts of the Membership Action Plans that deal with politics and legislation.

1267
I did not pick up the latter part of the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about consultation on these issues. As the House may know, there will be meetings towards the end of this year. The NATO Foreign and Defence Ministers are due to meet towards the end of this year and next May before we reach the conclusion of the process in Prague in November of next year. There will be an opportunity, which I am sure that your Lordships will readily take, for consultation on the widest possible basis. A number of your Lordships have already expressed views on those countries which some of you believe are readier than others for membership. But the criteria for membership will be assessed on the same basis for everyone at the time.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the role of the three Baltic countries deserves special sympathy in this process? Does the Minister accept that those three brave little countries always used to regard Britain as their champion and look to Britain today to see them right? Further, can the Minister reassure us that in considering their applications and their role neither this Government nor the NATO governments will be overawed by Russian grumbling in seeing that the proper security of Europe and these three states is secure?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that the three Baltic countries have a very special place in these considerations. They will of course be judged in the same way as any other aspirant country; that is, in relation to NATO's readiness to absorb the new member in question; as to that country's readiness to sustain the burdens of the relationship with NATO; and the overall effect on European security. There is no way to circumvent those three criteria. I would assure the noble Lord, as all of us have done from the Dispatch Box, that there is no veto on Russia's part on any assessment of the criteria in relation to any country, including the Baltic states, when looking at its readiness for membership of NATO.

Cannabis Users: Police Discretionary Powers
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Seccombeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the policy of the police of not charging users of cannabis in parts of London has their full support.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Government's absolute priority is tackling class A drugs such as heroin and cocaine, given the devastating impact that these have on individual's families and communities. The six-month pilot in Lambeth, to which I assume the Question of the noble Baroness refers, is very much in
1268
keeping with this priority. The Government will be interested in the evaluation of the pilot and in particular the impact on drug misuse and crime.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. The issue of drugs is far too important and complex to be dealt with in this Chamber today. However, my concern is that a police force in a very high profile and public manner has been selective in its implementation of the law. Can the Minister tell me whether that is because the Metropolitan Police has manpower problems or because it is now a new Labour policy to allow the Commissioner to choose which parts of the law should be enforced?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the matter is not quite as simple as the noble Baroness suggests. There is enormous discretion for the police over what they do when an incident or perceived crime takes place. In many ways the Association of Chief Police Officers' guidelines are almost a mirror image of what is happening. The discretion at constable level has been removed in Lambeth by the Commissioner for a period of time. That is wholly consistent with the ACPO advice on discretion. It is not the case, as expressed by the noble Baroness, that the police always act; they have discretion under the law. That is what the police are trained to do. So there is no wider agenda here. It is a useful exercise chosen by the Metropolitan Police and we all look forward to a proper evaluation after the six-month pilot.
Lord Desai: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the interesting observation made by the right honourable Member of Parliament for Kensington and Chelsea that we should have a larger debate on drugs should be welcomed by all sides of the House, including the opposite side?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am in favour of mature adult debate on all issues of public policy.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the use of discretion often brings the law into disrepute? Could not the good practices of Lambeth be followed by other chief constables to achieve a uniform policy on whether or not to bring prosecutions?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, for all I know, similar policies might well be operating in other parts of the country. Discretion is used at the lowest level of the police force by those who, with their local knowledge, are the best judges of when it is appropriate, not Ministers in Whitehall or politicians in Westminster. We must leave it to the best judgment of the police. If there are defects in the law, that is the responsibility of Parliament. There are grounds for a wider debate on the issue. This is a useful pilot in a very small part of the country. We shall all be interested in the proper evaluation of the pilot in some six months' time.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, to put the issue in context, can the Minister say how many people in

1269
Lambeth were charged with the possession of cannabis in June last year and how many were charged in June this year with the same offence?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not have those figures. We shall be evaluating the pilot in six months' time. It is not for us to second guess on a daily basis what is happening. We want to get the overall picture. The figures requested by the noble Lord will be available in due course because that will be part of the evaluation.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, having taken into account the results of the interesting experiment in Lambeth and the other debates and discussions that he is encouraging, will my noble friend be able to share with us at some date in the near future how we should bring all these experiences together so that Parliament can accept its responsibilities in determining whether a change in the law is necessary?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am in the mood for short answers today and the answer to my noble friend's question is yes. In due course we shall be able to have a debate, but it needs to be based on facts. As anyone who reads the public prints will see, there is a considerable dispute between doctors and researchers about the good or bad effects of cannabis. In a short debate last Thursday the House considered the correlation between acquisitive crime and class A drugs. The Government's priority is to deal with class A drugs.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the fact that some parts of the criminal law are enforced with more vigour than others is as old as the criminal law itself? Does he further agree that, when we have thought twice about it, none of us would wish it otherwise?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Earl. Another good example is the even sentencing policy. I know that in different parts of the country we see some wild sentences, particularly from magistrates, for what is in effect the same crime. That is what they are there. for—to make local decisions. The noble Earl is right. I agree with every word he said.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the Minister say what is the Government's attitude towards chief constables and their immediate subordinates deciding not to enforce some of the ridiculous European regulations that are currently extant? Is the noble Lord aware that the country as a whole would be pleased to be relieved of the quite slavish following of the letter of the law regarding Europe when it is well known that our colleagues in Europe, particularly the French, enforce the law just when they think they will?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the example of metrication immediately comes to mind. But I shall not make a pronouncement on the enforcement of European law
1270
either by chief constables or, as is usually the case, by local authorities. Local authorities have the main role and it is a difficult one.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, as a member of the Executive, is not the Minister somewhat worried by the reply he gave to the noble Earl, Lord Russell? He said that the law is being administered differently in different parts of the country. What are the Government going to do about that?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. Under the law, chief constables and their forces have degrees of discretion. I hope no one is suggesting that we remove their degree of discretion. Therefore, there are bound to be differences. We would not have 43 chief constables if we did not expect differences. We would get rid of them, as one of my noble friends hinted last week when we were discussing police retirement. We do not have a national police force in that sense. We have to leave it to the good judgment of chief constables to use the discretion that Parliament has allowed them.
Lord Rea: My Lords, following this experiment with so-called "soft" drugs, will the Government consider rethinking their policy regarding hard drugs? In particular, will they consider allowing more prescriptions of clean heroin to habitual users who cannot or do not want to kick the habit? That has been shown to have great health benefits for the users concerned as well as wider benefits for the community in terms of a great reduction in acquisitive crime.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we will do everything we can to get people off hard drugs. When people come forward to drug programmes to come off class A drugs—sometimes it is done by substitution—they should be assisted in doing so. If that is not happening, we will need to look into the matter.

International Development Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Development assistance]:
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after "contribute" insert ", directly or indirectly,"
The noble Baroness said: I begin this Committee stage by expressing the hope that the Government will concede on some of our amendments. However, that

1271
may well be a pious hope. The amendment seeks to allow the Secretary of State to provide development assistance to a country or countries provided he is satisfied that the action will lead directly or indirectly to a reduction in poverty. The amendment seeks to allow the Secretary of State to provide assistance to organisations or projects that seek to lay the foundations for poverty reduction—for example, the assistance for economic development or governance—but cannot be described as directly contributing to a reduction in poverty.
The Department for International Development has on numerous occasions declared that its mission statement is the elimination of poverty. But in its 1997 White Paper it said that DfID was also responsible for encouraging economic growth. The 1997 White Paper said that the Government would,
"Refocus our international development efforts on the elimination of poverty and encouragement of economic growth which benefits the poor. We will do this through support for international sustainable development targets and policies which create sustainable livelihoods for poor people, promote human development and conserve the environment".
The Government have also stated on numerous occasions that although poverty reduction is their main aim, it is not their sole aim. Clare Short has said:
"Our primary aim is poverty reduction".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/01: col. 443W.]
However, there seems to be a problem with definitions. For example, conservation has been ruled out for funding by DfID because it does not lead to poverty eradication. Clare Short stated that:
"DfID's purpose is poverty eradication, not conservation"— [Official Report, Commons, 9/7/01; col. 332W.]
But the department is involved in forest management and conservation.
"The Department for International Development's purpose is poverty elimination. Forests play a major role in providing livelihoods for poor people, and this is the starting point for our involvement in the sector."—[Official Report, Commons, 26 2 01; col. 531W.]
The Government need to clarify that poverty reduction, while being the main aim of the department, should not prevent the department from funding projects or programmes that help to lay the foundations for poverty reduction, but which do not lead directly to poverty reduction. The Government have clearly ruled out some sectors for funding because they do not lead to poverty reduction.
"Our primary aim is poverty reduction",
said Clare Short.
"We are not directly involved in ape protection projects".— [Official Report, Commons, 6/2/01; col. 443W.]
But the Government do fund several wildlife projects because, indirectly, they lead to poverty reduction.
We believe that the Bill should reflect the fact that many valuable projects can lay the foundations for sustainable development and poverty reduction. However, these projects cannot be said to lead directly to poverty reduction. That is why we believe that the funding of projects which lead indirectly to poverty reduction and lay the foundations for the reduction of
1272
poverty should be legitimate and be included on the face of the Bill. I look forward to the Government's response. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Judd: In speaking, I intend to try to deal with the various amendments which have been collected together for the suggested grouping. However, at the outset—I undertake not to bore the Committee by repeating this over and over again—I should declare an interest as having worked for most of my life both voluntarily and professionally in this sphere—indeed, I am still doing so. In particular, I should declare my position as a member of the Oxfam Association, a trustee of World Aware and of the Overseas Development Institute and my professional role as Senior Fellow of Saferworld.
I think that the amendment which has been suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, runs the danger of opening a Pandora's Box. I, too, seek closer definitions, but I suggest to the noble Baroness that the wording that she has chosen for her amendment might stretch the Act into every possible and conceivable interpretation.
I shall speak first to Amendment No. 2, and then to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 9 and 10. In so doing, perhaps I may add a word or two of support for some of the other amendments in this grouping. Amendment No. 2 deals frankly with vision and purpose. I know why I sit on this side of the House. I do not sit here to seek to reduce poverty; I am on this side in order to fight for the elimination of poverty. For that reason. I am rather disappointed with the wording of the Bill.
Perhaps I may ask Members of the Committee to turn to the foreword written by the Secretary of State for International Development to the White Paper on international development published in 1997. In the second sentence, she states that:
"It is first, and most importantly, about the single greatest challenge which the world faces—eliminating poverty".
I ask noble Lords also to turn to the White Paper published more recently, in December 2000. In that paper there is a foreword by the Prime Minister. In his second sentence he states that:
"The new millennium offers a real opportunity to eliminate world poverty. This is the greatest moral challenge facing our generation".
That kind of wording sets my pulse racing with excitement a little—I say that unashamedly. But to talk of the reduction of world poverty does not begin to do so.
What is the yardstick by which "reduction" can be measured? Having worked all my life in this area, I hope that I am not open to the charge of naivety. I can see how difficult the elimination of poverty will be. I am probably dubious as to whether it can ever be achieved. However, if that is not our purpose, how do we measure the significance of the reduction? As the Bill is presently worded, we might achieve a reduction of something between 2 and 5 per cent and then pat ourselves on the back by saying that the purpose of the Bill had been fulfilled: poverty had been reduced. We

1273
must have a yardstick by which to measure progress on reduction, and for that reason, if for no other, I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will again be able to look at the wording of the Bill.
Amendment No. 3 deals with tied aid. I know that the argument put forward by my noble friend on the Front Bench is that the wording of the Bill as it stands sets up sufficient moral authority to resist any pressure which might amount to a drift back into tied aid. Perhaps I may say at this point that those of us who have worked at the front line on third world issues have seen all too frequently the waste, damage and counter-productivity of tied aid. I have a deep respect and genuine affection for my noble friend on the Front Bench, but I know that she is incapable of being devious. I suggest that she needs to look again at what she said in her contribution to the debate on Second Reading. At col. 748 she states that:
"Under that clause, the Secretary of State may provide development assistance only if he or she is satisfied that it is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty through furthering sustainable development or promoting the welfare of people".— [Official Report, 2/7/0l; col. 748.]
I have now read and re-read the Bill. The word "only" does not appear in it. Rather, the Bill states that,
"The Secretary of State may provide any person or body with development assistance if he is satisfied that the provision of the assistance is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty".
But he might be able to do all kinds of other things as well. The word "only" was used by my noble friend in her contribution, but it has not been used on the face of the Bill.
Again, I suggest that we need to adopt a belt-and-braces approach in this area, and in this amendment I have attempted to show how that might be provided. But we certainly need to be told by the Minister why the word "only"—which she emphasised in the debate on Second Reading—is not included in the Bill.
Amendment No. 4 attempts to spell out what is poverty. It is a term which can be used very subjectively. Again, in the debate on Second Reading and in much of the comment surrounding the Bill, we have heard a great deal about the commitment of the Secretary of State. I should stress here that I take second place to no one in my admiration for the Secretary of State. I believe that we have in place a first class person, working with an excellent department. That is why, in some respects, I find this Bill a little disappointing.
There may be future Secretaries of State who have different purposes and may put forward other interpretations of poverty. That is why I have attempted, as I see it, to spell out one interpretation. If the Minister and her colleagues have a better interpretation, I am sure that we shall all give it sympathetic and careful consideration. But it is certainly not only a matter of a quantitative measure of income: it can be relative; it can involve human rights; it can involve the conditions of existence; indeed, it can involve spiritual dimensions. In this context, it is a shame that, where we are looking to the spirit of our Secretary of State and the fine department that she has working for her for a lead on what the Bill
1274
is all about, there is not a clarion call as to the nature of poverty and why we are combating it, rather than this dry, formalistic wording.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. Again, these concern the tightening-up of the Bill. No one could possibly take exception to what is in the Bill, hut, as we have all learnt, the environment is a global issue, a global challenge. Under the Bill, it would be possible to support sustainable development projects in a particular country which did not contribute to the sustainable condition of the global environment. If such projects did not contribute to a sustainable continuance of the global environment, in the long run they would undermine anything that was being achieved in that particular country itself. The amendment seeks to spell out the relationship between a commitment to environmental concerns in a particular country and the inescapability of the environmental dimension internationally and globally. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure the Committee in that respect.
I welcome Amendment No. 5 and its reference to human rights, which is highly relevant to what I have been trying to argue. I also welcome Amendment No. 12, which makes an important point about civil society. I very much look forward to hearing what the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, will say about this because I know of his deep interest in the issue, which is central to matters of development. It is a very helpful amendment.
Baroness Wilkins: In speaking to Amendment No. 5, I should say that I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her helpful letter, which I have just received, discussing the department's approach to human rights.
In the excellent 1997 White Paper, Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century, the Government pledged on page 70 that,
"The protection and promotion of human rights and the observance of international humanitarian law will be integral to all of our programmes of humanitarian assistance".
The amendment seeks to give substance to that pledge. It is intended to encourage the promotion and protection of human rights. It is not intended to limit the Secretary of State by requiring her to take account of a country's human rights record in determining whether to provide that assistance.
I believe wholly in the Government's commitment to human rights, but it is a commitment which needs to be stated explicitly to both receiving governments and development agencies so that it cannot be overlooked and forgotten amidst the enormous pressures presented by development issues. The Government's commitment to human rights cannot be taken as read. Like all essential truths, it needs to be written down. We know that we should not murder or steal, but still all of the world's major religions have found it essential to state that moral truth in their fundamental texts. The Bill will provide DfID with its basic text for the years to come.

1275
The Government need to demonstrate their commitment to promoting and protecting human rights in black and white on the face of the Bill, in order, most of all, to provide a permanent reminder to all those who are not already committed to a rights agenda. Such a commitment is all the more important should a future government renege on human rights, a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred.
The amendment seeks to provide an essential lever to those groups which are only too easily left out of the development process. Disabled people provide a glaring example of this. At Second Reading, I quoted Macline Twimukye, head of the National Union of Disabled Persons of Uganda, who spoke at a recent conference on the need for a UN convention on the rights of disabled people. Although Uganda has made outstanding progress in this area, Macline pointed out that most African states are ignorant and dismissive of their disabled population. She said:
"There is a tendency by our governments to assume that we are too few to warrant specific considerations, hence our continued exclusion. It is not strange for many countries in Africa to have accurate data on the number and types of animals they have in the national parks, but they have never bothered to know the number of Disabled People they have. One wonders therefore how our services get planned for, if they do at all?…There is no doubt that we are unbelievably the largest and most discriminated minority group in the World, whose human rights are continuously violated".
Since 1999, the London-based organisation, Disability Awareness and Action, has been compiling a database of human rights violations against disabled people, and so far evidence affecting more than 2 million people has been collected. But these cases are just the tip of the iceberg. As Rachel Hurst, its director, points out, most disabled people will not talk about the abuse and violence that they have received for the same reasons as children were silent about their treatment and women about domestic violence: they know that they will not be believed or treated seriously.
This is one of the reasons why it is so important that the Government should make an explicit commitment to securing human rights in this Bill. It would provide the poorest of the poor—those who are literally discarded—with the leverage to persuade their governments and development agencies that they, too, should be included in the programmes and policies that are committed to the elimination of poverty.
The Government argue that the inclusion of a commitment to human rights in the Bill would limit the Secretary of State's room for manoeuvre in eradicating poverty. The wording of my amendment may, indeed, need alteration in order that it is not too blunt an instrument, but I would argue that a clear statement that the provisions made to eliminate poverty should be based on human rights must be made, otherwise they will turn out to be useless.
As the 1997 White Paper again stated on page 16:
"Sustainable development, as the 1995 World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen agreed, is not possible unless human rights are protected for all, including the poorest and the most disadvantaged".
1276
I hope that a way can be found for the Government to demonstrate explicitly the pledge to protect and promote human rights which they gave in that 1997 White Paper.
The Earl of Sandwich: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 12 in this group, which has something in common with the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
Amendment No. 12 seeks to add to the Bill the notion of civil society organisations taking part in development. I have been with non-governmental organisations most of my working life—Christian Aid, Save the Children, Care International, and so on—and so I would be likely to support any amendment which mentions those civil society organisations, which, as we all know, are active in development. But I shall try to demonstrate that it is not only a surface amendment designed to include the NGOs, but relates to a more fundamental aspect of the whole purpose of development aid.
Some Members of the Committee may remember that at Second Reading it was shown that the term "civil society" is now a part of the ordinary aid vocabulary. The reason for that is that civil society organisations are involved more than ever in development assistance. This is fundamental to the Government's strategy, and there is no argument about that. I know that the noble Baroness will underline that. There is a link here with good governance and the "add ons" mentioned by other noble Lords which would be desirable in the Bill. But of course, we cannot put everything into it.
I agree with the statement in the Explanatory Notes relating to Clause 1. There is a difficulty of definition in the Bill. The same is true of "sustainable development" and "environment". But "civil society" is not a concept of development; it is a means to a solution. I would argue that it is a clear part of the objective of assistance. Those of us who seek to provide assistance in various ways know that within the definition of "the poorest" is the fact that such people are the most helpless. They have no one to speak for them and no one to remove the practical obstacles that stand in their way. Such people are often the most articulate but are unable to advocate their own concerns and rights let alone meet their own needs.
Therefore, one of the central purposes of development assistance is to support those who enable the poor to sustain themselves and to articulate their needs more clearly. Indeed, to leave out civil society would be a form of hypocrisy. It would indicate that we can reach people directly; but that is the stuff of the promotional leaflets put out by aid agencies. In reality, no outside bodies can or should seek to deliver aid just as milkmen deliver milk on the doorstep.
The development of civil society is almost as important a task as meeting human needs. Surely that means that we must admit civil society organisations to the Bill in some form. I do not argue for precisely the

1277
form of wording that appears in my amendment, but I know that the noble Baroness will give the matter her fullest consideration.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 and 9 and 10 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I enjoy supporting amendments tabled by the noble Lord. He has spoken of "vision". It is always good to read amendments referring to the world as it should be rather than the compromises often imposed by the wording of Bills. I helped to write the Liberal Democrats' paper on poverty reduction, and I realise how many compromises people throw in at every stage.
Perhaps I may refer in detail to some of the amendments. Amendment No. 2 refers to the "elimination" of poverty. The title of the White Paper was Eliminating World Poverty, but the word used in the document itself was "reduction". I can understand the reason. The elimination of world poverty will be very difficult. In this House we often forget the limitations on DfID's budget. It is not endless. Even it were, the elimination of world poverty is unachievable. Once poverty had been "eliminated" to some degree, the boundaries would have to be extended and the level would be set higher.
In relation to Amendment No. 3, the noble Lord gave a very pure description of the removal of the dirty hands of commercialism from the Bill. I support the idea behind the amendment and have therefore added my name to it. However, the vast development potential in private capital flow might make such an amendment unacceptable. Another reason for adding my name to the amendment relates to the very problem exemplified by private capital flows. In some countries vast amounts of capital flow in from overseas. However, as has happened in sub-Saharan Africa, the returns expected and the associated risk mean that the region has attracted the least amount of private capital. In that case, development assistance may be necessary in terms of acting on behalf of private capital.
Amendment No. 4 is extremely thought-provoking. I examined the issue of cultural rights. The area is in one degree indefinable. It can incorporate everything. Let us take, for example, the building of the dam in Turkey. When it is flooded, 1,000 years of history will be destroyed. The project is under review; but if it were to go ahead, should we be destroying the cultural rights of a whole people?
Amendment No. 10 refers to "essential global environmental strategies". While I support the amendment, I find it just as provoking in its suggestion that we there can be a global strategy, given the tatters of the Kyoto agreement as a result of self-interest on the part of some of the big players. The department should examine closely, right down to the micro-level of various schemes, the ecological consequences of any action that is taken.
I did not put my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, but I strongly support his reference to "civil society". However, we should
1278
not merely support local NGOs which are helping to rebuild civil society. I have changed my view considerably over the years in relation to one area of the Bill. Perhaps now, especially with the emphasis on good governance, we should consider rebuilding local governmental institutions rather than sidelining some of the aspects of the work of local government. Only through sustained, dependable local government will local civil society really benefit in the long run.
Lord Desai: In speaking to this set of amendments perhaps we can finish our Second Reading speeches and then get down to the detailed business. On the one hand, the amendments seek to make precise what the Secretary of State can do; on the other, they seek to set out vast, general ambitions. Conflict between the two approaches is bound to arise.
Perhaps I may speak first to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Judd, to which, as always, he spoke eloquently. I have one or two difficulties with the amendment. It would be nice to eliminate poverty, but it would be nice also to be modest in our ambitions. We have been unable to eliminate poverty in rich countries. Even now, after 200 years of growth, 'we are still struggling to do so. That is partly because, as basic poverty is eliminated, we rightly become more ambitious. What we seek is a steady, constant reduction in poverty. Perhaps I am becoming modest in my ambitions in what is not quite my old age.
I should like to see a steady reduction in poverty on a variety of fronts rather than a commitment on the face of the Bill to eliminate poverty, which is not easy to achieve—whether it be a commitment on the part of the Secretary of State or in terms of resources. The elimination of poverty requires a great deal of self-organisation on the part of the poor. Governments can enable, but it is not up to law-makers to say, "I hereby agree to eliminate poverty and therefore I shall do so". The White Paper refers to the elimination of poverty. I am happier with the idea of a "reduction" in poverty. If I write a book about poverty, as I have done, I may talk in grandiose tones, but on the face of the Bill I want to be fairly cautious.
Taken seriously, Amendment No. 4 defines poverty in such a way that there is no chance of it ever being eliminated anywhere. It is rightly an ambitious amendment, but if we worry about,
"the inadequate protection of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights",
I know of no country on earth in which there is not some violation of human or cultural rights. The French think that not protecting their ghastly films is an invasion of their cultural rights, and they want protection for their cultural freedoms. Anyone can define matters in that way. Although such a definition may be very good in a textbook, we ought to avoid it on the face of the Bill. If we adopt it, we can never eliminate poverty; we cannot even reduce it. As soon as you are providing clean water, good healthcare and higher employment, you may find that people will begin to complain about civil, political and cultural rights; and quite rightly so. For example, are not such rights violated in Northern Ireland? Therefore, what

1279
are we doing about the elimination of poverty in the Province, and so on? There is a contradiction between Amendments Nos. 2 and 4. I prefer to stick to modest amendments.
However, I like Amendment No. 5 because it is fairly succinct. My noble friend Lady Wilkins, who made a very good speech on Second Reading, has succeeded in putting forward a good formulation. At some stage we shall have to expand the definition of "welfare" or that of "poverty" so as to include the dimension of human rights, because the latter is essential to the elimination of poverty.
Perhaps I may comment on Amendment No. 12, tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I know what the noble Earl is trying to achieve. However, if he reads the sentence as reformulated in the light of his amendment, he will see that it would state that the Secretary of State must include the welfare of the civil society—by which he means "civil society organisations". It is right to recognise the importance of civil society organisations in the elimination of poverty, but to seek to improve their welfare is, I believe, something more than I should like the Secretary of State to be required to do. Again, that is partly because people think of civil society as encompassing all the nice and cuddly things that they like; but it is more than that.
We may believe that "civil society" is something nice, but the Mafia is also part of it. What are we to do about that? We have to be very tight and exact when dealing with the wording on the face of a Bill. If you are writing articles, making speeches or, indeed, writing books, you can say what you like. It is very important to be exact when proposing such amendments.
I turn, finally, to Amendment No. 3. When Mr Milosevic was recently handed over, as it were, by the Serbian Government, aid worth a billion dollars was given to that country. Let us make no mistake about it: it was a straightforward political deal. The political purposes behind such moves are sometimes good. You could perhaps believe that no political purpose should be allowed, but you may want to promote peace in Sri Lanka, for example, between the Tamils and others and say to those concerned, "If you have peace, we will give you money". Is that possibility to be forbidden by Amendment No. 3?
I know what my noble friend Lord Judd wants to do: he wants to eliminate profit making. He wants a tied element, and that is absolutely fine and correct. But, as it is, the amendment is far too broadly formulated to be helpful.
Lord Judd: I should like to make a few comments before my noble friend sits down. I always enjoy the academic and scholastic interventions that he brings us from the LSE, of which I have the privilege to be a governor. Indeed, I always listen to his profound analysis with great pleasure because it is stimulating. However, does my noble friend agree that perhaps one of the reasons why we must be modest about what we
1280
have achieved towards the elimination of poverty is that we have never set ourselves firmly and vigorously the target of eliminating poverty? We have settled for a kind of well-meaning and very generous philanthropic approach as regards dealing with some of the symptoms. This has eased a little of the problem where it exists, but we have never got down to the discipline of saying that we should be eliminating poverty; we have not asked ourselves how we should go about it. I should be interested to hear my noble friend's reflections on that point.
Before my noble friend comments, perhaps he could clarify the following point. As always, I took his strictures most seriously about my definition of "poverty". I said that it was just one suggestion and that I should be most willing to consider others. With all his academic background, I wonder whether my noble friend is saying that "poverty" can be defined—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I trust that the noble Lord will forgive my intervention. If, occasionally, he would care to turn in the direction of the microphones in the Chamber, it would make it easier for Members of the Committee to hear what he has to say.
Lord Judd: I am so sorry.
Lord Desai: I still believe that the elimination of poverty is practically impossible but that its reduction is possible. Over the past 100 or 200 years we have considerably reduced poverty, but it has returned time and again. When scrutinising legislation, we ought to be considering achievable, operationally meaningful ambitions. The role that DfID or any government can play in the elimination of poverty is fairly limited because, eventually, it is a task for the poor. Only they can eliminate their poverty: we cannot do very much about it. However, we can be helpful. We can take the obstacles out of the way; we can remove the trade barriers and other protectionist devices that have been put in place; and we can help with education, healthcare, the provision of water, and so on. But it is really a matter for the poor, who will, by their own efforts, eliminate poverty. Therefore, although elimination is something that I would talk about in an academic environment, I would not speak about it in a legislative context. That is an important point.
As far as concerns the definition, I already know that "poverty" is a multi-faceted concept; indeed, I have probably said so myself. However, if you are going to talk about the reduction or elimination of poverty, you must have a reasonably quantitative definition that will enable you to monitor the situation and thereby ascertain whether it is decreasing year by year. If you have 37 dimensions of poverty, you can never be sure whether or not it is decreasing; but with just one or two dimensions you can make that assessment. Of course, you will not capture the whole of poverty but you will have introduced a provision that is operationally meaningful and helpful. That is the conflict. When you are dealing with the law, you have to be fairly precise in what you propose. You must not set impossible tasks.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: The interesting debate between the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Judd, is one that gets to the very heart of how we perceive legislation—whether it is about the technical objectives of a department or a broad, sweeping statement of intent. In some ways, we must try to combine the best of both arguments. I am tempted to recall to the Committee the story of two Pre-Raphaelite painters; namely, Rossetti and Morris. Whenever Rossetti saw a poor man, he would empty his pockets and give every penny that he possessed to him. He would then go away and think no further about the poor man. However, Morris would never give a penny to any poor man in the street; but he went forward to build a world in which there would be no more poor men. Therefore, one was all heart and the other was all head. I believe that the policy we follow must be a combination of both those considerations.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is right to remind us that we regularly fall short of the objectives that he, as one of the most hard-headed Ministers—and, indeed, one of the best—to hold office in the department, set for himself. In office, he worked for targets and recognised the need to have an overall objective. In a later amendment, he rightly reminds us of the United Nations' target figure of 0.7 per cent set in 1970 under Resolution 2626. The figure at present is around 0.3 per cent, but 0.7 per cent is itself an attainable target.
We probably cannot eliminate or eradicate poverty as such. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is right to remind us that as an objective in itself it is a target that we can put up front and work towards. Nevertheless, we must also be realistic and douse ourselves with some cold water in recognition of the fact that it will probably not come about. The World Bank currently estimates the level of poverty in the world as affecting about 800 million people who are said to be racked by starvation or despair, or, indeed, living below any rational definition of human decency.
I broadly welcome the Bill but believe that Amendment No. 2 would add to it in terms of the commitment that it proposes. I also support the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, as regards Amendment No. 5. She is absolutely right to remind us of the importance of attaching to our objectives certain criteria for which our aid programme should not be used. It is quite clear that abuse:3 have taken place in the past—whether it be a matter of human rights or a neglect of people in particular categories and groups. We shall return to the human rights issue when we deal with later amendments. I am glad that the noble Baroness has flagged this point so early in our Committee debates. I very much support it.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 12. My noble friend Lord Sandwich reminded the Committee of the importance of civil society and of civil organisations. I know that many noble Lords have been involved in the building of civil society in places such as South Africa, Rwanda and Burma. Indeed, I know about the
1282
work carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, in supporting the development of civil society—judicial institutions—in Burma by way of encouraging those dissident groups who have been actively working for such objectives. There are some encouraging signs that organisations such as the NLD are currently in some kind of negotiation with the military dictatorship. I visited refugee camps on the Burma/Thai border. In those refugee camps Karen organisations are preparing for the day when, hopefully, there will be a democratic society in that country once more. That would be a worthwhile objective for us to tie our aid to. We should have regard to organisations which seek to build civil society.
One of the lessons to be learnt from eastern Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union post 1989 is that of the problems caused by not having in place sufficient groups and organisations to rebuild a fractured civil society, as was the case in the aftermath of the collapse of communism in those countries. It is right for us to try to find the appropriate words. If the proposed words are not quite right, we have between now and Report to fulfil what I believe are the proper objectives of all the amendments we are discussing.
Baroness Andrews: I support Amendment No. 12, spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I cannot follow the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on civil society. However, there is a case for including the term "civil society organisations" on the face of the Bill, although I understand the Bill to be both inclusive and generous in its approach and its definitions in many respects. I make a plea for considering good governance and the critical role that civil society organisations have played in many regimes in facilitating the transition to democracy. I think, for example, of Latin America where the hope of democracy was kept alive in many instances by human rights organisations, political organisations and children's and women's organisations.
Democracy is now regarded as a condition of development aid. We find in many of the European aid arrangements a condition that societies promote and work towards democracy. That seems to me to be absolutely right and proper. If the term "civil society organisations" were included on the face of the Bill, it would enable those proposing the Bill and responding to it to pick up the positive signal that democratic growth and economic development are closely connected, if not completely symbiotic.
Lord Brennan: A year in your Lordships' House has taught me the legislative limitations on political and personal vision. That is not, however, the reason that I disagree with the thrust of the amendments we are discussing. I am not standing before the Committee a victim of political and spiritual fatigue, but rather because these amendments, heartily though I agree with their sentiment, do not meet the objective at which the Bill should be directed. It is not a piece of legislation in which we as representatives of the nation should proclaim our values which we think should instil any form of international aid. That is not the

1283
purpose of the Bill. Neither is this an occasion to attach to it concepts that we have ratified in human rights conventions, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and so on. Such sentiment, praiseworthy though it is, has no practical effect on a donee country, nor on NGOs.
Like many Members of the Committee I have travelled extensively in connection with work to address poverty. Those involved in such work are exhausted with workshops. They are fed up with textual frenzy. The distance between word and deed is too great. They want action. If any of those donees were to consider the Bill and determine what it might do for them, they would not, I submit, consider the form of amendment which we are presently debating. They would ask whether the measure gives development assistance. The answer is yes. They would ask whether it provides for sustainable development. The answer is yes. They would ask whether it improves the welfare of their people. The answer is yes. They would ask whether such assistance is designed to have lasting benefit. The answer is yes. They would ask whether the government providing all that have full powers to do so. Under the terms of Clause 4 they certainly do.
Practically speaking, even though I agree with the sentiment we are discussing, I want in the future, along with others in the Chamber, to say to the government of the day, "There were your powers—minimum in terminology, maximum in effect. Did you achieve the objective we set for you when we passed the Bill?" Few of us have the wealth of Rossetti and even fewer of us have the single-mindedness of William Morris, but in the year 2001 the poor people of the world want action, not words. I support the Bill as it stands.
Lord Joffe: I declare an interest as the chair of Oxfam and a number of other development agencies. My purpose in supporting all the amendments in this first group, other than Amendment No. 1, is to improve what is already a very good Bill which includes a principle of fundamental importance to development.
My concern with Amendment No. 1, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, is that by adding the word "indirectly", a potential loophole in the Bill would be widened. I am sure that that was not the objective of the noble Baroness. However, it is possible to envisage a future Secretary of State using the word "indirect" as a basis for reintroducing tied aid on the ground that tied aid indirectly contributes towards the reduction of poverty, as indeed it does.
I refer to the flexibility given to future Secretaries of State to interpret the Bill in a way which suits the policies and strategies they may have which may not accord with the policies and strategies of the present Secretary of State. We all know that there is no danger that the present Secretary of State would stray from the intention of the Bill as it represents exactly what she has proclaimed and done during the period she has
1284
held office. However, there is undoubtedly flexibility here as regards interpretations which future Secretaries of State might take advantage of.
The amendments support the principles of the Bill while ensuring that it is implemented in accordance with those principles. That seems to me to be of critical importance. I, too, have travelled abroad and I know that those involved in development work in those countries care about the wording of measures although their main concern is, of course, with the implementation of aid and the elimination of poverty. Much of the wording that is proposed accords with the wording used by those involved in development in the developing world.
I refer to two amendments which I believe are of specific importance. As I say, I support all the amendments in the group with the exception of Amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 4 seeks to widen the definition of "poverty" to extend well beyond deprivation of material needs. It is very much accepted development policy that one needs to consider poverty in a much wider framework than simply material deprivation. The amendment embodies exactly the current approach to development which is widely recognised as the way forward by most experts in development.
The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, adds the words "human rights" to the Bill. The noble Baroness illustrated the importance of protecting the human rights of people suffering from disability against the violations they endure all the time. It is essential that the words "human rights"—it is what development is about—should appear in a Bill which defines our approach to development.
4 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: I add my support, in particular to Amendment No. 10, which inserts,
"and to its compatibility with essential global environmental strategies".
I support the fact that poverty reduction in international development is seen in the context of sustainable development. It is worth reminding ourselves that the words "sustainable development" mean many things to many people and organisations. One hears of sustainable buildings or sustainable communities. I believe that the Bill refers to sustainable development in the spirit of the UNCED conference in Rio in 1992—a global consideration. It is also worth recalling that the DfID is the lead department involved in the global environmental fund, an important international development which emerged from the UNCED conference in Rio.
The amendment underlines the fact that sustainable development must involve a broader, almost global and certainly continental, view. Many environmental problems involving dams and rivers can take place in one country but have an adverse effect on another country. There is an extraordinary lack of communication of information between different countries. It is important that sustainable developments are seen in a broad context.

1285
The DfID now has its officers working in-country. It is important, therefore, to ensure that such local activities are undertaken within a global strategy. I have to declare an interest. I am chairman of the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea. It takes a view on global environmental matters.
Baroness Amos: Clause 1 sets out the core power in the Bill. It constrains a Secretary of State to provide development assistance only where she is satisfied that it will contribute to the reduction of poverty either through furthering sustainable development or promoting the welfare of the people. Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, 9, 10, 11 and 12 seek to amend the scope and operation of that core power.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, was concerned that the Bill might not allow the Secretary of State to support activities which provide the foundation for the reduction of poverty. Amendment No. 1 would make explicit that the Secretary of State could provide assistance for activities that were likely to contribute to the reduction of poverty either directly or indirectly.
As Clause 1 is presently drafted, the Secretary of State can support activities which contribute to the reduction of poverty either directly or indirectly and which impact on poverty either immediately or over a longer term. But in every case there must be a demonstrable causal link between the giving of assistance and the contribution to a reduction in poverty. I can reassure the noble Baroness, therefore, that the Bill already reflects the sense of Amendment No. 1.
Not only is the amendment unnecessary, it is also undesirable. If we make a point of saying that the contribution may be indirect, as the amendment provides, we risk enabling the Secretary of State to provide assistance even if the extent of the contribution to the reduction of poverty is incidental—a mere probable knock-on effect. So, for example, the amendment might allow the use of aid for commercial or political ends so long as there was some contribution to the reduction of poverty. I recognise that that is not the noble Baroness's intention but I offer it as an example of the potential and, I believe, undesirable impact of the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, propose that the core power be amended so that the overarching aim of development assistance becomes the elimination rather than the reduction of poverty. I can reassure my noble friend Lord Judd and others that the Government remain committed to the elimination of poverty. The 1997 and 2000 White Papers on international development make clear that commitment. That is why we have a commitment to the achievement of the international development targets.
However, we have been advised—here I agree with my noble friend Lord Desai—that the elimination of poverty is too tough a test to embed in legislation directed to the sanctioning of individual spending decisions. If we were to adopt the elimination of poverty as our overarching aim there is a risk that the
1286
Secretary of State would be able to support nothing, as she could not be satisfied that any single initiative or activity was likely to contribute to the elimination of poverty.
I believe that it has been recognised in this House that the process towards the elimination of poverty will be gradual and can be achieved only through continuing efforts to reduce poverty. We have adopted, therefore, the reduction of poverty as our aim in the Bill and as the test for the legitimacy of the Secretary of State's decision.
Amendment No. 3 makes explicit that the Secretary of State cannot provide development assistance for purposes of a commercial, political or otherwise non-developmental nature. This is the negative image of Clause 1 as it is currently drafted. The clause sets down the overarching aim and two purposes for development assistance. It is determinative. By that I mean that the clause does not allow the Secretary of State to act for any purpose which is not compatible and consistent with the overarching aim and the two purposes set down. It is not necessary to state the aims and purposes for which the Secretary of State is not able to provide assistance.
Indeed, in doing so we weaken the test set down in Clause 1. Refining the powers in this way casts doubt on the primacy of the overarching aim of the reduction of poverty and the two purposes of furthering sustainable development and promoting the welfare of the people. If we must specify that they do not allow for commercial and political purposes, the inference must be that they do not stand as a complete definition of our aims and purposes.
My noble friend Lord Judd pressed me on the fact that I used the word "only" in my reply at Second Reading and that it is not included on the face of the Bill. Clause 1 spells out the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may spend public money. In doing so, it implies that her authority to do so is limited by the terms of the clause. The word "only" is therefore implicit in the power and does not need expression.
I hope that I have reassured the Committee that Amendment No. 3 is not necessary in that the Bill provides no scope for the Secretary of State to provide assistance for any aim or purpose other than those set down in Clause 1. In fact, such an amendment would weaken the powers in Clause 1.
Amendment No. 4 would insert a definition of poverty. The Bill does not currently define poverty. The concept is both relative and complex, yet there is a common ability to recognise poverty when it presents itself. Attempts to capture the range of its manifestations in legal language would on the one hand expose the Secretary of State to the constant risk of technical legal challenge over whether the aspects of poverty that she had identified fell within the definition, and on the other hand give rise to the possibility that actions could be justified because the definition appeared to embrace them even though poverty as we naturally understand it was not present.

1287
Numerous questions could be asked and would require answers. For example, could we assist those who were poor, but not the poorest? How poor would an individual or community have to be to merit assistance? How should we assess the depth of poverty of an individual or a community when poverty has many different aspects?
By relying on the natural understanding of poverty, we allow the Secretary of State to offer assistance across the spectrum of its manifestations. She is constrained in the way in which she can do so: it must be through furthering sustainable development or promoting the welfare of people. She is accountable to Parliament and to the courts on the use of her powers.
Amendment No. 5, tabled by my noble friend Lady Wilkins, would insert a reference to "securing human rights". As my noble friend said, the Department for International Development has adopted a rights-based approach to development. The policy is set out in detail in the target strategy paper, Realising Human Rights for Poor People.
In considering whether and how to reflect that approach in the Bill, we need to bear in mind two issues: whether the Secretary of State is bound to respect human rights when she exercises her powers; and whether she can or should be required to make human rights an issue in the decision-making process under the Bill. I assure my noble friend that we do not take our commitment to human rights as read. Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for any public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a convention right. It would be unnecessary and inappropriate to repeat such a requirement in the Bill.
The issue of whether the Bill could or should require the Secretary of State to take account of a country's human rights record when determining whether to provide assistance is important. We believe that, under the Bill, the Secretary of State could continue to take account of a country's human rights record in determining whether to provide assistance. For example, she could determine not to assist a government but to work through other agencies if she thought that the purpose of promoting welfare might be compromised by that government's disregard for human rights. However, I do not agree that the Bill should include a requirement for the Secretary of State to take account of a government's human rights record in determining the nature and scale of assistance for their people. That would cut across the primacy of the overarching requirement of poverty reduction and the welfare purpose. The Government strongly believe that the needs of people in developing countries must be the driving force behind the choice of form of assistance.
There are also practical difficulties in adopting an explicit human rights focus in the Bill. Any requirement set down in legislation would be likely to prove a blunt instrument in dealing with the wide range of countries and circumstances that we face. For example, we would risk constraining the Secretary of
1288
State to withhold assistance from a government who were making substantial progress in reducing poverty and achieving human rights, while perhaps failing to meet international human rights standards in a single area.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would require "sustainable development" to be interpreted as development that was compatible with "essential global environmental strategies". That hits on an interesting point. Although the term "sustainable development" is used in the Bill, it is not defined. The reference is made in Clause 1(3) to prevent the hijacking of the term, not to define it. We have taken that approach because we recognise that sustainable development can be an emotive term for some people. While we feel that it must be on the face of the Bill, as we believe that poverty can be eliminated permanently only through sustainable development, we wish to protect the Secretary of State from being forced to adopt an overly economic or environment-oriented interpretation of the term. We believe that sustainable development comprises economic, social and environmental factors. The balance between those factors must be determined by the needs of poor people, not by reference to any wider conceptual considerations.
Amendment No. 12 would ensure that the Secretary of State could provide support for civil society organisations engaged in work that promotes the welfare of the people. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and others who have spoken to the amendment that, under the provisions of the Bill, the Secretary of State will be able to support such organisations where their activities would contribute to the reduction of poverty.
The amendment is also undesirable. We have to work within the legal convention that nothing is said in legislation that does not need to be said. Such an explicit reference to one or more narrow activities or purposes—in this instance support for civil society organisations that are engaged in work that promotes the welfare of the people—might lead a court to conclude that it was appropriate to interpret the powers set down in subsection (2)(b) narrowly to exclude support for activities or purposes that were not explicitly mentioned. Such a constraint would severely limit the effectiveness of our development effort and is clearly unacceptable.
We have stressed our commitment to working in partnership with civil society organisations in the United Kingdom and in developing countries. I hope that the noble Earl will be reassured that the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to support organisations engaged in the activities that he described.
In the light of those arguments, I ask that Amendment No. 1 be withdrawn and that the others in the group be not moved.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: We, too, have some sympathy with the concerns and views expressed on Amendment No. 4 about the wider terms of poverty and with the

1289
human rights concerns so clearly put by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, on Amendment No. 5. We also have sympathy with the views of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on the importance of civil society, as referred to in Amendment No. 12. However, I beg to differ with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on the opening of a Pandora's Box, as DfID already funds so many projects of the kind that I mentioned. I refer the Committee to the Commons Hansard Written Answer on 9th July 2001, at col. 332W. We also support the usual clear thinking and reasonable, pragmatic approach of the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, for her clear explanation. It was not in our mind for commercial and political aims to be included in the Bill. However, we feel that the Bill should be able to go wider. We may yet explore the issue further on Report. I have pleasure in thanking the noble Baroness and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Judd Lord Judd had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 7, leave out "a reduction in" and insert "the elimination of"
The noble Lord said: I should like to add a word of appreciation to the Minister for her comments in reply to the helpful debate that we have had. I am sure that the words that will be recorded in Hansard will help in the future interpretation of government intentions.
However, I want to emphasise two points. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, said, a great deal in this matter concerns our good faith towards the present Secretary of State. There is still much anxiety about how a large part of this legislation could be used or interpreted by a successor to that post.
Secondly, I would argue that overseas international development requires inspired leadership. I also argue that we have just emerged from a general election which shows that a massive crisis is developing in our democracy based on the gap between the people and the politicians. There are many reasons for that; it is a highly complex issue. But I believe that it is partly because the body politic is becoming totally preoccupied with management as an end in itself. It is no longer spelling out clearly the goals and aspirations for which we should be aiming and against which we should measure the effectiveness of our management.
In that context, I ask my noble friend to consider seriously some of the points that have been raised in this debate. Perhaps on Report he will examine not whether there is a way of moving away from the disciplines to which my noble friend Lord Desai drew attention—I am sorry that he has had to return to a seminar at LSE; I should have liked to refer to him in his presence—hut whether it would be possible for the Government to relate those disciplines to an aspiration against which progress can be measured and which is expressed on the face of the Bill.
I am still slightly worried about the notion of "implied only" in terms of Amendment No. 3. That is a new notion. The phrase "implied only" appears to be rather tough and I believe that it should be explicit rather than implied.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Order! Having spoken to Amendment No. 2, the noble Lord—
Lord Judd: At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I cannot allow the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment because, as he has spoken to it at some length, it is necessary for it to be moved.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I was intending only to ask the noble Lord whether he was moving the amendment because, otherwise, he was entirely out of order.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble Lord has now given the Committee an opportunity to reply to his speech. Does he wish to move the amendment?
Lord Judd: I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Baroness Wilkins Baroness Wilkins had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 12, after "welfare" insert "and securing the human rights".
The noble Baroness said: I am grateful to the Minister for her clear response to the amendment. I thank noble Lords for their support. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert ", or
( ) promoting good governance in one or more such countries".
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 6 goes to the heart of the Bill. In speaking to it, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7 but I should like to take Amendment No. 8 separately.
As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, Amendment No. 6 seeks to stress the importance of good governance in developing countries as a key to poverty reduction. It would allow the Secretary of State to provide assistance to projects or programmes which focus on good governance, or to seek to lay the foundations for good governance where the programmes could not be described as contributing to a reduction in poverty.
Encouraging good governance is an indispensable and crucial part of British aid programmes. A number of agencies have stressed the major impact that good governance has on poverty reduction. The UN Development Programme report stated:
"There is a missing link between anti-poverty efforts and poverty reduction governance. Not only does that highlight governance as the missing link in the development chain; it also shows that anti-poverty efforts are useless without responsible and effective governance".
The UNDP poverty report 2000 executive summary states that:
"For many countries it is in improving governance that external assistance is needed".
That is why good governance needs to be at the very heart of the Government's aid and development policy. The World Bank development report 2000, Reforming Public Institution and Strengthening Government, states on page 11:
"Poorly functioning public sector institutions and weak governance are major constraints to growth and extra development in many developing countries".
The world development report sets out the importance of good governance for poverty reduction. The World Bank has said that it,
"needs to focus even more than it has done in the past on helping governments develop the process and incentives to design and implement good policies themselves. Only through such institution building will countries achieve the ultimate goal of poverty reduction".
That is found on page 12 of Reforming Public Institution and Strengthening Government.
In their 1997 White Paper, Eliminating World Poverty, the Government said that some countries will make more rapid progress towards international poverty targets than will others. The paper states that the most likely to succeed will have effective government, enlightened legislation, prudent budgeting and efficient administration.
The Secretary of State has also said that:
"World Bank research shows that if aid is focused where the poor are and where the national Governments are committed to reform, the effectiveness of the US $50 billion or so in the international development system is increased by 50 per cent".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/02; col. 159.]
If the Government truly believe that good governance is key to the battle against poverty, they should say so in the Bill. If those countries make the most rapid progress towards poverty elimination, surely government resources should be ploughed into good governance. That focus should be reflected in the Bill by stressing the importance of good governance.
The Government said on page 23 of their White Paper on globalisation that:
"Effective governments … are … essential if developing countries are to reap the benefits of globalisation and to make that process work for poor people".
If that is what the Government truly believe, they should ensure that references to good governance appear in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Whitaker: I have some difficulties with Amendment No. 6 while being very much in favour of
1292
good governance and very much in agreement with the account by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, of its value. The amendment proposes good governance as an alternative purpose; that is, it could be an objective of development assistance even if welfare were not improved or sustainable development not furthered. That is one difficulty.
Moreover, good governance is implicit in the Bill. It is an element of poverty reduction. Surely we do not want to rule out the possibility of working with governments who are making good progress with governance but have not yet reached the acme. I do not think we can decide what good governance is for all countries for all time. We might not get it right.
In summary, the core purpose of the Bill, I think, should remain undiluted. Poverty reduction, sustainable development and improved welfare cannot in fact be achieved without effective governance. I think it would work better if we left it at that.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: It was heartening to hear the authoritative voice of the Conservative Party on the theme of good governance, especially in a week that is particularly difficult for that party. I was most encouraged by that. Good governance unites both political parties, so the proposal should not be contentious. I have already spoken on the relevance of good governance to civil society and I do not want to repeat my belief that we should refer to civil society or, if not to that, to something involving the wider philosophy of aid that we have been discussing.
I thank the Minister for her earlier rather technical answer, which was a little disappointing. I hope that we can return to this matter in Committee.
Lord Swinfen: I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, that we in this part of the world cannot lay down for other parts of the world what good governance is. Different societies have different mores, rules and ways of operating.
Without good governance in a country there is much less chance of that nation's businessmen starting or maintaining businesses that could provide an income for people and assist in the reduction of poverty. That would also mean that far fewer businessmen from other parts of the world would be willing to invest money in that country to expand or start businesses, which, again, would reduce opportunities for work. In the developing world, work helps to reduce poverty. We have our own ideas on work—we object to children working—but in some parts of the world they are the only people who can get work and provide an income for the family. If they do not work, the family will starve. Good governance is important.
If the Minister is not willing to agree to the amendment or a similar provision, will she tell the Committee which legislation allows the United Kingdom to help to provide and advise on good governance in a developing nation?
Baroness Rawlings: I apologise to the Committee. In dealing with Amendment No. 6, I forgot to speak to

1293
Amendment No. 7, which is grouped with the lead amendment. If I may, I shall say a few words on Amendment No. 7.
The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to provide assistance for measures designed to attract "foreign direct investment". That is based on the assumption that attracting foreign direct investment and private investment is a major purpose of development aid and that they help to provide more tax revenue for government, boost the local economy, create jobs and bear the risk if the election fails.
The background to the proposal appears in the 1997 White Paper, Eliminating World Poverty: A challenge for the 21st Century. The first line of section 1 of the White Paper states that the Government would:
"Refocus our international development efforts on the elimination of poverty and encouragement of economic growth which benefits the poor".
It continues:
"The experience of recent years in the most successful developing countries has clearly demonstrated the value of maintaining a sound fiscal balance and low inflation. Equally, it has shown the value of promoting more open and less regulated domestic and foreign trade. This increases the scope for higher savings which can help to finance investment. Such a framework will encourage the private sector, which provides the main impetus for economic growth".
That paragraph, which appears in section 1.18 of the White Paper, shows that the Government believe that attracting foreign direct investment into developing countries is an essential element of poverty reduction.
In the latest White Paper, on globalisation, the Government say that economic growth is indispensable. The White Paper states that,
"the progress which has been made over the last few decades in reducing the proportion of people living in poverty has been largely the result of economic growth: raising incomes generally, including those of poor people. Economic growth is an indispensable requirement for poverty reduction".
That appears in chapter 1 on pages 17 to 18. Foreign direct investment by multinational companies in developing countries can boost the local economy, create jobs and help alleviate poverty. Foreign direct investment is far more important to developing countries in the long term than small increases in overseas aid. Foreign direct investment helps to take away some of the financial risks that developing country governments face if they borrow money from banks. Companies bear the risk if their investment fails. If the investment is successful, the host government benefit from increased tax revenue and the investor benefits from the resulting profits.
The Government stress the importance of foreign investment in the globalisation White Paper of 2000. They say that the attraction of capital inflows is an essential element of a strategy to speed up sustainable development and poverty reduction. They also say:
"A central feature of globalisation has been the substantial increase in movement of capital around the world. Foreign direct investment … to developing countries increased from US$36 billion in 1992 to US$155 billion in 1999, more than three times the level of development aid".
That appears in chapter 4 of the White Paper.
1294
The Government therefore believe that attracting foreign direct investment is vital for economic growth and that economic growth is vital to development. However, much of the work needed to attract foreign direct investment cannot be said to lead directly to a reduction in poverty. It may involve assisting reforms in the law and the judiciary of developing countries or working with developing countries to alter taxation law to encourage more investment. It may involve assisting in the break-up of state-owned enterprises.
The World Bank has amassed a great deal of empirical evidence about foreign investment through its business environment work. It says that the right kind of investment promotion is important to increased growth and poverty reduction. It also says:
"Experience suggests that much can be done to remove barriers, distinctiveness and distortions that may discourage investment or divert it from efficient usage. Investment promotion should not be about tax holidays or special deals but rather about getting the fundamentals right. Once a country has good investment conditions, it can market those to investors".
That appeared in the World Bank business environment theme, Encouraging Investment.
Given the central importance of economic growth and investment to developing countries, and the need for investment promotion and marketing, what cannot really be described as "poverty focused"? The Government should add a commitment to the encouragement of foreign direct investment to the face of the Bill.
Lord Desai: A number of amendments, both in the previous group and this, point out various means by which the Government can do their work. Given the fact that the reduction of poverty is a fairly complicated process, good governance is important, foreign direct investment is important arid a civil society is important, as is the avoidance of conflict.
In a sense one understands the complexity of the process, but we are legislating in a Bill and I am not sure that we want a Bill which spreads out the entire complex model of development and poverty reduction. I could easily add another 32 amendments if I thought about it.
What is important is the present formulation in Clause 1(3) and the way "sustainable development" is defined. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that even things like improving the legal structure and so forth can be described as generating lasting benefits for the population of the country. That is a broad enough formulation to include all these points. It is not that they are not important; but it is important that they do not appear on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Amos: Clause 1 sets down the overarching aim of development assistance and the two purposes of development assistance; namely, the furthering of sustainable development and the promoting of the welfare of the people. In our previous discussion my

1295
noble friend Lord Brennan endorsed the flexibility we are seeking to achieve, as did my noble friend Lord Desai.
Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 add to the purposes for which development assistance can be provided and make explicit that the Secretary of State is able to support activities which promote good governance, establish the framework necessary to attract private and foreign direct investment and reduce conflict or the potential for conflict.
I can confirm that under the provisions of the Bill the Secretary of State will be able to support activities in all those areas, where such activities contribute to the reduction of poverty, through furthering sustainable development or promoting the welfare of the people. The Bill will, for example, allow us to support anti-corruption initiatives where the impact of such initiatives is likely to benefit the poor. It will allow us to enhance the investment environment where we believe that the poor will benefit from the resulting economic growth. The Bill will also allow us to continue to support security sector reform, where such support is likely to prevent violent conflict and increase stability, thereby decreasing suffering and poverty. To specify those areas as separate purposes for development assistance is therefore unnecessary. It is also undesirable.
There are two significant risks to inserting into the Bill references to the particular activities that the Secretary of State can support. First, the explicit references to good governance, establishing the framework necessary for private investment and conflict reduction in the Bill might lead a court to conclude that, were it not for those references, activities in those areas could not be undertaken. Following that line of reasoning, the court might conclude that it was appropriate to interpret the core power set down in Clause 1 very narrowly. That in turn would place a question mark over the Secretary of State's ability to support activities in areas that were not expressly mentioned in the Bill—areas which have often been debated in this Chamber and which are seen as important, such as health, education, water and the environment, human rights, and the empowerment of women. It cannot be in the interests of development assistance to foster a situation in which such doubts could arise.
The second element of risk relates to the need to develop comprehensive and workable definitions of "good governance", "private and foreign direct investment", and "conflict reduction".
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: If the noble Baroness will allow me, I mentioned earlier that Amendment No. 8, relating to conflict, will be taken separately. I hope that that saves the Minister responding to it now.
Baroness Amos: I shall repeat the arguments when we come to Amendment No. 8, but they are exactly the same arguments as I make now.
1296
Inserting any definition into the Bill creates the risk that the Secretary of State would not be able to support an activity which was in itself worthwhile and likely to contribute to the reduction in poverty because it fell outside our definitions.
When this Bill was debated in the other place earlier this year, similar concerns were expressed that the expression "good governance" should appear as a purpose on the face of the Bill. Given the commitment of the Government to tackle issues around good governance, the Government responded to those concerns by asking parliamentary counsel to advise as to the merits and demerits of making such an amendment. The advice we received confirmed our view that such an amendment was not necessary to allow progress towards good governance to be supported and that to include a specific provision to that effect risked constraining the Secretary of State's powers, just as I described. The Government accept that advice.
Even if those risks could be overcome, I believe that inserting such references would misrepresent our development effort. The quality of governance is important but so are the other issues I have mentioned: health, education, water and the environment, human rights, the empowerment of women, and so on. All those aspects of development are inter-dependent. To mention one without the others would give a distorted perspective on development.
I hope I have been able to give assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who asked specifically about our ability to be able to provide advice on good governance. It exists within the context of the Bill. I could repeat the noble Lord's arguments, but I hope that he accepts that broad response. For those reasons, I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment No. 6.
Baroness Rawlings: I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for his kind words. I am grateful to all those who contributed to the debate on this amendment. I thank the Minister for her explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 8:
Page I, line 12, at end insert ", or
( ) reducing conflict or the potential for conflict in one or more such countries"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 8 seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to provide assistance, whether financial or technical, to reduce the potential for conflict in developing countries. That could include the provision of assistance to countries in central and eastern Europe, to assist with the controlling of the supply of small arms from those countries to areas of conflict.
It is vitally important that no measures to prevent the potential for violent conflict in developing countries are made illegal by the narrow terms of "poverty reduction" within the Bill. We believe that explicit reference needs to be made to conflict as it is so often one of the root causes of poverty and political instability. The Government agree with that. They have said that the promotion of peace and stability is indispensable if countries are to attract investment and trade and promote pro-poor development.
Violent conflict is one of the biggest barriers to development in many of the world's poorest countries, according to the globalisation White Paper.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that countries will struggle to make the necessary commitment to poverty reduction and economic growth if they are affected by conflict. That appeared in the Herald of 8th July 2000. Action to prevent the proliferation of small arms in developing countries could legitimately mean British aid money being used to help strengthen customs and excise activity or economic diversification in countries where the arms originate. Those tend to be countries of central and eastern Europe and Russia. We have concerns that the poverty focus of the Bill may render such assistance illegal. The Government have already reduced schemes to eastern Europe such as the Know-How Fund. That is a great shame. The Know-How Fund did marvellous work, especially in stabilising eastern and central Europe, which is so important for these accession countries.
The Government are also pressing the European Union to take such action by 2006. Seventy per cent of EU spend is to be used on low-income countries. In the light of reduced commitments to eastern Europe, it is important that the Government can ensure that arms programmes aimed at reducing small arms flows from eastern Europe to conflict situations in Africa can continue to be funded by DfID.
Lord Redesdale: I support the aims of the amendment. However, I believe that it would place a great deal of strain on the Secretary of State. I am not sure whether reducing conflict is quantifiable. If implemented, the Export Control Bill, which is to be introduced, should stop the flow of small arms which will do a great deal to reduce conflict. However, I am not certain that the amendment would help this Bill.
Baroness Amos: Amendment No. 8 would add to the purposes for which development assistance can be provided and make explicit that the Secretary of State is able to support activities which reduce conflict or the potential for conflict.
I can confirm that under the provisions of the Bill the Secretary of State will be able to support activities in this area. The Bill will allow us to continue to support security sector reform where such support is likely to prevent violent conflict and increase stability,
1298
thereby decreasing suffering and poverty. To specify that area as a separate purpose for development assistance is therefore unnecessary.
I can also confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that the Government are committed to tackling and reducing conflict. We have established a conflict prevention fund and, as part of the process of ensuring that government departments work together to achieve and secure the same objective, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development are working together on that issue. A good example of that is the work being done in Sierra Leone.
The noble Baroness may also be aware of the initiative on conflict Diamonds. One of our concerns is that resources such as diamonds, where available, fuel conflict in particular parts of the world. The noble Baroness will also be aware of the considerable amount of work we are doing in the Balkans. I assure the noble Baroness that her amendment is unnecessary. In the light of that explanation, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Rawlings: I thank the Minister for her explanation. I am sorry that she took that view. This is an important amendment which, reluctantly. in the circumstances I shall press. I should therefore like to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 135.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Glentoran, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Greenway, L.

Attlee, E.

Hanham, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Blatch, B.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Bridgeman, V.

Hooper, B.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Howe, E.

Buscombe, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Caithness, E.

Joffe, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kimball, L.

Chadlington, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Colwyn, L.

McColl of Dulwich.L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Marlesford, L.

Denham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Monro of Langholm. L.

Dundee, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elles,B.

Mutton of Lindisfarne, L

Elton, L.

Naseby, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northesk, E.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Fookes, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Fowler, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Freeman, L.

Peyton of Yeovil. L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Piatt of Writde.B.

Garel-Jones, L.

Rawlings, B.

Geddes, L.

Renton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L

1299

Rochester, Bp.

Skidelsky, L.

St.John of Bletso,L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Stewartby, L.

Seccombe, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Selborne, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Selsdon, L.

Trumpington, B.

Sharples, B.

Vivian, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Waddington, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Warnock, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Addington, L.

Hooson, L.

Alderdice, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Amos, B.

Hoyle,L.

Ampthill, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Andrews, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Chancellor)

Avebury, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bach,L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jeger, B.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Berkeley, L.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blease, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Levy, L.

Bragg, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brennan, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brett, L.

[Teller]

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brookman, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Burlison, L.

Marsh, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Christopher, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clark Of Windermere, L.

Mishcon, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Morgan, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Northover, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Orme, L.

Crawley, B.

Palmer. L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Patel, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Paul, L.

Desai, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dholakia, L.

Rea, L.

Dixon, L.

Redesdale, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Falkland, V.

Rooker, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Roper, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Russell, E.

Filkin, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Fitt, L.

Scodand of Asthal, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Gilbert, L.

Sheldon, L.

Gladwin of Clee.L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Simon, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Greaves, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gregson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grenfell, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Grocott, L.

Taverne, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Thornton, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Haskel, L.

Turnberg, L.

Hayman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Uddin, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

1300

Walmsley, B.

Whitaker, B.

Warner, L.

Wilkins, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Williams of Elvel. L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Watson of Richmond, L.

Privy Seat)

Weatherill, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.4 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall publish an annual report on the performance of the development assistance programme against stated poverty reduction targets, and shall lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament."
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to link more closely the activities of government with clearly defined and measurable targets. Currently, the Government publish their Annual Report and Public Service Agreement and progress towards achievement, but that is often too vague with not enough evidence to back up the claims. Sometimes the projections have been lacking in accuracy.
Some of these agreements have already been discussed in the other place, but we believe that they are so important that they need to be aired once again. Unfortunately, as the guillotine seems more and more prevalent in the other place, debate is stifled and your Lordships' House is the only place left for proper scrutiny.
The background to the amendment is that the World Bank stated in its publication, Understanding Poverty:
"To know what helps alleviate poverty, what works and does not, what changes over time, poverty has to be defined, measured and studied".
There is nothing in the Bill that defines poverty or demonstrates how progress will be reported or measured. The UN said of western donors (UNDP Poverty Report 2000) that,
"the great majority of the agencies lack monitoring systems to hold themselves accountable to their declared poverty objectives. They can present no convincing evidence on how their interventions have benefited the poor".
We are concerned that there is nothing in the Bill to set down how the Government's progress towards these targets will be met or how progress will be effectively measured. If there is very little evidence and accountability concerning the use of aid money and no effective measure of its success, the "poverty reduction" focus of the Bill could prove to be little more than a paper tiger. For example, the Public Service Agreement 1999 to 2002 targets set down by the Government in the Annual Report 2000, appeared to be a way of holding the Department for International Development accountable through some clearly defined and measurable targets. Unfortunately, that has not happened. Data on

1301
primary school enrolment could not be found, while targets for reducing maternal mortality had not been met.
The Government's Annual Report was supposed to be the basis for an annual debate. Section 4.5 of the 1997 White Paper stated:
"We envisage that publication of the Annual Report could be an occasion for a Parliamentary debate on international development".
However, there has been no such annual debate. There has been only one debate on international development since 1997 and that was in the final week before the election. We need more debates on international development, especially if targets are being missed.
The globalisation White Paper showed that insufficient progress was being made on any of the key 2015 international development targets. According to DfID, primary school enrolment figures have not risen fast enough. As regards eliminating gender disparity by 2005, DfID stated that,
"girls' enrolments remain persistently behind those of boys".
As regards reducing infant mortality, DfID stated:
"The fall is not enough to meet the target"
and that progress towards reducing maternal mortality was well off course.
That is very different to DfID's description of its PSA targets, which was: for primary enrolment, "no comprehensive new data"; eliminating gender disparity, "on course"; reducing infant mortality, "on course"; and reducing maternal mortality, "only modest progress". There is a lack of honesty about aid targets and a lack of fair and accurate measures of results. We call for an annual report to measure progress towards these aims.
With regard to poor targeting, there is often also not enough evidence of achievement. Although DfID has set the target that 70 per cent of projects should meet its objectives, the small print reads:
"Very few of these projects have been completed as yet".
Current targets do not take into account sustainable development. Projects rated as officially successful by DfID can turn out to be unsuccessful. In a response to a Question for Written Answer the Secretary of State said that,
"A formal review of the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) Organisational Development Project in October 1999 showed that it was successful in contributing to DfID's objectives as set out in the Public Service Agreement. The review concluded that the project was enabling organisational change to take place in ZRP to the benefit of the people of Zimbabwe, including the poorest.
However, since February the ZRP has not enforced the law or upheld their own charter in relation to the attacks on the opposition and the land invasions".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/6/00; col. 123W]
This Bill calls for sustainable development to be one of' the major focuses of the aid budget, but the only way one can tell whether a project or programme has been sustainable is to measure it a number of times and several years after completion. Surely, that is the only true measure of sustainability.
Government targets need to be both achievable and measurable. Sector-wide programmes cannot fully account for the impact of British aid money. As DfID's own research has shown, when using sector-wide aid programmes individual donor programmes are difficult to disaggregate from other donor programmes. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I warmly support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Rawlings. In the vast range of legislative responsibilities which any government must now shoulder I cannot recall any matter in respect of which they are not obliged to report to Parliament. Here the taxpayer must potentially shoulder, justifiably, a very large burden of various humanitarian aid throughout the world and outside the British Commonwealth. I believe that if ever there was a case in which the Government should be required to produce an annual report to Parliament, this is it.
The Earl of Sandwich: The noble Lord, Lord Desai, has already said that there is a good deal of material for a Second Reading debate. Although I do not want to prolong debate on this immensely important subject, the noble Baroness has a point. Government departments report annually in the normal way, but I am not certain that there is a timetable for regular reporting on international development targets. I should be grateful to hear an answer to that from the noble Baroness.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Amos: Amendment No. 11 would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the performance of the development assistance programme and to lay it before both Houses of Parliament. The Secretary of State already produces such a report. DfID's departmental report provides a comprehensive account of the department's operations and future plans. It includes an assessment of progress against the department's agreed public service agreement targets. The departmental report is a public document.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred to the lack of honesty in measuring performance against targets. Perhaps it is helpful if I say a little more about the accountability of the Secretary of State under the Bill and the transparency of DfID's decision-making procedures and policy development processes. The Secretary of State is accountable first and foremost to Parliament. She is also required to make an annual report to Parliament on the policies and operation of her department. The Select Committee on International Development reports on that report and can call in the Secretary of State to explain and discuss any part of it. It can also request amendments to the format and content of the report. The Secretary of State is also accountable for the use of her powers to the courts and to the general public.
I also remind the Committee of the transparency of DfID's policy-making and decision-making procedures. Our country strategy papers,

1303
institutional strategy papers and target strategy papers are all developed in full consultation with our partners and are publicly available. They consider in a frank and comprehensive way the opportunities and challenges for development and the resources available from DfID to address them.
The annual departmental report also includes reporting against each international development target. We also report quarterly to the Treasury on each TFA target. The existing mechanisms for reporting on DfID's policies and operations include the publication and presentation to Parliament of an annual departmental report. In view of that, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Rawlings: I thank other Members of the Committee for their support for this probing amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Humanitarian assistance]:
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2. line 11. at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements to ensure that humanitarian assistance provided under subsection (1), which is provided via other agencies or bodies, shall comply with the same standards as to effectiveness and probity as apply to assistance disbursed directly."
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to prevent humanitarian assistance provided via agencies other than the United Kingdom Government being used for purposes that would not comply with UK government standards. This is the only part of the Bill that is not subject to a poverty focus. We believe that there is no reason why humanitarian aid should not also be used for poverty reduction. Humanitarian aid needs to be delivered quickly and efficiently. However, it is also very important that such aid is not misused and spent incorrectly. The Government said in the White Paper Eliminating Poverty published in 1997 that,
"The multitude of actors involved in humanitarian work underlines the importance of international co-operation based on sound principles. Hence we shall encourage systemwide agreement on common performance standards and a code of ethical conduct for organisations involved in humanitarian work. and will seek to implement guidelines already agreed within the OECD. We shall work for, and co-operate with, a more effective and efficient multilateral humanitarian system, building on the capabilities of UN institutions, the Red Cross movement, other international organisations and NGOs. Within the EU, we shall also work closely with other member states and the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) to ensure more consistent joint policies and approaches".
If international co-operation is based on "sound principles" and the Government are working to encourage "systemwide common performance standards", why do they not take the lead in publishing within this Bill the fact that all humanitarian aid must conform to a poverty focus?
The International Committee of the Red Cross—I declare an interest as a working member of over 30 years—has said that humanitarian aid is based on seven fundamental principles: humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, voluntary service, unity and universality. These principles were officially proclaimed in the declaration at the 20th international conference of the Red Cross held in Vienna in 1965. We believe that there needs to be provision within the Bill to allow the United Kingdom to prevent British taxpayers' money being used to fund humanitarian aid that does not comply with UK standards. I look forward to hearing the response of the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My noble friend referred to subsection (1). However, Clause 3 has no subsections. It is just a clause on its own. Is my noble friend assuming, therefore, that this will become subsection (2) of Clause 3?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): The noble Baroness was referring to subsection (1) of Clause 1.
Baroness Rawlings: It is subsection (1) of Clause 1.
Lord Judd: In speaking to this amendment I shall conveniently speak to Amendment No. 14. When the subject of the amendment was raised at Second Reading, the Minister was not in a position to give a definitive reply. The noble Baroness has since, very courteously, written to me. I deeply appreciate that letter. In it the noble Baroness referred to the Secretary of State's firm position and the ethical framework within which the whole interpretation of the Bill will take place.
It will not surprise noble Lords that, while I appreciate that letter and the spirit in which it was written, I am not altogether convinced. Having been in government myself I know of the tremendous pressures that there are to take other considerations into account. It would be helpful to have specifically on the face of the Bill what humanitarian assistance means. It is not just the present Secretary of State, whose commitment we do not question, but future Secretaries of State who will have to take what the House wants firmly into account.
In saying that, I underline that in dealing with Nicaragua in 1986 the International Court of Justice argued that if humanitarian assistance was to escape condemnation as being politically motivated rather than being motivated by humanitarian purpose alone, it must conform to the standards laid down by the ICRC.

1305
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred to the ICRC's position. Perhaps the noble Baroness could just have added the ICRC's principle of,
"no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. It endeavours to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by their needs".
If that is not in itself important enough, I was interested to come across a document which reminded me that in 1996 the Council of the European Union in dealing with humanitarian aid found it quite possible to define the purpose of humanitarian aid. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1257/96 of 20th June 1996 states:
"Whereas humanitarian aid, the sole aim of which is to prevent or relieve human suffering, is accorded to victims without discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnic group. religion, sex, age, nationality or political affiliation and must not be guided by, or subject to, political considerations".
The European Union and the ICRC have managed to define what humanitarian assistance is and should be. That will inevitably raise questions as to why there is nothing on the face of the Bill stating what our interpretation is. I would therefore like to be reassured by the Minister about this matter.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: I support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Judd about the meaning of humanitarian assistance. Clause 3 refers to,
"alleviating the effects of a natural or man-made disaster"
That should be read in the sense that it can also include warnings provided to communities and shelters and prevention systems. Some definitions of "humanitarian assistance" refer only to events after a disaster has struck. Therefore, one comes in after—as it were—people are suffering. I hope and believe that it is intended that the Bill will include a more effective form of assistance to enable countries to avoid disaster.
One example was Hurricane Mitch. A better warning system would have prevented the huge increase in poverty which followed that hurricane. One has seen, for example, the flood shelters off the coast of India and Bangladesh. They have greatly reduced poverty. In some definitions of humanitarian aid that would not be humanitarian assistance. They are exceedingly effective in reducing poverty. I hope that, in the context of the clause, the Government are considering this broader definition of humanitarian assistance.
Baroness Whitaker: With regard to Amendment No. 13, I should like to suggest that humanitarian aid is very different in kind from development aid. It is different because it is entirely in the context of a crisis, whereas development aid needs to create a framework to increase poverty reduction.
My attention has been drawn to a leader in the Daily Telegraph on 10th July which says it all. The article stated that,
"aid organisations are not required to sit in judgment on the world's misguided rulers. Their business is to prevent innocent people in the world from suffering the consequences of misrule".
Therefore, I speak against the amendment.
Baroness Amos: Amendments Nos. 13 and 1.4 seek to ensure that humanitarian assistance is provided effectively and with impartiality.
Clause 3 of the Bill enables the Secretary of State to provide humanitarian assistance in response to disaster or other emergency. Assistance under the clause is not limited to "development assistance". as defined in Clause 1. Nor is there any requirement for the assistance to be likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked that humanitarian assistance should be linked to poverty reduction. Clause 3 is intended to enable the Secretary of State to respond to the immediate needs of the victims of disaster. To require her to temper that immediate response according to an assessment of whether her support would reduce poverty would seriously inhibit her ability to act expeditiously. The immediate needs of the victims of disaster must: be the driving force for the help which is given.
The clause does not use the term "humanitarian assistance", which is, as a consequence, not defined in the Bill. Instead, the clause refers to,
"natural or man-made disaster or other emergency"
and limits the purpose of assistance to "alleviating the effects" of these on the population of a country outside the United Kingdom.
The effect of Amendment No. 13 is to place the Secretary of State under a duty to apply standards of "effectiveness and probity" to any bodies or persons who acted on her behalf in the provision of humanitarian assistance.
It is already open to the Secretary of State to impose standards on those who carry out activities on her behalf. The department devotes significant resources to ensuring that our partners' systems and procedures meet the requirements of effectiveness and probity set out in the department's humanitarian guidelines. Indirect assistance is also subject to the same degree of scrutiny as direct assistance by our own internal audit department, the National Audit Office, and by Parliament through the International Development Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. Indirect assistance will be channelled through organisations with which we have an existing relationship, based on a positive, prior assessment of their effectiveness, efficiency and probity. The International Development Committee's recent assessment of our response to the Kosovo crisis is an example of the thorough scrutiny of both indirectly and directly provided assistance.
I would therefore argue that the amendment is unnecessary. I regret that it is also undesirable because it places statutory constraints on how the Secretary of State may respond to a crisis. It could require a layer of bureaucracy that would add not value but delay DfID's approval of proposals.
Amendment No. 14, tabled by my noble friends Lord Judd and Lord Hunt and by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, seeks to define in the Bill the terms on which humanitarian assistance should be

1307
provided—specifically, that it should be provided to victims without discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnic group, religion, sex, age, nationality or political affiliation. No one would disagree with that sentiment. The question is whether such a definition would enhance the effectiveness of such assistance by appearing on the face of the Bill.
As my noble friend Lady Whitaker has already stated, humanitarian assistance is quite different from development assistance. It is provided in response to crises, which are often unforeseen. To be effective it must be immediate and provided flexibly. Noble Lords have pressed me consistently in the House on the speed of the Government's response to crises in, for example, Mozambique, India and elsewhere in the world. The speed of our response has always been commended by noble Lords. This urgency does not mean that impartiality is overlooked. To achieve the aim of alleviating the suffering of those affected by disaster, humanitarian assistance cannot be provided only to one group of people and withheld from others who share in that suffering.
All our humanitarian assistance is provided under a published framework. The Secretary of State and her department are subject to the Human Rights Act in what they do. If we were to embed in the Bill constraints of the type sought by my noble friend Lord Judd, the department would be legally accountable for ensuring that each and every disaster or emergency be formally appraised against each of the elements set down in the principles. To embed a precise but wide-ranging duty in the Bill would give rise to a substantial increase in bureaucracy, both for us and our partners, which we believe would constrain our ability to react quickly. I can reassure my noble friend Lord Hunt that the term "humanitarian assistance" includes support for measures to improve disaster preparedness.
For those reasons, I ask that Amendment No. 13 be withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: I am rather disappointed by the Minister's reply. I may wish to consider the matter again at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Supplementary powers]:
Lord Hunt of Chesterton Lord Hunt of Chesterton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 23, after first "promote," insert "through his own department and other departments and agencies of government,"
The noble Lord said: I welcome the opportunity to move an amendment to this important Bill. The Bill has an inspirational or visionary element, as my noble friend Lord Judd said, as well as a legal element. All great legislation has some visionary element, including even constitutional Bills referring to the future of this Chamber.
The purpose of the amendment is to urge that under the responsibilities of the Secretary of State there should be more promotion of poverty reduction by all the various government departments and agencies that can contribute. That is done and is partly co-ordinated and paid for by the DfID through the regular budgets. That arrangement may be rather uncertain and is not always explicitly co-ordinated. For example, there is some co-ordination of work with the United Nations agencies, but as I know from my own experience, it is not always explicit. In other areas, such as the use of science and technology for international development, there is some co-ordination but it is not as extensive as it might be. The aim of the amendment is to empower the Secretary of State to devote resources in her department to ensure by encouragement and coordination that other departments continue to devote a certain proportion of their budgets and efforts to international development and poverty reduction.
In particular, such work should be a feature of the targets of departments and agencies and the personal targets of permanent secretaries and chief executives. All departments and agencies have large budgets for providing and purchasing goods and services—many of them in and from foreign countries, including those where there is great poverty. If those actions were redirected to some extent towards the goal of poverty reduction, that could have a considerable effect.
In a former life, when I was a civil servant, I suggested that government departments and agencies should have such wider goals. A distinguished Minister, who is now a Member of this House, said, "That's the kind of thing they do in France, not in the UK". I hope that the Government will think along the lines suggested in my amendment. More could certainly be done, not necessarily by detailed instruction but by broad promotion. An amendment along the lines I have suggested would encourage staff, stakeholders and people involved in government, including those who provide services to departments—scientists, doctors and so on—to understand the broad aims of the Bill in a more effective way. I beg to move.
The Earl of Northesk: I hope it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I take this opportunity to speak to Amendment No. 19 in the name of my noble friend Lady Rawlings. I trust that the reasons for the new clause are self-evident. It seeks to ensure that all government departments responsible in some way for overseas activities are focused on poverty reduction. Indeed, in many ways that has been the thrust of the Minister in her replies to our debates thus far today. That is buttressed by making provision for a report to be put before Parliament each year to chart the progress being made.
It is axiomatic that the Department for International Development should be committed to its primary aim of reducing global poverty but its efforts should also be backed up with a similar commitment from other government departments. In fact, of course, the Government have accepted that they must

1309
take a cross-departmental approach to poverty reduction. The Prime Minister said in the preface to the globalisation White Paper:
"This White Paper sets out the UK Government's policies in all these areas. It reflects our commitment to work across all parts of Government in order to help eliminate world poverty, and to cooperate with other governments and international institutions as part of a broader international effort".
It is essential that that works in practice; the more so because the record over the past four years is suggestive of a lack of the commitment called for by the Prime Minister. Examples abound. It is open to debate whether the Foreign Office promoted human rights issues in Turkey over the Ilisu dam. The Government's globalisation White Paper stressed that:
"Making political institutions work for poor people means helping to strengthen the voices of the poor and helping them to realise their human rights".
However., the Ilisu dam showed how the Foreign Office did not make any attempt to raise human rights issues with the DTI. In response to the International Development Select Committee, Richard Caborn said:
"The DTI is not responsible for human rights. It will take the advice of other government departments. I would say, to the best of my knowledge, that this was not a question which was raised when we circulated to other departments. That is, DfID, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and indeed others. It was not raised to the best of my knowledge".
It can be argued that the Ministry of Defence did not demonstrate a commitment to poverty reduction in March 2000 when it charged the DfID the full market price—£2.2 million—for four Puma helicopters to assist in Mozambique. The sale of spare parts to Zimbabwe does not seem, on the face of it, to have been focused on poverty reduction. In the Caribbean we can all recall that when a volcano devastated the island of Montserrat in August 1997 Clare Short accused the islanders of "sheer irresponsibility" and accused them of "wanting golden elephants next" in their pleas for aid and assistance.
The crisis demonstrated the Cabinet split over responsibility for the island between Clare Short and Robin Cook. Robin Cook then took charge of the Government's handling of the crisis. Revealingly, Downing Street said that it wanted to ensure "better coordination" across government departments.
But the evidence suggests that the Government have failed to deliver the joined-up decision making that they espouse. in seeking to ensure that other government departments cannot ignore poverty reduction in their dealings with developing countries, our amendment seeks to facilitate that desirable aim. We trust that the Minister will view it with sympathy.
Lord Judd: We have already heard some interesting contributions to this grouping of amendments, and perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendment No. 20 as well.
We have heard that, in order to make progress, interdepartmental co-operation is essential: one has to look at government as a whole. But it is not only within the United Kingdom that co-operation is essential. If we
1310
are to win the battle for the reduction of poverty—if we have to call it that—we must have effective international collaboration as well as national collaboration.
I am slightly mystified at this point. Only in December of last year was the extremely interesting White Paper entitled Eliminating World Poverty—Making Globalisation Work for the Poor published. In its introduction, the Secretary of State stated:
"We now have unprecedented consensus—across the UN system, the IMF and the World Bank, most Regional Development Banks, leaders of developing countries, the G8 and the OECD—that the achievement of the Targets should he the focus of our joint endeavours".
She went on to say:
"This Second White Paper analyses the nature of globalisation. It sets out an agenda for managing the process in a way that could ensure that the new wealth, technology and knowledge being generated brings sustainable benefits to the one in five of humanity who live in extreme poverty".
That extremely important White Paper was received with considerable interest across the world. But the Bill before us today makes absolutely no substantial reference to international development and cooperation. That is why I tabled this amendment.
If my noble friend can bring forward a better form of words to express my concern, I shall be the first to applaud it. However, in my amateurish way I have looked at the Bill and decided that something should be attempted to put in a form of words that is clearly missing. Here, at the least, is one proposal. Earlier in our proceedings I was told that we must remember the importance of modesty. For that reason, I put forward this amendment with a great sense of modesty as regards whether it contains the right wording. However, as I have said, at least it is an attempt.
I hope that my noble friend will take seriously the point that I have made and will be able to reassure the Committee.
The Earl of Sandwich: I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 16, which has somehow crept into this rather politicised debate. I have some difficulty with the drafting of the amendment, which strikes me as rather negative when the Bill here refers to the "awareness of global poverty". I accept the focus on poverty, but is it not misleading to suggest that the awareness of poverty is sufficient in development education, for example?
So-called poor communities have a great deal to teach us. We now live in a world of interdependence. The events in Oldham and Bradford have made that fact much more urgent. It is important that nongovernmental organisations in particular should positively promote an understanding of development issues. I cite here the legacy of empire and why our cities are as they are alongside the relief of poverty. Given that, perhaps I may suggest the addition of the words "development issues" which are easily understood by teachers and all those involved in this element of education.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Brennan: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 17A in this grouping, the first in the supplementary list. This amendment is designed to encourage an alliance between government and business in the pursuit of international development.
The White Paper published last year stated plainly that the private sector has a key role to play in making globalisation work better for the poor. Why is it a key role? The same paper states:
"Managed wisely, the new wealth being created by globalisation creates the opportunity to lift millions of the world's poorest people out of their poverty. Managed badly and it could lead to their further marginalisation and impoverishment. Neither outcome is predetermined".
It is a matter of political will and choice. That political will, designed to encourage choice by business in particular, can help to reduce world poverty. But why should it?
The bitter experiences of Shell and the Brent Spar incident and in Nigeria, or BP in Colombia, or Monsanto worldwide with concerns about the effects of GM products on the poorest countries all serve to indicate that big business cannot ignore the responsibilities imposed by globalisation. Happily, business accepts this.
In the debate on Second Reading I mentioned the use of codes of conduct and ethical and moral investment—dare one use the word "moral" in this context—which business has been promoting. Only a week or so ago, a group of European business leaders met and decided to institute a programme for corporate social responsibility, reaching its climax in 2005. It is to be directed at the Union, but also at the world outside. The duty is obvious—the price of drugs, the effects of environmental change, dams and energy prices—and cannot be avoided. However, as I have said, happily business now accepts that it should play its part.
This is not a new revolution, but simply a reflection of globalisation. In this country we speak of the public/ private partnership—I underline the word "partnership"—and promote it as beneficial to ourselves. By doing so we draw into government more closely than ever before business leaders, with the objective of producing that which will benefit the community. I have tabled this amendment to test my own suggestion that Clause 4 has itself been expressed in the most expansive of terms in order to test the Government's spirit and energy in applying the clause to the world of business.
The White Paper states:
"We welcome the increasing focus by multinationals on training information and technology professionals in developing countries, and we are keen to work with them—for example on trade and investment promotion packages, and teacher training materials".
Those are but a few of many examples that one can readily contemplate. If Clause 4 means what I think it means, then the amendment is superfluous. Otherwise it provides an excellent opportunity for my noble
1312
friend on the Front Bench plainly to declare that the policy of the White Paper will continue to be developed and implemented in this Bill and that the Government will ally with their people and with business to promote international development.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: I hope that I shall be forgiven if I ask a question not directly related to these amendments but to Clause 4 as it stands. I welcome the succinct nature of the Bill, but perhaps that could result in a great many questions being left unanswered. Anxieties have been expressed outside your Lordships' House as regards what is the precise meaning of this clause and what are its implications regarding the provision of grants for development education. There are those who are concerned that Clause 4 of the Bill may not extend to include Churches or faith-based organisations, although what we have heard about NGOs suggests that that would be the case. We are concerned that the clause will be interpreted in such a way that Churches and faith-based organisations will be excluded.
The reason for this goes back to Second Reading. In her response to the debate, the noble Baroness, in answer to points made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, said that both in the UK and partner countries the role of NGOs was recognised and that the Government channel a substantial proportion of their resources through NGOs.
But then the answer to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, appeared less clear and referred to work primarily with reforming governments. The Minister added that projects empowering local communities are, in principle, eligible for Challenge Fund support. She then returned to a clearer statement on the need for greater awareness and understanding of development issues across the UK and internationally. There, again, work with NGOs was encouraged.
It is quite clear to us that the role of the Churches and faith communities throughout the world is quite enormous. Our own Church of England, for instance, has nearly 70 million members in 164 countries. I have myself seen in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Namibia tremendous work being done by the Churches in regard to education, pastoral care and development issues. I have witnessed the great and renewing demand for this support in the light of the collapse of government funding in those countries.
My own diocese recently sent a quarter of a million pounds to provide capital for building schemes in Zambia. That will provide the people there with an income with which they can then pursue their own projects. We hope and pray that that will provide sustainable financial resources for them in the future.
The movement for link dioceses has taught the Churches in this country a great deal about developmental needs, and the Christians and members of other faiths are a substantial human resource in Africa and elsewhere. I am thinking of two great hospitals, the Lutheran hospital in Namibia and the

1313
Christian hospital in Katete in Zambia. Those hospitals are not only about healing but about teaching, helping to develop mental attitudes and tackling the AIDS epidemic in all kinds of ways.
From what the Minister said, this is probably an unnecessary anxiety, but I have been asked to raise the issue.
Lord Redesdale: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 17, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The amendment seeks to ensure that there is, to use the parlance of the day, "joined up government". It is a probing amendment. In that spirit, can the Minister give any indication of what level of contact has been garnered with the DTI over the export control Bill?
Baroness Rawlings: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 25, which is tabled in my name. Clause 7 provides the Secretary of State with the power to provide assistance under the Bill. It allows her to set out the terms and conditions for such assistance. However, subsection (3) provides that the Treasury must approve such terms and conditions for financial assistance. My amendment seeks a requirement to make all details of requests made to the Treasury to approve such terms and conditions for financial aid a matter of public knowledge.
I propose that this be done by laying a report of the details of approval or otherwise before Parliament. Many noble Lords argued long and hard for details such as these to be made publicly available during the passage of the Freedom of Information Act. It is important that such matters are reported to Parliament. It will help us to understand more fully the terms and conditions under which aid is given in a specific circumstance and the reasons for refusal by the Treasury.
We believe in more open government and that there should be no mystery surrounding the approval of financial aid.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 17. I apologise to the Committee for not referring to it when I spoke earlier.
As other Members of the Committee have said, the Bill applies to many government departments. I simply wish to ask the Minister—I hope that she will be able to reply— whether, when the Bill is enacted, it will be looked at and acted upon by every government department. Or will it be acted upon only when a missive comes from DfID? I believe that the Act should be seen by everyone.
The annual reports of government departments, agencies and inter-governmental bodies should include an account of their activities in the direction of global poverty and international development. At the moment there is a very varied response. Some government agencies believe that this is important and will include such an account; others will not. Only a clear statement in the Bill will have that implication. I hope that the amendment will be seriously considered.
6 p.m.
Baroness Amos: Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17, 17A, 19, 20 and 25 relate to the promotion of policy coherence on development issues within Whitehall, and to the new powers taken in the Bill to support organisations engaged in development awareness activities and to provide a wider range of financial instruments than are available under the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 draw attention to the issue of promoting coherence across Whitehall on issues relating to development awareness. It would be inappropriate to require in the Bill that other government departments and agencies utilise a proportion of their budgets for development assistance. Parliament has reserved the right to itself to determine annually the allocation of resources to particular departments and for particular purposes. We should not use legislation to cut across that convention.
Clause 4 of the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to support organisations undertaking development awareness and advocacy activities. The Secretary of State is already supporting such activities on the basis of the Appropriation Act. The power in the Bill will serve to regularise the position. The Government believe that if we are to succeed in meeting the international development targets we need to build greater awareness and understanding of development issues across the United Kingdom and internationally. We therefore support activities which promote public knowledge and understanding of development issues, of our global interdependence, of the need for international development, and of the progress that has been made and that is possible.
I can assure the Committee that DfID is well aware that to make progress in this area we must work closely with other government departments, and in particular with the Department for Education and Skills. The Bill in no way constrains the Secretary of State from working across government and, I should say to the right reverend Prelate, with any other partners to promote an awareness of global poverty. The Secretary of State will be able to continue to work with Churches and faith groups in all areas of our work, including development, education and awareness.
I hope that I have reassured the Committee that such an amendment is unnecessary. But I need to go a little further and explain why it is also inappropriate. If a duty is to be imposed in law, then it should be cast in sufficiently precise terms so that a Secretary of State can be held to account on whether or not the duty is being met. I have been advised that the only way to frame the Secretary of State's duty would be to set down in some detail how the various government departments must carry out their business. Even if we were capable of formulating such directions, I do not think that it would be a desirable step to take as we would end up constraining rather than facilitating the co-operation and co-ordination that the amendments seek to establish.

1315
Amendment No. 16, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, seeks to clarify and expand the purpose of the development awareness activities that the Secretary of State could support under the Bill by allowing that such activities should be able to promote awareness of either global poverty or development issues. I believe that I can provide reassurance on this point. We have received legal advice that Clause 4(2)(c) has a broad application which naturally embraces raising awareness of "development issues". To insert the term is therefore unnecessary.
Amendment No. 17A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Brennan, would enable the Secretary of State to work with the private sector to make any privately funded development assistance work effectively for the reduction of poverty.
Private sector activity is the main driving force behind economic growth, which is in turn a principal driver of poverty reduction. Private financial flows to Africa are now far greater than flows of official development assistance. The Government's 2000 White Paper on making globalisation work for the poor recognised the opportunities and challenges of globalisation, and set out the ways in which we, in cooperation with the international community, will work to ensure that poor people can take advantage of these opportunities.
The Bill builds on this understanding and will enable the Secretary of State to support the efforts of multinational corporations and indigenous companies to develop and promote socially responsible business practices. It will, for example, enable continuation of support for the Ethical Trading Initiative. I can, therefore, reassure my noble friend Lord Brennan that the Government already recognise the contribution that the private sector can make to the reduction of poverty.
Amendment No. 19 recognises that coherence in government policy on all issues affecting developing countries is crucial if we are to make an effective contribution to the reduction of poverty. The effect of the amendment would be to require the Secretary of State to promote poverty reduction as the focus of all dealings between the UK Government and developing countries. It would further require the making of a joint annual report to Parliament by the Secretary of State for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the MoD and the Treasury on what had been done under the arrangements.
DfID is working more closely than ever before with other government departments. It is, for example, working with the DTI on making the next WTO trade round a "development round"; with the MoD and with the FCO on conflict prevention; with the Treasury on debt; with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on securing agreement to various biotechnology and biodiversity protocols; and with the Department for Education and Skills on child labour. There has been substantial and wide-ranging discussion at official and ministerial
1316
level on the development of the Export Control Bill now under consideration in another place. The cooperative work is continuing.
These specific links are complemented by the Inter-Departmental Working Group on Development, which provides a ministerial forum for reviewing government progress in promoting coherence. This joint working is captured in our department reports, which include for the first time specific public service agreement targets which cover joint working. Future departmental reports will report progress against these targets. The contents of the report will be informed by the scrutiny and recommendations of the Select Committee on International Development.
Amendment No. 20, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Redesdale, ranges broadly, taking in the focus of the United Kingdom's development effort, policy coherence, and the Secretary of State's engagement with various multilateral development organisations, such as the UN and the European Union. I can respond only in equally broad terms.
Development issues have a much greater profile across government. We established the Department for International Development in 1997 as a separate department. The Secretary of State for International Development is a member of the Cabinet and DfID Ministers are members of the key ministerial committees and sub-committees relevant to international development, such as those concerned with the environment, biotechnology, defence and overseas policy and trade. The Government working as a whole have been able to make very important contributions to the international development effort; for example, on debt relief and conflict reduction. Later this month, the G8 summit will receive a report on progress in achieving the international development targets.
Subsection (4) of Amendment No. 20 requires the Secretary of State to participate in and support relevant multilateral institutions, including the United Nations and the European Union. The scale, presence and history of these organisations mean that they can make a significant contribution to reducing poverty. Some have not come close to reaching their potential—noble Lords will be aware of the debates that we have had about improving the effectiveness, for example, of the European Union. Others are very effective partners. But I do not believe that it is desirable to determine in law which institutions or which activities the Secretary of State should support, as the amendment seeks to do. The principle running through the Bill is that the needs of poor people must be the driving force behind the choice of form of assistance; otherwise the primacy of the overarching requirement of poverty reduction and the two development purposes will be compromised.
Amendment No. 25 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report specifically on that development assistance which is provided with Treasury approval. This assistance will be in the nature of loans, guarantees, and the taking of securities in a company.

1317
Clause 7 provides for the use of a wider range of financial instruments than are available under the 1980 Act; namely, shares, options and guarantees. These instruments will allow the Secretary of State to capitalise upon the enormous potential contribution of the private sector to poverty reduction, with less risk of distorting markets, creating unfair competition or compromising companies' incentives to operate efficiently and sustainably. The department does not expect that these instruments will be used often.
In the light of these clarifications and arguments, I ask that Amendment No. 15 should be withdrawn and that Amendments Nos. 16 to 17A, 19, 20 and 25 should not be moved.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 17A not moved.]
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2. leave out line 25.
The noble Earl said: I shall speak briefly to this amendment, which again relates to Clause 4. I can see the reason for including the last line of subsection (2). It leaves no doubt as to the main purpose of the Bill, which we have heard expressed many times; but the purpose as stated in Clause 1 and is also present in subsection (4).
I have a concern that in Clause 4 as drafted such a statement: may be counter-productive and that it could actually deter some of the positive educational work of the non-governmental organisations and the Churches. They may feel that they have to justify their position more than is necessary to officials in the Department for Education and Skills or the Department for International Development, who may on occasion have less experience of certain development issues.
It is always hard to make a direct link with poverty in developing countries. Let us take as examples racism awareness—an important part of development education—the encouragement of cross-cultural work to illuminate international issues; and work with refugees, which help to create images of poverty and persecution overseas. Such projects build awareness, but they may not directly pay for legal aid, let alone reduce poverty or the sources of persecution. The inclusion of the provision in line 25 could make life hard for overworked organisations and it could make some applications impossible to complete. I am not sure that a debate on this amendment, or indeed many of the other debates that we have had, would pass the test of being a direct contribution to the reduction of poverty. However, I submit that they are important in terms of development awareness. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I have just one small point to make. It may seem facetious, but in the last line of Clause 4(2)(c) the Secretary of State is referred to as
1318
"he". I know that that is a generic term. However, there has not been a male Secretary of State since the establishment of the DfID.
Lord Avebury: Having listened to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I should like to say a few words on the amendment. I have much sympathy with the aim of the amendment because, when reading the clauses to which reference is made, I, too, was puzzled as to how it would be possible to support these projects other than if they were likely to contribute to "a reduction in poverty". The organisations would have to be either devoted to furthering sustainable development outside the UK, to improving the welfare of a population in one or more countries, or to alleviating the effects of a natural or a manmade disaster. I cannot imagine how one could do any of the latter without contributing to "a reduction in poverty", unless the phrase is used in a very narrow sense. For example, if the benefits would be in terms of a reduction in morbidity or mortality, one could not say that the material wealth of the existing population would be improved. One could say only that they were better off in the sense that they would not become ill so often, or that there were not so many deaths.
When the Minister responds, can she say whether the definition of "a reduction in poverty" is so narrow that it could not encompass objectives of that nature? If she says that that is not the case and that it can deal with wider issues that do not directly refer to people's income or wealth in the countries that are the recipients of the aid that will be provided under the clause, I cannot see the point of having the qualification. Indeed, I should then agree with the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that the words can be deleted without causing any difficulties for the department or the agencies that will receive the money.
Lord Desai: I believe that the point of line 25 in the clause was to ensure that subsections (2)(a) and (b)—which, if one studies them, are very broadly defined—must be underpinned somewhere. I agree with the noble Earl that subsection (2)(c) refers to "a reduction in poverty". However, if noble Lords look to subsection (2)(a), they will see that the Secretary of State may,
"support, by way of subscription or otherwise. any organisation that exists (wholly or partly) for one or more relevant purposes".
That is really very general and, therefore, must be underpinned by the words,
"if he is satisfied that to do so is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty".
That is the purpose of line 25 in the clause.
As for the observation made by the noble Lord. Lord Redesdale, I should advise him not tempt fate. Indeed, that situation could very soon be reversed, so the less said the better.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Amos: Perhaps I may begin by pointing out to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that I referred

1319
to the Secretary of State as "she" in my responses. However, I believe that the legislation is somewhat different in that respect: it uses "he" in a generic way.
Subsection (2) of Clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to subscribe to, or otherwise support, organisations whose purposes are wholly or partly the "relevant purposes" as listed in subsection (4)—that is to say, furthering sustainable development, promoting the welfare of people, or providing assistance in response to disasters and emergencies. It enables the Secretary of State to contribute to funds intended to be used in whole or in part for such purposes. It also enables the Secretary of State to promote, or assist others to promote, the awareness of global poverty and the means of reducing it.
Amendment No. 18 seeks to remove the requirement that such support must be,
"likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty".
The subsection in question is designed to enable the Secretary of State to continue to contribute to organisations and funds whose mandates or constitutions may not be strictly or exclusively focused on the reduction of poverty but which, nevertheless, make a valuable contribution to the reduction of poverty in particular areas or on particular issues. Examples of the organisations and funds that we have in mind are UNESCO, the European Development Fund and the Global Environment Facility.
However, although we wish to be able to contribute to such institutions and funds, it is clearly important that we retain the poverty focus that runs through the Bill. We should not allow our contributions to such organisations and funds to become a "special case", subject to a less rigorous test than other development assistance. I cannot see any advantage in diluting the poverty test in respect of these activities and institutions. Indeed, to do so would, I suggest, send a signal to partners such as the European Union that the United Kingdom is not serious about the reform of its external development assistance programmes. We are serious about the need for such reform.
The amendment also seeks to remove the requirement that support for organisations engaged in development awareness activities must be likely to contribute to the reduction of poverty. Again, I must emphasise the Government's belief that our entire development effort should be focused on the reduction of poverty. This includes our support for organisations that promote development awareness. To remove that focus would enable the Secretary of State to support activities that, although worthwhile in themselves, did not seek to contribute to the reduction of global poverty.
It may be appropriate for another department to fund such activities from another budget, but it is not for DfID. We do not believe that that focus will deter organisations from pursuing their activities in this area, or from applying to DfID for funding. Under the Bill, we are clear that we shall be able to continue to support all the programmes that we currently support. Indeed, our work in this area might increase because
1320
the Secretary of State would have the implicit powers under the legislation to support development awareness activities, rather than having to rely on the annual appropriation account exercise. In view of my explanation, I ask the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rea: I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Can she assure the Committee that the word "poverty" includes ill health and that the term "anti-poverty measures" includes the provision of health services, even if the people who receive such services are not a penny better off and may in fact be a penny worse off if they had to pay a small fee for the much needed improved services?
Baroness Amos: We had a long and substantial debate on the core power in the Bill under Clause 1. I hope that I made it absolutely clear in my response that the core power is drawn both widely and flexibly so as to permit a range of activity. One of the reasons for resisting the insertion of a number of issues in the Bill—for example, good governance, working on conflict reduction, health and education—is precisely because their inclusion might lead a court to interpret that as meaning that there were a range of other activities in which we cannot engage. That is why the core power in Clause 1 is written in a flexible way. It will allow us to undertake a range of activities.
The Earl of Sandwich: I was extremely pleased to hear the Minister's concluding reassurances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Meaning of "assistance':
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 32, leave out from second "in" to end of line 35 and insert "the fields of economic development, administration and social services, consisting in the making available of the services of any body or person, training facilities, the supply of material, or the results of research undertaken in any such fields".
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment, I give notice that I shall be speaking separately to Amendment No. 22. I believe that the Minister is aware of this intention. Amendment No. 21 seeks to classify economic development as an important objective of technical assistance. The Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 sets out the definition of "technical assistance" to include assistance in the field of economic development. The Bill makes no reference to economic development.
Technical assistance is a vital part of British development assistance. It is also the part in which the British people have the most confidence. We believe that technical assistance has provided developing countries with valuable know-how and skills which they would not otherwise have had. We also believe that as one of the world's premier financial centres, the

1321
UK has a unique role in assisting developing countries with their economic development as well as their social development.
The British public support technical assistance. A survey of opinion for DfID involving 1,772 people chosen at random showed that just 18 per cent thought that providing financial assistance was the most important way of reducing poverty. In a survey of children, DfID found that the majority of support for development was for technical assistance and training nurses, doctors and engineers rather than just financial aid.
Economic growth is also crucial to development, but in the new definition of "technical assistance" economic development is no longer included. The globalisation White Paper states that economic development goes hand in hand with other development, including the environment. It states on page 16:
"Poverty and environmental degradation are often linked. Economic development gives countries improved access to new, less resource-intensive and less polluting technologies. Over the last fifty years, it has been more closed economies—such as the former Communist countries—that have had the worst record of industrial pollution and urban environmental degradation".
The 1997 government White Paper, Eliminating World Poverty, stated in the first line of section 1,
"We shall refocus our international development efforts on the elimination of poverty and encouragement of economic growth which benefits the poor".
The globalisation White Paper also highlighted the importance of multinationals in economic development. It states:
"TNCs can contribute significantly to economic development in host countries through their technology, specialised skills and ability to organise and integrate production across countries, to establish marketing networks and to access finance and equipment on favourable terms".
If the Government support the role of TNCs in contributing to economic development, they should include economic development within the term "technical assistance" in the Bill so that government too can support developing countries through technical assistance in technology and specialised skills. We believe that technical assistance has been vitally important over the past 20 years and want to see the definition remain the same in the new as in the old legislation. I look forward to hearing the Government's response. I beg to move.
Baroness Amos: Amendment No. 21 seeks to retain the definition of "technical assistance" used in the 1980 Act. Clause 5 defines "assistance" for the purpose of the Bill. It reflects our concern that the Secretary of State should not be constrained in terms of the type of assistance that she can offer, or in terms of the areas in which she can operate. To that end we make explicit the Secretary of State's ability to provide know-how in the form of personnel, training or the provision of the results of research and the awarding of scholarships. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that such assistance can be provided to encourage economic growth where it contributes to the reduction of poverty.
1322
The definition of "technical assistance" improves on that set down in Section 1 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. The definition in the 1980 Act limits technical assistance to assistance in the fields of economic development, administration and social services. It is not clear why these limits are imposed. The Secretary of State must be able to provide technical assistance in all areas in order to make the most effective contribution possible to the reduction of poverty. The definition in the 1980 Act also imposes limits on the kinds of assistance that can be provided. As the definition of "technical services" in the 1980 Act is inclusory rather than exhaustive, it does not strictly prevent other forms of technical assistance being given, or such assistance being given in different areas but, by specifying the fields and forms, narrows the interpretation of the term.
The effect of Amendment No. 21 is to reintroduce into the Bill the weaknesses of the definition in the 1980 Act. It opens up to doubt the areas in which technical assistance can be provided and the forms of such assistance. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Rawlings: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I hope that the term "technical assistance" will still be included in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Judd: I have given notice that I intend to oppose the Questions that Clause 5 and Clause 6 stand part of the Bill. Opposing the Question that a clause stand part of a Bill is rather like taking a sledgehammer to crush a nut. However, it seems to me that there is a nut here, the contents of which we want to examine. That is why I have taken the step that I have. However, I fervently—almost desperately—hope that my noble friend will provide a response which will result in my not having to pursue this reckless course.
As regards Clause 5, what worries me is that on the one hand there is generalised wording about assistance,
"in any form or of any nature",
but on the other hand there are specific examples of,
"financial or technical assistance, and assistance consisting in a supply of materials".
What about political or military support or advocacy at the UN and elsewhere? What about research? I hope, therefore, that my noble friend can say a little more as regards why the specifics mentioned are the only specifics so mentioned and what the Government have in mind with regard to the words.
"in any form or of any nature".
It would be extremely helpful to be given some examples on the record.

1323
As regards Clause 6, I simply say that it does—
Lord Desai: Clause 6 has not yet been addressed and an amendment is tabled to it. Therefore, I do not think that the noble Lord can oppose the Question that Clause 6 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Judd: I draw the attention of my good and noble friend Lord Desai to the fact that the Question that Clause 6 stand part of the Bill is grouped with the Question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Amos: Perhaps I can help my noble friends. We have discussed Amendment No. 21. We have not yet discussed Amendment No. 22. That is why we are addressing the Question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill. When we discuss Amendment No. 22, we shall address the Question that Clause 6 stand part of the Bill.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Judd: I am grateful to the Minister for putting me right. It is clear that we are degrouping. I had not understood that that was going to happen. I am grateful that it has now been clarified. I have made my points. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reassure us.
Baroness Amos: I hope that my noble friend will bear with me. I shall speak briefly on whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill. When we discuss the Question whether Clause 6 shall stand part, I shall give some examples which I think will reassure my noble friend.
Clause 5 defines the meaning of assistance for the purposes of the Bill. It provides that assistance can be in any form or of any nature. The Secretary of State is constrained in the Bill to provide assistance only for the overarching aim of reducing poverty and for the two development purposes of furthering sustainable development and promoting the welfare of the people. We believe that the Secretary of State should have available to her the widest possible range of instruments to achieve these narrower purposes.
In the light of that, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his objection to the Question whether Clause 5 shall stand part. I shall give a fuller explanation and examples in our discussion on whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord Judd: In eager anticipation, I beg leave to withdraw my objection to Clause 5.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Financial assistance]:
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) The value of loans made available to a country by way of financial assistance shall not, in each year, amount to more than 10 per cent. of development assistance to that country."
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to prevent countries running up substantial debts to the UK Exchequer by limiting the proportion of
1324
development assistance provided to them in the form of loans. This amendment would seek to ensure that development aid is mostly provided in the form of grants.
We are concerned that a new drive to grant loans to developing countries could see them get into debt again. That is why we want to ensure that DfID is limited in the proportion of grant aid and loans that it is able to give to any one country. In government the Conservatives cancelled £1.2 billion of loans owed to DfID from developing countries to help relieve their burden of debt. We are concerned that a new push to provide loans to projects could mean that the debt burden again becomes an issue.
We are also concerned that the British taxpayer should get value for money from these loans. That means that the Government must be sure that payment is forthcoming and guaranteed and that a proper risk assessment is undertaken by Government before projects are considered.
We are also concerned about the countries eligible for DfID loans. Do the Government plan to lend to projects in countries which have failed to pay back debts owed to the UK? Will the Government be supplying loans to heavily indebted poor countries? I beg to move.
Baroness Amos: Amendment No. 22 would place a limit on the ability of the Secretary of State to provide development assistance to a country by way of loans. Clause 6 sets out the kinds of financial assistance that may be provided under the Bill.
I do not believe that we should set out in the Bill limits on the amounts or nature of the assistance that the Secretary of State can provide. One of the principles on which the Bill is built is that the needs of poor people in developing countries must be the driving force behind the choice of form of assistance: otherwise the primacy of the overarching requirement of poverty reduction and the two development purposes will be compromised.
The amendment would require that no more than 10 per cent of financial assistance provided to a country be in the form of loans. The ceiling of 10 per cent is arbitrary. I cannot conceive of any absolute limit being appropriate for the range of countries and circumstances with which we now deal and will deal in the future. For emerging credit-worthy countries such as India and South Africa a higher ceiling might at some point be appropriate.
That said, I recognise the noble Baroness's concern that the Government should not allow developing countries once again to build up unsustainable debt burdens. We share that concern and have been working with the international community to ensure that any loans for HIPC countries are provided only for productive expenditure. Currently DfID's financial aid is in the form of grants. In line with our policy in this area, there is no intention to initiate a new push to provide loans. All the Bill does is to retain the power to provide loans which is in the 1980 Act. This

1325
will ensure that the Secretary of State has the discretion to act in circumstances which we cannot necessarily predict.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Rawlings: I thank the Minister for her explanation. It was an interesting answer. It is an important matter. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her concern. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Judd: I have given notice that I shall oppose the Question whether Clause 6 shall stand part. It is again in the hope that my noble friend's response will make any action on that proposition unnecessary.
I seek examples and illustrations. They would be helpful for future interpretation of the Government's intentions. Perhaps I may add to what I said on whether Clause 5 shall stand part. With regard to Clause 6, I seek examples and case studies which illustrate how Ministers view the specific relationship to the impact on poverty. I am struck by what my noble friend Lord Brennan said. There is a tremendous potential and important contribution to be made by the private sector. However, in adopting fairly widespread provisions, it would be helpful if the Government could spell out how they envisage that power working.
I refer to the grouping; I hope that that is in order. It is suggested that we might speak at the same time to several other amendments. I wish to speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 29, 32 and 33.
Lord Brennan: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend and through him ask for some advice for those who are less experienced in this House. I saw the grouped list. We now appear to be embarking on a consideration of 12 different amendments to four different clauses. Some of us do not know the order and sequence. Perhaps someone could help us.
Baroness Amos: I shall try to assist. In speaking to a group of amendments, the mover of the first amendment speaks first and any other noble Lords who have either put their names to amendments or have a point to make then speak in turn.
Lord Judd: I hope that my noble friend finds that helpful.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may ask a further question. I was not aware that one spoke to a group of amendments when discussing whether a clause shall stand part. A number of amendments may be grouped together on different clauses. However, the debate on whether a clause shall stand part is taken by itself. I am somewhat surprised that the Minister tells us that we can consider whether the clause shall stand part and at
1326
the same time a number of amendments to later clauses. Perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm that that is the case.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Nicol): On the list of groupings it is clear that if any noble Lord objects he may ask for the amendments to be degrouped. However, failing that, we must deal with them in the order shown.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I support the point that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made about the undesirability of having amendments to Clause 7 in the same group as stand part debates on Clauses 5 and 6. That has led to some confusion. We have disposed of Clause 5 stand part and are now dealing with Clause 6 stand part. Once that has been dealt with, we should go on to Clause 7 and consider the remainder of the amendments in this group.
Lord Brennan: I thank the Committee for those contributions. My state of confusion has now reached a much better educated level.
Lord Judd: I am happy to proceed as the Committee decides, but in the absence of any decision, I had better proceed with the grouping as it is. It is therefore appropriate to say a few words about Amendments Nos. 29, 32 and 33.
Amendment No. 29 is self-evidently vital. The effectiveness and standing of the NGOs, for which we rightly have so much respect, depends on their perceived independence and integrity. They must be demonstrably free of any influence or manipulation that might be interpreted as in any way undermining their unique and special status. I hope that the amendment would help to achieve that objective.
I imagine that Amendment No. 32 is more controversial. For a long time, governments of different persuasions have said that they are committed to the UN target of 0.7 per cent. Progress is now being made towards that objective, but in the second phase of a government with a very large majority it would be timely to establish some yardsticks by which we measured our success in achieving that ultimate target. The indications that I have given in the amendment do not seem unreasonable. We should be able to stop talking about the target being our ultimate objective and actually achieve it, as a number of other countries already have, by 2004–05.
In development debates these days we hear a great deal about targets, especially the 2015 targets and midterm targets, and about the obligations that developing countries must fulfil to be eligible for more aid. The amendment spells out the obligations on the rich with the same disciplines that we require of the poor.
On Amendment No. 33, I recognise the nature of the statutory bodies listed in the schedule, but I am a little perturbed that, although the clause refers to sustainable development and welfare, somehow the commitment to poverty has dropped out. Notwithstanding the specialised nature of the bodies

1327
listed in the schedule, whatever they are doing in the context of sustainable development or welfare should also be in the context of the reduction of world poverty. It would be good to ensure that that overarching objective—to use my noble friend's language—of the reduction of poverty was specifically mentioned in that context.
Clause 6 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 7 [Terms on which assistance is provided]
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 16, at end insert "subject to subsection (5)"
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 26 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young.
For the first time, there are signs that HIV incidence—the annual number of new infections—may have stabilised in sub-Saharan Africa. The UN AIDS Epidemic Update: December 2000 said:
"New infections in 2000 totalled an estimated 3.8 million, as opposed to 4.0 million in 1999".
In 1999, the United Nations Population Division report The World at 6 Billion estimated that world population would cross the 6 billion threshold on 12th October 1999. It is then projected to cross the 7 billion mark in 2013, the 8 billion mark in 2028 and the 9 billion mark in 2054. World population should nearly stabilise at just above 10 billion after 2200.
The UN report also says:
"The highest rate of world population growth (2.04 per cent) occurred in the late 1960s. The current rate (1995–2000) is 1.31 per cent".
It goes on:
"Eighty per cent of the world currently reside in less developed regions. At the beginning of the century, 70 per cent did so. By 2050, the share of the world population living in the currently less developed regions will have risen to 90 per cent".
Last year, the Government spent £162,610,000 on health and population programmes. Last year, DfID gave £15 million to the UN Population Fund. DfID also supports a number of UK NGOs to deliver reproductive health programmes. In 1999–2000, the largest NGO recipients were the International Planned Parenthood Federation, with £5.85 million, and Marie Stopes International, with £4.95 million.
We want women in developing countries to have the best possible access to birth control and family planning. We also believe that all people should be free to decide the size of their own family. However, we will not support any policies or agencies that practise coercive abortion. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I signed Amendments Nos. 23 and 24, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who apologises to the House, as she is on parliamentary business in Indonesia at the moment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who is absent on parliamentary business elsewhere.
1328
It might be convenient to speak to Amendment No. 26A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, at the same time. I strongly support the intentions behind it. The amendment would go a long way to deal with some of the questions raised in Amendments Nos. 23 and 24.
This is a timely and topical debate, not least because of the decision in the past few days to award the Olympic Games to China, where coercive population control is regularly practised. Some Members of your Lordships' House may have read an article in today's Daily Telegraph by Siôn Simon, who is the Labour Member of Parliament for Birmingham Erdington. He said:
"The totalitarian brutality of the Chinese government is not in dispute. By the regime's own admission, it has executed more than 1,700 people in little more than the past two months. The most common crimes among the dead were forms of disobedience which in the rest of the world would be called expression".
The decision on the venue for the Olympic Games has met huge criticism throughout the country. As an example of that, I cite yesterday's Independent on Sunday:
"Optimists suggest that the Olympic spirit will ensure that China cleans up its human rights act in time for the Games".
But, the paper says,
"Think again. No, we can expect the Beijing Games to model themselves on Berlin in 1936—with dissenters brutally swept aside in a grotesque attempt to showcase a totalitarian regime … Don't be taken in".
The reason for drawing a parallel with that decision is that over the past 20 years successive governments have argued that we should do business with China in the whole area of reproductive rights and that, sooner or later, we shall be effective in preventing the coercive population policies pursued there. I do not mention this issue simply because of a distaste for abuses of human rights in China; I have taken a long and sustained interest in this matter since the Chinese Government introduced the policy in 1980.
Indeed, looking back to my time in another place, together with the Member of Parliament for Congleton, Mrs Ann Winterton, in 1995 I initiated a debate there following the broadcast of a programme entitled "The Dying Rooms" by Channel 4. Brian Woods, the director of the programme, wrote about his harrowing visit to a number of orphanages in China at that time. He said:
"Every single baby in this orphanage was a girl … the only boys were mentally or physically disabled. 95 per cent of the babies we saw were able-bodied girls".
He also said:
"The most shocking orphanage we visited lay, ironically, just twenty minutes from one of the five star international hotels that herald China's emergence from economic isolation".
That programme followed another broadcast by BBC2 called "Women of the Yellow Earth". Both programmes highlighted how forced abortion, forced sterilisation and the forcible fitting of IUCDs for women had been commonplace in China since the one-child policy was introduced in 1980. The simple test that I suggested in the debate in another place in 1995

1329
was whether or not we would permit such procedures to take place here. If not, I asked, what in the world were we doing funding them in China?
At that time, I took those arguments to the then Minister responsible for overseas development, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey. I had two meetings with her. I saw the present Secretary of State, Clare Short, for whom I have considerable respect, not long after she came to office. To use a phrase that probably explains that we both held trenchant views on either side of the argument, we held a very frank discussion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and Clare Short have argued consistently in the same context as the arguments put forward for the Olympic Games being held in Beijing—that is, if we were inside we might be able to affect the population policies being pursued by the Chinese Population Association. Successive governments have also argued that we do not fund the Chinese Population Association directly. However, no one has disputed that the funds that we do provide to the United Nations Population Fund—the UNFPA—and to the International Planned Parenthood Federation—IPPF—go into the CPA and, thence, into the one-child policy. Ministers have always accepted that, and I shall allude to it again during the course of my remarks.
During the past 15 years or so both in another place and here I have regularly tabled Questions to Ministers on these subjects. The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, replied to a Question which I tabled in March this year when I raised with her the matter of a report which appeared in the Sunday Times. I shall return to that report in a moment. In reply, she said:
"The incident in Hubei Province is deplorable, and the Government remain concerned about reports of reproductive abuses and other human rights abuses in China. But we also believe that programmes of the kind supported by UNFPA can contribute to improving policy and practice, and to helping to bring about a climate where coercion and abuse will no longer be tolerated". —[Official Report, 6/3/0 I; cols. WA24–25.]
Therefore, the argument remains the same: if we stay within, somehow we shall be able to influence events. The purpose of this amendment is to say that surely the point has now been reached where we can see that that policy has not succeeded and that, therefore, the moment has now come to change the policy.
The report in the Sunday Times to which I referred was based on evidence produced by Amnesty International. Michael Sheridan said:
"A retired doctor had rescued the newborn child from the cesspit of a men's lavatory, where he had been tossed to die. Liu Juyu took the baby to a clinic, where she was confronted by Five birth control officials. Amnesty says they snatched the baby, threw him to the ground, kicked him and took him away to be drowned in a paddy field.
The child had been born in breach of local quotas enforced by the officials. who feared higher-level punishment if their targets were not met".
In the same report, another case referred to,
"mass demonstrations … held in Changsha, Hunan province, after cadres tortured to death a man who would not reveal the whereabouts of his wife, who was believed to be pregnant".
1330
Those are not lurid reports dreamed up by journalists. Amnesty International's citing of that case highlighted the growing resistance in China to such brutal methods. Perhaps later in the week—I have tabled an Unstarred Question on these matters for Wednesday—I shall have the opportunity to return in further detail to what Amnesty said.
There has been a change of mood in relation I o these issues. Considerable change has occurred in the United States, for example, following hearings in Congress held on 10th June 1998 to which I shall refer again in a moment. The very first act of the incoming Bush Administration was to stop the funding of such programmes.
Change has also taken place here. When Mr Gary Streeter was appointed as the spokesman on overseas aid for the Opposition, I went to see him and we had an extremely useful discussion. He promised me that he would take the issue most seriously. As a consequence, I was delighted to read in the Conservative Party manifesto at the general election an undertaking that these policies would be reassessed. Therefore, I was even more pleased when the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, moved this amendment today and provided us with the opportunity to discuss—not in an adversarial, partisan way— the issue further as the summer proceeds between now and Report stage on 16th October.
Instinctively, I would wish to divide the House on the matter, but not today. I want people to have the chance to consider the issue and to see whether we can make a common purpose and recognise that all the evidence that is emerging shows that the previous policy of hoping for the best is simply not working.
When Congressman Chris Smith spoke to the congressional hearing, he cited the example of the Nuremberg trials. He said then that forced abortion was rightly denounced as a crime against humanity by the Nuremberg tribunal. He said that the United Nations should be organising an international tribunal to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of the Chinese population control programme. Indeed, he added, it continues to fund and congratulate them.
In evidence to that Select Committee, an extraordinary account was given by Gao Xiao Duan, who was herself a birth control official in China. She had managed to flee from China and gave evidence directly to Congress. She said:
"Should a woman be found pregnant without a certificate, abortion surgery is performed immediately, regardless of how many months she is pregnant".
Elsewhere in her evidence, she said:
"Following are a few practices carried out in the wake of 'planned-birth supervision'
I. House dismantling … this practice not only exists in our province, but in rural areas in other provinces as well".
When referring to sterilisation she said:
"The proportion of women sterilized after giving birth is extraordinarily high".
She continued:

1331
"During my 14-year tenure … I witnessed how many brothers and sisters were persecuted by the Chinese communist government for violating its 'planned-birth policy.' Many of them were crippled for life, and many of them were victims of mental disorders resulting from their abortions. Many families were ruined or destroyed. My conscience was always gnawing at my heart … Once I found a woman who was nine months pregnant, but did not have a birth-allowed certificate. According to the policy, she was forced to undergo an abortion surgery. In the operation room, I saw how the aborted child's lips were suckling, how its limbs were stretching. A physician injected poison into its skull, and the child died, and it was thrown into the trashcan. To help a tyrant do evils was not what I wanted. I could not bear seeing all those mothers grief-stricken by induced delivery and sterilization. I could not live with this on my conscience. I, too, after all. am a mother".
Harry Wu, the human rights activist who was imprisoned in China for many years, also gave evidence. There is not time this evening to go into great detail, but I am sure that Members of the Committee would wish to hear one or two of his statements. He said:
"In Communist China, grassroots PBP cadres"—
that is, planned birth policy cadres—
"are stationed in every village. Those communist party and government cadres are the most immediate tools for dominating the people … They must watch every woman in the village, their duty being to promptly force women violators to undergo sterilization and abortion surgeries … PBP is targeted against every woman, every family".
The evidence continues to amass. The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture made available to me documents from the research directorate of the immigration and refugee board in Ottawa, Canada. In its evidence, it said:
"Beyond sheer population growth, the Chinese government has acknowledged that it is facing two difficult demographic issues—an ageing population and a growing gender imbalance … both of which are in part related to its population policies of the past decades".
That refers to the fact that there is now a disproportionate balance between the sexes—about 120 boys are now born for every 100 girls. The Sunday Telegraph of 22nd September 1998 highlighted the consequences of that policy in an article entitled, "China's kidnapped wives". Of the practise of kidnapping young women, it stated:
"It has become a huge and lucrative business in China. In the five years up to 1996, 88,000 women who had been kidnapped were released by the police—and 143,000 kidnappers caught and prosecuted".
That is a direct result of the fact that the number of women available is not the same as the number of men living in that country. The article continues:
"The kidnap trade has grown up for one simple reason: the massive imbalance of the sexes in the Chinese population. According to the Chinese Academy for Social Sciences, there are now 120 males for every 100 females in China.
The shortage of women is a result of Communist China's one-baby rule—and the deep-grained peasant desire for that one baby to be a boy. Approximately nine out of every 10 of the millions of abortions performed in China each year are, experts say, aimed at getting rid of a female foetus".
Those are some of the consequences of the approach. Another consequence is called the "little emperor" syndrome. Inevitably, if a baby is a single
1332
child, he or she is often doted on in such a way that he or she becomes spoilt and grows to be socially immature and unable to relate properly to other children.
The report that the medical foundation made available to me suggests that the policy simply does not work anyway. It states:
"Some sources question the efficacy of the country's population policy, pointing out that the country's fertility rate dropped significantly in the 1970s, but that there has been no subsequent marked decline after the policy's implementation".
The report also refers to corruption. Many officials abuse the system because they have more than one child although they require others to conform to the policy.
I realise that time is short and I do not intend to detain the Committee for much longer. However, this is a rare opportunity to debate a crucially important question. This country provides vast sums that go towards the policy. The UK Government gave the equivalent of £15 million to LTNFPA in 1999 and the equivalent of £5.8 million to IPPS in 1999. In addition, they donated an estimated £39.5 million directly to China through concessionary financing arrangements.
There is much evidence showing the way in which the money has been abused. I could cite Dr John Aird's book, Slaughter of the Innocents, or the evidence of Amnesty International or the medical foundation. A couple of years ago the BBC World Service reported that riots had broken out near the southern city of Gaozhou,
"after government officials moved in to enforce the country's one child family planning policy".
I have referred to the gender gap and the condition of orphanages. According to the latest available figures, which were compiled in 1994, about 1.7 million children are abandoned each year. The vast majority of those who are eventually admitted to orphanages are female, although some are disabled or in poor health.
China is the only country in the world in which it is illegal to have a brother or a sister. It is extraordinary that millions of pounds—British taxpayers' funds—have been poured into those policies over the years. In this context we also need to consider the distorting effect on the population in that country and the abusive approach used in countries such as Tibet, in which the Tibetan population has been deliberately reduced by coercive population means. We should also consider the abuse of women through forced sterilisation, forced abortions and the forced fitting of IUCDs. Those matters and the massive destruction of life should cause us seriously to reconsider whether we should make our resources available to support such an approach. I therefore with great pleasure support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings.
7 p.m.
Lord Freeman: I want to speak briefly to Amendment No. 26, which is grouped with the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton,

1333
spoke, and which relates to Clause 7. It is a probing amendment. I am grateful to the Minister who at a meeting last week was kind enough to encourage the tabling of such an amendment so that there could be a brief airing of this important subject.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells referred to the substantial efforts that the Church of England has made, is making, and will continue to make in the provision of international aid as an NGO. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, also referred to the important role of the private sector.
I return to a subject that I raised on Second Reading and I declare an interest, as I did previously, as the chairman of a Christian charity that is active in Africa. My comments relate to the work of the smaller NGOs anywhere in the world and those that have been, and still are, assisted by Her Majesty's Government in the distribution of aid.
My concern is not primarily about the principle that Her Majesty's Government provide aid directly to central governments, especially those in western and central Africa. Under that approach aid is allowed to trickle down through local government and regional officials, with or without the assistance of NGOs, which have now changed from being a conduit of aid to being a contractor. NGOs now work for the governments of those countries in the construction of schools and hospitals and by digging wells. That change may or may not be significant in terms of the amount of money that the Government are now channelling directly through central governments rather than through NGOs, which can be owned locally or internationally. However, some significant implications are involved.
My concern is about the fact that that long-term policy, which may have the admirable aim of seeking to create sustainable aid that is administered by national governments to alleviate poverty, is raising certain conflicts in terms of short-term realities.
There are three immediate consequences of the change in providing aid directly to qualified governments as opposed to, in modest part, through NGOs. First, those organisations now have to put up the costs of bidding for work to be carried out for local governments in the alleviation of poverty and that costs money. They need working capital because they are only paid at the end of a project rather than being able to spend the available money throughout the life of the construction of the hospital, school or well. Thirdly, and finally, those charities—often Christian charities—suddenly find that they need commercial management expertise in calculating the best bid and in calculating and controlling costs.
Adverse consequences arise on the ground in a number of countries with this change, and they are occurring at local and regional level rather than at governmental level. My amendment refers to two. The first is inefficiency in the distribution of aid. Inevitably bureaucracy is created, overhead costs rise and there has been a hiatus in a number of countries in the disbursement of British aid through local and regional officials. I am sure the Minister read the Financial
1334
Times today, which contains a good article written by Mark Turner describing what happened in Kenya in 1999 when its local government admitted that its management of the aid programme left a lot to be desired and we reverted to control, administration and implementation by the NGOs.
The second complication is corruption. It occurs because local officials responsible for the disbursement of aid provided by Her Majesty's Government to central government are inevitably taking advantage of the fact that they can charge a fee for the disbursement of that aid. Indeed, in some countries the staff who were involved in the distribution of aid have now turned themselves into contractors and are bidding for work on the construction of certain projects.
I shall be grateful for the Minister's comments. A warning is needed, no more than that, in certain countries that unless inefficiencies and corruption cease, then the Secretary of State should reserve the right to go back to the ancien régime where in some cases aid was disbursed directly through NGOs. I conclude by citing a sentence from the Catholic Institute for International Relations—a letter I received this morning as did many other noble Lords. The letter quite correctly sums up the role of NGOs and development assistance when it says,
"NGOs are often best equipped to deliver assistance swiftly, cheaply and democratically".
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: Perhaps I can return for a moment to Amendments Nos. 23 and 24—not that there is a lot more to be said. But I am fearful of not saying anything as though this matter of coercive abortion was not a matter of great importance.
Of course, the over-population of the world is a threat to peace and wellbeing. Often the problem is greatest where there is the most poverty and the least adequate education. It is important therefore to see that the United Nations Population Fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation should be encouraging education and campaigns to tackle this huge problem.
But coercion in pursuit of family and childhood planning stretches authority beyond humane practice. It infects the having of children with fear and especially, in many cases, of forced abortion. That profound misuse of power is a fundamental denial of what is right. It denies essential reverence for human life and it is impossible to quantify the psychological damage of such compulsion on individual human beings, on the whole community and indeed on the human race.
For those who believe in God there are further questions about the givenness in the matter of gender which will and indeed is already affecting us. The line between proper education and planning and idolatrous control disguises the common good and needs constantly to be watched.
I can understand the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that somehow granting aid to China, as with the Olympic Games, will bring about impressive

1335
change in its human rights abuses. But supporting coercive population policies is a different matter. It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that the money might be used to enforce precisely that policy rather than educate the people to share in wise population planning.
The difficulty that this amendment faces is that, if it is agreed, then presumably many other human rights abuses of a serious sort would need to be named. In a sense, by naming one we exclude the others. So, while I totally support what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, I cannot see how it can be pursued as he suggested in this Motion.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Brennan: I speak to Amendments Nos. 26A and 35A. Amendment No. 26A seeks to develop the provisions in this Bill to improve the plight of the world's children who live in poverty. I declare an interest: I am a patron of the Consortium for Street Children of the United Kingdom, which embraces some 30 charities working for children, not just street children, throughout the world.
When I looked at this Bill, I was more inspired than some, but distressed as to one particular omission. Anybody who asked the question: "What is the central feature of world poverty today?", would receive the answer, "Its effect on children". A rough word scan by eye rather than the machine, tells me that the word, "children" does not figure in our International Development Bill. I find that extraordinary. Why? Because it fails to give emphasis to that which demands emphasis.
I shall read out a few words and invite the Committee's agreement to the sentiment:
"Yet today we can predict with grim precision that as long as children's needs are seen as incidental and not integral to what we as Governments do; as long as they are a part and not at the heart of all policy decisions we make; each and every day of this year 30,000 children will lose the fight they are waging for life. Seven million will perish before reaching their first birthday. Over ten million will die before the age of five".
So said the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown in February this year. I repeat his words that children should be,
"at the heart of all policy decisions we make".
Why is that practical requirement so important? All of us who work in this field can identify three key problems in dealing with the plight of children, particularly in the developing world. The first is that in many countries children are the least important priority. It is the earner of money, the sustainer of the family who comes first. So it is that children and those with their primary care—mothers and wives—suffer the most. That factor should not be ignored when deciding what aid to give to such countries who have that mode of life.
Secondly, and very importantly, it cannot be allowed that the governments of those countries should leave the care of children solely to NGOs, substituting what they do for their governmental responsibility. I am sure that most of us would readily
1336
accept that the vast majority of NGOs working abroad from this country work for children and that the vast majority of money received is for children. That should not allow any government, nor ours when dealing with them, to ignore their responsibilities. Thirdly, when those countries receive the money, what do they do with it? Tied aid has gone but there should be aid tied to results at which money is directed.
Those three problems—the social mores of societies, the will of NGOs and what is to be done with the money—demand consideration by the Government in an international development Bill. As Gordon Brown stated, the face of global poverty is the face of a young child. That explains why proposed subsection (5) in Clause 7 identifies what the aid will do for children and ensures that the people who receive it report back. That is hardly contentious.
I turn to the next part of my amendment, proposed subsection (6) of Clause 7. The amendment calls upon the Government not to give aid unless the circumstances justify it to any country which has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The preamble to that convention recognises that,
"in all countries in the world, there are children living in exceptionally difficult conditions, and that such children need special consideration".
It further states:
"The importance of international co-operation for improving the living conditions of children in every country, is paramount".
Why should we give aid to the country whose government does not observe that commitment unless the needs of children particularly demand it?
I mentioned the substance of my amendment at Second Reading. My noble friend the Minister with great clarity told us that the Government's policy did not require children to be particularly mentioned because the policy was holistic. That is a commendable concept, provided that it is firmly attached to practicality and not allowed to drift into the nebulous. Children cannot be treated as anything more nor less than being at the heart of the matter. I commend the amendment to my noble friend the Minister. If it is thought that it needs further consideration I would hope that on this or the next occasion, whether or not it becomes part of the Bill, the Government will firmly state the sort of commitment, the need for special consideration of children, for which I have asked.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 35A which deals with an entirely different topic. The amendment seeks to develop the scope of Commonwealth scholarships. This is a probing amendment inviting the Government to clarify, first, that Parts III and IV of the 1980 Act continue to be part of the powers of this Bill; namely, the exchange of teachers, policemen and nurses between ourselves and countries in need, and, secondly, that in giving the assistance at Clause 5, or in Commonwealth scholarships at Clause 14, it will not simply be restricted to traditional educational years but that there will be flexibility and variety in the extent of help that is given.

1337
I do not apologise for taking up this length of time. This group of amendments combines several topics of major importance. I am sure that we would all agree that there is no more important issue than the plight of our children.
The Earl of Northesk: Despite our earlier confusion, like other Members of the Committee I hope that it will be convenient if I comply with the original grouping and speak to Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Rawlings.
Amendment No. 30 seeks to set sensible limits on the Government's use of sector-wide aid programmes. It seeks to ensure that there are measurable and published targets for their outputs, as there are for individual aid projects, and that there is sufficient monitoring of their progress. It seeks to ensure that any beneficiaries of sector aid have demonstrated in the past a record of transparency and openness in their use of UK aid. The amendment also seeks to ensure that a report is prepared into any proposed use of sector-wide aid programmes and that that report is put before Parliament in advance of disbursements being made.
The Secretary of State described sector-wide aid as "a small revolution" in the way in which the Department for International Development works. However, in spite of that revolutionary change, there does not appear to be in place a set of well-publicised targets, objectives and measures of its effectiveness. It is vital to any aid programme that the effects can be measured and lessons learnt. We are concerned that the Bill makes no reference to measuring such outputs. Surely it is also important that Parliament is kept informed of all developments in those programmes?
The new sector-wide approach means that instead of numerous agencies distributing aid for individual education projects, all donors work together to find a single programme alongside the government of a developing country. Unfortunately, that is not without risk. Sector-wide approaches mean a loss of control over aid programmes. The social development working paper from the Department for International Development admits:
"Any individual donor's agenda is likely to be subsumed within a collective donor approach"
and will mean,
"handing over the control to national institutions in partner countries".
It further states:
"Individual donor agencies joining a common programme with key partners in the country concerned lose a certain level of direct control over activities they support".
The approach means a loss of direct control over our aid budget and gives developing countries much more power over their own aid. That may be desirable but, equally, independent sources suggest that there is little evidence of the effect that sector-wide aid programmes—they have the imaginative acronym of SWAPs—have on poverty. For example, the Overseas Development Institute states:
1338
"As yet, there is very little material on the impact of SWAPs on poverty".
Moreover, SWAPs are supposed to build capacity in developing countries and allow them to administer their own policy priorities, thereby decreasing the need for DfID staffing. Thus, the report also criticised DfID for simply moving staff out to developing countries. It states:
"It is notable that donor discussions in the Oslo meeting … were concerned about increased donor staffing implications of SWAP approaches, and several donors have retained field staff in country to 'manage' their SWAP support (e.g. DfID has moved towards country programme missions in SWAP countries.) It seems possible that these staff are spending their time seeking as many meetings with the same Government staff to discuss SWAPs as they previously did to discuss projects. In Ghana, Government health officials seem under as much pressure as before, even though they are resisting donor pressure for more 'business meetings'".
As the ODI stated, sector-wide programmes have led to an increase in DfID's staffing levels in developing countries. Total staff numbers in the 1989 DfID annual report were 1,650, including 450 overseas. Staff numbers for the department in the annual report 2001 totalled 2,249, including 967 overseas. That is an increase of almost 600. It also led to a rise in aid administration running costs. In 1996–97, aid administration running costs totalled £65 million. In 2001–02 those costs are forecast to be £108 million, an increase of £43 million.
Given that there is so little evidence of the beneficial effect of SWAPs on poverty reduction and that since SWAPs have been introduced DfID's staffing abroad has rocketed, it is our belief that the Government should now ensure that SWAPs are subject to proper targets and monitoring. That will ensure that the public can have the maximum confidence in UK aid.
I turn to Amendment No. 31, which seeks to establish a website for the purpose of assisting UK nationals and UK-based charities and nongovernmental organisations to contribute to the reduction in world poverty by providing them with additional information and advice. We believe that any Bill that states poverty reduction as an aim of aid needs to fully utilise the generosity and compassion of the British people. We believe that the Government should recognise this in the Bill and agree to set up an agency to facilitate private donors and charities to play a greater role in poverty reduction.
The people of Britain have consistently demonstrated that they care about development issues. However, individuals and small charities are being weighed down by the twin burdens of a lack of resources and inadequate information. We on these Benches believe that facility exists via mechanisms of IT to provide more information and better coordination of the relief efforts of British people. Through a sophisticated website, database arid call centre, aid direct could act as a central information service for members of the public, providing up-to-date and accurate information on all areas of development.
Aid direct would be an agency dedicated to offering advice on how best the British people can help those indeveloping countries. It would help to match needs

1339
in the developing world with willing helpers in the UK. Aid direct would be set up in partnership with the NGO community, with constant input from NGOs and embassies throughout the world. It would facilitate and empower the British public and small aid charities to make a real difference to communities in the developing world. The opportunity exists to tap into this valuable resource. Indeed, given the response of the noble Baroness to Amendments Nos. 15 and 17, I trust that she will respond positively to this suggestion.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 27. It touches on some of the issues already mentioned and it is complementary. I believe that the change referred to by many Members of the Committee in the way in which policies are being implemented and funds distributed makes it particularly essential that these expenditures are compared regularly and on a comparable basis. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for example, expressed concern about changes resulting from increased government expenditure rather than that of NGOs. It is important that the effects of those are made apparent. Greater transparency will make those decisions better understood. As we heard from the right reverend Prelate, there is some puzzlement about some of the changes and therefore we must have greater transparency. The purpose of the amendment is to make that clear.
There have been many discussions about whether the funding is coming through NGOs, international bodies, the EU and so forth. At present, the comparisons made between the different expenditures and their effectiveness is unclear and an amendment of this kind will help in that direction.
Baroness Rawlings: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 28. This is a key amendment which seeks to place the UK Government's relationship with charities and non-governmental aid organisations specialising in development on a more stable financial footing. It would ensure that development assistance provided through charities and NGOs could not fall below 15 per cent of total development assistance; would help to build strong support for development; and would act as a check against an overly centralising government.
The Bill, as Members of the Committee know, gives considerably more power to the Secretary of State. We believe that charities and non-governmental organisations are an asset to the United Kingdom's attack on global poverty. We believe that charities and NGOs are more than just service providers and, as such, should be formally recognised and supported in the Bill. Aid distributed by UK- based charities and NGOs amounted to £195 million in the financial year 1999–2000. That was roughly 8 per cent of the total DfID budget. We want to see their role in development boosted and their involvement increased. We believe that by increasing government funding for charities
1340
more people will become involved either directly or indirectly with the development programmes and projects and that support for development will increase.
The Government pay lip service to charities but fail to harness their energy and enthusiasm. Howard White, an economist with a special interest in issues relating to aid policy, especially the macro-economic and poverty impact of aid, wrote an article about the first four years of the Department for International Development. It was placed in the BOND newsletter, representing 250 international development charities. In his article he criticised DfID, stating:
"DfID's relationship with the NGO community has been somewhat chequered. It might be thought that the trends outlined above of a stronger poverty focus and the emphasis on partnership have led to a closer working relationship between DfID and NGOs. In reality the picture is somewhat more mixed. It is true that NGOs welcome the poverty focus, and they find several positive aspects in the changing nature of DfID's work—the HIV/ AIDS programme is often mentioned in this regard. But there is also a feeling that there is not a genuine partnership, since DfID is not really prepared to enter into dialogue. As mentioned above, these criticisms centre in particular in the second White Paper. The consultation process for preparing the document was said by one NGO not to be very consultative. The relationship between DfID and NGOs is also seen to have suffered as a result of Clare Short's personal antagonism towards the NGO community. Mainstream NGOs believe that genuine debate has been sacrificed by the Secretary of State's desire to distance herself from the anti-liberalisation stance of more radical members of their community. [BOND Newsletter, DfID. The First Four Years, April 2001]".
However, the Government claim that:
"The UK Government work closely and constructively with NGOs and other elements of UK civil society." [Globalisation White Paper, 199, col. 359].
However, we have seen that this is not the full story. The Government should take on board this criticism and work towards a better relationship with the UK overseas development charities. The Government could do this by providing charities and the British people with more information on development aid and how they can help. They could also increase the amount of DfID funding spent via charities and NGOs.
We on these Benches believe that the British people should be encouraged to play a more active role in development. Conservatives see aid not purely as an activity for governments but as an area in which everyone can participate. The Conservative Party believes that the Government should support the British people by setting up agencies dedicated to motivating and encouraging the entire UK aid effort.
Baroness Amos: I shall begin by addressing the points raised by my noble friend in relation to Clause 6 and then move to discuss Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 26, 26A and 27 to 33. Clause 6 sets out the kinds of financial assistance which can be provided under the Bill. The Bill provides for the use of a wider range of financial instruments than are available under the 1980 Act by enabling the Secretary of State to provide guarantees and to purchase securities in a company as well as providing grants and loans.

1341
The ability of the Secretary of State to use these new financial instruments has generated some interest. Let me therefore offer an example of how the Secretary of State might come to use development funds in this way.
DfID is currently working with a number of micro-finance institutions (MFIs) to extend the provision of financial services to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. For DfID to make a grant to such institutions carries several risks. An MFI, for example, might pay insufficient attention to innovation or cost control. Those risks would not apply to MFIs which were able to obtain capital on commercial terms. But banks are risk averse and often poorly informed about micro-finance institutions. The provision of a guarantee by DfID would enable banks to learn about the nature of the micro-finance market, and the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to do so. I am happy to write further to my noble friend Lord Judd on these matters.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 would require the Secretary of State not to provide assistance to any organisation or individuals involved in promoting or practising coercive population policies. Before I comment on the amendments, I should take this opportunity to clarify the Government's policy on this important issue. UK assistance for all family planning is provided in line with the principles of free and informed choice upheld at the International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo in 1994. The Government are totally opposed to any kind of coercion in matters related to childbearing. The issue is usually raised in connection with the policies of the Chinese Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, did this evening. The Government disagree with China's one child policy and do not support it. Coercion should have no place in family planning.
DfTD makes annual contributions towards the work of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the International Planned Parenthood Federation in over 150 countries, including China. We support their programmes in China because they work to secure greater respect for reproductive rights. UNFPA makes a full range of reproductive health services available in 32 Chinese counties on a voluntary basis in adherence to the standards agreed at the conference in 1994. Birth quotas have been abolished in the areas where UNFPA works. The programme shows encouraging achievements; for example, it has witnessed a decrease in the induced abortion rates in those counties. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that our work has made a difference.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is the noble Baroness able to confirm that her department's publication China: Population Issues states:
1342
"Critics of this position argue that several years of UNFPA and IPPF involvement in China has not led the Chinese to moderate their policies or stop abuses in the implementation of policy. This is true"?
Baroness Amos: As I have said, we have evidence that the work of UNFPA in the 32 Chinese counties has led to a decrease in the induced abortion rate. That is the aim of the work within the context of the principles agreed in Cairo. Therefore, the Government's policy is in line with the sentiment behind these amendments.
I should also explain why we believe that it is unwise to accept the amendments. To specify individual policies or priorities in the Bill would give rise to doubt about the scope of the powers in the Bill and throw into question the ability of the Secretary of State to support policies and priorities that are not mentioned. This arises because of the legal convention that nothing is said in law that is not necessary. If we set down in the Bill individual policies and priorities which the Secretary of State is in any case able to pursue, or in this case not to pursue, we would allow the inference that the powers in the Bill would not otherwise cover such activities. That might lead a court to conclude that the powers in the Bill should be interpreted narrowly, excluding policies and priorities that were not mentioned on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 26 would require the Secretary of State to consider using country-based nongovernmental channels for the provision of development assistance where she had evidence that the government of the country were using assistance inefficiently or condoning corruption and bribery in its distribution.
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, implied that DfID assistance to smaller UK NGOs is now channelled only through developing country governments. I can reassure the noble Lord that that is not so. Centrally run programmes, such as the Civil Society Challenge Fund, continue to provide direct DfID funding to civil society organisations. In addition, our regional programme managers continue to use what the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, referred to as the ancien régime. The latest departmental report gives a number of examples, including support to CAFOD to develop a peace-building programme in DRC and to Oxfam to improve the livelihoods of pastoralists in Kenya.
Subsection (1) of Clause 7 allows the Secretary of State to impose terms and conditions on the provision of development assistance. Further, Clause 7 is subject to the core power set down in Clause 1. I can, therefore, reassure the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, that the Bill already reflects the exact sense of his amendment.
Amendment No. 26A to Clause 7 seeks to require that special consideration be given to the needs of children. I am sure that all Members of the Committee agree that the welfare of children is of paramount importance to the reduction of poverty in developing countries, but it is difficult to isolate their needs from other ways of contributing to sustainable development or enhancing welfare. Children need parents who can

1343
access livelihood opportunities and protection from lawlessness, and they and their parents benefit from improved government resource mobilisation that finances better services. All assistance provided under the powers in Clause 1 directly or indirectly reduces the effects of poverty on children.
Preparation of development assistance proposals under successive governments has required an assessment of the likely impact on those most affected. Similarly, it has long been standard practice for recipients to report on the implementation and impact of the assistance. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the proposed subsection (5) are, therefore, unnecessary. The proposed subsection (6) would require that assistance affecting children should be provided only to a country which has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This, too, is unnecessary as assistance to any country, whether or not it has ratified the convention, will be provided only where the circumstances justify it. I hope that that reassures my noble friend Lord Brennan.
Amendment No. 27, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt, would require the Secretary of State to ensure that in funding third parties the effectiveness of their contribution towards poverty reduction is regularly monitored and made public. I can offer two points of reassurance to my noble friend. First, Clause 4(2), under which the majority of such expenditure will be given, requires that assistance can be given only if the Secretary of State believes that it is likely to contribute to the reduction of poverty. Secondly, DfID has a comprehensive and transparent procedure for assessing the contribution that multilateral institutions, such as the European Union and the United Nations, can make to international development targets and for determining the nature and scale our contributions to them. DfID's institutional strategy papers also set clear targets for its engagement with those institutions.
Amendment No. 28 would have the effect of imposing a limit on the value of development assistance that could be provided directly as opposed to being provided by arrangement with charities and NGOs. The amendment relates to Clause 8 which allows the Secretary of State to act through other persons or bodies as well as directly. This amendment runs up against the same arguments of principle and practicality that I outlined earlier. I do not believe that we should set out in the Bill limits on the amount or nature of the assistance that the Secretary of State can provide.
The amendment is also undesirable on practical grounds. There may be circumstances when it will be appropriate to provide less than a certain percentage of assistance to a country through NGOs. I do not believe that we should use the Bill to constrain the Secretary of State's ability to act in the most effective way possible.
Amendment No. 29 seeks to require the Secretary of State to preserve, respect and encourage the independence and impartiality of NGOs involved in the provision of humanitarian aid. The Government
1344
value the independence and impartially of all nongovernmental organisations. I hope that there is no doubt about that.
The amendment imposes an uncertain and potentially onerous duty on the Secretary of State. If a duty is to be imposed in law, it should be cast in sufficiently precise terms so that a Secretary of State can be held to account on whether or not the duty is being met. If we accepted the amendment, or one similar to it, we would need to specify exactly how the Secretary of State was to preserve, respect and encourage the impartially of NGOs. We would then need to specify the extent to which the duties should be met. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is a difficult area. If we were capable of formulating such directions, the risk is that they would be so prescriptive in terms of the relationship that the Secretary of State would have with such NGOs, and so onerous in terms of the work required by both parties to manage and monitor the arrangement, that the work of responding effectively and efficiently to disasters and emergencies would be compromised.
Amendment No. 30 would require parliamentary approval of each and every sector-wide programme commitment. It is already a requirement set out in DfID's procedures that any significant expenditure commitment, such as that in a sector-wide programme, be made only after a report has been completed on a proposal. The report must include target outputs and monitoring arrangements. Where the programme envisages channelling resources directly through a partner Government's financial management and control systems, these systems are assessed for their adequacy. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to impose prior parliamentary scrutiny on routine decisions relating to the bilateral programme. Prior parliamentary scrutiny would add a potentially cumbersome procedure to a process which often requires considerable speed and flexibility.
Perhaps I may touch on the point made by the noble Baroness in relation to staffing overseas. The increase in staffing overseas is not directly related to the use of sector-wide approaches, rather it reflects the increasing dialogue between DfID and developing country governments on the key macro-economics and sector policy issues that determine the effectiveness of all forms of assistance.
I have already spoken in some detail about the accountability of the Secretary of State to Parliament and to the courts and also about the transparency of DfID's decision-making procedures and policy development.
Amendment No. 31 would require the Secretary of State to set up and maintain a website for the purpose of helping to co-ordinate and facilitate the development activities of charities and those who give to such causes. If the Secretary of State considered that establishing such a website was an effective way to contribute to the reduction of poverty, then she could support it without recourse to a statutory power.
Lord Avebury: I often wonder when I look at government websites why there seems to be an

1345
absolute bar on having links to other organisations. In the case of the DfID website, the objective which the noble Baroness sought in moving the amendment might equally well be achieved if the noble Baroness thought about having hot links to other appropriate websites, such as those in the principle nongovernmental aid agencies.
Baroness. Amos: I shall certainly take that suggestion away. I can already see a number of potential difficulties with it in terms of which organisations we did or did not choose to have links with and the basis on which we made that decision. But I shall certainly take it away to the department. I shall write to the noble Lord about any subsequent decision that we make.
Amendment No. 32 would require the Government to allocate 0.5 per cent of GNP to development assistance in the financial year 2002–03, and 0.7 per cent in the financial year 2004–05. Noble Lords will know that Parliament has, by tradition, reserved to itself the power to allocate resources annually to departments and to purposes. An amendment such as this would run against this practice and would effectively bind the ability of future administrations to determine, in the context of other priorities, an appropriate allocation of resources for development assistance.
I would, however, take this opportunity to re-state the Government's commitment to the 0.7 per cent target. We are making progress towards that. We have set, and will reach, a target of 0.33 per cent of GNP by 2003–04. That is likely to represent a development budget of some £3.6 billion pounds compared with just under £2.1 billion in 1997–98.
Lord Judd: Can my noble friend say why it is so impossible for us to do this in the United Kingdom when the Netherlands has already done it?
Baroness Amos: I think that I have made it absolutely clear that there is a commitment to working towards that target. My noble friend may recall that the percentage of GNP used for development assistance went down substantially between 1979 and 1997. We have made every effort to increase that proportion. We will continue to do that. There is a commitment to the 0.7 per cent target.
Amendment No. 33 would enable those statutory bodies listed in Schedule 1, which is attached to Clause 9, and any statutory bodies that might subsequently be added to that Schedule, to act for the purpose of the elimination of poverty, in addition to the three purposes already listed in Clause 9.
Clause 9 enhances the powers of the statutory bodies listed in Schedule 1 to enable them to enter into arrangements to provide development assistance with the consent of the Secretary of State. In adding to their powers in this way, we believe that it would be inappropriate to specify what the aim of such assistance should be.
1346
Amendment No. 35A seeks to ensure that under the Commonwealth scholarship scheme the Secretary of State will be able to continue to support the exchange of personnel and that she will be able to support flexible forms of training. I can reassure my noble friend Lord Brennan on both points. Under the Bill the Secretary of State will be able to continue to support all the forms of assistance available in respect of the scheme under the 1980 Act and new forms such as distance learning.
I have spoken at some length and I hope that the explanations that I have given will mean that noble Lords feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Rawlings: I thank the Minister for her detailed answer on all the grouped amendments and for her comprehensive reply to all the questions. I cannot say that we have found them wholly satisfactory. No doubt we shall return to many of these issues on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24 to 26A not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Arrangements with third parties]:
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Powers of statutory bodies]:
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Immunities and privileges of international financial institutions]:
Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 6, line 7. leave out from "section" to end of line 9.
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 34 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 35. In proposing the amendments the Government have sought to address a concern expressed by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform in its report on the Bill. The committee noted that Clause 12 of the Bill enables diplomatic privileges and immunities to be granted to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and to any new international financial institution without the prior approval of Parliament. It further noted that that ran counter to normal practice, which is for Parliament to reserve the right to approve the granting of such immunities and privileges. The committee therefore recommended that the Bill might be amended to bring the IBRD and any new institutions into line with all other international financial institutions.
The reason for the anomaly is purely historical. Clause 12 re-enacts the provisions of Section 9 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980, which in turn draws its provisions relating to the IBRD from the Bretton Woods Agreement Act 1945 That Act does not reserve to Parliament the right to approve the

1347
granting of immunities and privileges in draft. Since then the practice has changed and, in the case of all other institutions of which we are aware, Parliament has reserved the right to approve the granting of immunities and privileges. In drafting the Bill the Government did not recognise that anomaly and we are grateful to the Select Committee for its advice on this issue. The Government are pleased to accept the committee's recommendation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8 p.m.
Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 6, line 15, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Functions of the Commission etc]:
[Amendment No. 35A not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 9, line 10, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may not appoint a date under subsection (2) until Parliament has enacted legislation to give effect to the Convention on Combating the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions."
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the International Development Bill does not become law before the Government have taken appropriate action to enforce the OECD convention on bribery.
Corruption hurts the poor most and is a serious barrier to economic development in developing countries. In Helping Countries Reduce Corruption, the World Bank said:
"Evidence that corruption is a cancer on development is accumulating".
The OECD convention on bribery came into effect on 15th February 1999. It commits the 34 signatories-29 OECD member countries and five non-member countries; Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile and the Slovak Republic—to make it a criminal offence for any person intentionally to offer, promise or pay a bribe to a foreign public official in order to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage in the conduct of international business. The signing of the convention took place in Paris on 17th December 1997.
In the 1997 White Paper Eliminating World Poverty, the Government said that,
"as part of our commitment to combat corruption, we support OECD initiatives to criminalise the bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions".
However, although the UK Government have ratified the OECD convention on bribery, a new extraterritorial offence needed to be created as current British laws are inadequate to enforce the convention.
1348
To date there is no legislation in force—although Home Office legislation is now being introduced—and no successful prosecution has ever been brought under laws on bribing foreign officials.
The Government promised in another place, at col. 33W of the Official Report of 10th April 2000, to pass legislation "as soon as possible" but failed to include it in the Queen's Speech in December 2000. However, it was introduced in June 2001. While Labour has failed to introduce effective legislation on bribery and corruption, it has damaged the good name of Britain abroad. George Moody-Stuart, chairman of the UK chapter of the anti-corruption NGO Transparency International, said in Sunday Business on 2nd January 2000:
"Tony Blair and Robin Cook are said to have an ethical foreign policy. It is difficult to claim this if you don't have support for the OECD convention".
The United Kingdom review of implementation of the convention and the 1997 recommendation of June 2000—a peer group review by other OECD member countries—concluded that British law cannot enforce the OECD convention on paying bribes to foreign officials. Transparency International has said that slow progress on passing reform could cause concern among the other OECD members that have already updated their domestic legislation. In the Financial Times on 24th May 2000, George Moody-Stuart said:
"There is a danger that if it happens slowly we still look shabby".
Further delay could seriously harm the effectiveness of the convention and the Government should ensure that bribery legislation is firmly in place before the Bill is passed.
One of the major barriers to development is corruption. High level fraud and corruption distort economies and prevent aid money reaching those who need it most. Conservatives believe that the Government should have a twin-track approach to fighting corruption in developing countries. If there is significant evidence that a recipient government are abusing British aid money, aid should be stopped. In the event of a suspension of aid we will seek to route a similar amount of support into that country through non-governmental organisations so that the needs of the poor are still met. The Government should also ensure that bribe paying is no longer tolerated by passing legislation as soon as possible to enforce the OECD convention. I beg to move.
Baroness Amos: The effect of Amendment No. 36 would be to prevent the Secretary of State from appointing a date for the commencement of the Bill until the Convention on Combating the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions has been implemented in UK law. Corruption is a serious obstacle to development. We know that it hits the poorest hardest. The strategy of DfID is to support countries that are genuinely determined to crack down on corruption and we are currently spending £350 million each year on programmes in that area. The nature of the assistance we provide varies widely but includes support for

1349
national anti-corruption strategies. We are also collaborating with other development agencies and contributing to multilateral efforts, in particular through supporting the strengthening of financial intelligence units and regional anti-money laundering mechanisms.
Where governments are not committed to tackling corruption, we have taken strong action in partnership with other donors, including, for example, the withdrawal of government to government aid over recent years in Kenya, Malawi and Zambia. But that is not a long-term solution and such action can hit the poorest hardest. We need to engage with such governments in order to influence them. The Bill will allow us to continue to support activities that help the fight against corruption in all its forms.
The Government believe that the OECD convention on the bribery of foreign officials is a major advance in the fight against corruption. I am therefore pleased that the Government have confirmed that a criminal justice Bill containing provisions that demonstrate our compliance with the OECD convention will be introduced into Parliament in the current Session. But there is no link between the enacting of legislation relating to combating the bribery of foreign officials and the passage of this Bill. In view of the commitments I have outlined and the explanation I have given, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Rawlings: I note what the Minister has said and thank her. We shall no doubt come back to this issue at Report stage and Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.
Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, as consideration in Committee of the International Development Bill is now complete, this evening's Unstarred Question on the social and political situation in Pakistan is no longer restricted to the one hour available for such dinner break business. Instead, a limit of one-and-a half hours will apply. This change does not affect the maximum lime available to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester or to myself, but it increases the maximum time available for other speakers from five minutes to nine minutes.

Pakistan
8.11 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester The Lord Bishop of Rochester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the social and political situation in Pakistan.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, this is an opportune time for my Question to be put before the House. We have just completed our consideration of the International Development Bill and we have all heard of the promising meetings being held in the romantic city of Agra. I hope that the results will be as good as the accounts of those meetings.
The story of democracy in Pakistan has been a story of abuse. Cynical and corrupt politicians have used the mechanisms of democracy to maintain their stranglehold on power to enrich themselves, their relatives and their friends at the expense of ordinary people. Naturally, this House cannot welcome the suspension of democratic norms anywhere and of course Pakistan should not be an exception. Nevertheless, it can be argued that the situation was so bad that a breathing space and a new start were needed. We said as much around 18 months ago.
What has happened in that breathing space? The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is of the view that there has been,
"notable success in fiscal and monetary policy".
According to the FCO, inflation has fallen considerably, rationalisation of the income tax structure has taken place and there has even been modest growth, in spite of sluggishness in the agricultural sector because of prolonged drought. Foreign exchange reserves have been built up and the country is on track for further international assistance.
In other areas such as health and education, the government seem to be full of good intentions and we must welcome their emphasis on greater access to education for girls and women and on the improvement of rural health facilities. We must ask, however, whether there is the capacity for delivering such policies and how Her Majesty's Government are assisting in capacity-building. Clearly, some remarkable initiatives so far as concerns the health sector have been put in place in, for example, the North-West Frontier Province, but greater stress needs to be put on building capacity for systems rather than relying on a few charismatic individuals.
The recovery of loans from defaulters, the broadening of the income tax base and a greater willingness to be accountable and transparent are all to be welcomed. According to independent sources, Pakistan's record of transparency and accountability has improved by some 1,000 per cent—I have to say that that was from a very low base. There is still a long way to go, but an important start has been made.
On the domestic scene, however, some endemic problems remain. We have already noted the intention for gender equity in education. In addition, the local

1351
bodies' elections have transformed the role of women in politics, at least at the local level. Nevertheless, the position of women in society generally remains fragile. Domestic violence, the rape of disadvantaged women, including those from religious minorities, and the so-called "honour killings" remain entrenched. In the Sharia courts, women are discriminated against in terms of giving evidence, even in cases where they themselves are the victims.
On taking power, the government declared their honourable intentions towards religious minorities and, generally speaking, they have encouraged tolerance of and participation by those communities in national and civic life. However, they have not been able fully to address the question of the blasphemy laws, which have been used by extremists and other vested interests to victimise not only members of the minority communities but even Muslims with whom these extremists disagree. The blasphemy laws—in particular Section 295-C of the penal code—are bad; dare I say that they are un-Islamic laws which will continue to haunt the conscience of the nation until they are abolished. In the meantime, the government must act to prevent their abuse.
I welcome attempts by the Minister for law and parliamentary affairs to reform the process of reporting, investigating and prosecuting major crime. In a country where the police and local officials can come under heavy pressure, it is extremely important that the investigation of the most serious crime is undertaken nationally or regionally under the supervision of the appropriate ministries of law.
The Government of Pakistan have set out a timetable for the restoration of democracy. This has to be done in a way that does not involve a return to the politics of greed of the 1990s. A stable system, with the necessary checks and balances, is very much to be desired. Moreover, such a restoration should be made on the basis of one person, one vote, and no one should be disenfranchised from the constituency in which they live because of their religion or any other consideration. If it is thought that groups such as women or religious minorities would not be adequately represented by these means, no doubt consideration could be given to providing some additional means of securing their representation in the parliament and other bodies. It is important that neither the United Kingdom nor the Commonwealth should encourage any form of democracy which leaves a significant number of people without a local franchise. Estimates of the size of religious minorities, for example, should be reliable and possibly undertaken with international observation. The present official figures do not provide an accurate picture and further marginalise the minority population.
Is it possible to ask how Her Majesty's Government are assisting both India and Pakistan in the resolution of the Kashmir dispute, in particular in the present negotiations? For Pakistan, this matter affects everything, from the extent of the defence budget to relations with the Taliban on its western and northern
1352
frontiers. The evolution of a stable, tolerant and prosperous society depends on the solution of this problem. We hope that the recent visit made by President Musharraf to New Delhi will have begun a process of creating confidence, reducing tension and encouraging dialogue between the various parties involved, including of course the Kashmiri people themselves.
An encouraging beginning has been made, but many good intentions have to be realised and the present government must deliver on their promises. There is nowhere else to turn. I hope that the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Brisbane will note the progress that has been made, and set out an agenda which will encourage Pakistan in the direction of a restoration of democracy which can be recognised as authentic by all.
Mohammed Iqbal, the national poet of Pakistan, lamenting the sale of Kashmir to the Dogras by the British, says in his Persian magnum opus, the Javed Nama:
"Dehqan u kist u jui u khayaban farochtand
Qaumi farochtand u che arzan farochtand".
Which means:
"Peasant and field and river and garden they have sold,
A whole nation they have sold and how cheaply they have sold!"
What Iqbal said of Kashmir is surely also true of the rest of Pakistan: so often its own leaders have sold it out. We hope that now this sorry tale will come to an end and the people set free.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, at a moment when I thought my time had come during a difficult and confused battle in the Arakan, the driver of my tank passed me a message. It was:
"Have faith in God. Sahib—he is a very reliable fellow".
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester may have had some divine help in achieving this debate at a time when the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan are meeting in Agra. All of us who have a regard and affection for India and Pakistan will pray that this historic meeting will begin the process of resolving the problems which have divided both countries and have led to two wars between them.
I have said in previous debates—I repeat it again today—that no Speaker of the House of Commons can possibly welcome or approve a military regime. But the way in which General Pervez Musharraf assumed the position of Chief Executive in 1999 is well documented, and I will not repeat it here. Equally well documented is the fact that a succession of nominally democratic governments, through mismanagement and corruption, left Pakistan in a state of virtual bankruptcy. It is a well documented fact that the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis, both inside Pakistan and elsewhere, welcomed the relief from the corruption and oppression that had brought their country virtually to its knees in the name of democracy.

1353
The right reverend Prelate has drawn attention to the difficulties faced by the Government of Pakistan and the progress that has been made in the past two years. It has not been as swift as we would like, or as far reaching as we would have wished. Nevertheless, as the right reverend Prelate said, the economy is reviving; inflation is down; income tax is no longer a voluntary tax for a few privileged people but is more broadly based; the electoral register has been reorganised and brought up to date; and elections at local level have taken place. The turn out of more than 44 per cent, should give much pleasure to all of us in our country.
Furthermore, General Musharraf has said that he will honour the timetable laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that elections to the provincial assemblies and to the National Assembly will be held next year.
Progress could he even greater—and certainly more rapid—if the problem of Kashmir could be resolved. Pakistan cannot afford the military costs involved when so much needs to be done to improve the lot of the people. And the same is true of India. To its great credit, it is the world's largest democracy, but it does have unacceptable extremes of great wealth and great poverty.
When I was chairman of the Commonwealth Speakers and Presiding Officers in 1988, I well remember Speaker Mutasa, the Speaker of the Zimbabwe Parliament, saying à propos of South Africa, that its problems and its acceptance of democracy could be best achieved through the Commonwealth family. He went on to say that some countries in the Commonwealth had had to fight for their independence; others had accepted it with great reluctance. Indeed, when I stepped ashore in the British Virgin Islands, the Speaker extended his hand and said, "I hope you have not come to give us our independence". So the Commonwealth could resolve many of these problems.
There is an old adage:
"Remember your friends. Beware of your enemies".
Pakistan has been a staunch friend of our country, fighting with us in defence of freedom and democracy in two world wars. I was privileged to serve with its forces in the last war. What an irony it is that Pakistan's membership of the Commonwealth has been suspended, while Zimbabwe, despite its despotic government, remains a full member.
The Commonwealth has a vested interest in helping to ensure a friendly and a prosperous Pakistan in a part of the world which is highly unstable and volatile. I fervently hope that at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Brisbane the Commonwealth will resolve to help Pakistan to solve its problems, internally and externally, and assist in the process of bringing it back to prosperity and democracy. I end: Pakistan Zindabad!
8.27 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for
1354
securing this debate at such an important time in history for Pakistan. I also welcome and congratulate both President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee on their two-day summit in Agra. I understand that there have been frank, cordial and constructive talks between the two participants. However, I am saddened to hear that the wording of a joint declaration has not been agreed between the two heads of state.
Since our last debate in the House, much has happened in Pakistan, but little has changed the fate of more than 40 per cent of the population. Tragically, only a few days ago, another poverty-stricken man in Punjab killed his wife and eight children as he had no means to feed them and could not bear to see them starve. Unfortunately, the suicide rate for the same reason has gone up.
While Pakistan has performed better than some of its neighbours, such as Bhutan, Nepal and Bangladesh, according to the UN report on the human development index, Pakistan has been placed 127th out of 162 countries. More than 60 million people live below the official poverty line.
Pakistan's debt is about 34 billion US dollars and well over 70 per cent of the national budget is used for the interest repayments on debt and on the armed forces. According to the World Bank's one dollar a day estimate, out of the 1.3 billion people in the world, 515 million (50 per cent) live in south Asia, whereas the regional share of the global population is 23 per cent. In Pakistan, both the number of households, as well as its percentage share, has increased substantially, especially during the 1990s.
The literacy rate is about 40 per cent in Pakistan, while female illiteracy is more than 75 per cent. The infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births in Pakistan is 95. This is much greater than other developing countries, which average 65. Waterborne diseases are rampant as 56 million people in Pakistan do not have access to clean drinking water. The situation with respect to sanitation—another deadly indicator—is even worse: 98 million people in Pakistan are living without proper sanitation facilities.
Tragically, there are 9 million malnourished children in Pakistan, and a majority of children drop out of the primary school education system. Sadly, military expenditure in Pakistan is 150 per cent of the total spending on education and health. Let us hope that the highly contentious issue of Kashmir can be resolved soon, so that money can be better spent on the eradication of poverty both in India and in Pakistan, rather than being wasted on weapons and armies.
Pakistan has another huge burden on its resources: it has over 3 million refugees from Afghanistan. Many believe that a large part of the problem involving drugs, terrorism and the Kalashnikov culture in Pakistan has been a result of the invasion of Afghanistan in Soviet times, followed by the civil war. Many Pakistanis feel that although the war against the invading Soviet Union was for the western countries, Pakistan has been left to pick up the pieces and to deal with the consequences.

1355
During my last visit to Pakistan, an elderly man said to me, "We have been loyal friends of the British and American people. However, Pakistan has never been forgiven by Muslim Egypt for our role in the Suez crisis. We supported the allies during the Gulf crisis and we have fought the European war against Communism in Afghanistan. Sadly, the developed world has turned its back on our poverty and hunger. Will you ask them to write off our debt?". In replying, will my noble friend the Minister say what measures a future Pakistan government need to take in order to qualify for debt relief, like Poland and Uganda?
I should like to congratulate the Pakistan Government on their devolution programme and on the recent successful local and district elections, including the legislative elections in Azad Kashmir. These were generally believed to be fair and without violence.
Although General Musharaff's government promised accountability, transparency and human rights, unfortunately there has been little improvement in these areas. According to Transparency International, Pakistan was the 12th most corrupt country in the world in 1999 and remains 12th in 2001. The accountability bureau concentrated much on the opponents of the government, rather than on applying rules equally across the spectrum.
According to the world report from Human Rights Watch for the year 2000:
"Respect for civil and political rights deteriorated significantly in the year following the bloodless military coup on 12th October, 1999, that deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in Pakistan. General Pervez Musharrais administration began to address some longstanding justice issues—notably, through the adoption of Pakistan's first federal juvenile justice law and the establishment of a commission on the status of women, but it also greatly augmented executive powers and curtailed the independence of the judiciary. It moved to neutralise political parties through the application of broadly defined laws governing terrorism, sedition, and public order, and through the establishment of a powerful extra-constitutional 'accountability' bureau. Opposition party members were subjected to prolonged detention without charge, some were tortured in custody. Sectarian violence and attacks on religious minorities continued and, despite renewed attention to the issue, the Government failed to provide meaningful recourse for women victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence".
Despite the government's stated commitment to human rights protection, human rights violation including torture and death in custody increased during 2000. Minorities were not given adequate protection when religiously motivated violence flared up. The government also failed to repeal blasphemy laws which allow the persecution of religious minorities.
General Musharraf's government has tried to control illegal weapons which have become instruments to settle political sectarian and personal differences. I ask my noble friend the Minister: what expert advice and assistance can Her Majesty's Government offer in programmes to provide security, liberty and the strengthening of institutions?
1356
Finally, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government summit should set a clear timetable for introducing people's representation at all levels of government. This would include parliamentary and provincial elections as mandated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan within a stipulated period. I hope that political decisions by the Commonwealth will not penalise the people of Pakistan.
8.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for enabling this debate to take place. I shall refer to only one issue, which I believe to be important; namely, the relationship between the faith communities.
Part of my history is that I was co-founder of the Interfaith Network in the UK, and for 13 years I was Bishop of Stepney. Much of my time then was spent defending the rights of minority ethnic groups. It was a great enrichment of my life to gain so many friends from other faiths. One of the essential factors was the defence of those faiths in our communities—especially that of Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh and also that of Hindus and Sikhs. People usually speak of religion as a source of conflict; and, sadly, so it is. But I do not believe that that is inevitable in human history. That is the way in which people have often been divided, but there has to be another way.
During that time we learnt to share mutual understanding—learning and listening to each other, showing respect for each other and for each other's beliefs, and learning about the ways in which we lived. From such encounters we received so many examples of strength and encouragement. People's backgrounds, cultures and religious beliefs—the spiritual realities—are the things that make us what we are. I was interested to note that praying together was not a problem so long as we used no words. When the relationships are good, the communication improves. I have many profound and happy memories of people of all faiths coming together in an attempt to understand the will of God.
Of course, we also have much in common. Christians, Jews and Muslims have Abraham as their father. All could stand and worship at Hebron—if it were not for the war going on around them. We could all stand at the tomb of Abraham and find a common path to God. We share many moral standards—not all, of course; and the differences are important.
One thing that I learnt in East London was the tremendous reverence for God that existed in the communities there. I used to think how wonderful it would be if we saw 500 men who were Christians going to a local church to worship God—the pattern of prayer. All these things made a tremendous impact upon us. We have much to learn from each other as communities of faith. But, in our humanity, we build walls or barbed wire fences, or just hatred; we hurl abuse at each other, and in some parts of the world we

1357
persecute each other. We see only the differences. We forget what we have in common—which is so much greater.
I believe that life-long friendships, mutual humility and reverence to the faith of others can change the world. My great predecessor, Archbishop Huddleston, used to call it "the greater ecumenism". He was not someone who lived in cloud-cuckoo-land, but someone who lived very close to the centre of reality. He truly believed that the thing most needed by the world was religious tolerance and mutual understanding.
My point is a very simple one: religion should be seen not always as a cause of division, of hatred or of war. We should learn somehow from all the experience that we have that it has great potential for mediation and reconciliation. Who can doubt that Desmond Tutu's deep and happy faith played a huge part in reconciliation in South Africa after the most terrible wrong-doings? I just wish that the inter-faith movement could receive more attention throughout the world, because I believe that it carries within it the possibility of solving some of our very worst conflicts. I wonder whether there are ways in which these developments can be shared on a wider basis.
8.41 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate for bringing this matter before the House tonight. Pakistan's armed forces and politicians are currently turned towards Kashmir and the threat from India over that disputed territory. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, said, the traditional enemy was Russia and its ability to arm and infiltrate the people of Afghanistan, especially the Tadjik population in the north. Now the tables are turned, but the war goes on. The Khyber Pass has seen waves of Afghan refugees, not warriors, pouring into the plains of the North West Frontier Province. The UN reported in February that another 170,000 people had fled the effects of war and drought, on top of over 1.2 million already in Pakistan. There are also 1.3 million refugees in Iran, as well as tens of thousands scattered in at least 68 'countries across the world, of whom only 5,000 applied for asylum in the United Kingdom last year.
Afghans are now the single largest group of refugees in the world; and yet the world is showing increasing hostility and resentment towards them. Neighbouring countries are closing their borders, and Europe is not in the mood to take more. I should like to quote from the statement of the UNHCR dated 10th July:
"The numbers of Afghan asylum-seekers spreading out beyond the neighbouring asylum countries has climbed dramatically over the past four years as conditions inside Afghanistan have continued to deteriorate. In 2000, Afghans were arriving in countries as diverse as Australia, Cambodia, Cuba and Iceland … When arriving in industrialised countries, Afghans—like other asylum-seekers—are facing an ever-growing barricade of exclusionary measures designed to keep them out. In some countries they find themselves slapped straight into detention, in others they simply fold into a wider group generally stigmatized as bogus and unwanted".
1358
The Pakistan Government have done Afghanistan a service in hosting so many refugees during many years of the civil war. The Pashtu people have much in common with both countries. The triumph of the Taliban owes a lot to the training, weaponry and other resources that they have received during their asylum in Pakistan; and, indeed, in the West. After Russia's defeat it was hoped that the thousands of refugees repatriated with the help of UNHCR would remain. However, since the Taliban have been in power, the numbers returning have steadily increased, partly because of the war in the north but also from the redoubled effects of the worst drought for 30 years. Crop failures, loss of livestock, rising prices and acute water shortages have made permanent settlement impossible even in peaceful areas.
Meanwhile, Pakistan's attitude towards refugees is changing mainly because of its desire to accommodate the Taliban regime. The regional government in the North West Frontier Province refuses to allow the registration of new arrivals. It has even decided to ignore the international community and repatriate new refugees by force: 80,000 have been squeezed on to a site called Jalozai in conditions that the UN described a few months ago as,
"so crowded and desperate that it is virtually impossible to distribute aid there without provoking a desperate and possibly life-threatening stampede".
This is a very acute problem. Some of my personal friends work in the area with the United Nations or NGOs, such as Save the Children and Care International. I know that they are experiencing an unusual crisis even for experienced aid workers. They say that as the UN has failed to influence the Government of Pakistan it is now up to the world's governments to persuade them. At the same time, there is no point in accusing Pakistan if we are not willing to take our fair share of Afghan refugees. This may be the right moment to ask the Foreign and Commonwealth Office through the Minister—and. in part, the new Foreign Secretary—what he meant Earlier this year when, as Home Secretary, he spoke of an expanded use of resettlement procedure outside Europe. Does the Minister, for example, envisage new, internationally-supervised detention centres outside Peshawar in Pakistan—a sort of super refugee camp? Alternatively, will the Government continue to meet their responsibilities in Europe, and look more favourably on Afghan refugees under both the right of asylum and the exceptional leave to remain procedures?
The only alternative is a political settlement in Afghanistan, which still seems a very long way off. It would help to reduce the flow of refugees from the north. Here the aid NGOs are quite clear. If Russia and western governments continue to support General Masoud's northern alliance, the Taliban will continue to rely on Pakistan for help. The US State Department warned in April:
"Credible reporting indicates that Pakistan is providing the Taliban with material, fuel, funding, technical assistance and military advisers. Pakistan has not prevented large numbers of Pakistani nationals from moving into Afghanistan to fight for the

1359
Taliban. Islamabad also failed to take effective steps to curb the activities of certain madrassas, or religious schools, that serve as recruiting grounds for terrorism".
We must recognise that it is not only Pakistan that is fuelling this conflict but all governments, including our own, who are behind the UN sanctions and the one-sided arms embargo aimed at the Taliban. Of course, I understand the stated reasons for sanctions in the wake of human rights offences, which, as we have heard, mirror in many ways those taking place in Pakistan. But are those sanctions really having the desired effect? In a recent oral Question, I asked the Government whether they accepted that the people of Afghanistan are suffering from these sanctions, which are only cutting them off from the rest of the world.
In one of the very poorest countries, the arms race has become another cause of poverty and misery. Humanitarian agencies, including those within the UN system, would like to see a high level diplomatic initiative aimed at peace and reconstruction in Afghanistan, including an end to the drugs and arms trade. I should be most grateful to hear the Minister's comment on the feasibility of this plan. Can he tell us what is the United Kingdom's position in this respect? Until Pakistan sees the economic and political advantages of such a move, it will simply continue with the present policy.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I join other speakers in welcoming this timely and topical debate, and in congratulating the right reverend Prelate on providing us with the occasion to talk about Pakistan. It is particularly timely because it follows immediately an important and quite encouraging meeting between the leaders of India and Pakistan. The Question also sets the scene well by linking, on the one hand, the economic and social situation, and, on the other hand, the political situation in Pakistan.
The weaknesses of the Pakistan economy, the rigidity of its social and landowning structures, and the failure to catch the tide of modernisation and liberalisation which has boosted so many of the economies further to the east of Pakistan and the continent of Asia, have heavily contributed to the political instability of the state which has been endemic since it was first established in the 1940s. Politics, the alternation of flawed parliamentary regimes with military ones, the failure of the successive transitions from military rule to lay any solid foundations for democracy and the corruption and abuses of power by both parliamentary and military regimes have undermined any attempt to put the economic and social situation on to a sounder footing—so the two have fed each other.
Moreover, Pakistan's predicament has been greatly complicated by external factors. The alternation of cold peace and three hot wars with its neighbour India have prevented the establishment of mutually beneficial trading and investment links while giving rise to a level of military spending of 17.5 per cent of its public expenditure—or 6 per cent of the GNP of one of
1360
the poorest countries in the world. Those figures cannot in the long term be justifiable or sustainable. The turmoil in Afghanistan, which has lasted for many years, has precipitated huge destabilising flows of refugees into Pakistan, as my noble friend has just said. All in all, Pakistan does not live in a nice neighbourhood.
Although it is easy to be critical of Pakistan, of its lack of democracy, of its poor relations with its neighbours and of its nuclear weapons programme, it is important to do so from a position of understanding and sympathy for its predicament and one of realisation that not all its misfortunes are of its own making, nor are they ones easily soluble by stock solutions. As a former colonial power, Britain has to be particularly careful to avoid appearing meddling or patronising. But our links with Pakistan through the Commonwealth and through those of our citizens who originated in Pakistan are far too many and far too strong to make turning our back on that country a conceivable option.
If we say to Pakistan that a move back to democracy over time is really essential to the future stability of the country, we must do so not as a developed country seeking to impose its own blueprint and institutions on another country in a quite different situation, but as a member of the Commonwealth committed to the proposition and to support for democracy. It is surely fair also for us to point out that it was the failure of previous military regimes—those of Ayub, of Yahya and of Zia—to prepare the ground for a return to civilian parliamentary rule that was not only part of their own undoing but also contributed to the weakness of the parliamentary governments which followed them. There are surely lessons to be learned there.
Similarly, if we deplore the rise of Islamic fundamentalist tendencies in Pakistan, we must not do so in a spirit of what could be called "Islamaphobia". There is no necessary link between Islam and fundamentalism, any more than there is between other religions and the zealots who profess to speak in their name. The objection to fundamentalism is not that it is Islamic, but that it is extreme, intolerant and does not respect the human and political rights of others. In the context of Pakistan's attitude towards religious fundamentalism, it is not unreasonable for its friends to expect that it should take a more rigorous and less supportive attitude than it has in the past towards the Taliban regime in neighbouring Afghanistan. That regime has been sanctioned by the United Nations for its unwillingness to act against international terrorism and it has a truly horrendous record of human rights abuses, particularly against women.
I referred at the outset to the weekend meeting between the rulers of India and Pakistan. One must be cautious about throwing one's hat in the air too soon—there have been too many false dawns before. Remember that the Lahore summit of 1999 was shortly followed by the worst ever bout of fighting along the line of control in Kashmir. Neither leader will have found it easy to go to the summit. Both have plenty of nay-sayers behind them. So their courage can

1361
be applauded, as can the signs that a real dialogue is under way. But outsiders must be careful not to be too intrusive, nor should they take sides. That is seldom helpful, except in narrow, tactical terms. We should welcome and support the process and in particular express the hope that these two nuclear powers will find ways—as the United States and the Soviet Union did after many false starts—of establishing confidence-building measures and procedures designed to guard against any recourse to those appalling weapons.
Some of the things that may be said in our debate may arouse a certain amount of resentment in Pakistan. However, they should not and I hope that they will not. It should rather be seen as an occasion which reflects the very real interest we have in the relationship between our two countries and the desire which we have to contribute constructively to a better future for the people of Pakistan whose lot has not been, and still is not, an easy one.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I believe that everyone who has spoken has congratulated the right reverend Prelate on his prescience in arranging the debate at a time when the summit meeting in Agra between the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan is approaching its completion. We wish them well in their deliberations as there is no doubt whatsoever that peaceful relations between the two great powers in the subcontinent are the key to political and social progress in Pakistan and, indeed, throughout the whole region. As has been said, if military spending on both sides could be reduced, and if trade, investment and tourism could be opened up between them, that would transform the situation in the region and would open up enormous opportunities for the people of Pakistan and of the rest of the subcontinent.
It was encouraging to hear that there has been a good atmosphere at the talks. As I understand it, Prime Minister Vajpayee has accepted an invitation to visit Pakistan at some unspecified date in the future. I believe that the two leaders genuinely did want to find areas of agreement, although on the central question of Kashmir it was hard to imagine how either of them could move away from positions that they had adopted so firmly over the course of many years. It would be unrealistic to expect that a problem which has defied solution for well over half a century could be resolved in the space of a few hours' discussion in Agra, however well intentioned the parties may be. I agree with those who have said that to begin with what is needed are confidence building measures such as the withdrawal of forces on both sides of the Line of Control, the opening up of communications between the two halves of the divided state of Kashmir and an agreement that only democratic means should be used to solve that problem.
The right reverend Prelate asked how the United Kingdom could assist with that process. We have just been told by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that outsiders should be careful not to be too intrusive. That is good advice. We wish both countries well
1362
from the point of view of our status as fellow members of the Commonwealth. We know from our previous experience that offers of mediation, whether by the Commonwealth Secretary General. the UN Secretary General or the Foreign Secretary of this country have not been welcomed because one of the parties at any rate believes that this is entirely a matter for the domestic consideration of the two powers and that it was decided some 30-odd years ago when they agreed at Simla to proceed by means of bilateral negotiations.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, referred to the elections in Azad Kashmir. I slightly take issue with him as I believe that it was unfortunate that the JKLF, which advocates the independence of Jammu and Kashmir, was prevented from contesting those elections. I hope that everyone agrees—this has already been said in the course of the debate—that the final solution of the problem of Kashmir has to be one which is acceptable to the people of the whole state. Since a referendum has been ruled out, the only remaining method people would have of making their views known would be elections throughout every part of the territory. If candidates were able to argue among themselves for different constitutional outcomes, that would enable the elected representatives to enter the debate with the democratic legitimacy that only free elections can confer.
That brings me to the position in Pakistan itself. Much has been said about the coup which brought General Musharraf to power. I agree that it was a regrettable necessity because the political system at the time was rotten to the core. As has been said, almost everyone in Pakistan welcomed the advent of General Musharraf at that time. The state had been plundered by unscrupulous politicians of both the People's Party and the Muslim League and the Musharraf government have clawed back millions through the National Accountability Bureau even though corruption is still widespread. It had gnawed so deeply into the fabric of national life that it may take decades to bring it under control.
The political parties in Pakistan were not democratic. They were run by feudal elites and from top to bottom they were controlled by a handful of leaders, not the voters. The leaders decided who were to be the candidates at every level, not the rank and file members of the parties. Now President Musharraf is reforming the system starting from the bottom upwards. He has promised that he will stick to the timetable laid down by the Supreme Court of holding national and provincial elections during the course of the next year.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said that at the same time Pakistan is trying to cope with a vast flood of Afghan refugees. The noble Earl put the number at 1.2 million. If one adds those who have arrived irregularly, have not been counted and are living in the cities, the true figure is nearer 2 million. The international community should do far more to help deal with the crisis. If we do not, many of those refugees will come to Europe and a large proportion of

1363
them to Britain. Afghanistan already tops the list of countries from which people seek asylum in the UK, with 900 arriving in May alone.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of what Mr Straw said to the IPPR in his former incarnation as Home Secretary in a speech on an effective protection regime for the 21st century. He said:
"We must help the countries concerned to make conditions in the regions of origin better".
He is now in a position to do something practical about it. We should be mobilising the international community to succour the Afghan people affected by war and drought. We could offer President Musharraf a deal: that he stops providing through the ISI military advisers, logistical support, transhipment of weapons, ammunition and fuel to the Taliban and the recruitment of Pakistani nationals to fight in the Taliban's war, and we will provide massive help to get the refugees back into Afghanistan and to provide them with the means of sustaining themselves when they arrive there. As the noble Earl said, since September 170,000 people have left the country. He described the conditions in the camp of Jalozai: they have been described as deplorable and inhumane. I agree with him on that. Islamabad has called on the UNHCR to facilitate the return of those people to Afghanistan. Many are prepared to go back if they are given the necessary help. A handful of families have returned already with the assistance of the LTNHCR, which gave them the princely sum of 117 dollars per family to resettle themselves in their homeland.
I was very glad to see that General Musharraf is reported to be about to clamp down on some of the sectarian and fanatical groups. Violence between those groups, including the mass murder of worshippers in their mosques, has become an ugly and alarming phenomenon. The extremists who whip up hatred and fear in some of the mosques and religious schools despite legislation against incitement threaten the whole political fabric of Pakistan. The extremists, some of whom are supported by money from abroad, are the biggest threat to the stability and integrity of the state. The failure to confront and contain them has been the greatest failure of leadership since independence.
In conclusion, I should like to echo what has been said about the CHOGM in Brisbane. Let us not push Pakistan further back into difficulties. She is already confronting enormous problems with the flood of refugees, corruption and the question of Kashmir. Let us instead invoke the Commonwealth to assist Pakistan, bring her back into the family of nations and restore her to democracy and prosperity. I believe that that is our duty from Brisbane. I hope that the Government will give us an undertaking accordingly.
9.6 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the situation in Pakistan and thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for asking the Question.
1364
It has been a particularly interesting and wide-ranging debate on the social and political situation in Pakistan. As the Foreign Secretary indicated on 20th June, deep concern was felt by us all as General Musharraf assumed the presidency of Pakistan and dissolved the national and provincial assemblies. We should not forget that this is a country which has suffered from several difficult elections and many previous undemocratic governments.
Pakistan is a key player in a strategic area with many serious ethnic, religious and military tensions. Its increasing fundamentalism is of great concern. I believe that we should give consideration to the security and stability of the region in any response we make to yet another period of martial law, the third in Pakistan's history.
As have other noble Lords, we welcome the high level talks between Pakistan and India this weekend with a sense of relief and hope. We on these Benches urge the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to encourage the Foreign Secretary to do all he can to assist this process. Any easing of national tensions will aid stability within Pakistan. General Musharraf can be commended for such a move. However, as many noble Lords have pointed out today, that should not lead us to ease the pressure on him to keep his commitment and to honour the ruling of the supreme court to ensure free and fair all-party elections by the autumn of next year.
Despite what we may think about the general, printing presses are not being destroyed, farms are not being illegally occupied and fuel is not rationed, so how are we to square our attitude to Pakistan with our attitude to Zimbabwe? We condemn the general, yet we appease President Mugabe. Pakistan is succeeding while Zimbabwe is in chronic decline. Surely if the general agrees to hold elections we must support Pakistan. While we remain ineffective towards Zimbabwe, do we not appear hypocritical when we take action against Pakistan?
As we heard from the right reverend Prelate, Pakistan is enjoying a period of economic stability; so much so that in November last year the IMF announced a 596 million dollar credit for Pakistan—the first since May 1999. Despite that, Pakistan's economy still struggles under the weight of debt servicing and the high cost of defence. We urge the Minister to consider the proposals that we debated earlier today during the Committee stage of the International Development Bill to link any aid to good governance and anti-corruption regimes. Pakistan has for too long been bedevilled by corruption and lack of good governance. So many countries—possibly more than ever before—are being ruined by corruption, which has become endemic in their societies. Any help that we can give to try to eliminate corruption should be welcomed.
I hope that the Minister will join me by calling on General Musharraf to instigate new elections as soon as he feels that the country is stable enough to do so, so that they will be as fair as possible; to instil civil liberties; to ensure religious tolerance; to put an end to bonded labour; to look into the situation of political

1365
prisoners, who should be charged or released; and to allow peaceful demonstrations, which are the life blood of a free society.
We need to build on the links with Pakistan that we heard described in the elegant and thoughtful speech, full of wisdom, from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. We also need to build on the UK-Pakistan agreement on drug trafficking and to encourage the authorities to improve education standards, as the shocking illiteracy rate is one of Pakistan's major problems. It is due mainly to corruption in schools. I was told that there are approximately 3,000 ghost schools—schools that do not exist, but where the teachers still get paid.
Pakistan has a long and chequered history of toying with the democratic process. We should assist Pakistan further along the path, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, through advice, support and pressure from the international community.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the noble Baroness made a comparison with Zimbabwe. Will she reconsider her use of the word "appease" to describe the Government's policy?
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I am sorry, but we seem to be appeasing President Mugabe.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting and well informed debate. I am not surprised by that, because, in preparing for my response this evening, I read the debate that was held in this House on 19th January last year, when a number of the speakers were the same as today, so I was expecting some informed comment.
I join others in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester on selecting this subject for debate. Having only recently travelled down the corridor from the other place, I am not used to such debates being so wide-ranging, but I welcome the fact. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his skills of looking into the future that enabled him to select the subject today after a weekend when Pakistan and India have been in the national news bulletins. That does not happen every weekend. The right reverend Prelate's timing is impeccable.
As we might have expected, the contributions have focused on some key issues, notably Kashmir, the route to democracy that we all hope for, Afghanistan, human rights and economic development. I shall try to touch on those matters in the relatively short period of time that I have in which to respond to the debate.
Since its formation in 1947, Pakistan has faced formidable obstacles, including poverty, scarce resources., political instability, and domestic and external conflict. It has made progress on many of those issues, but much remains to be done.
We hope that in the 21st century Pakistan will maintain its efforts on those issues while acknowledging a new set of challenges: developing its
1366
education, reforming its economy to compete in a globalised world, building modern relationships with its neighbours and, above all, entering upon a quest for strong, sustainable and transparent democratic government.
We must acknowledge that successive governments, both military and civilian, have not always served the Pakistani people as well as we may have hoped. However, I strongly agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that we must be careful about making judgments from one part of the planet to another on many of these issues.
I agree with a number of noble Lords that there were deep flaws in the approach of the previous elected government. I should emphasise that the British Government, with our European Union partners, were quick to express our concern over their handling of the economy and their human rights record. However, we feel that, however flawed that government, they should have been allowed to complete their natural term so that the Pakistani people could pass their own verdict at the ballot box. No less an authority than the former Speaker of the House of Commons has reminded us this evening of the fundamental importance of democracy and the ballot box.
The military intervention of October 1999 undermined Pakistan's constitution and set back the cause of democracy and civilian control of Pakistan's armed forces. To have turned a blind eye would have set a dangerous precedent world-wide. At the time, we made clear our views on the military coup and called for an early transition to democracy. But we also indicated that we would not turn our backs on Pakistan. We want to work with the present authorities to tackle the country's economic and social problems while, simultaneously, providing advice and assistance on the transition to elected government.
With regard to the economy, it is vital to stabilise, reform and diversify Pakistan's economy. The country has never been able to achieve consistently the levels of economic growth which are necessary to free it from dependence on external support and to lift its people out of poverty. We strongly support a programme of structural reform which can make more efficient use of Pakistan's resources, reward labour and enterprise, and reduce corruption. Pakistan is currently implementing ambitious and challenging reform programmes agreed with the IMF and the World Bank. It is meeting the underlying benchmarks successfully. That is expected to pave the way for a more ambitious three-year programme later in the year.
The strong economic management and the track record built up over recent months, despite the current drought, reflect strong leadership by the Minister of Finance. However, in order to achieve a sustained reduction in poverty, greater progress is needed in other areas—particularly in education and health. Sadly, Pakistan seems to be lagging behind the rest of

1367
south Asia with regard to literacy and female access to education. That point was made strongly by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester.
Although the indicators for life expectancy, infant mortality and access to clean water are improving slowly, they are not improving as quickly as they are in the rest of south Asia. Unless Pakistan can limit its population growth, any economic growth will be quickly swallowed up. These are great challenges for the country.
The present Government of Pakistan are in the process of developing reasonable strategies to tackle those fundamental problems. The key, as always, will be implementation. Major progress will require greater commitment of human and financial resources by the government to the social sectors and an effective devolution process to ensure that public services are delivered more efficiently than has been the case thus far.
The Department for International Development is already engaged deeply in many of those areas. As noble Lords may know, in a meeting with the Pakistani Foreign Secretary on 13th June, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development discussed, among other issues, the UK's aid to Pakistan.
In order for Pakistan's people to enjoy security as well as prosperity, further attention must be paid to human rights. Where we have had concerns, we have been frank about them. Political detainees should be either released or charged with specific offences, and the ban on political gatherings should be lifted. Again, I agree very much with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester that the position of women remains of great concern, as does the application of the blasphemy law.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells spoke very movingly indeed about the enrichment that faiths derive from dialogue with one another. Whenever I attended a religious service—I speak as a former constituency Member of Parliament with a number of faiths in my constituency—the commonality and sharing of values came through to me all the time. The right reverend Prelate spoke movingly on that theme and I agree with him wholeheartedly. Violence and intimidation are never a solution; so we welcome General Musharraf s speech of 5th June to religious leaders in which he condemned intolerance.
Several noble Lords raised the question of Pakistan's relations with India. This weekend's dialogue was welcomed by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, with whom I have shared quite a long period on our respective Front Benches today, although our proceedings are now close to a conclusion.
We are still assessing initial reports of this weekend's historic summit in India between Prime Minister Vajpayee and General Musharraf. We are encouraged by the courage and vision that both leaders
1368
demonstrated by resuming dialogue. We hope that the personal rapport that they have established will lead to a wide and constructive discussion of the issues that divide their countries, including that of Kashmir. As many noble Lords pointed out, including my noble friend Lord Ahmed and the noble Lords, Lord Weatherill and Lord Hannay, if only Pakistan and India could redeploy some of the resources that they devote to military spending, that would be of enormous benefit to the people of India and Pakistan. The United Kingdom supports all efforts to resolve the Kashmir conflict. We believe that it is now for the leaders of India and Pakistan to take the initial meeting forward.
Several noble Lords, including in particular the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, discussed relations with Afghanistan. We hope that Pakistan will be able to work with us constructively to address this tragic conflict. As has been pointed out, Pakistan and its people suffer greatly from the fallout from that conflict—through drugs, criminality and the spread of extremism and sectarian violence. A comprehensive political solution in Afghanistan would bring great benefits to the region; it would certainly do so to Pakistan. We continue to urge such a settlement. We recently co-hosted a conference with the UN Secretary-General's special envoy for Afghanistan to explore what more could be done to move the process forward.
Finally, Pakistan needs stable and effective government, which reflects the wishes of its people. We have made it clear that what these days is called a "road map" for the transition to democracy needs to be established. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary discussed this with Pakistan's Foreign Secretary on 12th June, and on 25th June the noble and gallent Lord, Lord Guthrie, raised the issue directly with General Musharraf on behalf of the Government. We have welcomed the military government's acceptance of the Supreme Court's verdict that national and provincial elections must be held by the autumn of next year.
However, we were worried by General Musharraf s sudden assumption of the presidency on 20th June. That appeared to further undermine the constitution and it cast doubts over the credibility of elections next year. We have urged the general to provide early constitutional clarity about future relations between the elected assemblies, the presidency and the National Security Council and details of the way in which he intends to put his assumption of the presidency to the democratic test.
Again, I emphasise that we are ready to help to restore constitutional rule through assistance with fair, free, transparent and well-conducted elections. We all hope that ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, to which many speakers have referred, we shall see clear progress in that direction.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that under Pakistan's constitution, the president is elected by the members of the national and provincial

1369
assemblies? The logic therefore is that, once those elected bodies are in place, they should ratify the appointment of President Musharraf as president.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is absolutely right. Not just in Pakistan but in all countries, democracy is best built from the bottom up. The elections to which he refers are fundamental to the route map to which I referred.
As those noble Lords on both sides of the House who know the country far better than I have made clear, Pakistan is a country with great potential and it has strong links with the United Kingdom. A prosperous, secure and well-governed Pakistan is in both Britain's and Pakistan's interests.
1370
We have made it clear that we cannot condone the manner in which the present government came to power and are concerned at any moves which might prolong undemocratic rule. But where we are convinced that the government are working sincerely to create economic growth, tackle poverty, improve relations with Pakistan's neighbours and ensure an early transition to sustainable democracy, they will have our full support.
Her Majesty's Government will continue to do all that we can to help to build a prosperous, secure and peaceful future for Pakistan and its people.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past nine o'clock.

  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Over Thirty Months Scheme: Foot and Mouth Control Consequential Losses
  Over Thirty Months Scheme: Foot and Mouth Control Consequential Losses
  GM Crop Trials
  GM Crop Trials
  Plastic Waste
  Plastic Waste
  Water Abstraction Strategies
  Water Abstraction Strategies
  Farming: Regulatory Measures
  Farming: Regulatory Measures
  National Parks: Access
  National Parks: Access
  DCMS Quinquennial Reviews
  DCMS Quinquennial Reviews
  Prisoners: Hours Confined in Cell
  Prisoners: Hours Confined in Cell
  Commission for Racial Equality: Annual Report
  Commission for Racial Equality: Annual Report
  Electronic Communications: Storage
  Electronic Communications: Storage
  Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank
  Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank
  Baroness Morgan of Huyton
  Baroness Morgan of Huyton
  Peerage Recommendations: House of Lords Appointments Commission
  Peerage Recommendations: House of Lords Appointments Commission
  Legislative Programme: Application to Scotland
  Legislative Programme: Application to Scotland
  European Community Budget 2001
  European Community Budget 2001
  Supermarkets: Code of Practice
  Supermarkets: Code of Practice
  Mr Ian Stillman
  Mr Ian Stillman
  Diplomatic Missions: Non-domestic Rates Arrears
  Diplomatic Missions: Non-domestic Rates Arrears
  Arms Embargoes and Protective Clothing for Humanitarian Workers
  Arms Embargoes and Protective Clothing for Humanitarian Workers
  Diplomatic Missions: Unpaid Parking Fines
  Diplomatic Missions: Unpaid Parking Fines
  Rail Services: International Comparisons
  Rail Services: International Comparisons
  Ballot Papers: Party Logos
  Ballot Papers: Party Logos
  London Underground: Public Private Partnership
  London Underground: Public Private Partnership
  Trans-European High Speed Rail System: Interoperability Directive
  Trans-European High Speed Rail System: Interoperability Directive
  Road Safety Fences: Highways Agency Working Group
  Road Safety Fences: Highways Agency Working Group
  Electronic Conveyancing
  Electronic Conveyancing