Sitting of 17 July 2001

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

    Foot and Mouth
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If she will make a statement on the impact of foot and mouth on tourism in Scotland. [2639]
    Mr. A. J. Beith: What steps she has taken to facilitate cross-border co-operation over the handling of the foot and mouth crisis. [2643]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): The impact of the foot and mouth outbreak has been severe in Scotland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom. There has, however, been active cross-border co-operation. The Scottish Executive have worked well with Whitehall Departments on both policy and operational aspects. All agencies, including the Scotland Office, have co-operated in getting across the message that Scotland is open for business.
    Dr. Lewis: I am reassured by that response from the Secretary of State, but has he found in Scotland, as we have in the New Forest, that one effect of the crisis has been that many tourist centres and businesses that have never been closed have been shunned by people wrongly thinking that they were closed? Will he do everything in his power to advertise the fact that tourist centres in Scotland are not closed, in many cases never have been closed, and should be visited at every opportunity? The tourism industry—certainly in the New Forest, where foot and mouth did not even break out, and, I am sure, in Scotland—has been desperately hard hit.
    Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is right about everything except one point: I am only the Minister of State, not yet the Secretary of State.
    The Secretary of State and I have been very active in promoting the fact that Scotland is open for business. My right hon. Friend went to the Trossachs, Loch Lomond and Ben Nevis very soon after the crisis began, to illustrate the fact that they were open. I went to Stirling castle and Stirling jail—[Interruption.] The old jail. I went to Culzean country park, and spoke to journalists in Brussels—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That was my only overseas visit,
    136
    apart from going to the Western Isles. I also met overseas journalists who came to Loch Lomond and other parts of Scotland. The Secretary of State and I, along with our colleagues in the Scottish Executive, will do everything that we can to get over the message that Scotland, like other parts of the UK, is very much open for business and welcomes tourists, wherever they come from.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Minister aware that, whereas during earlier stages of the outbreak the Scottish Executive, as well as handling the crisis rather better than those in England did, were helpful to those of us who had to deal with problems on the English side of the border going into Scotland, there is now a limit on cross-border movements, so that farmers who have cattle in equivalent condition and want to send them to the abattoir in Ayr or Bathgate cannot do so, even though the limit seems to have no scientific basis? Will he arrange for civil servants of the two Administrations to talk to each other more, so that they can discuss the matter?
    Mr. Foulkes: The civil servants of the two Administrations are in very close touch, on that and other matters. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to meet Rhona Brankin, the Minister responsible for such matters in the Scottish Executive, so there will be discussions at ministerial level later this afternoon. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take on board the point that the right hon. Gentleman has raised.
    Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries): Will my hon. Friend listen sympathetically to the concerns of many hill sheep farmers whose markets have been closed off and closed down as a direct result of restrictions on animal movements designed to combat foot and mouth? Will he undertake to discuss with colleagues appropriate compensation arrangements?
    Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right; we are certainly taking that on board. There is a huge problem with 3.5 million hill lambs, which must be dealt with in one way or another, because they will suffer if left on the hills during the winter. They can be slaughtered and go into cold storage, and farmers can receive compensation. Alternatively, we could eat more lamb. We are considering all the options. I attended an ad hoc meeting on the matter on Wednesday, and the Secretary of State is attending another later this afternoon. We are treating it as a matter of great urgency.
    I know that some regard suggestions such as that we should eat more lamb as a bit of a joke, but this is a serious matter. Eating more lamb would certainly help to solve the problem and reduce the amount of compensation that we would have to pay.
    Tony Worthington: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the approval in Europe of a procedure called alkaline hydrolysis at elevated temperature—he does not need to remember all that—which would get rid of the need for mass burial and rendering? A firm in my constituency holds the licence for such a procedure, which would have obviated many of the problems of foot and mouth, and dealt with BSE,

    137
    too. Does my hon. Friend welcome the tremendous opportunity for a major manufacturing facility in Scotland to deal with such crises?
    Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend has made that suggestion before, and it is one that we should take on board. I can assure him that there have been no new cases of foot and mouth in Scotland since 30 May. That is no cause for complacency, but things seem to be improving significantly. Cleaning and disinfecting of farms is well under way: we have already done more than half the infected farms in Scotland. The farms involved were in a small area around Dumfries and in parts of Galloway and the borders—the rest of Scotland was not affected. We have been trying to broadcast that message as widely as possible.

    Single Currency
    Mr. David Cameron: If she will make a statement about the involvement of the Scotland Office in preparing Government and businesses for the introduction of the euro. [2640]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I meet my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss that and a wide range of issues. In addition, I liaise closely with colleagues in the Scottish Executive who take forward euro preparations through the Scottish Euro Forum.
    Mr. Cameron: Will the right hon. Lady be making a separate assessment of the Scottish economy in relation to the five economic tests? If so, how, when and where will it be published? If not, why not?
    Mrs. Liddell: I will not be making a separate Scottish assessment.
    Mr. John McFall: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that businesses be aware of the euro and make preparations? The scotch whisky industry is a highly successful industry, achieving more than £2 billion of sales and securing more than 50,000 jobs. Would we not be hiding our heads if we failed to act responsibly and did not open up channels with such businesses?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The introduction of notes and coins at the turn of this year will be important to Scottish business. My hon. Friend mentions the scotch whisky industry in particular, but 63 per cent. of Scotland's exports overall go to our European partners, and if businesses do not prepare for the introduction of the euro, opportunities will missed. The Department of Trade and Industry and other Government Departments have been actively encouraging businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, to prepare for the introduction of the euro. Many think that that is simply a matter of implementing new systems, but the fact is that when 12 of the EU's member states are using the euro, price transparency and the competitiveness of Scottish business will be thrown into sharp relief.
    Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): In the context of the Government's preparations for the introduction of
    138
    the euro, will the Secretary of State estimate—to the nearest 10,000. say—how many fewer manufacturing jobs there are in Scotland now than when the Labour party took office in 1997? How many of the job losses does she attribute to the overvaluation of sterling against the euro, and how many to other Government policies?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman displays the flawed economics that he displayed during the general election campaign—as a result of which there are now more Scots in the Cabinet than on the Scottish National party Benches here. Let me point out that during the election campaign, he and other members of his party made it clear that they would rather tie the Scottish currency in an independent Scotland to the pound or to the euro. One of the reasons why his party lost the election so decisively was the flawed economics that he and his colleagues displayed. The Labour Government's policies have resulted in the lowest unemployment in Scotland for 25 years, and more Scots in employment now than for a generation.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the Secretary of State accept that it would be utter madness for us to join the euro at the current rate of exchange? Does she agree that we require either a substantial devaluation of the pound or an appreciation of the euro before it would make sense even to consider joining? Is it not a fact that those who call for us to join the euro now, including those in the SNP, do not have Scottish industry's best interests at heart?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the assessment we must make of whether to recommend to the people in a referendum that we should join the single currency. A key element is to ensure sustainable convergence, which is why the position adopted by the Government—making the assessment according to five economic tests set by the Chancellor—is the logical way forward. We must be certain that every decision about the single currency is taken in the best economic interests not only of Scotland, but of the whole United Kingdom. That is why our policy of prepare and decide is the best possible one.
    Mr. Michael Moore: Does the Secretary of State accept that Scottish farmers' businesses are being damaged by the continuing uncertainty about the euro? Given the Government's unwillingness to commit to a referendum on the single currency, will she at least give a commitment that full agrimonetary compensation will be paid to farmers this year? Will she explain what steps she is taking to ensure that there is a new scheme in place when the current one ends in 2002?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman is being misleading when he says that we will not commit to a referendum. We have made it clear that we will commit to a referendum. Indeed, the decision whether Britain should enter a single currency will be taken in the best interests of the Scottish, and British, economy. Far from the position of the Conservative party—later this afternoon, it will decide whether its leader will be someone who proposes that we should never enter a single currency, someone who proposes that perhaps we should enter a single currency, or someone who says, "Yes please, can

    139
    we enter into a single currency right now?"—we shall make a decision based on the best prospects for the Scottish and the British economy.
    As for agrimonetary compensation, the Government have gone to considerable lengths to ensure that there is adequate foot and mouth compensation for farmers, not just in general but in specifics. More subsidy is paid to farmers in the United Kingdom than to all other sections of our industry put together, because the farming community requires that—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a good full reply.
    Mr. Iain Luke: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that Europe is Scotland's largest export market, on which hundreds, indeed thousands, of jobs depend? Does not the sterile anti-euro stance of the Opposition puts those jobs in jeopardy?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend, from his considerable experience of such matters, makes an important point. What he says is accurate, and whenever we see the Opposition divided on the issue of Europe, we know that they do not have the interests of Scottish industry at heart, just as they do not have the interests of British industry at heart.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am sure that the right hon. Lady is familiar with the Chantrey Vellacott report, which says that the costs to the private sector in Scotland of joining the euro would be some £3 billion on a gross domestic product just in excess of £56 billion. No doubt she agrees that that is a substantial sum. Is it not the case that the longer the Government delay that decision, the higher those costs will be? That point has already been made to the right hon. Lady in a number of questions. If the Government are serious about the matter, is it not time that they came to a decision? Do they not risk incurring substantial costs for the Scottish economy which, at the end of the day, may have been wasted?
    Mrs. Liddell: I wonder whether I am welcoming the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box in his role as spokesman for Scotland for the last time. We expected his hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) to he at the Dispatch Box today. Indeed, we look forward to the next Scottish Grand Committee, when the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale may be the Front-Bench spokesman who opens for the Opposition, then becomes their Back-Bench representative, before resuming his Front-Bench role to close the debate.
    As for the question asked by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the Government will decide whether to recommend joining a single currency in a referendum based on this country's best economic interests, not on some ideological dancing on the head of a pin—which, it seems, would be the Opposition's position. Our recommendation will be in the best interests of the people, and the decision will be made by them.
    Mr. Grieve: I had rather hoped to move on to another topic, but I think that I shall return to my original question. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the £3 billion of estimated cost to the Scottish economy that would be incurred by joining the euro will be increased
    140
    the longer the decision is delayed, and that the money could well turn out to be wasted? Will she please answer that question now, rather than giving me an interesting and diverse explanation of who will be sitting where in the Scottish Grand Committee?
    Mrs. Liddell: The illogicality of the hon. Gentleman's question beggars belief. If the wrong decision is taken about the interests of the people of this country, it will cost the economy considerably more, which is why the Government's position of assessing the five critical economic tests is right.

    Fuel Duties
    Mr. Owen Paterson: What representations she has received about the effects of fuel duties in Scotland. [2641]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I have regular discussions with a number of interested parties on a wide range of issues affecting Scotland, one of which relates to fuel prices.
    Mr. Paterson: That was a bland answer, considering that 95 per cent. of goods in Scotland are transported by motorised truck. How many letters has the Secretary of State had from businesses whose competitiveness has been crushed by the pernicious fuel duties imposed by the Government? Can she name three businesses in Scotland that have been made more competitive by those fuel duties?
    Mrs. Liddell: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have introduced a package of measures that is specifically friendly to motorists in Scotland. The measures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget have led to cuts in fuel duty of 4p per litre for motorists and 7p a litre for hauliers. Those measures benefit every business in Scotland.
    Mr. Calum MacDonald: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Office of Fair Trading is investigating the causes of the disproportionately high petrol prices in the Western Isles, which are not due to taxes or duties, because the same taxes and duties apply everywhere else in the United Kingdom. They are the result of a commercial interest. Will my right hon. Friend ascertain when the findings of the Office of Fair Trading inquiry will be published, and undertake to implement them?
    Mrs. Liddell: I will certainly undertake to do that; my hon. Friend makes an important point. Having filled my tank on Saturday at a rural filling station in the highlands, I am well aware of the difficulties being experienced in the highlands and islands. My colleagues in the Scottish Executive have introduced the rural petrol stations grant scheme, which is intended specifically to assist filling stations in remote areas. I know that my hon. Friend welcomes that. I undertake to ensure that the findings of the survey of petrol prices will be published as early as possible.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the direct threat to the

    141
    economy of Wigtownshire? She will be aware that many hauliers and holidaymakers detour via the Irish sea crossing to southern Ireland en route to Northern Ireland rather than cross my constituency to Stranraer, because they can buy fuel at half price in southern Ireland, rather than paying the extortionate price of £4 per gallon in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale.
    Mrs. Liddell: I take this opportunity to welcome the "Westminster one" to the Chamber. Let me not diminish the hon. Gentleman's considerable achievement in winning his seat. However, does his win not say something about the performance of the Scottish National party, which still managed to lose a seat on one of the worst nights for the Tories in a generation?
    What the hon. Gentleman says about the difficulties in Wigtownshire is something that I acknowledge, and that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledged when he introduced the new system of vehicle excise duty, especially the development of what is called the Brit disc. That is specifically designed to assist hauliers and give them access to fuel at a competitive rate that will allow them to carry out their business without a competitive disadvantage.
    Mr. Michael Weir: Does the Secretary of State understand that the high price of fuel impacts on all aspects of the Scottish economy, especially in rural areas? Does she think that taking 75p in tax for each pound charged on petrol is too much, too little or just right? Is there a European Union country that takes more in tax on petrol than the United Kingdom? May we have a straight answer at least once this afternoon?
    Mrs. Liddell: As the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, I feel that one should be understanding about the questions that he asks. However, if he checks the level of motoring taxation in Scotland with that in the rest of the EU, he will find that we sit in the middle. Opposition Members talk about fuel taxes, but they fail to take into account any consideration of the environment. Perhaps that explains why, with the exception of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), they have all been returned to this place with roughly 30 per cent. of the popular vote.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that although when the barrel price of oil was $10 there was not a large fall in the price of petrol at the pump, now that the price is $25 a barrel, the companies are claiming that that is why their price cannot come down at the pump? Will my right hon. Friend enter into discussions with the companies about how much profit they are making from the international sale and retail of fuel? While she is at it, will she get them to explain why fuel is 3p a litre cheaper in her constituency than in mine?
    Mrs. Liddell: I assume that my hon. Friend is a regular visitor to my constituency, given that his family comes from there. The Government do not become involved in companies' pricing decisions. However, I recognise my hon. Friend's point about prices at the pump when oil was $10 a barrel. As the Grangemouth refinery is in his constituency, he is well aware of the important impact on the Scottish economy of having a more sustainable oil
    142
    price now. It is important to secure jobs in my hon. Friend's constituency and in other constituencies throughout Scotland. The Government believe that competition, and competitive pressures on oil companies, are one sure way of reducing petrol prices, as we see with pricing in supermarket and hypermarket filling stations.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), who is very welcome indeed at Scottish questions, especially by my colleagues and me. The right hon. Lady has admitted that high petrol prices are causing a problem for rural businesses, farmers and other people in rural communities—especially in Scotland, by comparison with the rest of the country. As those prices result from taxation, not from the original pricing, will she undertake to make representations to the Chancellor before the next Budget to reduce, or at least hold steady, the current tax on fuel?
    Mrs. Liddell: I take this opportunity not only to welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box—we did not expect to have her company today—but, on behalf of the whole House, to give a welcome to Matthew Wallace Laing, who is now five weeks old. We are delighted to see the hon. Lady here and looking so well. On her substantive point, the Government have recognised the difficulties of rural communities and others, which is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken action resulting in an average reduction of 4p a litre for petrol.

  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL

    European Court of Human Rights
    Miss Anne Begg: What Scottish cases are pending before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. [2601]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Of the current cases against the UK that have been notified to the UK to date, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has identified four as being of particular interest to a Scottish Executive lead Department. Those cases involve a number of issues about the application of article 6, which concerns the right to a fair trial, article 5, which concerns the right to liberty and security, and one case involving article 3, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment.
    Miss Begg: Is the Advocate-General involved in any of the cases, or does her involvement stops once a case gets to Strasbourg? Is she likely to be involved in such cases in future?
    The Advocate-General: I am not currently involved in the four cases to which I referred, but some of them are still at a very early stage in the procedure before the European Court of Human Rights. Obviously, as a UK Law Officer, I am available, if requested, to give advice

    143
    about such matters or to appear on behalf of the UK. I am certainly willing to do that in the European Court of Human Rights, as I have done in many of the other courts.

    Subordinate Legislation
    Annabelle Ewing: If she will make a statement on the application of schedule 7 3(1)(b) of the Scotland Act 1998. [2602]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Paragraph 3(1)(b) applies to numerous powers to make subordinate legislation under the Scotland Act 1998. It requires affirmative resolution procedure to be used where the subordinate legislation alters the text of an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament.
    Annabelle Ewing: I thank the Advocate-General for her answer, but I should like to pursue the matter a wee bit further. Will she confirm that a detailed reading of the Scotland Act shows that when reference is made to an Act of the Scottish Parliament, the term "Act of the Scottish Parliament" will be used? Similarly, will she assure us that when reference is made to an Act of the Westminster Parliament, the term "Act of the UK Parliament" will be used? Will she therefore confirm that if an annulment is sought for supposed elements of an Act of the Scottish Parliament that are ultra vires, the UK Government would be required to invoke the special case procedure set out in schedule 7 3(1)(b)?
    The Advocate-General: Fortunately, I almost understand the hon. Lady's question. Basically, when an Act refers to an Act of the UK Parliament, that is exactly what it means. Similarly, when an Act refers to an Act of the Scottish Parliament, that is what it means. It depends entirely on the interpretation provided in the Scotland Act 1998 and the Interpretation Act 1978.

    Euthanasia
    Mr. James Wray: What recent advice she has given on legislation relating to euthanasia. [2603]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): I give legal advice on a range of matters as and when required. The Government have no plans to introduce legislation relating to euthanasia. In Scotland the matter is devolved to the Scottish Executive, and I understand that they have no plans to introduce legislation relating to euthanasia, either.
    Mr. Wray: There is much confusion in Scotland with regard to euthanasia. Neither Ministers in Scotland nor the Cabinet Office at Westminster understand where responsibility lies. It is not dealt with, along with surrogacy and abortion, under the part of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act that covers health and medicines, so the rule of thumb is used, in case of biotourism. As the criminal law, including the law with regard to murder, is devolved, is not euthanasia, too, a devolved matter?
    The Advocate-General: My hon. Friend is correct. The criminal law, including that with regard to murder, is devolved, and in certain circumstances the taking of
    144
    human life will be murder—or it could be culpable homicide. Euthanasia, as defined by Scots law, is not acceptable and is contrary to law. That is a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Asylum Seekers
    Ann Clwyd: What assessment she has made of the adequacy of legal representation available to asylum seekers. [2608]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): The Legal Services Commission and the community legal service partnerships continually monitor and assess the adequacy of legal service provision available to asylum seekers, including legal representation. We believe that there is now generally adequate provision throughout England and Wales, but will look to meet any local difficulties that may arise.
    Ann Clwyd: I welcome my hon. Friend to her new position, and wish her a long and happy life at the Dispatch Box. However, I have to disagree with what she has just said, because my experience in visiting Cardiff prison recently and talking to asylum seekers suggests that their legal representation is extremely inadequate. I had intended to ask the Department whether, as so many asylum seekers are being dispersed outside the London area, any progress had been made in building up a network of specialists in asylum law throughout the United Kingdom. Certainly asylum seekers in Cardiff prison are inadequately represented.
    Ms Winterton: I know that my hon. Friend is extremely concerned about the situation in Cardiff. I read the powerful points that she made in her recent Adjournment debate, and I agree that the Government must ensure that asylum seekers, wherever they are, have proper legal representation. We have taken on board her suggestion that there should be a network of advisers throughout the country. One of the recent improvements that we have made is to ensure that only legal advisers who are specialists in asylum law can give advice to asylum seekers. We have also increased the number of immigration practitioners throughout the UK, looking particularly at areas to which asylum seekers have been dispersed where there may not have been a tradition of such legal advice. There were particular problems in Cardiff prison, and a number of changes have been made following a visit from the Legal Services Commission—but if my hon. Friend believes that problems are still outstanding, she should write to me and I shall look into them myself.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I, too, warmly welcome the Minister to her new post and wish her well.

    145
    Bearing in mind the Government's policy of firmer, fairer and faster reception of asylum seekers, is it better that initially and temporarily, they should be held in prisons or reception centres?
    Ms Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome.
    Asylum seekers are held in prison only as a last resort. We believe that the changes that we have made will assist in speeding up the process.
    Putting people in detention centres as soon as they arrive, as the Conservative party suggests, is unworkable and unaffordable. However, we hope to lessen the number of those who are detained in prisons when other centres open later in the summer.

    Immigration Appeals
    Fiona Mactaggart (Slough): How he plans to deal with the backlog of immigration appeals; and if he will make a statement. [2609]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): Immigration appeals have benefited from the significant resources that the Government have invested in improving the appeals process. Waiting times in the Immigration Appellate Authority have reduced considerably from more than 40 weeks at the end of March 2000 to less than 20 weeks at the same point this year.
    Officials from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, the IAA and the Lord Chancellor's Department continue to work closely together to ensure that there are no undue delays in dealing with immigration appeals.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and welcome her to her new post.
    I am pleased to hear the extent to which the processing of immigration appeals is being speeded up. However, the same cannot be said about asylum appeals. What progress is being made in dealing with the 65,000 asylum cases that are being moved into the appeals system?
    Ms Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. She is right that immigration and asylum appeals should be tackled as quickly as possible, and that immigration work should not suffer through increased asylum appeals. The latest assessment shows that in approximately 52,000 asylum cases, an appeal has been lodged with the IND, but they remain in the appeals system. In the past year, we have taken several steps to tackle that problem and ensure that asylum and immigration appeals move through the system quickly.
    First, we have increased the number of courtrooms. Secondly, we have more than doubled the number of asylum adjudicator sitting days. We have also increased the number of staff in the IND who prepare and present appeals, and the number of interpreters.
    I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that those measures mean that average waiting times for asylum and immigration appeals have more than halved
    146
    in the past year. However, I assure her that we shall continue to consider all options for tackling appeals quickly.

    Human Rights Act
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the future of magistrates courts. [2610]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): As the hon. Gentleman knows, implementation of the Act is at an early stage. It came into effect only in October last year. It would therefore be premature to draw any firm conclusions now. However, magistrates courts committees have provided data for the period between October 2000 to March 2001. That shows the Human Rights Act has had no significant impact on the work load of the courts or the infrastructure required.
    Mr. Paterson: I welcome the Minister to his new post, and I hope that he will not emulate the inept complacency of his predecessor, who flatly refused to take on board the imminent catastrophe that faced magistrates courts after Human Rights Act was passed. In Oswestry, £350,000 of taxpayers' money was spent on modernising the magistrates court over five years. Now, £197,450 will have to be spent to make it comply with the Human Rights Act, which deems it an infringement of human dignity to be seen in any public part of the court in handcuffs. Does the Minister agree that if central Government cause a problem, they should provide the funds to solve it?
    Mr. Wills: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words of welcome. I am afraid that I have to disagree with almost everything else that he said. Briefly—
    Mr. Paterson: Tell me what is wrong, then.
    Mr. Wills: I will, if I may, tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what he said that was wrong. First, he was wrong about my distinguished predecessor, in whose footsteps I am very proud to follow. Secondly, there is no imminent catastrophe—
    Mr. Paterson: There is!
    Mr. Wills: If the hon. Gentleman really wants to be reassured—
    Mr. Paterson: Come to Shropshire.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) must calm down.
    Mr. Wills: Mr. Speaker, I am trying extremely hard to bring some comfort to the hon. Gentleman, but he is obviously determined to get over-excited about this. I accept his kind invitation: I would be delighted to come to Shropshire, because I would be able to explain to him in situ—he obviously does not want to listen to me here—that there is no imminent catastrophe as a result of the

    147
    Human Rights Act. There is no evidence of such a catastrophe and, on the Labour Benches, we believe in proceeding on the basis of evidence.
    Mr. John Burnett: I welcome both the new Ministers to their appointments and I congratulate the Minister of State. Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), on her promotion. I would also like to pay tribute to the former Member for Wyre Forest, who was a conscientious and knowledgeable Minister.
    The Government commissioned Bristol university to produce a report entitled "The Judiciary in the Magistrates Courts", which was published in December last year. For what purpose did the Government commission that research? Do the Government have proposals for the lay magistracy and, if so, what are they?
    Mr. Wills: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, and for those—by contrast with those of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson)—about my predecessors. He will be aware, with his distinguished background in the law, that we are awaiting publication of the Auld report. It would be premature to say too much until my colleagues and I have read it, as it may well have implications for the future of the lay magistracy. We have made it very clear, as has Lord Justice Auld, that we see a valuable role for the lay magistracy, and we expect that to continue.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: I do not know what happened in Shropshire, but in the adjacent county of Cheshire there was a very welcome and sophisticated programme of training for magistrates before the introduction of the Human Rights Act. May I seek my hon. Friend's assurance that that training will also be available to newly appointed magistrates? It would take additional time and resources, and would need to be like that provided for existing magistrates.
    Mr. Wills: My hon. Friend is quite right—he so often is. The catastrophe that the hon. Member for North Shropshire is so keen to predict has been avoided because we have prepared extremely carefully and made sure that everyone involved got proper training. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to provide whatever training is necessary.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: May I add my congratulations to the two new Ministers on their appointments? The Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), has been promoted from being a Parliamentary Private Secretary, and the other Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), was previously our Minister for patriotism. I am not sure whether he regards his change of role as a promotion or not. In any event, we welcome him to his Department.
    The closure of magistrates courts in every county is something for which the hon. Gentleman and his Government have to take responsibility. It is not good enough for him to say, as his predecessors did, "It is up to local magistrates courts committees." He must recognise that the courts are closing, precisely as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said, because they are being told that they cannot afford
    148
    the cost of the modifications resulting from the Human Rights Act. Courts round the country have to be modified and, because the Government will not pay for the modifications, those courts will close. Such closure is the denial of local justice by stealth. Will the Minister address that problem which his Government have created?
    Mr. Wills: Again, I suppose that I should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words of welcome. I should add that he will continue to hear from me on national identity.
    Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has some difficulty understanding how the system operates and I look forward to educating him a little more about how it works over Question Times to come. Of course, as the hon Gentleman knows extremely well, the provision of justice through magistrates courts is a matter for local magistrates courts committees. I am glad that he mentioned money, because we are proud of our record in funding the modernisation of the court service. We are proud of what we have done to ensure that magistrates courts deliver the system of justice to which the public are entitled.
    The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that, in the past four years, we have increased by 12.8 per cent. the money available to magistrates courts to modernise. He keeps referring to the closure of magistrates courts. Of course some magistrates courts committees will decide that, in the interests of an efficient, effective and secure system of justice, some magistrates courts will close. That is inevitable and we make no apology for it. What matters is the service that the public receive and we shall ensure that they get the service that they deserve.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The President of the Council was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Electronic Voting
    Mr. Simon Thomas: If he will bring forward proposals to introduce electronic voting to the Lobbies of the House. [2623]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): In the last Session, the Modernisation Committee conducted a survey of Members' views on electronic voting. A majority of hon. Members who responded were against such an innovation.
    Mr. John Bercow: Excellent!
    Mr. Cook: Including the hon. Gentleman. I shall discuss with the Modernisation Committee whether there would be any value in revisiting the issue in this Parliament, but such a major change could not proceed without substantial support.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the Leader of the House for his response and pay particular tribute to the reforming zeal that he has shown on taking up his new post, especially in the announcements that he made last night. What estimate has he made of the time that we waste voting in the Lobby? The devolved Administrations in these islands

    149
    vote in minutes whereas we take hours. Has he made any estimate of how much extra time we would have to scrutinise, for example, Select Committee reports or the Executive if we voted in an alternative way? We could keep a Lobby a day for the Lobby junkies, but time could also be freed up for scrutiny in the House. Incidentally, we could also get rid of the abomination that is deferred voting. Will he reconsider?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to go to the heart of the debate, which is whether electronic voting would permit quicker voting. There would be a time saving. It is also important to bear in mind the fact that the eight minutes that are required to enable Members to attend before the Doors are locked represent the majority of the time taken for Divisions of the House. Unless it were proposed that those eight minutes should themselves be reduced, electronic voting would save three or four minutes per Division at most. That is not without significance in itself, but it must be weighed against the fact that most Members when last asked wanted the present system, not electronic voting. The final decision must be for the House.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason why a majority of the House has continually argued the case for voting in the manner that we do is that, although it takes 15 minutes, it enables Members of Parliament to put Ministers and Cabinet Ministers under scrutiny when we have not been able to find them during the rest of the week?
    Mr. Cook: I am very familiar with the principle that my hon. Friend enunciates. I assure him and the House that all electronic voting systems that were considered in the last Parliament required the personal presence of the Members voting. For example, if we were to introduce smart cards, all Members would have to go through the Aye or No Lobby, although they might be able to go through more quickly. There is a balance to be struck.

    Laptop Computers
    Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): What plans he has to ensure that laptop computers can be used in the Committee Rooms of the House. [2624]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman has raised the matter before and I have considerable sympathy with the argument that the House should move with the latest technology. In the first instance, that is a matter for the Chairmen's Panel, which must rule on what is and is not permissible in Standing Committee. However, in the last Parliament the Modernisation Committee considered the way in which Parliament uses information technology and it may well return to that issue in this Parliament.
    Mr. Jack: I am most grateful to the Minister for his very positive response to my small campaign, particularly in the light of the fact that, as a result of the agreements made last week, Members are, among other things, to be able to have a laptop computer. Those could be used, for example, to take bulky documents, such as notes on clauses for the Finance Bill, into the Committee Room in
    150
    electronic form, but we are not permitted to do that. A small hand-held computer, however, can be taken into Committee.
    May I urge the Minister to continue the work that he mentioned in his answer, particularly through the Modernisation Committee, so that Members—especially Opposition Members—can sensibly use electronic aids to enhance their ability to scrutinise the Government's work?
    Mr. Twigg: I am well aware of the right hon. Gentleman's long-standing small campaign, which may reach fruition in the coming Session. I am also aware of the advantages that he has described. As I have said, this is a matter for the Chairmen's Panel in the first instance, but I believe the Information Committee has already conducted an experimental paperless meeting that was viewed positively by its members, and I therefore believe that progress will be forthcoming.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: I wholeheartedly endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), and welcome what my hon. Friend has said.
    The main chamber of the Californian Assembly has a laptop at every position. That has not disrupted its work, but has enhanced it, and many other Parliaments are doing the same. We are lagging behind, and I urge my hon. Friend to use his good offices to press the programme forward.
    Mr. Twigg: Clearly the small campaign has cross-party support. One of the changes in Standing Orders agreed during the past few weeks will enable Committees to work more closely together, which will give the Information, Modernisation and Procedure Committees an opportunity to work together on this matter.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: While there are clearly several advantages in proceeding with the investigation of the use of laptops in Committees and so on, I caution the hon. Gentleman, especially in the light of what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). If we are to set a precedent, obviously it may well apply to the Chamber. The idea of our having to gut the Chamber and fit it out with tables and chairs—or, heaven forbid, have some sort of hemicycle and look like every other Parliament in the European Union—is one that I would resist at all costs.
    Mr. Twigg: I am well aware that the hon. Lady would wish us to resist learning from other countries in the European Union, but I am not sure that her view is shared by all Members, or even by those on the Opposition Benches. I think that if we can learn lessons from positive examples in other parts of the world we should do so, and I believe that we can do so in the case of the instance raised by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack).

    Scrutiny
    Mr. David Clelland: What proposals he has to increase the amount of pre-legislative scrutiny. [2625]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The Queen's Speech announced four draft Bills, including major Bills on communications and rail safety. I will aim in future Sessions to introduce as many Bills as possible in draft, but in view of constraints such as the availability of parliamentary draftsmen, it will take time to achieve a system in which scrutiny in draft is the norm.
    Mr. Clelland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the last Parliament I had the privilege of serving on the Armed Forces Bill Committee? As he will know, the Committee was something of a hybrid, being part Select Committee and part Standing Committee. That gave us an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and visit establishments affected by the legislation before beginning the Standing Committee procedure and considering amendments. I know that the Government's enthusiasm for Select Committees has taken a bit of a knock recently, but does my right hon. Friend feel that the same process might be suitable for other legislation in future?
    Mr. Cook: First, let me assure my hon. Friend that my enthusiasm for Select Committees remains undiminished. Indeed, this Government have established the Select Committees faster than any previous Parliament. I agree with his central point, however: if we achieve legislation in draft, we are more likely to have good legislation when it is published. In this case good scrutiny makes for good legislation, and for good government.
    I certainly give my hon. Friend an undertaking—in the light of his, and my, experience of draft legislation—that I will seek wherever possible to introduce Bills early enough for them to be considered in draft.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Last night the House was concerned primarily with who should be our parliamentary watchdogs, and a shot, or a fuselage of shots, went across the Government's bows.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Fusillade!
    Mr. Tyler: I am sorry—a fusillade. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correcting me.
    Now, however, we should move on to consider how we can make the Select Committees more effective. I know that the Leader of the House has in mind pre-legislative scrutiny that is appropriate to such Committees, and I think he also has in mind a rolling programme of legislation so that we do not try to cram it all into one Session. Can he give an assurance not only that those issues will be addressed urgently, but that Committees' scrutiny of European legislation will be improved? It is primitive and far less effective in this House, in this place, in this country than in most neighbouring European countries.
    Mr. Cook: I am not entirely sure that all the shots last night went over our bows, hut I absolutely agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about Select Committees. Indeed, in the previous Parliament, the Modernisation Committee identified Select Committees
    152
    as one of the forums in which pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills could be carried out. I would encourage departmental Select Committees to fulfil that function.
    I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the way in which the House carries out its European scrutiny. That issue will need to be addressed by the Modernisation Committee, but I put down a marker that one of the ways in which it could be addressed is to mainstream European scrutiny throughout the departmental Select Committees, rather than hiving it off into a separate forum.
    Miss Anne Begg: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that, in the Scottish Parliament, pre-legislative scrutiny is part of the legislative process. Will he undertake to look into how that is working in the Scottish Parliament: not only the upside on how well it is working, but some of the flaws of the system? For example, I believe that there is some problem with the foxhunting Bill because of the composition of the Committee that has been considering it. However, I join others in arguing that if there is merit in the proposal, and I believe that there is, the scrutinising role of Select Committees should be enhanced in that way.
    Mr. Cook: I am very happy to say to my hon. Friend that I have already met my opposite number in the Scottish Parliament and hope to visit the Scottish Parliament in September to see what lessons we can learn. It has had an advantage that we do not have: it has created the rule book from scratch. There has been no base on which to build and nothing to constrain it. There may be lessons that we can learn and I am happy to study them.
    Mr. James Gray: Although the House welcomes the pre-legislative scrutiny—after all it was a Conservative Government who first brought in the notion of publishing draft Bills in advance—will the President of the Council acknowledge that no amount of pre-legislative scrutiny should reduce the important scrutiny of a Bill once it has gone through its First and Second Readings on the Floor and is in Committee? At no stage must that scrutiny, which after all is party political—pre-legislative scrutiny tends to be cross-party—be reduced.
    Mr. Cook: Nobody is suggesting that there is a trade-off between scrutiny in draft and scrutiny of a Bill brought before the House on Second Reading. The procedures for scrutiny in the House will continue. At the same time, if we get the draft right as a result of pre-legislative scrutiny, we can save the time of the House and hon. Members as well as of Ministers. In the previous Parliament, the International Criminal Court Bill went through the House more quickly than it might have done if it had not been scrutinised in draft first.

    Scrutiny
    Fiona Mactaggart (Slough): What plans he has to bring forward proposals to reform the way in which the House scrutinises the Executive and proposed legislation. [2626]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): Improvements have already been made. Not only is there a new forum in Westminster Hall, but the Standing Order changes agreed by the House on 5 July should make it easier for Select Committees to work together and with their counterparts in the Lords to scrutinise Government.
    The Government have experimented with Second Reading Committees and Special Standing Committees and brought forward Bills for pre-legislative scrutiny, as my right hon. Friend the President of the Council said. We will continue to do so.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and welcome him to his new post. Over the past 24 hours, we have spoken a lot about pre-legislative scrutiny. It is my view that, in the debate yesterday, there was a certain amount of complacency about the great respect in which Select Committees are held. Our right hon. Friend the President of the Council has given an undertaking to arrange for an inquiry into Select Committee membership. Will he ensure that the Modernisation Committee follows that up with a good look at other ways to improve the powers of Select Committees, in order that they can more effectively scrutinise the Executive? Unless they have the power—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Minister.
    Mr. Twigg: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks in welcoming me to my post. My right hon. Friend the President of the Council made it clear yesterday that the methods for the appointment of Members to Select Committees would be at the top of the agenda of the new Modernisation Committee, which is convened tomorrow. That does not preclude our looking at broader issues about the powers and role of Select Committees. That will form part of the work of the Modernisation Committee, and be raised in broader debates involving other Committees.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Speaking as one who has been recently re-elected to the House, one of my observations is that, in the past four years, all too often Ministers have made statements on radio programmes or in arenas other than the House, whereas they should have come to the House to explain their actions to hon. Members. What will the Minister do to put that right?
    Mr. Twigg: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House. I believe that it is important that, whenever possible, statements be made in the Chamber. We shall do our best to ensure that that happens.

    Scrutiny
    Helen Jackson: What proposals he has to enhance the scrutiny role of parliamentary committees. [2627]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I have already responded to recommendations of the Liaison Committee to give greater freedom to Select Committees to decide for themselves to appoint Sub-Committees or Joint Committees. There are further proposals in the reports of the Liaison Committee and of the Hansard Society on which I want to consult, such as the proposal for a weekly slot of a half hour after Question Time to consider topical reports. I have given the House an undertaking that, tomorrow, I shall ask the Modernisation Committee to review the process of nominations to Select Committees to ensure their independence. If we reach agreement, I would intend to report to the House in the autumn.
    Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a tendency in the House for every hon. Member—100 per cent. of us—to mouth the platitude that it is absolutely crucial that we enhance Parliament's role of scrutinising the Executive? However, do we not also tend to vote to leave the House's procedures largely unchanged? Does he agree that keeping our procedures as they are will neither modernise Committees nor enhance their powers? Does he also agree that every hon. Member should be allocated work on a Committee to enhance their role as a Member of Parliament?
    Mr. Cook: I very much welcome the momentum for reform that was gathered last night, and I hope that we shall be able to take that forward to achieve real reforms both in the ways in which Select Committees are set up and the ways in which they are able to exercise their powers of scrutiny.
    My hon. Friend raised the possibility of all hon. Members being members of Select Committees. In the final analysis, it is for hon. Members themselves to decide whether they wish to serve. However, I would not resist the conclusion reached from yesterday's debate that the House might benefit from having larger numbers on Select Committees. It is an issue to which I would wish to return in the autumn.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which affects the Leader of the House. Yesterday, he made a short statement on the arrangements that will be made in relation to membership of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee, saying that he would be asking the House to set aside part of Standing Order No. 121 so that those membership arrangements can be considered at shorter notice. As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, although there are probably serious problems with the Northern Ireland peace process, the House has not yet been made aware of the names of members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee.
My point of order is to inquire whether the motion that the Leader of the House will be tabling for the House to consider on Thursday will be constructed in a manner that makes it possible to sort out the details of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, as we intend to sort out the details of the other two Select Committees. Do you, Mr. Speaker, have any means of influencing the situation to ensure that that Select Committee is sorted out before the House rises for the summer recess?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. In the first instance, under Standing Order No. 152, the nomination of members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee is a matter for the Committee of Selection. As for the contents of the Leader of the House's proposed motion under Standing Order No. 121 and the notice required before the House may consider motions for the nomination of Select Committees, those are not matters for me. However, I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman's point.
Jane Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would welcome your help in setting the record straight. Last Tuesday, in an Adjournment debate that I raised about a school sports accident that happened to my constituent, I unwittingly misled the House. I said at the time that the teacher who started the race could not see what happened, but I have now seen clear evidence that that was not the case and that the teacher, Mr. Day, tried to cover up his own culpability by lying to my constituent.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady has put the matter on the record.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), let me assure the House that it is our intention on Thursday to bring before the House any nominations for whatever Committee that are cleared by the Committee of Selection.

Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee Progress, 11 July].
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill

    Clause 1
    INCORPORATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY OF NICE
    Amendment proposed [11 July]: No. 40, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
    'Article 1 (other than paragraph 1),.'—[Mr. John Wilkinson.]
    Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I remind the Committee that we are discussing the following: Amendment: No. 41, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
    'Article 1 (other than paragraph 2),'.
    Amendment No. 42, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
    'Article 1 (other than paragraph 3),'.
    Amendment No. 43, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
    'Article 1 (other than paragraph 4),'.
    Amendment No. 44, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
    'Article 1 (other than paragraph 5),'.
    Amendment No. 45, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
    'Article 1 (other than paragraph 6),'.
    Amendment No. 46, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
    'Article 1 (other than paragraph 7),'.
    Amendment No. 47, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
    'Article 1 (other than paragraph 8),'.
    Amendment No. 48, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
    'Article 1 (other than paragraph 9),'.
    Amendment No. 53, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
    'Article 1 (other than paragraph 15),'.
    Amendment No. 78, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 2, paragraph 47'.
    Amendment No. 29, in page 1, line 12, after "occasion", insert—
    'except for Article 3, paragraph 1(b) of the Protocol on the Enlargement of the European Union in so far as that relates to the appointment of a special representative in the area of common foreign and security policy'.
    New clause 1—Special representative in the area of common foreign and security policy—

    157
    `In relation to Article 1, paragraph 3 of the Treaty of Nice, amending Article 23(2)TEU, prior to a vote in the Council on the appointment of a special representative in the area of common foreign and security policy, Her Majesty's Government shall lay a report before Parliament setting out its preferred candidate for the post and shall lay a further report after the Council meeting if that candidate has not been adopted.'.
    New clause 2—International agreements under Article 24 TEU—
    'In relation to Article 1, paragraph 4 of the Treaty of Nice, amending Article 24 TEU, prior to casting a vote in the Council on any such international agreement, Her Majesty's Government shall lay before Parliament a report setting out the implications for the United Kingdom of such an agreement.'.
    New clause 7—Western European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation—
    `This Act will not come into effect until Her Majesty's Government has laid before Parliament a report showing the implications for the Western European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, for the future functioning of these organisations, and for the United Kingdom's role therein, of Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Nice Treaty, revising Article 17 TEU, and Article 1, paragraph 5 of the Nice Treaty, revising Article 25 TEU.'.
    New clause 8—Adoption of decisions under Article 17, paragraph 1, TEU—
    'For the purpose of Article 17, paragraph 1 of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Nice, the constitutional requirement of the United Kingdom before any decision under that paragraph (common defence)may be adopted by the United Kingdom shall be that the decision shall have been approved by an Act of Parliament.'.
    New clause 33—Eurojust—
    'This Act shall not come into force until Her Majesty's Government has obtained, and laid before Parliament, legal advice from the Attorney General on the effect on the criminal and judicial processes in the United Kingdom of Article 1, paragraph 8 of the Nice Treaty, revising Article 31 TEU, as they relate to the provisions on Eurojust.'.
    3.33 pm
    Mr. William Cash: As usual, I declare an interest as mentioned in the Register of Members' Interests.
    At the end the previous debate, I was speaking about the role of Mr. Solana and I said that before he was appointed, he campaigned against NATO for about seven years. I have to say that that did not fill me with a great deal of encouragement.
    Article 23 of the treaty on European Union refers to the appointment of common foreign and security policy special representatives and provides for the extension of qualified majority voting when appointing a special representative, currently the said Javier Solana—who, by some pretty skilful manipulation, jumped from being Secretary-General of NATO to being in charge of the CFSP as the special representative, and has extraordinarily significant powers. I hope that his performance improves on the basis that I have just described. The same extension of qualified majority voting also applies when appointing a deputy. In my judgment, that will further reduce the accountability of the reaction force and reinforce its autonomy.
    Article 24 raises a number of problems in relation to international agreements in the CFSP and the JHA—Justice and Home Affairs Committee—with qualified
    158
    majority voting. In my judgment, the article is phrased in a most unsatisfactory fashion and, probably on purpose, retains veto powers, as I have explained, but not in respect of certain other articles which raise a number of questions that I shall not deal with now, but refer to the Minister in my written submissions to him. Perhaps he will deal with them in writing.
    In October 1998, during an informal summit at Poertschach in Austria, the Prime Minister launched the ESDI in a speech of which no transcript is publicly available. No such policy was even hinted at in the strategic defence review published just three months earlier. Indeed, leaked Cabinet papers show that Ministers opposed the plan in 1997. There has been a massive U-turn. The Prime Minister decided at the Helsinki summit to forge ahead in defence by establishing what was then to be a 65,000-strong European defence corps. Apparently, it has now been trimmed to 60,000, as I shall point out in a moment.
    Of course, the Prime Minister denied the obvious fact that we have created a European army. As I said in the previous sitting, that army is to be autonomous and subject to majority voting. It will have an international remit, rather than a merely European one. I asked the Prime Minister when he returned from the Helsinki summit what else the words "autonomous" and "international" meant, as used in the presidency conclusions that he signed.
    Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend said that Ministers opposed the idea of a European army in 1997. Did not the Prime Minister also object to the proposal, and describe it as an "ill-judged transplant operation"?
    Mr. Cash: Indeed, and that shows how ambiguous and deceitful the arrangement is. What its inspiration is, and what deals are being struck, are matters for conjecture. No doubt they will be revealed when the Cabinet papers are disclosed in due course, but the gravamen of my charge is that it will be far too late by then.
    In March 1998, the Prime Minister issued an unequivocal pledge, on which he has now ratted. He said:
    "Britain will never put at risk NATO, the foundation of our security. Britain and France, and many others, insist that there is no European Commission role in military matters. No country will ever yield up control of their own armed forces."
    I believe that Britain is giving up that control.
    As I predicted some time ago, the Western European Union was abolished earlier this year. By any sane measure, Europe is far from solving the problem of lack of co-ordination that hamstrung its policy and action in the Gulf, Bosnia and Kosovo. It was Germany's unilateral decision to recognise Croatia that contributed to the problems that beset Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s. The Foreign Secretary of the day, who is now my noble Friend Lord Hurd of Westwell, said originally that Britain would not recognise Croatia, but later told the House that we would. I remember that I challenged him about that. In statements made to me in private, I received good and authentic evidence that that reversal stemmed from a deal connected to Britain's opt-out from economic and monetary union.
    Germany's Foreign Minister at the time was Mr. Genscher. He described the recognition of Croatia as

    159
    "the greatest victory of German foreign policy since 1945."
    I do not consider that much of a victory.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Was what happened in 1945 a victory for the Germans?
    Mr. Cash: My father was killed in 1944, so I am more than happy to say that I believe that the war ended in victory for Britain.
    The Franco-German summit contained declarations on the shared military intelligence satellite Syracuse 3, on a rapid deployment corps, and on heavy-lift capacity. I have already referred to the dismal spending levels that have been set, which demonstrate the lack of will to combine proposed functions with the resources that are claimed to he necessary. We are creating a serious foreign policy, diplomatic and military problem. Potential enemies are given a substantial advantage—which they will always exploit—when they see that policies on military capability are not backed up with resources.
    Patrick Mercer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the European rapid reaction force will add not a single ounce to Europe's combat power? Not one extra gun, tank, bayonet, aircraft or ship will be added to the strength. The proposals deal with headquarters, communications and sappers only, not with anything directly involved in fighting.
    Mr. Cash: I was going to come to that, but my hon. Friend won a great victory in Newark at the general election and has enormous knowledge of military matters, so I completely agree with what he says.
    The rapid reaction force is a nightmare. It is to have a full-time military command structure. In the light of what my hon. Friend says, it is pretty astonishing that there will be additional staff to man the so-called capability when it is a phantom army.
    3.45 pm
    Mr. John Redwood: My hon. Friend may have missed hearing the Minister for Europe say on television earlier today that the European Union had already brought to an end the cold war and ensured that there had been no war in western Europe since 1945. If it could do all that without an army, why does it conceivably need one now?
    Mr. Cash: It is a case of a great deal of hot air. It is extremely difficult. We are moving from a cold war to a hot war, at any rate in so far as a vast amount of hot air is being generated. With rotation, the so-called military command structure is even more frightening. The amount of apparent capability supposedly generated will be as many as 240,000 troops, not the 60,000 that have been mentioned. The target date for readiness is 2003. So we have an exponential rise in expectations, a decreasing amount of money and resources to be made available, and no evidence that the force will be able to perform any useful function.
    The United Kingdom will contribute 24,000 troops to the new force, who will come from the United Kingdom's NATO reaction force. Eighteen warships and a quarter of the Royal Air Force and the Army will be allocated to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford
    160
    Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is engaged in some rather important leadership business at the moment, but I wish that he were here today, because he has led the exposure in the House of Commons, the United States and elsewhere of this absolutely ridiculous situation. We remember only too well all the correspondence and articles in the newspapers demonstrating the incredible weakness of our capacity, whether one refers to our nuclear submarines or inadequate equipment and naval provision.
    There is a range of reasons why we need to be deeply worried that, rather than concentrating on an effective force within the United Kingdom for the use of the Alliance, we are merging our thinking into a strategic black hole—a force that is incapable of performance and has not got the money to back it up. There will be a 100-strong military staff committee, which will effectively end NATO's monopoly. That is highly dangerous.
    There are contradictions in control and command. If one looks at the nightmare of the legal framework that has been created, one wonders how on earth—as I wrote in a book called "Europe: The Crunch" about eight years ago—it will conceivably be possible to have any control and command in the middle of the night when something crops up. In the case of the enlarged Community, 27 countries with their military staff, generals and the rest of it will all be trying to work out what provisions apply, whether the force will operate under a degree of qualified majority voting or whether there is a direct control and command system. If I was a potential enemy—thank God, if I may say so, that I am exactly the opposite—I would say to myself, "Heavens above, we have really got these people where we want them because they will never be able to deliver any kind of strategic or tactical position." We know that not a single military unit is to be created.
    On article 17 of the treaty on European Union, the current moves towards the rapid reaction force require no treaty modifications. They followed the summits at Feira, St. Malo and Cologne, but I believe that Maastricht and Amsterdam together provide a perfectly adequate treaty base, and that is where the problems lie. The declaration, next to the final act of the intergovernmental conference regarding European security and defence policy, makes that abundantly clear. As I have repeatedly argued, the issue of the rapid reaction force is entirely separate from that of Nice. Member states are forced to ride roughshod over their constitutional arrangements. In my judgment, they are forced to act anti-constitutionally.
    With regard to article 25 of the treaty on European Union, the Political Committee introduced at Amsterdam with the stated purpose of monitoring international affairs is now renamed the Political and Security Committee. Its power is substantially increased as it takes on a number of strategic and management tasks relating to military operations. In fact, it is intended that it will direct Euro-soldiers in combat.
    The declaration added to the end of the article is crucial because it basically states that the existing treaty base is enough to enable the European Union to launch military operations. That has to be taken in the context of the single autonomous structure in which NATO as a whole is not engaged. Indeed, the declaration refers to the lengthy presidency conclusions on military affairs which prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the reality of an

    161
    autonomous European army, drawing on national armies' personnel, with an independent control centre separate from NATO.
    In conclusion, the lesson for this century is not that Europe is, or can in the foreseeable future ever be, the guarantor of Britain's security. The true guarantor of Britain's defence has, rather, lain in her close co-operation with the United States through NATO. As Churchill put it, the supreme fact of the 20th century was that Britain and America marched together. A common European defence would lead Britain to dissolve her national interests into those of others. As Churchill said, we should be associated but not absorbed. For that reason, we must resist common European defence and instead turn our attention to strengthening our own woefully underfunded armed forces.
    Denzil Davies (Llanelli): I will be brief, and I will not follow the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)in his analysis of what happened at the various conferences that have set up this European defence arrangement, to use a neutral expression.
    Some of us may not remember the Werner report in the 1970s which led to the exchange rate mechanism, which then led to the single currency. I suggest that whatever the defects of this arrangement are, its purpose is quite clear. It will take some time but, just as the Euro-area has a single currency, the purpose of this arrangement is eventually to create a European army. The attempts by the Euro-enthusiasts to mask this are not very different from those that have been made with regard to other steps towards integration.
    One of the reasons why the population of Europe are so concerned about the European Union is that they have not been told that and are beginning to understand that the European elite has been pretending to them all along. The best course for the Euro-enthusiasts to take would be to admit these things. There is no shame in it—if that is what they want, they should say so. That would be a much better way of opening a clear and informed debate about the European Union and the direction in which it should go.
    I should like to return to the more esoteric matters in these treaties. I apologise for doing this after the Minister for Europe wrote in a very interesting article in The Independent that language must be much clearer when considering these matters. I quite agree with him.
    I am not questioning the selection of amendments, but I was surprised that we were to debate amendments to the treaty on European Union. The only amendments in the Nice treaty to the treaty on European Union are in article 1. Whereas the long title of the Bill refers to making
    "provision consequential on the Treaty signed at Nice … amending the Treaty on European Union"—
    that is stating merely what the Nice treaty did—clause 1, which incorporates the provisions of the treaty of Nice into UK law, refers to the treaties on European Communities and to articles 2 to 10 of the Nice treaty.
    None of those articles refers directly to the treaty on European Union—only article 1 does so. I deduce from that—I am not questioning whether we should have a debate—that the treaty on European Union did not create rights and obligations for the purposes of the European
    162
    Communities Act 1972 in the UK. Perhaps I should not try to make the Minister's speech for him; perhaps he will not say that.
    Clause 1(1)(ii)refers to
    "the other provisions of the Treaty so far as they relate to those Articles"—
    articles 2 to 10, which relate to the treaties establishing the European Communities. There may be something in article 1, especially in relation to enhanced co-operation, that follows on from the treaty on European Communities, but perhaps that does not give rise to any rights and obligations on questions of defence under the European Communities Act 1972. It is right that such matters should be debated—although I am not questioning that.
    We have a haphazard way in this House—these points have been made in the past—of debating and amending treaties. We cannot amend treaties, but we can pretend to do so only when their provisions affect internal law. I cannot remember what happened in the case of the treaty on European Union. Presumably, it was debated in this House under the Ponsonby rules, which are in some way supposed to ameliorate the effects of the royal prerogative, whereby the Crown does not need to debate such treaties in the House.
    I have not looked it up, but I suppose that the treaty on European Union was debated as a treaty. I know that there was no legislation. Presumably, it was not needed because it was felt that the treaty did not affect internal law. I am not even sure whether it is a treaty in international law, but perhaps I will return to that. If it is, notice must be given under the Ponsonby rules and the House must debate it—although it cannot, of course, amend such treaties.
    World Trade Organisation agreements and general agreements on tariffs and trade, which are so important but may not have a direct effect on internal law, are not amendable by the House either. Perhaps the Modernisation Committee, which is modernising everything, could look at that.
    Mr. Cash: I am very interested in the right hon. Gentleman's line. In the United States, questions of treaties are dealt with by the Senate. We have just had some interesting debates on the power of this Parliament in respect of Select Committees, so perhaps there are some lessons in that.
    4 pm
    Denzil Davies: Indeed, although I believe that the United States has a fast-track system which it tries to apply to treaties such as the GATT. However, although I do not want to revisit yesterday's Select Committee debate, I have to point out a fundamental difference. The British Executive sit in the legislature, whereas the United States Executive do not. We do not have separation of powers, whereas the United States does.
    Even though they may not change internal law, international treaties such as the GATT increasingly impinge. The forthcoming treaty on services, which is likely to be hugely controversial, will come before the House as a single document which there will be no opportunity to amend.
    I make this point as an aside to the debate on so-called treaties. If we are concerned about democracy, or even if we are supposed to pretend that we are not worried about

    163
    the demonstrations in Genoa and Gothenburg, perhaps the Modernisation Committee should consider the matter and recommend that, in future, even if they do not have a direct effect on internal law, we should examine, debate and even attempt to amend the treaties that the international bureaucracy now tends to bring forth at a much faster rate than they were produced in the 18th and 19th centuries.
    I see you looking at me, Sir Alan; perhaps you are wondering whether the right hon. Member for Llanelli is straying a little, even though, as I am sure you are aware, he never does. However, to return to the treaty on European Union, I am surprised that debate on it has been allowed. I see you frown, Sir Alan, but I should be interested to learn from the Minister—if he can tell us—which domestic rights and obligations are affected by the treaty on European Union. If none are affected, what on earth are we debating the treaty for? However, if we are debating it, presumably some rights and obligations are incorporated in English, British or United Kingdom law by the 1972 Act. The House should be told what the treaty on European Union puts into internal law.
    I hope I do not stray too far, but I should like to say a word or two about treaties and the royal prerogative. The treaty on European Union is called a treaty, but it is not a treaty for the purposes of the Vienna convention definition, which states clearly that a treaty must be governed by international law. Well, perish the thought—the European treaties are not governed by international law.
    If someone were to turn up at the European Court of Justice and say that one of the provisions of the European treaties was contrary to fundamental principles of international law, he would get short shrift from the Court. The Court might look at the principles of international law when interpreting the treaty, but the treaties we are debating are certainly not Vienna convention treaties. I do not know whether, ultimately, they come within the scope of the prerogative. The argument will probably lead me up a cul-de-sac.
    Mr. Redwood: The right hon. Gentleman makes the interesting and, I fear, accurate comment that we are setting forth on a course that leads towards a European army that we will not directly control. Will he say how long he thinks it will be before a British soldier is sent into battle or a dangerous situation against the will of the British people and there is nothing that we can do about it?
    Denzil Davies: I do not think that I can prophesy on that subject, even though I was a Labour party defence spokesman—perhaps ingloriously—in the 1980s. At least in the 1980s we knew that we had an enemy. These days, I listen to debates about defence and armaments and I wonder where the enemy is. I would not like to be a shadow defence spokesman these days, because that is a difficult job when there is no enemy. I might answer the right hon. Gentleman's question if he tells me who the enemy is. No doubt, the military bureaucracy has made attempts to find enemies everywhere.
    Mr. Redwood: Let us suppose that the European rapid reaction force was sent to dangerous territory in the Balkans, and the British people were not happy about the side in the conflict on whose behalf we were engaged.
    164
    Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that could happen against the will of the British people if we go along the course set out by the Government today?
    Denzil Davies: While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on many matters, I would be surprised if, at the end of the day, British forces, whatever the legal position on treaties, were sent into battle without a debate and a vote in the House. I would be worried if we were moving towards arrangements whereby that was likely to happen; I hope that we are not and that, whatever the position on legal sovereignty, the will of the House would allow or prevent such action.
    Returning to my rather esoteric point—we are debating esoteric matters in these European treaties—it is not satisfactory to debate and amend treaties merely because they affect our internal law. We are now in a difficult area because we do not know how far internal law is affected by the treaty on European Union or what rights and obligations are being created. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me. I know that he has sent me a few letters but, on this occasion, I should like a short, clear, pithy statement about the rights and obligations which, if we allow the measure to go through—
    The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain)indicated assent.
    Denzil Davies: I see that my hon. Friend is apprised of the point and is clearly able to give such a reply. Which rights and obligations are we incorporating in English law?
    Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe): For the second time in a fortnight, I have the great good fortune to follow the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), who represents my home town in Parliament, in a debate on the Bill. As usual, his speech was marked by intellectual rigour and distinction; its logic was compelling. I am sure that we all await with great anticipation the appropriately detailed reply that the Minister will doubtless give at the end of our debate.
    I begin by congratulating the Minister on the speech, "Plain Speaking on Europe", that we understand he will give elsewhere later today and is directly relevant to the subjects that we are debating. I am not entirely sure whether I have the final version because my copy still includes the annotation from the now famous J. B.:
    "would be cautious about criticising the BBC".
    When the speech is made, it will be interesting to see whether the Minister has taken J. B.'s cautionary note to heart or whether it includes the criticism of the BBC that was in the draft. The Minister may wish to enlighten us about that during our debate; otherwise, we may have to wait.
    The speech is excellent and I commend it to the Committee. In it, the Minister says:
    "Despite having voted YES in the 1975 referendum for Britain to be in Europe, within minutes of my appointment last month I was dubbed a 'Eurosceptic'."
    I welcome the Minister to the club. I, too, voted yes in the 1975 referendum, and the label has been applied to me. The Minister continues:
    "Why should politicians be labelled either Eurosceptic or 'Europhile'? Like most people, I am neither. I am just as opposed to Euro phobia as I am to Euro zealotry."

    165
    Again, I agree entirely.
    Even more relevant to this afternoon's debate, the Minister says:
    "In an era of destiny probably more important for Britain than at any time since we joined the European Common Market in the early 1970s, this is an appeal for plain speaking on Europe. No political spin. No media hype … No pejorative prejudices, just an honest straightforward discussion of difficult but momentous issues."
    I am sure that we all agree with that.
    When the Minister explained the speech on "Today" this morning, he said that it had been cleared by No. 10; I am sure that we were all gratified to hear that, but I wonder whether it is quite enough. It seems not so much that the speech should be cleared by No. 10 but that that address should be its primary, perhaps only, destination. No one is more guilty of the spin, hype and pejorative prejudice that have been introduced to the debate than the Prime Minister. Whenever an Opposition Member makes a point that is mildly critical of any developments that are directly relevant to those that we are debating, the right hon. Gentleman promptly accuses the person making it, from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition down, of wanting to leave the European Union altogether. That is his stock response to any criticism of any such development. I hope that the Minister's speech, which I warmly welcome, was cleared by No. 10 and was read with care by the Prime Minister. I hope also that it may influence his conduct on these matters henceforth.
    Mr. Redwood: I am slightly worried in case my right hon. and learned Friend has been uncharacteristically over-generous to the Minister. I wonder whether the Minister is flying under false colours. He is a Minister who wishes to give away all the vetoes in the treaty. He is a Minister who wishes to scrap the pound. He wishes to increase the stranglehold of Brussels on many aspects of our life. How can he possibly say that he is anything other than a Euro-enthusiast?
    Mr. Howard: Do we know what the Minister wishes? I am not entirely sure that we do, and I am not sure that we are entitled to draw the inferences that my right hon. Friend has drawn. We know that the Minister is speaking in favour of the treaty and of the Bill, which may not be entirely the same thing.
    I return to what tile Minister said when he intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) towards the end of last week's debate. What the Minister said comes near to the nub of the debate on these issues. He posed this question:
    "If there is a crisis in the Balkans, for example, and the US is not willing to provide assistance and NATO is not willing to intervene, do we just turn our backs? Is there not a role for a European capability? Is it not the case that a European security and defence policy provides exactly that capability? What would the hon. Gentleman do?"—[Official Report, 11 July 2001; Vol. 3711, c. 889.]
    The phrase used by the plain-speaking Minister in that question was a departure in the debate. He used the formulation
    "If … the US is not willing to provide assistance and NATO is not willing to intervene".
    The Prime Minister usually talks about a situation that will arise if NATO chooses not to be engaged. The Minister raises his hands as though there is no difference:
    166
    these are matters not of semantics but of great importance. There is nothing in the agreements, in the presidency conclusions in that part of the Nice treaty that deals with these matters or in any of the documents to indicate that the European defence capability would come into play only if NATO chooses not to be engaged.
    The phrase "NATO chooses not to be engaged" implies some NATO right to act before the European defence capability is engaged, and that is clearly not the case. For example, the words of the French chief of the defence staff are helpfully quoted on page 40 of the excellent Library document on these matters. In an interview with The Daily Telegraph on 28 March 2001, General Kelche said:
    "There is no question of a right of first refusal. If the EU does its work properly, it will be able to start working on crises at a very early stage, well before the situation escalates. Where is the first refusal? NATO has nothing to do with this. At a certain stage the Europeans would decide to conduct a military operation. Either the Americans would come, or not. If they want to come, they will always be welcome. They are powerful. We recognise that there are things that we cannot do without them, today. Later, we must be able to act alone. Europe is an enormous economic power, but not yet a mature military power."
    That is at the heart of the debate. I do not think that any hon. Member would demur from the proposition that European countries should do more on defence and co-operate more closely on defence issues. Nobody would deny that circumstances can indeed be easily identified. perhaps in the Balkans, in which the United States might say that it does not wish to become engaged, but that it has no objection whatever to European countries acting in co-operation to deal with the problem. I do not think that any reasonable person would object to that goal.
    4.15 pm
    Peter Hain: The right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with my speech and therefore with the Government. I welcome him to the fold.
    Mr. Howard: I am sorry to have to say so soon after mentioning the Minister's devotion to plain speaking that his remarks are completely at variance with the documents that the Government have signed. Everything that I have spoken about and described could and should be done within the framework of NATO. It would be perfectly possible and feasible for the United States to say "We have no wish to send American troops to deal with this problem in the Balkans, but if you Europeans want to go in and sort it out, fine: do so within the framework of NATO, using its planning procedures and assets. We will not come along, but there is absolutely no reason why this should not be done within NATO."
    The mischief and danger to which we object is that, for the first time, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, the Government have, in contradiction of their previous position, signed up to arrangements that ensure that such actions can be taken outside the framework of NATO.
    Mr. Doug Henderson: The House will recognise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is an exceptionally alert representative of a case. There is a difference, however, between the legal and political arguments. I do not believe that he has considered the political arguments. Has he reflected on

    167
    the position of European Union countries that are not members of NATO? Does not he recognise that when the Americans take the view that it is better for NATO not to be involved, whether it is because Texans object or whatever else, the wider European community needs a focus to enable it to carry through the policy of European countries? Under the agreement that was struck at Nice, the European Union now provides a forum in which that can happen.
    Mr. Howard: Let me take the hon. Gentleman's two questions in turn. There is no difficulty about involving non-NATO members of the European Union. The easiest way of dealing with these matters would be for them to join NATO, but if they did not want to do so, resort could be made to Western European Union mechanisms, which have existed for a considerable time and which involve non-NATO members of the European Union in any actions that are desirable.
    Non-NATO members of the EU are represented on the staff of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe at Mons, as General Ralston reminded those of us who were privileged to listen to him this morning at a meeting of the British-American parliamentary group—I shall return later to what he said—and there is no difficulty whatever about using the NATO planning processes for an operation in which non-NATO members of the EU could participate.
    The hon. Gentleman's second question was about whether the United States might wish to participate, which brings us to the nub of the question. When all is said and done, there is only one situation in which the arrangements to which the Government have now agreed will become relevant. It is not a situation in which the United States does not wish to participate but is content for the European members of NATO to go ahead and do whatever they want to do; the only situation in which the arrangements become relevant is one in which the United States does not merely wish not to be engaged but is actually opposed to engagement.
    The most remarkable fact, as I have previously pointed out in the House, is that recent history shows that it is not too difficult to identify when we have had differences with our EU partners about such matters. It is not all that long ago that the Belgians refused to sell us bullets that we needed to participate in the Gulf war. As far as I can recall, there has been only one occasion since the second world war when we have been at odds with the United States, and that was Suez. So the Government are, in effect, going to all these lengths to enable a British Government to mount another Suez operation. That is the bottom line. That is what it comes down to. That is the only situation in which these arrangements could become relevant.
    Mr. Mark Hendrick (Preston): Given the attitude of European nations and, in particular, the UK, when the United States chooses to use forces in Panama or elsewhere, it would be inconceivable that the United States would wish to prohibit EU member states from carrying out operations against the likes of those whom we saw in Bosnia, where there was slaughter, mass killings and ethnic cleansing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that, in some way, the United
    168
    States might oppose our taking action in Europe is like saying that we might oppose what has happened in, for example, Panama.
    Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my point. I am inclined to agree with him. This is utterly fanciful. I do not think that, if a situation arose in the Balkans and the Europeans wanted to act without the involvement of the United States, the United States would be remotely likely to suggest—
    Mr. Hendrick: That is a red herring.
    Mr. Howard: It is not a red herring. It is the only situation in which the arrangement that the Government have signed up to would have any relevance or make sense. If the United States does not object to any European action, it can all take place within the framework of NATO. That is the point. The United States can say that we should use the NATO processes and assets—that it does not want to send American troops, but that everything can be done through NATO. That was the position of the previous and the present British Governments until agreement was reached at St. Malo, so let us not have any nonsense from Labour Members to the effect that the Opposition's position is in any way outlandish, ludicrous, unreasonable or Europhobic. It is precisely the position that the present British Government held after they took office and it changed only when the agreement was reached at St. Malo.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that, last November, the then Chief of the Defence Staff, General Guthrie, was asked by a Conservative Defence spokesman why the European rapid reaction force was being created outside rather than inside NATO? He replied:
    "I suppose it could have been done within the Nato framework and in some ways it would have been easier."
    He went on to say that politicians had decided otherwise:
    "It was decided by the EU Governments that this was the way it would be done."
    Mr. Howard: I remember that telling answer, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of it. I was present at the meeting to which he refers.
    I have some questions for the Minister for Europe. Why does not the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe have the right to attend meetings of the European Union military committee, as the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs suggested? It would be an important method of maintaining proper links between the EU and NATO. We have been told more than once, however, including by Foreign Office officials when giving evidence to the Select Committee, that the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe does not have the right to attend military committee meetings.
    Roger Casale: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman arguing that the United States Government should have a veto over Britain's national defence policy? If not, why does he argue that the Americans should have a brake on European defence co-operation?
    Mr. Howard: That may be an example of the authentic voice behind the desire for European defence co-operation

    169
    outside NATO. We cannot have it both ways. I do not believe that there is any question of an American veto. We are an independent country, and we can make decisions on the disposition of our defence capability. We have decided that our principal alliance is NATO. That should continue, and we should do nothing to put it at risk. I therefore object to the current developments, which put the Alliance in direct peril.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: The real danger of the arrangements is not that the Americans would veto a European operation, but that Europeans would go ahead with an operation that involved British troops and find, as so often happens in military operations, that things go wrong, troops are over-extended and at risk. At the critical moment when we needed heavy artillery and large tanks, we would not have the lift capacity to reinforce operations. We would be in a hopeless predicament if we went ahead with major operations anywhere without American support.
    Mr. Howard: As usual, my hon. Friend has reached the heart of the matter. I agree with him.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: I shall read out a sentence:
    "The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation".
    That is from article 17 of the Nice treaty. As a distinguished lawyer, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how his arguments fit the phrase "shall not prejudice"?
    Mr. Howard: Those are empty words. One can say that an arrangement will not prejudice something, yet commit actions that clearly prejudice it.
    Mr. Miller: Next time I speak to a lawyer, I shall remember that.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is being ridiculous. Aspects to which the Government have signed up will prejudice and imperil the NATO alliance.
    4.30 pm
    Mr. John Bercow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to confirm that there has been no change in the military or strategic logic of the situation that could in any way justify the about-turn that the Prime Minister has performed? Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think it probable, in so far as he can penetrate the inner recesses of the Prime Minister's mind, that that change of heart has taken place on the cynical basis that it will be a sop to those in the European Union who think that he is dragging his feet on the euro?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He makes an important point that is particularly relevant to our plain-speaking Minister, who I am sorry to see finds it so amusing. It is relevant for the following reason. There is no doubt that there has been a change of policy.
    170
    We have examined the texts in the House on numerous occasions. We can look at what the Prime Minister said when he came back from Amsterdam in 1997. We then find that he agreed at St. Malo to something that he had criticised in absolutely stringent terms on his return from Amsterdam. There is no doubt at all that there has been a volte—a complete change in policy.
    According to the edicts of our plain-speaking Minister, the Prime Minister should have come to the House and said, "We have changed our position. We have reconsidered things. When I said what I did when I came back from Amsterdam, I was wrong. This is our new position, and these are the reasons for it." Of course, we have never heard any such explanation. Instead, we see convoluted attempts to pretend that there has been no change. I cannot believe that those attempts will find any favour with our plain-speaking Minister. Obviously, they do not match up at all with the speech that he is going to make later, so I expect that, when he comes to the Dispatch Box, he will at last provide us with an explanation of this change in the Government's position. "Yes," he will say, "we have changed our position, and these are our reasons for doing so." I look forward to that.
    Let me return to my questions. So far, I have asked my first question, which was about the right of DSACEUR to attend meetings of the military committee.
    Ms Gisela Stuart: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Howard: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, then I really must make some progress.
    Ms Stuart: I genuinely hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to help me or, if not, that the Minister will answer my question in the wind-up. As I understand it, the true relationship between NATO and the EU force can be assessed only in terms of practicalities. If we had access to annexe 7 and the weapons catalogue attached to the treaty of Nice, which I understand is not in the public domain, we could obtain a true indication of how the relationship would work in practice. Will either the right hon. and learned Gentleman or the Minister address that point?
    Mr. Howard: I am not sure how to respond to the hon. Lady. I would certainly have no objection if the Minister were to respond to her question when he winds up the debate. I do not know to what extent the information to which she refers is secret or sensitive, and therefore ought not to be in the public domain, but whether or not it ought to be in the public domain, it cannot possibly be argued that we should maintain a Trappist silence on these matters simply because certain information relating to military equipment has not been made public. We have to comment, and use our judgment as representatives of those who have sent us here, on the information at our disposal. That is what I am trying to do.
    I come to my second question to the Minister. We are constantly assured that it is everyone's intention that the NATO arrangements and the European Union arrangements should be linked at every point and be as close together as possible. Discordant French voices can occasionally be heard pointing out that that is not what has been agreed, but British Government spokesmen

    171
    constantly say, "No, they are to work hand in glove." If that is the case, will the Minister please explain why the chairman of the European military committee, General Haggland of Finland, and the chairman of the Political and Security Committee, Mr. Anders Bjurner of Sweden, come from non-NATO member states of the European Union? Is the Minister going to tell us that that is pure coincidence? Even a plain-speaking Minister might stretch the Committee's credulity just a little too far if he said that. I would like an answer to that question.
    My third question is: why does the presidency report on the European security and defence policy make particular reference to encouraging the involvement of Russia, Ukraine and Canada in European Union-led operations? As the Committee will have observed, there is no mention of the United States. Perhaps there is an entirely innocent explanation for that omission. If so, no doubt our plain-speaking Minister will provide it.
    Roger Casale: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Howard: Yes, but probably for the last time. I must conclude.
    Roger Casale: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way a second time. I am listening closely to his argument, but I am still not sure what he is afraid of. Is he arguing that any and every example of European defence co-operation would necessarily undermine NATO, or that there might be a particular instance of European defence co-operation that would, in a given set of circumstances, undermine NATO? If it is the latter, it would be open to the Government not to co-operate—they surely would not—precisely because, in that given set of circumstances, NATO would be undermined.
    Mr. Howard: My argument is that setting up separate military arrangements for the EU that duplicate existing arrangements in NATO is unnecessary and perilous not only for NATO, but for the transatlantic relationship, which has been such a powerful force for good in the world over at least the past 50 years.
    This morning, some of us were privileged to listen to General Ralston, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe. He explained very clearly how those dangers and difficulties could be mitigated. He explained how the planning processes could be carried out at his headquarters by those nations that are represented there, including the non-NATO members of the EU. He explained very clearly how those difficulties could be dealt with and overcome.
    General Ralston said that he put such a proposal to his political masters and that it has not thus far found acceptance, although it has been on the table for many, many months. He said that he had hoped that it would find acceptance at the Foreign Ministers meeting last December, but it did not. He said that he had hoped that it would find acceptance at the Foreign Ministers meeting in May, but it did not. He said that he thought that the present state of affairs, and I quote him verbatim, is
    "close to the edge of going too far".
    He said that he is
    "very worried about the prospects."
    172
    Those are not words to be taken lightly from SACEUR.
    At the meeting, General Ralston was asked about intelligence arrangements. Of course, there are limits to what we can say in public about intelligence arrangements. We all understand that, but we all know that one of this country's greatest assets is the closeness of its intelligence relationship with the United States of America.
    It does not require any disclosure of damaging information to express a concern that, in view of some of what is widely reported as having happened in recent years, the United States might be a little worried about continuing to share its intelligence with us if it thinks that that intelligence will automatically be passed to every EU member. We asked General Ralston what progress had been made in discussing intelligence sharing in the new world into which the Government are taking us. He said that, so far, there had been no such discussions. I am afraid that the concerns that many of us have been expressing, inside and outside the House, ever since St Malo are more and more justified with every step that is taken down this perilous road.
    Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way for one second?
    Mr. Howard: Yes, but it will be for the last time.
    Mr. Cash: My right hon. and learned Friend may or may not know that immediately before the House rose for the general election a document was put before the European Scrutiny Committee. We did not have a chance to consider it properly, but it stipulated that a new European satellite surveillance system would be created, which was clearly intended to be in direct competition with the existing arrangements. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend would like to have a look at it later.
    Mr. Howard: I shall. I did not know about the proposal; I hope that the Select Committee will consider it, and that the Minister will tell us something about it when he winds up the debate.
    The present situation is fraught with danger, which is enhanced by the United Kingdom Government's tendency to pretend that nothing new has happened, that there has been no departure from previous policy and that nothing has changed. I hope that the plain-speaking Minister will come clean, and at least give us the Government's explanation of why they have changed their position and why we have embarked on such a perilous course.
    Mr. Hendrick: I am surprised at the degree of what the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) described as hype and spin. It is supposed to be coming from this side of the House, but it is actually coming from the other side. It is as if the treaty represented the end of the world as we know it—as if it would lay the nation bare and make it defenceless and vulnerable to threats from around the globe. In fact we are talking about an ideal piece of co-operation, aimed at enhancing European security and making it less dependent on American involvement in European problems.
    There also seems to be a sheer abhorrence of qualified majority voting. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) referred constantly to the appointment of Javier Solana,

    173
    whom he claimed to have been an opponent of NATO for seven years. For some strange reason, after being an opponent of NATO for seven years, Javier Solana was appointed Secretary-General of NATO. That would indeed seem a strange appointment. I should be interested to hear first what evidence the hon. Gentleman has to support his statement that Javier Solana was an opponent of NATO, and secondly what he did as Secretary-General that put us all at risk.
    Mr. Cash: I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to an article that I contributed to The Times—I cannot remember the precise date, but it was several years ago—which followed a great deal of research into this question. At the time, a petition was presented to President Clinton by some 130 congressmen suggesting that Solana should not be given the post. Furthermore, I had discussions with our then Secretary of State for Defence, and with the Prime Minister by fax, during the weekend before the appointment. All this has quite an interesting little history, but I would be happy for the hon. Gentleman to read the article.
    Mr. Hendrick: A petition from some American congressmen is hardly convincing evidence that Mr. Solana was not fit to be appointed Secretary-General. Nevertheless, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has his views.
    The hon. Gentleman suggested that in some way Mr. Solana was not accountable, or would not be accountable under the new arrangements involving QMV, in respect of his appointment as head of CFSP and our foreign affairs spokesperson in Europe.
    Mr. Cash: Not our spokesman.
    Mr. Hendrick: Well, the European Union foreign affairs spokesperson. The hon. Gentleman suggested that he was not accountable, when in fact he can be called to the European Council of Ministers whenever it so wishes.
    4.45 pm
    There is further opposition to QMV in the light of the experience with Jacques Santer. As we discussed in a previous debate, his appointment was supported unanimously at the Council of Ministers and he was a disastrous head of the European Commission. He presided over chaos in the European Union and, like his colleagues, was persuaded to resign and stand down. Had unanimity not been used at that time, we would have had a different head of the European Commission: one appointed by a majority of Ministers, one who would have been the highest common denominator and a good head of the European Commission, rather than the lowest common denominator, which Mr. Santer turned out to be.
    On decision making through QMV, the Opposition talk about the development of a European superstate and some cumbersome, lumbering superstructure, but qualified majority voting is the very mechanism that will maintain flexibility within the European Union, streamline decision making, and allow a majority of member states that wish to pursue a particular line not to be held up by tiddler nations that may wish to block everything. It is a recipe
    174
    for flexibility at a time when unanimity is clearly outdated. Opposition Members' comments therefore surprise me.
    What also surprises me is the number of contradictions that we hear from Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Stone, who unfortunately is not with us at the moment, referred to the Prime Minister mentioning 65,000 troops in a speech. Then he said that the figure was reduced to 60,000. Now he asserts that it may be anything up to 240,000. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said that there was no commitment, no weaponry, no personnel—it was a phantom army. Which is the truth? Is it a phantom army? Will it be a European army of 60,000 or 240,000 troops?
    Patrick Mercer: The truth is that none of the British troops is dedicated to the task in hand. They are all double or triple-hatted at a time when our defences are already horribly overstretched. No combat power is being added; there are merely staff officers.
    Mr. Hendrick: That proves my point. It is not a European army, as the Opposition put it. It is not a standing army. No troops are permanently engaged in a particular task. An army will be assembled with the consent of nation states when the need arises. We did not have a force ready and willing to move in when the trouble started in Bosnia, which led to hundreds of thousands of deaths.
    Mr. Mark Francois: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, if it is not meant to be a European army, the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, who presumably should know something about all this, said that it would be a European army?
    Mr. Hendrick: I will quote from the treaty. It explicitly states:
    "This does not involve the creation of a European Army. The commitment of national resources by Member States to such operations will be based on their sovereign decisions."
    What Mr. Prodi said may have been lost in translation.
    Denzil Davies: I tend to agree with my hon. Friend. It is not a European army, but would he like it to become a European army?
    Mr. Hendrick: Personally, I would not. There is a role for a European force that can act—again I quote from the treaty—on
    "humanitarian and rescue tasks, peace-keeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking".
    That is where it differs from, for example, United Nations forces. Often—one or two hon. Members have alluded to it—forces go in to keep the peace, but are not given instructions or the ability to make the peace. They are used in a purely defensive role. We saw, however, how such an arrangement failed in our early attempt in Bosnia, and we would certainly not like a repetition of that. I believe that the treaty and the proposed forces would preclude the possibility of a repetition.
    Mr. Howard: Could the hon. Gentleman perhaps give us an example of an operation that could not be described

    175
    as peace making? Does he recall that the Suez operation, for example, was described as peace making? It was embarked upon, so we were told, to separate the combatants of the time, the Israelis and the Egyptians. Indeed, the world wars were described as peace making. Can he therefore give us an example of an operation that would be outside the definition of peace making?
    Mr. Hendrick: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the Suez crisis, during which I was but a twinkle in my mother's eye. Indeed, my father just missed being called up for it. As I was not around at the time of that conflict, I cannot speak about it from personal experience. However, I believe that there is an element of peace making in most conflicts. The problems arise when, for example, troops in blue berets are sent into a situation but are given little direction by the United Nations Security Council on how to engage the opposition and on whether they can effectively conduct offensive operations to force those who are causing the conflict to retreat and cease their action. That type of arrangement is different from the one being proposed.
    We have to address the issue of establishing a peacemaking force. We would have liked to have such a force in Bosnia, but we did not have the capability to deploy one. We should be working towards establishing that capability, without having to rely totally on the Americans.
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is digging himself into a very deep hole. Is he suggesting that if the European army had been available at the outbreak of hostilities in Bosnia, the right thing to do would have been to send our troops and other troops into that very tense situation, to try to fight to a conclusion that might have produced a transitory peace, without American air cover and American heavy lift? I think that he would endanger our soldiers greatly with such a proposal.
    Mr. Hendrick: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am not saying that we should have done that. I am saying that it would have been useful to have that option at the time. Moreover, what would have happened if the Americans had not become so involved in that conflict? We would not have had anywhere near the capability necessary to bring about peace. I was in Washington when the Serbs were beginning to lose the war in Bosnia and the Croatian troops were moving forward. I was fed information to the effect that many of the events of that time were occurring because Germany was secretly arming the Serbs, with America providing some of the resources for that armament. Bosnia is a perfect example of how we might in future use the proposed capability.
    I was surprised to hear the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe suggest that the United States should have a veto over European operations in Europe. That suggestion is preposterous; it is a little like the European Union objecting to the use of American forces in Panama. Such a veto is simply inconceivable and does not bear thinking about. It is also quite strange to cite a veto as a spanner in the works of implementing and operating the Nice treaty.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman persists in misrepresenting the point that I was making. It is precisely
    176
    because I do not think that there is any realistic prospect of an American veto of the type to which he referred that I think that the arrangements are completely unnecessary. The only situation in which we need to have arrangements outside the NATO framework is one in which we fear an American veto. I do not fear an American veto, which is why I say that the arrangements should take place within NATO.
    Mr. Hendrick: The Government do not fear an American veto, but we must provide for circumstances in which some European states, particularly those in the European Union, wish to take action but the Americans, who are undoubtedly the most influential member of NATO, do not. That provision is outlined in the treaty. If we do not need it but it is there anyway, I do not know why the Opposition are opposed to it.
    Roger Casale: Like my hon. Friend I was not around at the time of the Suez crisis—apparently, unlike many Opposition Members—but I am sure that my hon. Friend knows his history. Does he share my sense of irony at the mention of the Suez crisis by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), as the conclusion that the Conservative party under Harold Macmillan drew from the failure of Suez was that Britain could not act alone in the world? It therefore changed its policy on Europe and that led directly to Britain's first application, under a Conservative Prime Minister, to join the European Community.
    Mr. Hendrick: I agree with my hon. Friend, whose recollection of history is certainly better than mine.
    I now turn to the idea of NATO choosing not to be engaged and the areas in which NATO may take action. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe quoted a French general. Perhaps that was the only example that he could come up with of an issue on which the French and every other member state that signed up to the treaty were at some variance. Throughout the passage of the International Criminal Court Bill, senior British military personnel said that they felt uneasy about it. They are entitled to their opinions, but at the end of the day the decisions are made by politicians with the advice of generals, but not necessarily with their agreement.
    Mr. Howard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. Does he really suppose that the person whom he describes rather dismissively as a French general and who is in fact the chief of the French defence staff would utter opinions on this topic without the approval and authority of the French Government whom he serves? I was not referring to some French general, but to the chief of the French defence staff.
    Mr. Hendrick: When I hear the same statement from the French Government, it will have some credibility. In the same way, when British leaders of the armed forces express concerns about the operation of the International Criminal Court Bill we should take them seriously, but we should not take their words as being the words of the Government.
    The world is moving on and the solutions for the 20th century are not solutions for the 21st century. China will continue to become even more dominant, and the US

    177
    will be seeking to gain advantage through the national missile defence system. Europe should rightly have a defence capability, but not an army.
    4.58 pm
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Thank you, Sir Alan, for calling me to make my maiden speech in this crucial debate concerning the future direction of Britain's relationship with the European Union. For decades, this place, the mother of Parliaments, has seen its powers eroded. The treaty that we are debating today would carry that process further. I believe that it is the duty of every hon. Member to ensure that the House continues its proud traditions and ways. No move to sideline or undermine it should be countenanced. The House must remain sovereign.
    5 pm
    My journey to Parliament has been long and eventful. I held my first elected position in 1990, when I became a councillor in the Chase Cross ward of the London borough of Havering. I secured a Conservative gain from the Liberal Democrat party. The Conservative share of the vote was 21 per cent., and in 1998 I increased that to 88 per cent., making Chase Cross the safest Conservative ward in Greater London. It is appropriate to thank those colleagues alongside whom I served on Havering council for their support and encouragement over the past 11 years.
    Some of my other forays into electoral politics have been less successful, although no less rewarding. In my first parliamentary campaign in 1992, I contested the constituency of Glasgow, Provan. Despite a 0.1 per cent. swing in my favour, I secured the lowest share of the vote of any Conservative candidate in Great Britain. In 1997, I fought the Thurrock constituency, which is slightly closer to home. A Labour majority there of 1,000 turned into one of 17,000.
    At the last election, I am pleased to have fared rather better. A 9.2 per cent. swing in my favour meant that my result in Romford on 7 June represented the largest swing back to the Conservatives, and it was achieved with the party's 11th highest share of the vote.
    For me, there can be no greater privilege and honour than to be elected to serve as the Member of Parliament for my home town of Romford. I should like to pay tribute to those who have preceded me. First and foremost, I thank Sir Michael Neubert, who served my constituency faithfully and assiduously between 1974 and 1997. The advice and friendship that I have received from Sir Michael and Lady Neubert over 20 years has been invaluable. Along with all the people of Romford, I owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude.
    I shall always remember Sir Michael for the robust support that he gave to Oldchurch hospital, and for the enormous amount of work he did to help people throughout my constituency. I joined the Conservative party at the age of 14. I never dreamed, as I campaigned for Sir Michael's re-election, that one day I might succeed him as the next Conservative Member of Parliament for Romford.
    This speech would not be complete without some mention of Sir Nicholas Bonsor, who represented the Upminster constituency from 1983 to 1997. The Ardleigh
    178
    Green and Nelmes areas of that constituency are now included in Romford. Sir Michael Neubert and Sir Nicholas Bonsor served the people of my constituency well for a long time. Speaking as a resident of Havering, I place on record my heartfelt thanks to them.
    I should also like to thank my immediate predecessor, Mrs. Eileen Gordon, who served my constituency in the previous Parliament. She will be remembered for her commitment to campaigning for improved health services in Havering.
    Many friends, organisations and colleagues, as well as my mother and father in particular, have contributed to my being able to stand before the House today. I also extend a special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who provided me with many formative political experiences, including the directorship of Europe's pre-eminent public policy think tank, the European Foundation.
    I have also to thank the former Member for Ilford, North, Vivien Bendall, for whom I worked for more than 10 years as a parliamentary researcher. No less deserving of thanks are my fellow members of the International Young Democrat Union, of which I am proud to be chairman, not least because the chairman of the union's parent body, the International Democrat Union, is my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition. My work in the IYDU has taken me to almost every country in Europe and to every continent and has been invaluable in helping me build knowledge of international affairs, especially those of Europe.
    I also express my immense gratitude to Baroness Thatcher. Her leadership and courage as Prime Minister were my rallying call to the Conservative cause. During her visit to Romford two days prior to the general election—the last of her campaign tour—she rightly received a rapturous reception.
    Lastly in this section of my speech, I want to challenge the reports found in the popular press that Spike, my Staffordshire bull terrier, was the real victor of Romford. While I freely admit, Sir Alan, that Spike was a prominent member of my campaign team and that his dogged determination to demonstrate the bulldog spirit proved popular in my constituency, may I reassure you that Spike has no immediate plans to take his seat on these Benches?
    I would now like to describe the historic market town of Romford—a place that I am proud to call my birthplace, my home and my constituency. Although it falls within the boundaries of Greater London, being situated in the London borough of Havering, Romford is by its history and geography very much part of the county of Essex. Many families moved to the town from east London in the aftermath of the second world war, and to this day Romford retains close ties with the areas from which they originated. The regular commuter trains passing through the town long ago replaced the horse-drawn carriages for which Romford was for centuries a main stopping-off point.
    Romford is today a major office and retail centre for Essex and north-east London and boasts one of the largest and best open-air markets in the country—a market now in its eighth century and very much the beating heart of the town. More than a century after the market first began to trade, the church of St. Edward the Confessor was built in the centre of the market. That is where the present

    179
    church building stands today, with its imposing spire towering high above the commercial centre. St. Edward's has a special meaning to me, being the church in which I was christened and confirmed, and a little further along the road in the high street is where I spent my early years on Sundays at the Salvation Army citadel.
    King Edward the Confessor is the first notable person to have had a connection with Romford, occupying the royal palace at Havering-Atte-Bower, a picturesque village steeped in history situated at the most northerly tip of my constituency. High above the town of Romford, Havering-Atte-Bower overlooks Essex to the east, the River Thames and Kent to the south and Dagenham and London to the west. To the south of Havering village lie the suburbs of Chase Cross, Rise Park, Mawneys and Collier Row, which at one time housed the agricultural suppliers of vegetables and dairy produce and, as the community of north Romford, is now the home to more than a third of my constituents.
    Rush Green, the place of my birth, lies to the west of the constituency, along with the London road, the home of Romford's famous greyhound stadium, and the Brooklands area, once the home of Romford football club. I hope that one day in the not-too-distant future Romford will again proudly compete with the greatest clubs in our national game. Today, Romford FC has a Member of Parliament who will fight its corner.
    Marshall's Park, where I have lived all my life, lies just north of the town centre. It is also home to my school, which has the same name. Nearby is the garden suburb of Gidea Park, an estate designed by famous architects from the early 20th century. Squirrels Heath and Heath Park comprise the area of the town that borders Hornchurch, a small part of which—Ardleigh Green and Nelmes—falls within the boundaries of the Romford constituency.
    The people who live in these areas are deeply patriotic. Last year, for example, when the local Labour council refused to fly the Union flag from the town hall, virtually all the market traders displayed the flag on their stalls in protest. With my support, their successful protest became a symbol of Romford's determination not to turn, its back on a sense of national pride. It is that same sense of determination that I bring with me to Parliament.
    I want to outline some of the issues that I will emphasise and campaign on during my time in Parliament—issues that were brought up time and again by the voters of Romford during my campaign. We live in the most free and stable democracy in the world, yet our freedom and our democracy are challenged by a relentless slide into a European political union.
    The task of redefining Britain's relationship with Europe and thereby re-establishing self-government for our nation is the most fundamental question of our time. Over the past 30 years, successive British Governments have subjected their citizens to a form of higher law, a law determined not simply beyond our shores but beyond our democratic ability to decide. The betrayal of our historic institutions and processes can and must stop. In particular, we must never give away control of our currency.
    The treaty of Nice is no exception to the continuing demise of our nation's ability to govern itself. To ratify this treaty would mean yet another attack on our democracy and on our freedom as a nation. The proposed loss of a further 43 vetoes is evidence of that.
    180
    I am very enthusiastic about trading links formed and greater co-operation championed with the countries of eastern Europe. My international work on behalf of the Conservative party has brought me into close contact with so many eastern European countries. I know that they want a dynamic, free-trading relationship with Britain and, indeed, the rest of Europe. However, I am concerned that the treaty will do more to damage than to strengthen their economies. It makes no sense, for example, that a treaty proclaiming to be about enlargement to the east fails to make a single provision for reforming the common agricultural policy when eastern European economies are predominantly agricultural. It is clear that this treaty is about deepening as well as enlarging the European Union. However, Europe needs an open, flexible and outward-looking relationship, not ever deeper centralisation of power.
    One of the other things that motivated me and, I am sure, many others, to enter politics is the desire to reverse a shameful paradox. Those who have contributed most to our society—the elderly—are among its poorest and most badly treated members. After they have spent their lives working, caring and even fighting for our country, far too many pensioners suffer the daily indignities of low incomes, substandard accommodation and hospital waiting lists. The closure of old people's homes is becoming an all-too-regular occurrence, with several in my borough threatened. I condemn Havering's Labour administration for this heartless and short-sighted policy. Taken together with Labour's shameful disregard and failure to deliver on the health service, with particular reference to Oldchurch hospital in my constituency, it is our old folk who have suffered most.
    I also want to help to reinject substance back into what it means to be British. I do not mean a Britishness narrowly defined, but one wide enough to encompass all the people of this great nation. I have arrived in this place because of my beliefs: a belief in our nation and a belief in freedom. With the continued advice and friendship of so many who have helped me during the 35 years of my life, I look forward to serving Romford, Parliament and my country.
    5.15 pm
    James Purnell: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell). A couple of my hon. Friends have mistaken me for him in the Corridors, but I can tell that we shall probably not agree on a huge amount over the next few years. However, I pay tribute to him on his maiden speech for his humour, his conviction in his views and his obvious pride in his birth place and the town that he represents. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in wishing him the best for a successful parliamentary career.
    I am extremely grateful to you, Sir Alan, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate on Europe. I should like to start by saying a few thank yous: first, to members of the Stalybridge and Hyde Labour party for selecting me as their candidate, and, secondly, to the voters of Stalybridge and Hyde for returning me to Parliament; but most of all, on behalf of both of those groups, I thank Tom Pendry for his service to the constituency over 30 years.
    It is common and traditional for Members in my position to pay tribute to their predecessors as good constituency MPs, but I doubt that many have had part

    181
    of their constituency named after their predecessor. Tom Pendry square in Stalybridge will stand as a reminder of the exceptional work that he did for his constituents, who are now my constituents, and in particular of the leading role that he played in attracting £30 million of investment to the town to bring it back to life.
    Members on both sides of the House will remember Tom not just for his humour and love of the good life but for his time as a Whip and as an Under-Secretary of State in the Northern Ireland Office. They will remember him for his dedication to issues associated with sport and tourism and for his participation in debates in the House, but in Stalybridge and Hyde, Tom will be remembered as a friend, an ally and a fighter.
    Members will also remember that before coming to the House Tom was the colonial boxing champion, so, at least until the last general election campaign, he could lay claim to having the most famous right hook in the Chamber. Now that that title has passed on, I must report that Tom has also been overshadowed locally by Ricky Hatton from my constituency, who last week successfully defended his light-welterweight world title for the first time. I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating him and in passing on our best wishes to Tom for an active and successful future.
    Other than Tom, Stalybridge and Hyde is probably best remembered politically as the venue for Hugh Gaitskell's speech immediately after the 1952 Labour party conference at which Herbert Morrison and Hugh Dalton were voted off the national executive. Last weekend, I was speaking to Councillor Jim Wainwright, who picked Gaitskell up from the station that day. He told me that on the way to the conference he asked Gaitskell what he was going to speak about. Gaitskell replied that he was going to launch a counter-attack against the Bevanites and, in effect, accuse up to a sixth of them of being communist fellow travellers.
    Councillor Wainwright stopped the car, turned to Gaitskell and told him in language that I could not possibly repeat in the House that he might as well get straight back on the train and go back to Leeds. Apparently the only way that Gaitskell could persuade Councillor Wainwright to drive on was by saying that he had already released his remarks to the press, so he might as well go ahead and make them. I am afraid that spin was alive even then.
    I hope that I shall receive a milder reception this afternoon than Gaitskell received that day. In his diaries, he speaks of the speech being, for him, "unusually violent". He adds:
    "At the time, most of my friends were horrified. They thought I would lose a great deal of support."
    Most of the Labour party hated it, and hundreds of resolutions were sent in criticising him.
    I hope also that my party will remember the lessons of those events. It is vital that in our second term we find a way to allow debate, discussion and even criticism within our party. However, there should be no place in our party for talk of counter-insurrections or coups; nor should we ever forget the importance of the unity of purpose that got us where we are today.
    Apparently, after making his speech Gaitskell offered to return to my constituency later to make amends. The offer was politely refused, but if he were to return today
    182
    he would barely recognise Stalybridge and Hyde. At the peak, there were more than 50 mills in my constituency; today, there are only two. More than a third of the population worked in those mills; today, barely a handful do. Most of the rest of the work force were employed in manufacturing in famous factories throughout the north-west; today, almost all of those factories have gone. The last to go was Gallagher's, which closed in 1997; I think that more than a 1,000 jobs were lost in the chase for Government subsidies in Northern Ireland.
    My constituency has known hard times and unemployment, but one thing that Gaitskell would find has not changed since his day is the people of Stalybridge and Hyde. They continue to pride themselves on being blunt, straightforward even; and they pride themselves on their self-reliance and hard work. The people of Stalybridge and Hyde, Dukinfield, Mossley and Longdendale refused to lie down and suffer the closures. They were determined to fight back, community by community, village by village, street by street, family by family, to overcome the closures and to attract new companies and jobs. I am delighted to be able to say that they succeeded. Stalybridge and Hyde are now thriving towns. At barely 3 per cent., the unemployment rate is less than the national average. Firms in my constituency export chemicals, plastics and industrial machinery all over the world. I am extremely proud of the fact that my constituency has one of the highest rates of manufacturing employment in the north-west.
    If there is one image I should like to leave hon. Members with this afternoon, it is not of our beautiful countryside, although I believe that Werneth Low, the Longdendale valley and the hills around Mossley rival anywhere in the country; it is the people of Stalybridge and Hyde that I want the House to remember. Jay McLeod, a vicar in Micklehurst, is breathing new life into his community and using basketball to give young people an alternative to crime. The teachers in the sure start project in Hattersley are working to give the children of that neglected council estate at least the chance of an equal start in life. Barry Cooke, the retiring head teacher of Hyde technology school, showed by turning that school around that no matter the deprivation facing the local community, it is still possible to have high expectations of every child and match the results achieved in the rest of the country.
    That is why I am so proud to represent Stalybridge and Hyde. The people of my constituency have shown that the best way to respond to change is not to suffer it, nor to resist it, but to welcome it and be in its vanguard so that we can shape it to our ends. We believe that every individual should have the chance to fulfil himself, but people can do so only through an active and enabling state. Those are the people for whom I will fight in my time in Parliament. I will fight for better public services and higher pay. Most of all, I will fight, fight and fight again so that Stalybridge and Hyde is given its fair share of resources, not out of pity or because of the problems we face but as a reward for our role as pioneers of change in the vanguard of Government policy.
    I am especially pleased to speak in today's debate on Europe. The most famous of Gaitskell's other speeches was the last he made before his tragically early death. At the Labour party conference he spoke of his fear that going into Europe would mean the end of 1,000 years of history. I can tell from this afternoon's debate that that

    183
    view still has some supporters among Opposition Members, but during my time here I want to argue that it has been conclusively disproved. To people of my generation, the idea that Britain's interests are fundamentally opposed to Europe's is fanciful. The idea that Germany and France should be considered our enemies strikes them as beyond belief.
    I am not unlike many members of my generation in having spent a lot of my life in Europe. When I was two, I moved with my parents to France, where I went to school. As the cliché goes, some of my best friends are French. That has never made me any less patriotic or less proud to be British, but it has made be proud to be European. I am proud that we have lived in peace on this continent for nearly 60 years. and proud that, in the treaty that we are debating, we have the opportunity to let in the states of eastern Europe and lift the iron curtain that descended on our continent after the second world war. Most of all, I am proud that on this continent we have the opportunity to build a society that can stand as an alternative role model to American capitalism, an alternative voice in diplomatic debates and an alternative source of power.
    I remember going to Berlin the week that the wall came down. I have one burning memory from that trip of going to a church in east Berlin, which had been a centre of reform and resistance to the East German Government. I walked into the church where, all over the walls, people had pinned up bits of paper—poems, essays and letters—about their hopes for their new country. They were clear that they wanted to be free of authoritarian rule, but they were crystal clear that the acceptance of markets did not mean the acceptance of squalid public services, environmental damage and alienated communities. That is the challenge to which my generation must respond. We must live up to the hopes and aspirations expressed in that church, and build a Europe that is as dedicated to equality as it is to efficiency; a Europe that tries to build competitive markets, but also has successful public services and a fair welfare state to ensure that our prosperity is fairly distributed.
    Those are my politics. An activist in my constituency bet me that I would not use the word "socialist" tonight. Well, I just have, although personally I have never been afraid to call myself a socialist. Members who know what I was doing before I came to the House will probably not be surprised if I do not plan to incur the wrath of the Whips regularly. Having said that, I make no apology for tempering my discipline with a dose of idealism. I believe in a politics of hope, courage and opportunity. My Government have a historic chance to show that courage to transform our public services and our relationship with Europe. I thank the voters of Stalybridge and Hyde for giving me a chance to play a part along the way.
    Patsy Calton: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell). It is rare to hear such a human and humane speech in this place. His modesty was most pleasing and his reflective speech, which was delivered with humour, was very welcome.
    I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate. As may be expected, Liberal Democrat Members support the speedy ratification of the treaty of Nice. Without its reforms, it is difficult to see
    184
    how a union of 28 states can come to an efficient and effective agreement about matters that will affect my constituents.
    I have the honour to represent the constituency of Cheadle, where I have lived and brought up my family for the past 27 years. It is in the nature of things that I have replaced Mr. Stephen Day, my predecessor, who represented the area for 14 years. I did not always agree with him, but I found him to be pleasant and civilised on the occasions we met. I know that he worked for his constituents, especially with regard to the Barlow Clowes collapse. They have told me how much they appreciated the compensation that they gained.
    5.30 pm
    The Cheadle constituency is not quite the same in terms of area or population as it once was when my late friend Dr. Michael Winstanley was its representative. However, what he said about the constituency in his maiden speech in 1966 is just as true today:
    "It is an area which in many ways reflects the country as a whole."—[Official Report, 12 May 1966; Vol. 728, c. 657.]
    Cheadle, which is regarded overall as a prosperous constituency, has suburbs, Manchester city estates and rich residential areas. It has greenbelt areas side by side with light and heavy industry. Incomes range from very high to very low.
    Cheadle is a beautiful constituency throughout the year, with tree-lined roads and excellent parks. Bruntwood park holds the prestigious green flag award. Bramall Hall is one of the foremost tourist attractions of the north-west and, indeed, of the country. My constituency has riverside and country walks with views over the Peak district.
    Perhaps just as important, we have a wealth of voluntary organisations and faith groups that all contribute to the well-being of the area. I expect that the recent census will demonstrate a significant increase in the ethnic and faith minority population. It is important for us to recognise and meet their wish to play a full part in the life of the wider community.
    Nowadays, Cheadle is a constituency that is overburdened with road traffic and suffering from a lack of regular, reliable public transport. It has the questionable distinction of having had a third of a road built by 1995—the central section of the Manchester airport eastern link road. However, the road failed to link the developing Manchester airport with anything. Indeed, the third of the MAELR that has been built serves simply to funnel in traffic through the villages of the constituency, with Woodford, Bramhall and Heald Green being particularly badly affected. They have traffic levels above those that normally trigger a determination in marginal constituencies to build bypasses.
    My constituents and I eagerly awaited the detailed proposals of the south-east Manchester multi-modal study—SEMMMS. I understand that it will tell us that the planners of 70 years ago were correct in their assumption that the entire road network needed to be built. The developing Manchester airport has no good transport links to the south-east, and my constituency suffers from car and freight traffic accessing the airport and the motorway network. My constituents' problems are compounded by the lack of regular or, in some parts, any good quality public transport. This is particularly hard on low-income families, those living in rural areas and an increasingly elderly population.

    185
    My predecessor brought to the attention of the House the plight of the people of Chesters Croft, a small, idyllic hamlet made up of permanent mobile homes. At the public inquiry into the MAELR 10 years ago, those concerned were led to believe that they would be compensated for noise nuisance in a comparable way to other home owners. Over the past 10 years, there has been an abortive change in the law but still no compensation for my increasingly elderly constituents. They have a moral right to have their case considered and dealt with expeditiously. They believe that they may be forced to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
    Unfairness is the theme of my speech. Cheadle is one of the three and a half constituencies that make up the local government area of Stockport metropolitan borough council. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), with whom I share a boundary, is also a councillor in Stockport. Until recently, I was the deputy leader of Stockport council and its chair of social services.
    The problem that I wish to speak of is the unfairness of the Government grant and European funding system. A number of metropolitan authorities are in the same position. Every pensioner, every school child and every person on a low income in my constituency is affected every day by the blunt instrument of European and local government finance and the even blunter instrument that is the council tax.
    Stockport is the lowest spending metropolitan borough per head and yet we have a gap of £23 million between standard spending assessment levels and what we must spend to keep our education and social services spending near the average. Students at the Kingsway school in my constituency have funding of almost £1,000 a head less than students who attend a school with a similar catchment area that is located little more than a mile away in a neighbouring authority area. It is possible that the school where I am a governor, Bramhall high school, which has an excellent academic record, has the lowest per pupil spend in the country, despite the fact that a significant number of its students come from very low-income families.
    On the assumption that house prices in Stockport have increased at roughly the same rate as those in the region as a whole, Stockport's grant loss since 1990 has been estimated as 16.8 per cent., or some £4.5 million. That loss has occurred because there has been no revaluation. Data losses have amounted to £4 million this year, including £1 million on the area cost adjustment. In terms of that adjustment, it must be right for areas that have to pay salaries that are above the norm to be compensated, but such compensation should be based on actual and not finger-in-the-air costs.
    The waste disposal levy applied in Greater Manchester is apportioned on the council tax base and not in respect of tonnage. To put it crudely, the more that my constituents recycle while Manchester fails to do so, the more that they pay. Many of them are avid recyclers, so I am sure that they are happy that they are doing the right thing by the planet, but I am equally certain that they would be furious to know that they are paying more than they should, to make up for the less environmentally friendly habits of neighbouring authorities in Greater Manchester.
    186
    Stockport metropolitan borough council is on a crusade to improve its services. It wishes to demonstrate that it can meet challenging improvement targets. The interests of consumers and citizens are at the heart of its vision to put people first, but the unfairness in the system of allocating grants from central Government and from Europe is making it extremely difficult to deliver the improvements. To put it bluntly, the grant is too low and the council tax is too high in my constituency. The averages of whole wards and boroughs that are used in formulae for national and European funding do not recognise extremes of wealth or poverty.
    The level of need that is acknowledged by social services in my constituency and in Stockport metropolitan borough as a whole far exceeds the funding allocated under the Government formula. Our schools produce excellent results on a shoestring. The majority of my constituents already pay more in income taxes than people in most other places. It should not be necessary for people on low incomes to pay extra for their council tax because Government and European grant aid is unfairly distributed. Those on low incomes should be remembered first by a Government who put social inclusion high on their agenda.
    I am grateful to the House for its attention. The Liberal Democrats do not regard the agreements reached at Nice as perfect or as the final word on the reform of European Union structures or policies. There is an agenda for reform in Europe which Britain can lead. We believe that the Government have a duty to galvanise debate among the citizens of the country.
    Peter Hain: I welcome the hon. Member for Cheadle (Patsy Calton) to the House. I am certain that she will be a formidable fighter for Cheadle. I remember from my youth that the area has a long Liberal tradition. One of the Members of Parliament for Cheadle to whom she referred, Dr. Michael Winstanley, was extremely well known. I am sure that it is a great honour for her to follow in his footsteps and in those of the other predecessors whom she mentioned. She spoke about the unfairness and blunt instruments of European Union and local authority finance. I might add that those matters are not entirely the responsibility of a Foreign Office Minister, but I am nevertheless sure that the Government will take note of her concerns and seek to redress them as she continues to speak for her constituents.
    I hope that you, Sir Michael, will not mind if I express condolences to those on the Opposition Front Bench who, to a man and woman, backed the losing candidate in the Conservative leadership election, with the right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) coming top, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) second, and the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) third. Long may the saga continue.
    Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I would rather the Minister did not give way on that point. We are getting far off the track.
    Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Sir Michael. My intervention concerns a defence matter, which is the issue that we are debating.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: It is entirely up to the Minister whether he chooses to give way, but we are moving well away from the subject.
    Peter Hain: I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman later.

    187
    The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) spoke confidently. I am sure that the town of Romford will be proud that one of its sons has spoken so strongly and movingly about his constituency. He engagingly gave us an electoral tour de force, taking in Glasgow, Provan, where he succeeded in getting the lowest Tory vote in the country, and going right the way through to his present constituency and home town of Romford, where his party saw its largest swing. He spoke about the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) having provided him with many formative political experiences, which will have given him a unique insight into the world. I am sure that he will benefit from that. At that point perhaps I should give way to the hon. Member for Stone.
    Mr. Cash: Further to the Minister's earlier comments, the shadow Minister for Defence is one of the final two in the ballot for the leadership of the Conservative party and I have no doubt that he wishes he was here in order to demolish the Minister's arguments.
    Peter Hain: If and when the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green wins the leadership of the Conservative party, as the hon. Gentleman, who is a fervent fan, wishes, he will see his arguments on this issue, as on many others, demolished day after (lay in the House, and we look forward to that.
    I thank the hon. Member for Romford for paying tribute to his immediate predecessor, Eileen Gordon, who was indeed, as he said, a campaigner for the NHS.
    I have rarely seen a new Member speak with such confidence and poise in a maiden speech as my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell). He spoke almost without a note in the best traditions of the House, exemplified by the more senior right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). He appropriately paid tribute to his predecessor, Tom Pendry, and his boxing prowess, which seems to be catching these days. He spoke poignantly about Hugh Gaitskell's speech and displaying unity of purpose, and promised to fight, fight and fight again for his constituents. I was pleased that he called himself a socialist in his maiden speech, which, as a Labour Minister, I am also proud to do.
    I do not want to detain the House too long because there are many issues to cover before 10 o'clock. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) required me to seek enlightenment from officials—I always have to do so when he speaks—on a series of points about the treaty and the question of rights and obligations under the EU treaties that need to be given effect in UK law. The amendments to the EU treaty made by the treaty of Nice are, as he says, set out in article 1. They are not referred to in clause 1 as they do not give rise to community rights and obligations. As my right hon. Friend says, they amount to rights and obligations in international law. They are intergovernmental rather than Community in nature.
    5.45 pm
    Clause 1 refers not only to provisions in the Nice treaty that do not amend the Community treaties but to matters with which they deal, including amendments to the treaty on European Union. The provisions relate to matters covered by the Community—for example, the
    188
    amendments to the provisions on enhanced co-operation. They are subject to the Ponsonby rule; accordingly, an explanatory memorandum has been provided to Parliament. The submission of the treaty to Parliament as a Command Paper and the debates on the Bill cover the requirement to give Parliament an opportunity to debate treaties before their ratification.
    I do not want to be uncharitable to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, but his congratulations on my excellent speech make me wonder whether I should have got J. B. to redraft it or give me further advice. Whoever J. B. may be, he is an estimable member of the Foreign Office staff. My full speech is available on www.fco. gov.uk., but I do not believe that J. B.'s comments are on the Foreign Office website for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to inspect.
    If I have time, I shall be happy to deal with the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe in more detail, but they were Exoceted by my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller)and for Preston (Mr. Hendrick). His speech bore little resemblance to the reality of the common security and defence policy in the European Union or the Bill.
    The comments of the hon. Member for Stone on Javier Solana were badly informed and misdirected. Javier Solana is a respected representative of the EU. On the EU's behalf, he played an important role, which was welcomed by the Israelis, Palestinians and Americans, in the middle east peace process and in many other areas, not least the Balkans. The hon. Gentleman should inform himself better.
    The first group of amendments deals with the second and third pillars of the Maastricht treaty, or the treaty on European Union. They are: foreign affairs, defence, justice and home affairs. There is much confusion about defence and the Nice treaty; that was evident from the debates this afternoon and last week. Much misinformation has been circulated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston said, a great deal of rubbish is talked. Some of it has been talked in large doses by Conservative Members. Let me set out the position once more in plain, ministerial English.
    The arrangements for the European security and defence policy are not in the Nice treaty. A declaration that is attached to the treaty makes it clear that it does not need to be effected for defence arrangements that have been agreed by EU member states to become operational.
    Mr. Cash: The Minister will remember that I made that precise point. The treaty basis is in the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties. One of the problems with our debates is that we cannot specifically discuss the declaration.
    Peter Hain: I shall continue to explain the position. I clearly need to do that for the hon. Gentleman.
    Before doing that, I shall respond to the points made by the hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) about Turkey. They search in vain for a false alibi from the USA when they oppose the modest EU initiative on developing a capability for peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention.

    189
    Turkey has supported the development of the European security and defence policy. At the NATO ministerial meeting in December 2000, Turkey and other allies reaffirmed NATO's readiness to support ESDP and EU operations. Turkey also supported that policy at NATO's Foreign Ministers' meeting in Budapest two months ago in May. With other NATO allies, Turkey reaffirmed its commitment to a genuine strategic partnership between NATO and the EU on crisis management.
    Of course, Turkey has concerns about the policy, but the European Union's openness to the involvement of non-EU European NATO members such as Turkey is an important step towards addressing those concerns, some of which are legitimate. We shall continue to engage with Turkey to demonstrate that developing a strong EU-NATO relationship will strengthen the alliance and ensure that Turkish security interests are fully respected.
    The hon. Members for West Suffolk and for Stone asked about references to the Western European Union being removed from the treaty. The relationship with WEU has changed since the Maastricht treaty was agreed, and the deletion of references to WEU simply reflects reality. The hon. Member for West Suffolk will note that the reference in paragraph 4 of article 17 has been retained because it refers to political frameworks in which WEU is still involved, as opposed to operational issues in which it is not.
    The other new element in the treaty is a reference to the new Political and Security Committee, which is already up and running and to which the Council will now be able to delegate the running of a crisis management operation on instructions from capitals. I say to the hon. Member for West Suffolk that that does not—to use his term—duplicate NATO structures at all; the contrary is the case.
    It is hard to imagine from all the hot air that has been spoken that there is not an article somewhere in the treaty setting up a permanent Euro-army under the control of foreign generals who will frog-march our armed forces into campaigns of which neither we nor NATO want to be part. That is absolutely not the case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) so convincingly argued, the European security and defence policy is about improving the military capabilities of European nations to conduct certain EU-led military operations—humanitarian, peacekeeping, crisis management—where NATO chooses not to be engaged. That answers virtually all the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe was also correct about the lessons of the Balkans. To be fair, Conservative Members have referred to that matter as well. The Balkans provide many insights into why this capability is needed.
    Mr. Howard: Will the Minister indicate a single reference in any of the texts to the phrase, "where NATO chooses not to be engaged"?
    Peter Hain: That runs right through the whole initiative. It is what the initiative is all about. I shall quote
    190
    from the text in a minute. It is repeatedly made absolutely clear that this initiative is complementary to, and welcomed by, NATO.
    Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?
    Peter Hain: No, I need to make some progress.
    Mr. Howard rose—
    Peter Hain: Right hon. and hon. Members have made long contributions and I need an opportunity to answer them briefly.
    I have some more plain speaking for the Conservative party: NATO is and will remain the cornerstone of Europe's collective defence. That is a fact. NATO is and will remain our first choice for managing crises: that is also a fact—more plain speaking. However hard Conservative Members scan the newspapers for sceptical quotes, the fact remains that NATO has long wanted Europe to take more responsibility and to improve its capability. That is what we are now doing, and NATO as a whole strongly supports it. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell)made some very telling points on that matter in last week's debate.
    For the avoidance of doubt, let me quote again—for Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Stone who do not seem to want to hear it—what the European Council agreed at Nice, not in the treaty, but in the report on European security and defence policy that was approved by all the Heads of State and Government at Nice:
    "This does not involve the establishment of a European army. The commitment of national resources by Member States to such operations will be based on their sovereign decisions. As regards the Member States concerned, NATO remains the basis of the collective defence of its members … The development of the ESDP will contribute to the vitality of a renewed transatlantic link. This development will also lead to a genuine strategic partnership between the EU and NATO in the management of crises, with due regard for the two organisations' decision-making autonomy."
    It is important to place that quote on record, because one would not have imagined that to be true from the comments bearing no resemblance to reality that have sallied forth from the Opposition.
    Mr. Cash: The Minister has to answer just two simple questions. In this context, what does "autonomous" mean? It is clearly stated in the declarations and conclusions to which the Minister has referred, as well as in previous treaties. Secondly, why did Romano Prodi say that it did not matter whether we called it Margaret or Mary-Anne, it would still be a European army? Will the Minister answer those two simple questions now?
    Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has exhaustively answered these questions in long debates on the matter. I read the text of treaties and of statements agreed at the inter-governmental conference, rather than random comments made by this or that European leadership figure.
    The hon. Member for West Suffolk asked about parliamentary scrutiny of European security and defence policy initiatives. Of course we want to involve Parliament, and I will reflect on his arguments to see in what way they can sensibly be addressed.

    191
    The hon. Gentleman also asked about article 7 and the sanctions clause. The article was amended to introduce an early-warning mechanism. Surely it makes sense to establish that there is a risk of a breach of fundamental rights. This will give other member states the opportunity to make recommendations and, one would hope, avoid any breaches occurring.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked how we would assess whether a breach had occurred. That would be established by the European Council after it had considered the observations of the member state concerned.
    Mr. Howard rose—
    Peter Hain: Finally, the rights that we are talking about are those in article 6.1 of the treaty on European Union—the Maastricht treaty, as amended by the Amsterdam treaty. The charter of fundamental rights has no legal status and is not referred to in article 6.1. The hon. Member for West Suffolk need, therefore, have no worries on that count.
    Mr. Howard: Will the Minister give way?
    Peter Hain: I was trying to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for West Suffolk, but of course I will give way.
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at last. If he is serious about wanting to provide opportunities for Members to scrutinise the Bill, will he now answer the simple question that he said he would answer five minutes ago? Will he identify where in any of the texts to be agreed there is any reference to NATO's choosing not to be engaged—the phrase used by the Minister in his speech—before the European Union becomes engaged? Where in the texts does that language appear?
    Peter Hain: I have answered this point, and it has been repeatedly answered in the House. So long as the right hon. and learned Gentleman chooses not to study the record of the debates in the House, I cannot help him further.
    The hon. Member for West Suffolk asked about an update on Eurojust. The Tampere European Council in October 1999 agreed to set up Eurojust to improve co-operation between national prosecutors, aiding national criminal investigations into serious organised crime. Organised crime stopped respecting national boundaries long ago. We strongly support Eurojust and the benefits that it will bring in tackling organised crime more effectively. Improving judicial co-operation across the European Union will also help to ensure that serious organised crime is properly investigated and prosecuted.
    Eurojust will not involve, as the hon. Member for West Suffolk implied, interference by the EU in national investigations and prosecutions. It will not mean an end to British legal traditions. It will not be a body that investigates and prosecutes in its own right. It will not involve a centralised European public prosecutor. Investigations will continue to be conducted by national authorities. The role of Eurojust will be to aid cross-border investigations by ensuring the co-operation of national authorities. Eurojust is designed to crack down
    192
    on international organised crime, to help to put an end to the misery caused by traffickers in drugs and human beings and to bring money launderers to book. I hope that we all support that.
    6 pm
    I should answer several other points that were raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe. He asked why a person from a non-member of NATO—a Finn—is at the head of the European military committee. General Haggland was elected because of his extensive military experience and his competence. Simply put, he was the best person for the job. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked why the presidency report mentions co-operation with Russia, Ukraine and Canada, but not the United States. That represents recognition of the fact that the countries mentioned might want to join EU-led operations. Were the United States involved, an operation would of course effectively be a NATO operation.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the practical arrangements between the EU and NATO. As I have said before, the EU will not set up rival military structures to duplicate what already exists. The EU will use existing operational planning staff from NATO for EU operations using NATO assets. In addition, the NATO North Atlantic Council and the new EU Political and Security Committee will meet regularly to discuss co-operation and are already doing so. Four groups have been formed to consider detailed areas of co-operation and work is continuing to ensure EU access to NATO assets in an agreed fashion.
    The Government reject all the amendments and I commend the Government's position to the Committee.
    Mr. Richard Spring: There is much to discuss further this evening, and although I thank the Minister for responding to the points that I made, I must tell him that we want to examine his responses with some care before returning to them.
    We have heard excellent speeches from a number of new Members. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), who discussed the snakes and ladders of political life in terms of majorities in local government, parliamentary elections and the recent and most impressive swing in his constituency. He spoke with affection of his predecessors, who overlapped in his constituency: Sir Michael Neubert and Sir Nicholas Bonsor, who were held in high regard in this place, and his immediate predecessor, Eileen Gordon, who spoke with great conviction on health matters.
    My hon. Friend referred to the bulldog spirit, and I hope and believe that he will show that spirit in his membership of the House of Commons. He described his constituency with great affection and talked about flying the Union flag. Romford clearly has an articulate Member of Parliament who will fly the flag for the constituency in the years to come.
    I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell). I fought the neighbouring seat of Ashton-under-Lyne some years ago, so I know the area to which he referred. I also pay tribute to Tom Pendry, who was a friend of mine. He was highly regarded in the House and he had a particular knowledge of sport, so the whole Committee will be pleased at the hon. Gentleman's comments about Tom.

    193
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned Gaitskell's links to the constituency and the change in the area's economic base. I certainly know of that from my own experience there—the number of mills has changed tremendously—but he also referred to the new businesses that are transforming the economy. He made a remark that struck me. In discussing his ideals, he used the word "socialism". He sits as a Government Member, so I very much hope that he will be able to sustain those ideals in this place in the years to come.
    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Patsy Calton) for her kind words about her predecessor, Stephen Day, with whom I shared an office when I first became a Member of Parliament. She described the great diversity of the constituency, which contains both affluent and poorer areas, and the congestion problems at Manchester airport, which affect her constituency. She showed clear affection for and knowledge of her area, and she is a fluent and competent speaker. I hope that she will make many more contributions in the House as Member for Cheadle.
    We have heard much about parliamentary accountability; no matter how one considers the role for the European rapid reaction force arising from the Nice treaty, we must consider pressing new clause 7 to a Division. We want to highlight the implications for the Western European Union, NATO and the future organisations as well as the UK's role therein. We believe that what was agreed at Nice poses serious threats to NATO, which is the organisation that has secured our peace and stability for more than 50 years. We tamper with it at our peril.
    A number of excellent speeches have been made, but I must allude to the brilliantly incisive contribution of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). The fact of the matter is that what was achieved at Nice has nothing to do with enhanced defence capability or burden sharing or co-operation on defence procurement. It is about politics—the politics of the integration process of the European Union.
    Mr. Cash: I had wanted to press my amendment to a Division, because the matters that we have discussed are fundamental to the peace and security not only of the United Kingdom, but of Europe as a whole. Furthermore, for the reasons that I have given, which were elaborated on by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), we have effectively dealt with the Minister's arguments, and I have absolutely no doubt that we shall continue to do so during our proceedings. However, although I do not want to avoid a Division, we have practical problems this evening to do with the result of the leadership election, which means that people are scattered in various places. No doubt some are rather happier than others.
    It is sensible and practical to deal with these matters when we debate clause stand part so that we can tackle the Minister's arguments in one fell swoop. I shall not press the matter to a Division now, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert
    `Article 1 (other than paragraph 11),'.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 50, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
    `Article 1 (other than paragraph 12),'.
    Amendment No. 51, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
    'Article 1 (other than paragraph 13),'.
    Amendment No. 52, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
    `Article 1 (other than paragraph 14),'.
    Amendment No. 234, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
    'Article 1 (other than paragraph 11, sub-paragraphs (b) and (c))'.
    Amendment No. 56, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    `other than Article 2 paragraph 1'.
    New clause 9—Enhanced cooperation (No. 1)—
    'Her Majesty's Government shall lay before Parliament a report showing the implication for the United Kingdom of Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Nice Treaty, amending Article 11 TEC, incorporating the effects of related Articles on enhanced cooperation in the TEC and TEU, including Article 1, paragraph 11 of the Nice Treaty, revising Article 43 TEU.'.
    New clause 10—Enhanced cooperation (No. 2)—
    'The Government shall not take steps to participate in any proposals agreed under Article 1, paragraph 11 of the Nice Treaty, revising Article 43 TEU, or related Articles in the Nice Treaty on enhanced co-operation in the TEC and TEU, including Article 2, paragraph 1 amending Article 11 TEC, without first having obtained the approval of each House of Parliament by resolution.'.
    And the following amendment thereto: (a), in line 1, leave out "take steps to".
    Mr. Cash: Enhanced co-operation, otherwise known as flexibility, is an important and fateful ingredient in the development of European Union politics. As with so many of these issues, it is a matter of lego-political power play and, as I said earlier and on Second Reading, it cannot be separated from qualified majority voting. Unfortunately, that is the mechanism whereby the eight member states that congregate at the centre of the proposed EU in relation to the functions arrogated to them will themselves operate in the framework of a QMV system. Therefore, as with economic and monetary union and the arrangements that led me to oppose the Maastricht treaty with such vigour, the locomotives are parallel to one another.
    The arrangement is as simple as this: the creation of an acquis communautaire in a legal framework will be sought and the process of enhanced co-operation or flexibility will work in that framework. In the example of monetary union, the centre point is created and a eurozone established. Then all the others are effectively dragged along with it. An example of that is the creation of the coins and notes. Thereafter everybody is conditioned to the idea. Those who are reluctant and are found to be outside the system are then, by a gravitational process, drawn into having to comply with the arrangements.

    195
    I believe that the third protocol to the Maastricht treaty provided that no member state should prevent the others from going ahead. For practical purposes, that is reflected by the removal of what is known as the emergency brake. I am interested to know whether the distinguished right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) intends to speak, because I wish that this were not such an incredibly complex question—one that is given to lawyers and others to play around with. I refer to the question of enhanced co-operation, which constitutes a mixture of the use of law and the deepest and most sophisticated form of power politics that I have witnessed in all my dealings with the European Community and the European Union.
    I believe that many people are being gravely misled. A number of my colleagues, including the shadow Foreign Secretary, are being misled into believing that the notion of flexibility is somehow a good one. As I pointed out in a pamphlet that I wrote about a year ago—it was called "Associated But Not Absorbed", and called for an associated European area—the trend that has been established has done enormous damage to the democracy of other member states, especially in central and eastern Europe. Those states are being drawn into the acquis communautaire, while knowing all about the politics of it.
    As I said in an earlier speech on the Bill, the centre of gravity—indeed, I now go further and say "the domination of the entire European Union"—will be created by Germany's having a preponderant influence. That will be the case not just because of qualified majority voting—the countries dependent on Germany politically and economically will inevitably, in the real world, vote with her—but because the concept of flexibility is a driving force, a rocket thrust, in that direction.
    Enhanced co-operation stems, in fact, from the Amsterdam treaty. It is no excuse saying that it was not used on that occasion, because it is really a fancy new name for a two-speed Europe. Jacques Chirac summarised the proposal neatly:
    "A certain number of countries will have to get together to show the others the way."
    A sub-set of member states that wishes to proceed with further integration and to create an inner core will be allowed to do so.
    An obscure but very interesting paper was produced by Michael Mertes, who became Chancellor Kohl's chief policy adviser. He and I have had many discussions about these questions. The paper, written in 1988 or 1989, created a template for the idea of an inner and outer core of Europe. I pay tribute to Mr. Mertes and also to a gentleman by the name of Mr. Prill, who wrote the paper with him.
    6.15 pm
    The plan was a "concentric circles" plan, transparently intended to produce the kind of Europe that the flexibility arrangement in the Nice treaty actually represents. Hon. Members must grasp exactly what is going on, and not be taken in by a lot of the Euro-propaganda. The facts are all set out. At least those concerned had the honesty to do that, although many of their articles and papers appear in rather obscure journals. The other countries will be relegated to an outer core, and reverse integration is ruled out, because reversing the process would mean passing amendments that have themselves been described,
    196
    effectively, as ruled out because this, like economic and monetary union, is regarded as an irreversible process. We are increasingly being locked in.
    Let me say this to Labour Members, with great respect. If they do not like aspects of these treaties, and if they do not want to be taken on a long train journey leading, in my view, to increasing chaos and uncertainty, they ought to speak out. They spoke out yesterday; I think they should speak out against this as well, because it will have serious consequences for many of the policies that they hold dear.
    Flexibility is the antithesis of what some so-called Eurosceptics hoped it would come to mean. In an Adjournment debate on the subject that I initiated as long ago as—I think—1995, I explained the dangers of what I described as a Heath Robinson system. I said that disconnected parts were being put together in a single system, which would create chaotic arrangements. I believe that we are heading for an increasingly dangerous and tense European Union.
    What should happen, of course, is this: individual nation states should be enabled to make their own decisions, but to work in co-operation rather than being put in the compression chamber of the acquis communautaire, as is now being proposed. Like subsidiarity, this whole process will promote ever deeper political centralisation. It will do nothing for diversity and decentralisation—although many claim that it might—because, like subsidiarity, it is a con trick. Individual nation states will possess no emergency brake or veto to prevent other member states from going ahead with further integration.
    I look forward to the remarks that I trust will be made, in due course, by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). My hon. Friend's shoulders are now heaving in a Heath-like fashion. He knows perfectly well that the removal of the emergency brake presents something of a problem for those who have previously advocated the notion of flexibility—a problem that will not disappear simply because we wish things were otherwise.
    For the first time, it has been clearly stated that the whole purpose of enhanced co-operation is to reinforce the process of integration. That is an entirely new mission statement. Article 1 itself talks of ever closer union, and so forth. The minimum number of participants is eight, regardless of enlargement. The process will depend on eight member states making decisions relating to a range of policies and functions. The potential for chaos must be obvious to anyone. If there are 27 members in an enlarged Community and eight are driving the system, how on earth will it be possible—I return for a moment to our debate on defence and foreign policy—to secure the degree of consistency that is claimed for the proposed, and proclaimed, European political union? It is inherent in the arrangements that they will not achieve that objective: they will defeat the object of their own exercise, and at the same time create chaos. I fear for the European Community, or Union, for reasons like that.
    Mr. Hendrick: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how eight member states wishing to co-operate in dealing with, say, drugs and cross-border crime might affect the rest of the European Union if it did not wish to participate? The example is particularly pertinent. Clearly, if the case

    197
    involved the single market, the single market would be distorted, but a minimum of eight states are taking action that does not affect any other member states in the European Union.
    Mr. Cash: I dealt with the single market in the context of enlargement in a previous debate and I do not think that you, Sir Michael, would want me to go back over that. The real point is that the potential for chaotic policy making, with 27 member states all having different ideas as to the direction in which to go but knowing that inner-core policy is being directed by eight member states, must be obvious to anyone. I do not need to repeat myself: the permutations are horrific.
    Some say that they welcome the move because it will destroy the European Union. I want a renegotiated Union with reduced functions in all areas of European government, which can be achieved without withdrawal if the Government are prepared to listen. The corollary is that the movement in the other direction, which is embedded in the proposals for enhanced co-operation, will produce a completely unworkable situation. If the whole European Union implodes as a result of the mistakes that are being made, I will accuse the Government—much as I like the Minister. The danger is that the move will cause serious damage and difficulty for the United Kingdom. We are embarked on a policy that is bound to cause chaos and damage to the British national interest.
    It is outrageous that we should be faced with these proposals. I am fascinated to know what the practical arguments are on which the Government seem to depend. I would like to know the philosophy that lies behind their decision to go along this route, because they could have vetoed the arrangements. They could even have stuck with Amsterdam, for heaven's sake, although I would have rejected that, too. In the blue paper that I wrote in response to the then Government's White Paper on the subject, I cut at the roots of the arguments, as I have sought to do for many years. There are some distinguished but misguided colleagues on the Conservative Benches who believe that variable geometry is the right way to go.
    As I pointed out in the pamphlet "Associated But Not Absorbed", it would be fine if flexibility were dissociated from the acquis communautaire, but once one assumes that the acquis communautaire will bite on the whole system, one is trapped. Indeed, that very White Paper—produced by the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, and the Minister with responsibility for Europe—said that we must not be trapped into a two-speed Europe. That is exactly what this move has led to. The Government have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. I am deeply concerned about it for all those reasons.
    If we think of the range of matters covered in the vast corpus of law that is being created—the treaties, the European Union single institutional framework within which the British parliamentary system and the voters, the people who matter, are being subsumed—it is enough to cause anyone sleepless nights. If the Government are going to say that they are going into a federal system, get on with it and say it. All the halfway-house proceeding by stealth is creating more and more uncertainty. For heaven's sake, let the Government come out of the closet
    198
    and say, "We want a federal Europe." [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but the ingredients have developed since 1970.
    The Minister opposed such developments at the time; I am sure of it because of our discussions in the past. Indeed, I confess to having voted yes in 1975, but I did so on the basis of what was then on offer. The problem was and remains that each treaty is a separate, cumulative series of laws. Enactment of the treaties via Bills such as this one serves to implement the arrangements in our domestic law. One was entitled to say as the thing developed, "I think that this is acceptable." To the chagrin of many of my Eurosceptic friends, I did accept, on the balance of judgment but with warnings, the Single European Act and the qualified majority voting that went with it.
    I know that the Minister will be good enough to respond to my amendment No. 233, which deals with child abduction. I may or may not press that to a Division in due course. It will depend on the response that he gives, but I am interested in the effect that all these arrangements will have on the voters: my constituents and the constituents whom we represent in the House. They should not be put in the position the arrangements will put them in.
    Enhanced co-operation covers such a vast range. For example, it will lead to some difficult questions in the run-up to 2004. A White Paper will be published in the next couple of days. I dare say the Minister has a copy already. It will contain, no doubt, a lot of hogwash about European government and European governance. In the past 18 months, I have asked the Prime Minister three times on the Floor of the House to answer a simple question: will he give the British people, in this Parliament, a White Paper to explain the constitutional and political implications of the issues involved: not only the single currency, but the whole European issue. As a new clause in my name underlines, such a response should not be confined to the single currency alone.
    There are serious questions that the Government have to grapple with. As we move towards European government, I would like a straight answer from the Minister. He has the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), his bag carrier, next to him at the moment, and I understand that he must have a little word with him, but at the same time, would he be kind enough to answer this question? I would like to engage the attention of the Minister for a brief second: will the arrangements for enhanced co-operation be employed, or could they be employed—that is the operative word—to move us towards a European constitution? There are many reasons why I object to enhanced co-operation, but if the centre of gravity, which is the European constitution, is to be obtained by movement through these provisions, and the Government say that they do not want a European constitution, I would like them to answer that question clearly.
    Enhanced co-operation is said not to undermine the single market. I am not sure what that means. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to explain. Nor is it supposed to undermine economic and social cohesion. The arrangements for so-called social cohesion offer a blank cheque book. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) pointed out only yesterday, whether the Government run out of money for public

    199
    expenditure in the last two years of this Parliament will have a lot to do with what the arrangements for social cohesion, and the charter of rights to go with it, will cost. The blank cheque that those arrangements represent will cause very great difficulty for the Government in achieving their objectives.
    6.30 pm
    It is said that the policy on enhanced co-operation must not violate the obligations, rights and competencies of member states that are not participants in it. In the previous debate, we had a dissertation on the issue of the neutral countries. However, one can appreciate the chaos that the arrangements are bound to create. The arrangements also have to respect the acquis communautaire, particularly in relation to Schengen. Nevertheless, clause 1 is described as a "last resort" clause to be used only when it is not possible to achieve integration by using "traditional" methods. As those traditional methods are to try to get everyone to agree to arrangements that they do not want, the arrangements are, in fact, "don't want" arrangements.
    The euro itself is not part of enhanced co-operation. As I said, however, that pass was sold by John Major and the previous Government, who said that they would not prevent other members from going ahead with it. It was thus just a bit of waffle by the previous Government.
    Fundamentally, the problem with enhanced co-operation is similar to the one that we have with economic and monetary union. Although we have an opt-out, we are still subject to European economic government. The British Government wish to join economic and monetary union one day, despite the fact that, as I said in my general election address, that will take us into the exchange rate mechanism for two years.
    I wish that the official Opposition had made that point during the general election campaign. However, for reasons that completely escape me—such as the fact that we had signed up to EMU by accepting the Maastricht criteria—we did not do so. Some Opposition Members may therefore have felt that it was not advantageous to raise that issue. Some of them may also have discovered that that fact did not help them today.
    In operating many macro-economic rules, the Chancellor of the Exchequer acts as if he were already a member of EMU. The same will happen with policies under enhanced co-operation. We would all he bound within that general legal framework. National Governments who are constrained by sceptical electorates—those of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom, not to mention all the others who are fed up with being driven by their elites and blackmailed into accepting money in return for the subordination of their democratic arrangements—will rue the day when the truth finally emerges.
    One could say much more on the subject, but I shall conclude—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted that Labour Members have been such an attentive audience. The matters that we are discussing are important, and they are set out in the treaties. They are extremely dangerous to the future of this country. They are also very dangerous to the European Union. I look forward with interest to hearing the Minister's reply.
    Anne Picking: Thank you, Sir Michael, for calling me to make my speech during our consideration of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
    Enhanced co-operation between European countries is absolutely essential if there is to be a truly flexible European Union. I have become aware of some of those issues because of my membership of the Labour party's policy commission "Britain in the World". Being a pro-European myself, I cannot see how the amendments proposed by the Tories would do anything but restrict the Government's ability to negotiate. To exclude and not include seems quite daft.
    My predecessor in the House was John Home Robertson, a diligent and hard-working Member who will continue to represent the people of East Lothian in the Scottish Parliament. He was first elected to the House in 1978, after the unexpected and untimely death of Professor John P. Mackintosh. He was also elected during a period, unlike now, when the then Labour Government had had difficulty holding marginal or even safe seats at by-elections. John served his constituency well, especially during the miners strike, when he raised more issues than most hon. Members.
    As a Member of this place, it will be a great pleasure to work closely with John Home Robertson, a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and with Provost Pat O'Brien and the Labour-controlled East Lothian council. That combination will ensure that the people of East Lothian continue to receive the high standard of representation that they enjoy and expect from the Labour party.
    I have already mentioned John P. Mackintosh, whose achievements in life as a professor of politics and campaigner for a Scottish Parliament are very well known. Perhaps less well known is that he twice gained the constituency from the Conservative party, and that on the second such occasion the defeated Tory Member was none other than the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). Suffice it to say that, like many other invaders in history, and similar to his bid for leadership of the Tory party, his sojourn to East Lothian was brief.
    East Lothian is a stunningly beautiful part of Scotland. It is situated east of Edinburgh, north of the Lammermuir hills and adjacent to the Firth of Forth and North sea. It is therefore a community with natural boundaries. Talking about the Firth of Forth, I was fortunate enough to be brought up on the north side of the Forth, with a majestic view to the south. I now represent and bide in a constituency on the south side of the Forth with a monumental view to the north. All that—and now I discover that occasionally in this place I have yet another view, of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), albeit not so prepossessing.
    East Lothian did have, and still does have, its troublesome times. Located where it is, so close to the English border, it was inevitable that it would become a route for, and battleground between, the military forces of Scotland and England. Many famous battles were fought on East Lothian soil. Mary Queen of Scots lost her cause in Scotland, at Carberry hill, in 1567. In the following century, at the battle of Dunbar, Oliver Cromwell's new model army decisively defeated Scottish forces sympathetic to the monarchy. The battle of Prestonpans was memorable, when Bonnie Prince Charlie's Jacobites were victorious against the Government forces led by

    201
    General Johnnie Cope. Thankfully, the Government forces were much more successful in securing a victory on 7 June 2001 than they were in 1745.
    Speaking of battles and Government forces, in the general election campaign I was lucky enough to be supported by the Deputy Prime Minister. He was due to visit Prestonpans Labour club. The night before the auspicious visit, I was decorating the club and blowing up balloons, as one does, when the news came in that my right hon. Friend had an altercation with one of the British electorate, so I had no idea what to expect. We did not know what type of reception he would receive, whether it would be hostile or supportive. In the event, it was massive. It was a media circus. It was like a night at the Oscars, cameras and flashlights everywhere.
    My right hon. Friend received a hero's welcome. The majority of constituents made measured comments about the incident, such as:
    "It's terrible that politicians and their staff should be attacked and abused in such a way."
    There were also, however, more down-to-earth, frank and forthright quotes from some of the locals. Margaret Jones, from Dunbar, said:
    "We breed men not mice in the Labour Party".
    Sandra Stalker, from Port Seton, felt that my right hon. Friend
    "didn't hit him hard enough".
    The history of East Lothian has not been one only of battles and wars. One of the less well known incidents occurred at Tranent, in 1797, when miners and their families, led by the redoubtable Jackie Crookston, beating her drum, were mercilessly crushed and massacred by troops when they objected to the unfair imposition of military service.
    Although there have been revolutions as well in East Lothian, they have been relatively peaceful ones. Coal, the fuel of industrialisation, was mined in East Lothian from at least the 13th century. The conditions were extremely cruel, and for those people serfdom was not abolished until 1799. For many years later, until well into the 19th century, large numbers of women and girls—some as young as six—were forced to work in the mines. Indeed, a parliamentary commission reported in 1842 that conditions in East Lothian were
    "worse than anywhere else in Great Britain".
    Things did improve thanks to the work of the miners themselves, their unions and the Labour party, but sadly there are no mines left in East Lothian. History, heritage, the legacy of human pain, suffering, hard work, pride and even death over the centuries was callously decimated by the Conservative party, without an ounce of compassion.
    I felt that I could not or should not make my maiden speech without mentioning my maiden name and paying tribute to my family, some of whom are here today. I was born Anne Moffat of the famous dynasty of Moffats who are steeped in the history of the Scottish miners trade union movement and who hailed from Fife and East Lothian. It is fitting that a Fifer is representing the good people of East Lothian.
    Before I had the honour of being elected to the House, I was a nurse in the national health service and was privileged to be elected national president of the UK's
    202
    largest trade union, UNISON. The NHS is a unique and wonderful British institution; it is also at a crossroads. To hear the contenders for the Tory crown of thorns is to listen and marvel. They criticise the state of the health service, but how do they think it got to that position? I worked in the unfashionable mental health services, as successive Tory Governments ripped the heart out of the service by deep cuts in spending and pernicious neglect. There is no doubt that this Government's prescription of massive extra funding is the way forward.
    The NHS plan agreed last year sets the right path for investment and reform. I have seen the Government's proposals for the next 10 years and I utterly refute the suggestion that they represent a privatisation agenda. Everything now being proposed was in that plan and the service bought into it. I have to be honest and say that I do not believe that in an ideal world the PR would be the way to build hospitals. It is a fact, however, that the investment programme is based on harnessing private capital for public good. The question is whether the price is too high.
    Nevertheless, I welcome the new pilot schemes which are designed to enable ancillary staff to remain part of the NHS team. Securing this change will make a major difference to staff attitudes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health shares my view that the support and commitment of the staff in the health service who subscribe to the unfashionable belief in the public service ethos are crucial to the success of the Government's plans.
    I lived and worked in Northern Ireland in the early 1980s. It was a time of mass riots, hunger strikes and the killing of innocents. Bombs, bullets and mindless violence were an accepted part of everyone's life. I nursed, and I saw at first hand the sheer devastation. A return to those days for the good people of Northern Ireland would be a travesty. They are the warmest, kindest people one could ever hope to meet. I wish my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister—and, indeed, all those who are part of the process—all the very best in their endeavours to maintain peace.
    Before I conclude, it would be appropriate for me to mention that East Lothian crossed a threshold on 7 June by electing its first ever woman MP. Women in East Lothian have come a long way since they worked in the mines and led riots and I am very proud to have this honour bestowed upon me.
    6.45 pm
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) on delivering an excellent maiden speech, full of eloquence and obvious feeling for her constituency. She and I have in common a background in health and constituencies with strong martial traditions. I am hugely privileged to represent the Wiltshire county constituency of Westbury.
    As hon. Members might expect, Europe features prominently among the concerns of my constituents. In particular, the prospect of an autonomous European military capability that was championed by the Prime Minister at St. Malo and fleshed out at Nice is viewed with unease. The threat that the proposed Euro force might pose to one of the most successful post-war organisations, NATO, and to our symbiotic relationship with the United States has surely not been adequately

    203
    explored. Still less light has been shed on the intended geographic scope of the initiative, or indeed on the arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of the European security and defence policy en bloc.
    I am sure that hon. Members are looking forward to the end of term and to the opportunity of taking a summer break during the recess. The Prime Minister's announcement that he intends to flout tradition and spend at least some of his vacation in Britain is really welcome. Our benighted tourist industry in the south-west has been badly affected by foot and mouth and it needs all the support it can get. I genuinely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear Wiltshire in mind when drawing up his holiday plans—as a tourist he can be sure of a warm welcome.
    The "Anglo Saxon Chronicle" records that in 878, at a high point near Edington in my constituency, King Alfred finally defeated the Danes and in so doing founded the kingdom of Wessex. Therefore, I have a legitimate claim that my constituency is the crucible of England, and in representing this giant among parliamentary divisions I am more honoured than I can possibly express.
    My constituency straddles much of the territory that lies between Bath and Salisbury. It is an area of handsome small towns, attractive villages and deep verdant countryside. To the north lie the thriving county town of Trowbridge and the outrageously beautiful small town of Bradford-on-Avon. Nestling under the escarpment of Salisbury plain is the ancient settlement of Westbury with its famous chalk white horse. Further south still lie the attractive market and garrison town of Warminster and the undiscovered little gem of Mere, close to the border with Dorset. It is truly a diverse constituency. Indeed, to misquote Dr Samuel Johnson, when a man is tired of Westbury he is tired of life, for there is in Westbury all that life can afford.
    West Wiltshire's very obvious physical charm conceals real problems that I suggest would match those faced by the constituencies of many Labour Members. Hon. Members should never for a moment suppose that the English shire counties are untroubled by relative poverty, for that is not so. My constituents have all been victims in one way or another of changes to the formula used in the standard spending assessment. Wiltshire's schoolchildren, road users and social services are suffering badly. Please may we now have fair funding for Wiltshire?
    It is most agreeable to have another doctor in the House. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) and I well understand the importance to our patients and our constituents of health care delivered close to home. One of the salient features of the NHS in west Wiltshire is the presence of four excellent community hospitals, but recent bed closures have resulted in considerable hardship, particularly among my elderly constituents. The villains are not just politicians, but those who advise them—health service planners and those in health professions, with their ingrained centralist tendencies. In designing secondary, intermediate and primary health care we must listen to what the paymasters—our constituents—want and be less driven by the needs and aspirations of the medical establishment.
    My predecessor was David Faber. As the grandson of Harold Macmillan, he had an impossible act to follow. Nevertheless, he developed a high reputation in this place
    204
    and in Westbury. His departure is a loss to the House and his cerebral contribution to culture, media and sport will, I think, be especially missed.
    Not so keenly missed was our predecessor, the colourful Sir Mannaseh Lopes, Baronet. Sir Mannaseh was convicted in 1819 at Exeter assizes for distributing £2,000 in brown paper envelopes while out canvassing. Shortly after his release from jail, this 19th century political comeback kid resurfaced as the Member of Parliament for Westbury, but he proved unpopular with the upright citizens of the town. Somewhat ironically, in 1826 he was replaced by Sir Robert Peel, founder inter alia of the Metropolitan police force.
    Last week, two soldiers lost their lives in a Challenger 2 tank in my constituency. It was a dreadful reminder of the hazards faced by our service men in both peace and war, and of the debt of gratitude that we owe our armed forces.
    When I left the medical branch of the Royal Navy in October last year, I was likened by one of my more thoughtful colleagues to a rat leaving a sinking ship. The analogy was a little unkind, but the point was well made. Our armed forces are in a truly parlous state that contrasts sharply with that enjoyed by many of our allies.
    There are 29 anaesthetists on the books, and there should be 120. There are eight orthopaedic surgeons, and there should be 28. There are three casualty doctors, and there should be 23. It is ironic that one of the least moribund specialties in the defence medical services is pathology. It is small wonder that nearly 10 per cent. of the Army is currently medically downgraded. Nearly one soldier in 10 is not fighting fit.
    What is surprising is the remedy—the closure of the Royal hospital, Haslar, which serves many of my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has fought a tireless campaign against the closure, and I pay tribute to his sterling work.
    If the closure of our last military hospital were not bad enough, we are now faced with the removal of the royal defence medical college from its location near Portsmouth to a new centre for defence medicine in Birmingham.
    Birmingham is a truly wonderful city, but most people join the defence medical service to serve the front line—which is billeted in Hampshire and Wiltshire, not in the middle of Birmingham. It is little wonder that esprit de corps and retention are at an all-time low.
    Military medicine, European or otherwise, is an integral part of the defence effort, yet we are allowing the already fibrillating heart of Britain's defence medical services to drift irrevocably towards asystole. If we allow that to happen, our ability to prosecute even the sort of conflict in which NATO, according to many Labour Members, might reasonably be involved—but not directly—will be severely limited. If I may issue a cry from the heart: may we please think again?
    Denzil Davies: We have just heard two excellent maiden speeches. They, and the other such speeches that we have heard, caused me to cast my mind back to my own halting and nervous first contribution. I made my maiden speech in the early hours of the morning some time in June 1970, when not many hon. Members were around to hear it. By contrast, the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) and my hon. Friend the Member

    205
    for East Lothian (Anne Picking), and others, have spoken with a fluency that fills me with admiration. The hon. Member for Westbury mentioned his predecessor, David Faber. Many Labour Members may not have known Mr. Faber as well as the hon. Gentleman, although I do not mean that as a criticism, but we all knew John Home Robertson, the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian.
    I mentioned earlier that I was the Labour party's defence spokesman in the 1980s. It was an exciting time both for the party and for defence spokesmen. Many members of our armed forces were stationed in Wiltshire, and I remember visiting the county. I was struck by the remark by the hon. Member for Westbury that not all parts of Wiltshire are as affluent as people—especially people from the Celtic fringes—tend to believe. Even in the 1980s, parts of the hon. Gentleman's constituency were notably less affluent than some expected.
    My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian mentioned John Home Robertson, who was known, liked and admired by all hon. Members. She also mentioned Mr. John P. Mackintosh, about whom I have mixed feelings. I admired him greatly as a constitutional expert and writer of well-known and excellent books, but I was a junior Treasury Minister between 1975 and 1979, in a Government which, between 1977 and 1979, had no majority. Trying to see a Finance Bill through Standing Committee without a majority is quite an experience, and not one through which I should like to put today's Ministers.
    Such an experience hones one's advocacy skills. If one wanted John P. Mackintosh's vote, one had to be pretty skilful. He and his friend Mr. Brian Walden used to go about together sometimes, and they were quite likely to end up in a different Lobby from other Labour Members when a Division was called. However, Mr. Mackintosh was a distinguished Member of Parliament.
    My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian also mentioned the Jacobites. I was 15 years old when, as a grammar school pupil in Wales, I had to study the Jacobite rebellion for the old O-level exam. I pity our history teacher now, as it must have been an impossible task to explain the reasons for that rebellion to 15-year-old boys in west Wales. I congratulate my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Westbury on their excellent maiden speeches.
    I turn now to enhanced co-operation. Everyone is in favour of better co-operation—even the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), in certain areas at least. It is an important matter, and is addressed by amendment No. 56 in particular, which deals with article 2 of the treaty.
    It appears to me that, if Britain entered an enhanced co-operation arrangement with eight, nine or 10 states, our democracy would be diminished. Such arrangements cannot be changed. I have read the articles, and I believe that it would not be possible to withdraw from enhanced co-operation arrangements without securing a qualified majority.
    Mr. Cash: The acquis communautaire means that the arrangements would not prejudice the assumption that all member states must accept the pre-existing legal framework. That framework would not be altered.
    Denzil Davies: The hon. Gentleman probably understands these matters better than some other hon.
    206
    Members, although I am not sure that I understand that explanation completely. I suspect that it would not be possible simply to withdraw from an arrangement without securing some kind of qualified majority, which would take the matter out of Britain's democratic and political grasp.
    For example, no party could enter a general election saying that it would pull out of an enhanced co-operation agreement on agriculture, just as no party now can say that it wants to come out of the common agricultural policy. Since about 1979, all parties—without telling the public—have wanted to leave the CAP, but that is impossible because all other member states would have to agree.
    Enhanced co-operation, like qualified majority voting, would represent another diminution of our democracy. Choice at the polls would also be diminished, as the number of areas that could not be changed by the normal democratic processes of the nation state grew.
    Mr. Hendrick: Why does my right hon. Friend feel that it would be necessary to withdraw from an agreement? One enters an agreement with a view to carrying on that agreement.
    7 pm
    Denzil Davies: Circumstances change. I well remember the arguments for the common agricultural policy during the debate on the European Communities Act 1972. One of the reasonable arguments made was that Europe needed a common agricultural policy to protect its food production so that it would always have a supply within that tariff area. Many people accepted that argument. Well, the world has changed: there is no shortage of food. It is perfectly possible now to import food at much lower prices from other parts of the world. I should think that many people, whether they are Euro-enthusiasts, Eurosceptics or whatever, would argue that the CAP has outlived its purpose and should be changed. So my hon. Friend should not believe that once one has entered into an enhanced co-operation agreement, it is right and good for all time. There is no democratic mechanism as far as I can see for the nation state to withdraw from such an agreement without the agreement of all the other EU members. That diminishes our democracy, and it is one of the real problems of the EU. That democracy is not really replaced, unless we go to a fully federal state, by any of the new arrangements. To that extent, the new arrangements are anti-democratic for the nation state.
    I do not know whether the British Government wish to enter into enhanced co-operation on taxation, but I believe that it will happen. This week I had sent to me a paper dated 1 June 2001, produced by Mr. Bernhard Zepter, the Deputy Secretary-General of the European Commission, on tax policy in the European Union. I do not think that the hon. Member for Stone has received it yet, so I think I am a step ahead of him. I suspect that it will be in the next edition of "European Forum" now that I have mentioned it on the Floor of the House.
    The paper is called "Tax policy in the European Union—Priorities for the years ahead." It was sent by Mr. Zepter to Mr. Javier Solana. Unlike the hon. Member for Stone, who seems to dislike the gentleman, I have nothing against Mr. Solana. Mr. Solana describes himself as as a secretary-general but also as a high representative.

    207
    May I make a slight plea to the Minister for Europe, the Minister for plain speaking, who is represented by an equally plain speaker in the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)? I can see that my hon. Friend assents to that. Could they please stop calling themselves high representatives? it has a Gilbertian ring about it. They have been doing it certainly since I have been involved. I think that it goes back to the European Coal and Steel Community. No doubt it is a diplomatic phrase that keeps the diplomatic corps happy.
    Mr. Cash: In the operas to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring, it was the lord high executioner.
    Denzil Davies: I did not like to digress, Sir Michael, or you might have said that I was out of order.
    "Secretary-General" I do not mind. "Secretary" would be all right, but everyone is a secretary-general these days. But not "high representative" please. If we are getting rid of flummery and diplomatic language and adopting plain speaking, let us drop these rather silly titles. That is a small and perhaps frivolous point.
    I refer the Committee to paragraph 4.4 of the document. I accept that Foreign Office Ministers have not seen it, at least for the purposes of this debate. It relates to enhanced co-operation in the field of taxation. The paper is about taxation and ways of getting round the veto. It is not put in such plain language, but in effect it tells the high representative how the Commission would like to find ways to get round the veto on taxation, especially direct taxation, because the Commission rightly believes that it hampers the development of the internal market. I believe that it affects the euro as well.
    Many ideas are put forward in the document, including something called soft legislation, which is not in fact legislation but guidelines. We will leave that for another occasion. One area that the Commissioners hit on—they are very clever, these people—was enhanced co-operation. I shall quote paragraph 4.4, as probably no one else but me has a copy. The Deputy Secretary-General writes:
    "The possibilities introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty and developed by the Nice Treaty for closer co-operation between sub-groups of like-minded Member States could also be envisaged in certain cases. In particular, this could be used in tax policy areas where, even in the long term, decisions in the Council are taken by unanimity.… The decision at Nice will enable the Commission to propose to the Council that as small a group as eight Member States may co-operate more closely, after approval within the Council by qualified majority."
    That does not give the steps correctly. The eight member states obviously have to get together first. Then, as new article 11 states, the eight member states tell the Commission, the Commission puts a proposal back to the eight member states and they pass it by qualified majority.
    The document continues:
    "However, in line with the principles agreed at Nice, this approach"—
    enhanced co-operation in both direct and indirect taxation—
    "must not, among other things, undermine the Internal Market".
    Clearly, it would not undermine the internal market. In the view of the Commission, it could probably be said to enhance the internal market if eight, nine or 10 states harmonised their tax rates or certainly their tax structures, gradually moving towards harmonisation of rates, as is happening with VAT.
    208
    The document also says that the arrangement must not
    "constitute a barrier to or a discrimination of trade".
    Well, it would not in taxation cases. It says that the arrangement must not
    "distort the conditions of competition".
    I should not have thought it would; again, it could be argued by the proponents that it would enhance co-operation, given that different tax rates and structures distort competition. Similarly, the arrangement must not
    "affect the competences, rights and obligations of the non-participating Member States."
    It would not do that either.
    It is clearly the view of the Commission that the ideas in the document are a pretty good wheeze to get round the awful veto by member states of changes in direct or indirect taxation. This interesting document continues:
    "In the field of direct taxation, co-operation between Member States has been organised mainly through bilateral tax treaties."
    That is correct. There are not only international tax treaties; I believe that certain countries within the EU have their own tax treaties, mainly to regulate cross-border transactions. The document continues:
    "The enhanced co-operation could be targeted so as to produce such benefits for the participating countries"—
    this comes back to a point that was buried in the speech of the hon. Member for Stone—
    "that non-participants"—
    this is the sting in the tail—
    "would be motivated to become involved."
    Of course they would be, if eight, nine or 10 states decided to enter into enhanced co-operation on direct or indirect taxation. The document goes on to deal with indirect taxation. VAT is already practically harmonised, so there is not much room for enhanced co-operation there.
    Mr. Cash: The right hon. Gentleman has legal qualifications that far exceed mine. Article 44 says:
    "Member States which do not participate in such cooperation shall not impede the implementation thereof by the participating Member States."
    Therefore, the same principle applies in the second paragraph of article 44 as applied to economic and monetary union. So the gravitational pull is exactly as the right hon. Gentleman has described it.
    Denzil Davies: That is the object of the arrangements. I should not have thought that non-participating states would wish to interfere and impede. They could not do so, anyway.
    On indirect taxation, the document states:
    "the possibility of enhanced co-operation could provide a way forward in the area of environmental and energy taxation. A majority of Member States have indicated their strong desire to make progress in this area"—
    presumably in relation to enhanced co-operation. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us in his winding-up speech whether the British Government are included in that majority in relation to indirect taxation. I hope that we will be told at the end of this debate, in the interests of plain speaking and transparency.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: My right hon. Friend seems to be saying that what we are talking about

    209
    is a ruse to get round something that is currently protected by unanimity. What evidence can he give us that there could be a change in taxation policy by a group of countries that did not require unanimous support from the rest of the European Union? I have seen nothing in the treaty saying that.
    Denzil Davies: I have the best evidence in the world. The Deputy Secretary-General of the European Commission does not write frivolous letters to a so-called high representative. These people are top cats.
    Mr. Connarty: The speculation or writings of a member of the Commission do not constitute a treaty or a change in the law. I am asking for a specific reference to a change in the law that would allow unanimity to be knocked aside by this arrangement for co-operation.
    Denzil Davies: I am giving my hon. Friend a specific reference, although I am sure that he will get a better answer from the hon. Member for Stone. The answer is quite simple—enhanced co-operation is allowed in all the areas covered by these treaties.
    We do not have much time. The Commission has been pretty fast—this document, its priority for the future, was produced on 1 June. It is addressed specifically to outflanking the veto.
    Mr. Hendrick: Why are these matters of such concern to my right hon. Friend? Clearly, the terms are not binding on member states that do not wish to take part in enhanced co-operation. If a member state chooses to set an income tax rate of 15 per cent. and other member states wish to follow suit, why is that of such concern to my right hon. Friend? It will not be binding on this nation state to co-operate in that fashion.
    Denzil Davies: I never said that it would be, but I think that it is. My hon. Friend should not dismiss enhanced co-operation so lightly. It enables a group of states to move ahead, and we must address ourselves to the effect that that would have on other states outside. The Deputy Secretary-General of the Commission makes the point clearly that if benefits were produced for participating countries, non-participants would be motivated to become involved.
    Mr. Cash: The right hon. Gentleman is, as ever, plumbing the depths of the matter. The concentric circles plan, which applies across the board to all areas affected by enhanced co-operation, is the master strategy for this purpose. I refer the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) to article 44 on page 14 of the treaty of Nice:
    "Unanimity shall be constituted by only those Council members concerned."
    Therefore, by definition, the others are excluded. It continues:
    "Such acts and decisions shall not form part of the Union acquis."
    There are hidden traps in that statement as well, because of course the acquis applies to all the other states.
    7.15 pm
    Denzil Davies: The hon. Gentleman speaks about traps. However, on my hon. Friend's point, let us suppose that Germany, France, Italy, Spain and four other countries decide to harmonise their direct taxation and rates, starting by harmonising structures. In fact, let us suppose that they start harmonising corporation tax, which is of great importance and concern to British companies trading in Europe. Is my hon. Friend saying that we can forget about that? Is he saying that Britain would not be under any pressure to join? Of course Britain would be under commercial and economic pressure to join those eight countries.
    Mr. Hendrick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Denzil Davies: In a moment. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers said that they fought a great battle in Nice and preserved the veto on taxation. I am not sure how much of a battle there was, frankly. Clearly, Ministers were fighting some battle and were determined to assure us of it. I suspect that there was not much of a battle in Nice about taxation. I also suspect that quite a few member states, including France and Germany, would not be unhappy about moving towards some kind of harmonisation of direct taxation.
    Mr. Hendrick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Denzil Davies: I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment; I will try to develop my argument first. Many states may wish to harmonise corporation tax and its structures and then move to harmonising rates, in order, as they see it, to foster and enhance the single market.
    I also believe that the movement towards enhanced co-operation in taxation will come partly—perhaps mainly—because of the real problems of the euro. I do not want to introduce the euro to this debate, but there is something fundamentally wrong with it at the moment. Whenever it falls, we are told that it is because of this poor fellow who is the governor of the European central bank, who has been much maligned, or that it is to do with American corporations bringing money back from America. All sorts of different reasons are given and when they are dispelled, others must be found for why the euro is not looking the dollar in the eye. The euro will not look the dollar in the eye until the split between monetary and fiscal policy in the euro area is repaired. That can be achieved only with more rules on expenditure and a move towards the harmonisation and unification of taxation. It makes no sense to have a currency to which certain elements of fiscal policy relate, just as deficit spending and borrowing relate to some extent. The other area of fiscal policy—taxation—is completely outside the ambit of the euro area and the euro. Therefore, I have no doubt that pressure will be brought to bear. European Ministers have said so, and I think that they are right.
    Mr. Hendrick: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way again. He talks about members co-operating and says that they will take advantage of any benefits from such co-operation. Is that not the case with the euro? The eurozone has been created; the euro exists. Member states joined the euro with the view that it would benefit their economy and nation. What is wrong with that? We can choose whether to join or not but we are under no pressure

    211
    to do so. It will be a decision of this nation state. Whether member states wish to co-operate in other areas is a matter for them.
    Denzil Davies: We are not, as my hon. Friend seems to think, living in a totally isolated world. The very existence of the euro puts pressure on us to decide whether to join. At the end of the day, the decision will, of course, be taken by the British people and the House, but the economic pressures are considerable and they have been for some time. The Government have tried to resist those pressures as much as they can because they want to ensure that the conditions, whatever we may say about them, are fulfilled.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: As far as I can see, my right hon. Friend's argument leads him down anti-democratic byways. He seems to be arguing that because the euro might be of benefit to others and that that somehow creates a gravitational pull in any of the areas of enhanced co-operation to which reference has been made, we should therefore exercise a veto over what others do. That seems to be fundamentally antidemocratic.
    Denzil Davies: I was not even arguing that. I was merely explaining, as does the gentlemen who wrote the paper on future priorities in taxation, that it will be possible for certain countries to get together and create a euro-area in taxation. The point that I was then trying to make—my hon. Friends do not seem to believe it—is that the pressures on a British Government as a result of the market and of commerce to join such a euro-area of enhanced co-operation in taxation will be considerable. That is the only point that I am trying to make. If my hon. Friends do not believe that, it is a matter for them. The Commission has spotted—it will have thought about it beforehand—a way of outflanking the national veto on taxation.
    Mr. Cash: The right hon. Gentleman might even have said that the Commission plotted—rather than spotted—to achieve these objectives. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) should remember that we are debating a treaty, which is therefore dealt with in this country by royal prerogative. Our system is to implement the treaty by enacting a Bill, but that means that we, as a Parliament, endorse these wide-ranging arrangements, which have consequences for the electors. That is what is undemocratic. Proceedings on the Bill are guillotined and the public are unaware of what is going on.
    Denzil Davies: The point that I am making is that enhanced co-operation is not trivial, affecting only a few areas. Although Ministers have said that the giving up of a veto, which is, in effect, what we are doing, is just a technical matter, it is certainly not in relation to enhanced co-operation. The matter is central. Pressure on member states such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain from the Commission will be greater and greater. This is the first shot.
    Mr. Hendrick: Will my right hon. Friend consider the example of Ireland? Ireland took part in a regime of corporation tax which resulted in a lower rate than in many other European member states. The Commission
    212
    accepts that tax competition is healthy and allows it throughout Europe. Lower taxes in Britain than in some of those taking part in my right hon. Friend's so-called enhanced co-operation on taxation would be to our benefit. Why is there pressure for us to join if we can have lower taxes?
    Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend mentions the low rates of corporation tax in Ireland, which would have had beneficial effects on the Irish economy. However, when is tax competition harmful tax competition? That would be a good essay for the hon. Member for Stone.
    Mr. Cash: I have done it already.
    Denzil Davies: The hon. Gentleman has written about that already. Perhaps he has written a book on the subject—I do not know. The question of when tax competition becomes harmful is entirely subjective.
    Mr. Hendrick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Denzil Davies: I have given way often to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he has some very good points to make and perhaps he will make them later.
    Tax competition of the kind that we have seen in the Irish Republic is frowned on. If there is a transitional period, which I think there will be when the Irish lower rate runs out, it will not occur again. The less euro-enthusiasts say about Ireland, the better. The Irish people, who as far as Prodi is concerned are all stupid, are not stupid, and I suspect that they are spotting what is happening. That is one reason—not the only reason—why they voted as they did on the treaty of Nice.
    We are not discussing trivial matters. I can understand why France and Germany might want to keep to an inner core of a Europe of six, seven or eight. They do not want to lose that central or federalising impetus, which they felt they had when there were fewer countries, when the Poles and the unhistorical nations of Europe, as Marx described them, enter the European Union. I can understand them wanting to maintain a core, but that core must involve taxation, which is central to economic and monetary union, economic policy and the currency. The pressures will be considerable.
    I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who will undoubtedly convey this faithfully to my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe when he returns from making the speech to which he referred, to assure us—we have an assurance on the veto—that the Government will never consider entering into an enhanced co-operation agreement in respect of direct or indirect taxation. In the interests of plain speaking, we must be sure that our veto will not be outflanked by the nefarious wheezes dreamed up by those clever people in the Commission.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) said, we have had the benefit of some cracking maiden speeches. In particular, I should like to mention the two that have been made in this part of the debate.
    The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) made a speech that one could describe as of a fairly traditional nature. He will clearly be an effective advocate for his constituency. He brought a smile and a certain ironic

    213
    recollection to some of us when he talked about brown envelopes. They have featured in recent political history; let us all hope that they do not do so again.
    The hon. Gentleman made several cogent and effective points on defence medical services. I have taken an interest in that area in the past, and just as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) threatens everyone that he will send them a copy of a pamphlet, I shall send the hon. Member for Westbury a copy of a document that I was able to produce along with some others. He will find that it is of some interest on the issue of defence medical services. As someone with direct experience, he will clearly be able to give us an inside view of many of the problems that attach to the present standard of provision of medical care for our armed services. I am sure that the House will be the better for that.
    The hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) has left her place. It would be fair to say that hers was a non-traditional maiden speech. However, if she is a scion of the Moffat family of Fife, that is hardly surprising. She made some witty observations and spoke with real affection about her constituency. I shall hold her to account to a certain extent because she now represents several members of my family and I want to ensure that they receive the proper standard of representation to which they are entitled.
    The hon. Lady referred with affection, which we all share, to her predecessor, John Home Robertson. Under the conventions of the House, I was never able to call him my hon. Friend, but he was and remains a very good friend of mine. He was, of course, one of those who championed the cause of home rule for Scotland with great effectiveness. It is right that he is now a Member of the Scottish Parliament.
    John Home Robertson's predecessor was John Mackintosh, to whom the right hon. Member for Llanelli also referred. John Mackintosh was a great champion of the cause of home rule. He may have been difficult in proceedings on the Finance Bill, but he was a very strong pro-European. There are those who would think that his legacy is best remembered not by the definitive book that he wrote on Cabinet Government, but by his tireless advocacy of the cause of Britain's membership of what was then the European Community.
    7.30 pm
    My text is taken from the Conservative party manifesto in the last election, wherein it is said:
    "we are willing to support the principle of 'reinforced co-operation' in Europe".
    I imagine that the hon. Member for Stone had some sort of derogation, or perhaps he claimed that, for reasons of national policy, in Stone he did not have to adhere to that statement, but that is the position of the Conservative party. We also have the authority of the shadow Foreign Secretary, who is not with us this evening, who last year said:
    "we should not, in principle, exclude others from proceeding with schemes of closer integration which we would not wish to join ourselves."—[Official Report, 15 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 1145.]
    Mr. Cash: I am doubly grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, first, for drawing attention to that
    214
    provision, which I put on the front page of the blue paper which I wrote in response to the White Paper produced by the then Foreign Secretary, because I thought that those words amounted to an act of appeasement. Secondly, on the question of my election address, I can assure him that I stated emphatically that we should renegotiate the treaties—indeed, I went further and said that if the other countries did not listen we would have to steer our own course.
    Mr. Campbell: I am doubly glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, who has effectively attacked his own party. However, I do not want to intrude on private grief: these matters are ones that the Conservatives will have to resolve themselves, and whoever emerges through the pall of white smoke to become the leader of the party will have to deal with them.
    Let me say a word or two about enhanced co-operation. The Nice treaty endeavours to free up procedures first established at Amsterdam. It is worth reminding ourselves why some EU members felt that a mechanism for enhanced co-operation was necessary. To a large extent, it was the result of the attitude adopted by, among other countries, the UK under the Conservative Government. Their attitude was interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as one of wanting to act as a brake on the pace of further integration and they were considered likely to use the veto if any question of integration were to arise. Those apprehensions were justified to some extent when the profligate use of the veto in a misguided attempt to get the beef ban lifted exposed the inadequacy of such an approach. Many member states came to believe that enhanced co-operation was necessary if the EU was to make progress.
    It is true that the Amsterdam procedures, which were pretty cautious, have never been tested. It is worth reminding the hon. Member for Stone, who has moved his physical position in the Chamber albeit not his political position, of the existing requirements. They were that enhanced co-operation should not affect the acquis communautaire, nor the interests of participating states; it should be used only as a last resort; it must be within the limits of EU competence; and it should not distort competition between member states. That was established at Amsterdam. The Nice treaty would add to that the requirement that enhanced co-operation should respect the single institutional framework and that it should not undermine the internal market or economic and social cohesion, nor prejudice the provisions of the protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the EU framework, nor affect the competencies, rights and obligations of non-participating states. It strikes me that when that set of criteria is made to form the basis, the test, the context against which we test enhanced co-operation, the anxiety expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee is not justified.
    The right hon. Member for Llanelli, when referring to a document prepared by a member of the Commission, said that it represented an effort to outflank. He might have used the words "stealth" or "ruse"—both were certainly offered to him during an intervention. I understand his position to be that, if within the EU a group of countries came together and agreed a common position on taxation—whether income tax or corporate taxation—the UK would have to take some account of that in its own taxation policy. I think that the right hon.

    215
    Gentleman is right about that, but the UK's position would be the same if it was outside the EU—an EU in which several countries determined that in respect of, for example, corporate taxation, they would on a co-operative basis, operate a regime that was common to those countries in a combined effort to attract external investment. The consequences are the same whether we are inside the EU where enhanced co-operation produces the results he says are possible, or outside the EU where several countries have decided to combine.
    Denzil Davies: If we were outside the EU, we would be outside the Euro-taxation area. In theory, after the treaty is accepted, it will be possible for 14 countries to accede to enhanced co-operation on taxation and the United Kingdom's veto will be of no avail. Without enhanced co-operation, if 14 countries declare their determination to harmonise taxes, the United Kingdom would in theory—it might be difficult to exercise in practice—have a veto that would stop that happening. In future, we could not stop 14 of 15 countries harmonising their taxation regimes.
    Mr. Campbell: No more than we could stop 14 of 15 countries harmonising their taxation regimes if there were no European Union. Sometimes, I get concerned: once upon a time people looked for reds under the beds, now it appears that they are anxious about finding tax inspectors wearing European colours.
    Mr. Cash: I say this with great respect—as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I have in the past agreed with several points that he has made on the treaty—but the fact is that he is missing the point. In the current context, we are dealing with a legal framework. It is not simply a question of people wanting to co-operate with each other; we are talking about a single institutional structure, as I am sure he is aware. He should reflect on the comment he has just made. It is not merely a question of people deciding that they might come together; it is all part of the drift towards one single framework and one autonomous structure. I am sure he understands that.
    Mr. Campbell: I do not accept that. I pray in aid not a member of the Commission but Mr. Bolkestein, who is the Commissioner with responsibility for taxation. During the general election campaign, he made it perfectly clear that as far as he is concerned there is no question of harmonisation of either income tax or corporate taxation. The hon. Member for Stone says that, by virtue of enhanced co-operation, circumstances will be created in which the UK gives up its veto—but that applies to every other country that is currently in the same position as the UK. The suggestion that we are dealing with a matter of stealth, foolishness or deception does not stand up.
    Mr. Cash: It is a matter of gravitational pull.
    Mr. Campbell: We should be far more concerned with the terms of the treaty than with some illusion of gravitational pull.
    For the reasons that I have given, I regret to say that I cannot support the amendment.
    Mr. Connarty: I, too, commend those who have made maiden speeches in this part of today's debate. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian
    216
    (Anne Picking) was exactly in the tradition that I expected from a member of Abe Moffat's family—Abe was a famous miners' leader from Fife—although she also paid all the normal courtesies to her constituency and the Members of Parliament who represented it formerly.
    To the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) I confess that my only connection with Wiltshire is that of having been on the parliamentary armed forces scheme with the other Wiltshire MP, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). We went to Northern Ireland with the combined battalion that contains the old Wiltshire Regiment, whose members were most hospitable. I am sure that we shall learn more about the medical side of the Army from the hon. Member for Westbury. He painted such a wonderful picture of his constituency that I was going to find out where it was and book a few days' holiday there. I wish him well in the House.
    I must be starved of the experience of listening to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) rail against the European Union. We have served on the European Scrutiny Committee together, and I have had the joy, pleasure and great entertainment of going round applicant countries with him, hearing him rail against the EU saying, "Don't do it." It is like going round with a Free Kirk minister who says, "You're doomed, you're all doomed." It is a joy to realise that he is still on the same theme and I look forward to the next few years on the European Scrutiny Committee with him, hearing him go on about his one theme which, basically, is that it is all a conspiracy.
    I thought to myself, "What is that about? Is it against co-operation?" My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), who in some ways spoke in support of the hon. Member for Stone, said that no one was against co-operation, which was a good thing. So, was the hon. Member for Stone against integration? All that co-operation is plainly laid out in paragraph 11 of article 1, which the amendments aim to remove and which reinforces the process of integration. However, the hon. Gentleman told us that he was against fragmentation. I just do not understand; he is against integration and fragmentation. I realise from one or two of his interventions that he thinks there is a conspiracy; that is what it is all about.
    Mr. Cash: I am always grateful for the opportunity to spar with the hon. Gentleman, as we have often done in debate for many years. The real problem is that I am against political union, and I am particularly against political union that is going to implode, which is bad for everybody, including those who are in favour of it. That is my simple answer.
    Mr. Connarty: The Wee Free minister image comes to mind again; we are all doomed because the Union is going to implode. However, I do not see any evidence of implosion; I do not think that other EU members do either. In fact, they see prosperity brought about by co-operation, which is what those provisions in the Nice treaty are about. The amendments are designed to remove paragraphs 11 to 15 of article 1 from the provisions incorporated under clause 1 and to remove paragraph 1 of article 2, which is the framework that provides a belt and braces safeguard for those who may be concerned that some co-operation is unnecessary in small groups and can be achieved across the EU.

    217
    In fact, as has been pointed out, the amendments would remove the ability of any group of eight countries or more to co-operate on any issue, to analyse, structure and put together the mechanisms for co-operation on areas such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), including drugs and crime. Clearly, if enhanced economic mechanisms are involved, that may well be welcomed by a number of member states. If the treaty becomes workable and is appropriately structured so as not to cause the great chaos and problems that certain states may have feared and which may have caused them not to join the original eight, they can join later at any time under article 1, paragraph 12. A state can therefore join if it sees that the treaty is working.
    What is wrong with that? If, at the end of the day, the United Kingdom sees 14 member states put together an enhanced commercial arrangement but stays outside, that is entirely its decision; no one will force or drag it in. As we have seen with the hon. Member for Stone, nothing seems to be a sufficiently strong magnet to draw him to join what he sees as a political conspiracy. Something similar applies to countries: if a country does not want to join, it is not required to do so. Paragraph 12, which would be removed by the amendment, says that enhanced co-operation will be undertaken
    "only as a last resort"
    after it has been decided, following the normal procedures adopted by the EU' s full membership, that it would take too long to set in train arrangements acceptable to a country wanting to make progress on any issues.
    That will have to be tested. Is enhanced co-operation a last resort? It is not a first resort; the provision is not saying that, as from day one, everyone will go off, get into little groups of eight countries and get on with their own little schemes. It will be subject to great consideration.
    Mr. Cash: To reply briefly to the hon. Gentleman, the example that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) has already given about tax regimes is extremely apposite. An enhancement of so-called single market arrangements for tax under the enhanced co-operation provisions, which will create a congregation of tax regimes, is bound to have an adverse impact on those countries in the single market that do not have the advantages, or disadvantages, of other tax regimes. The fact is, enhanced co-operation will have an impact, which is why so many of us object to it.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Connarty: I shall talk a little later about article 2, paragraph 1 which, of course, would be removed by the amendments. When arrangements are considered by the Council following a recommendation by the Commission, qualified majority voting by the full Council will clearly be required. A majority on the Council must therefore consider the arrangements necessary before a group can go ahead. We in the UK should not be afraid of that. If we stopped being frightened of the EU—this Government are probably not as frightened of it as the previous one—and took a lead, we might find that some arrangements are to our advantage.
    Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend mentioned that those arrangements can be carried out only as a last resort. That is correct—it is what the treaty says—but if the UK is to maintain its veto and announce that it is maintaining its veto on direct taxation changes, the case rapidly becomes one of last resort for other member states. Because there are vetoes on taxation changes, the Commission has produced a paper and sent it to the Council. The situation with taxation is getting close to last resort, which is why enhanced co-operation between as many countries as possible is desirable.
    Mr. Connarty: I think that my right hon. Friend is wrong. He mentioned direct taxation; perhaps he meant indirect taxation. There are serious discussions about indirect taxation, but I have not heard of any attempt to harmonise direct taxation across the EU. If he can give me examples other than a paper from the Commission which may or may not turn into something useful for the discussion, I would accept his point. However, I have not heard of any treaty or Act relating to the EU that says that we would not be able to use our veto on direct taxation.
    Denzil Davies: I was referring to direct taxation. The so-called "paper" is a legal document that was sent by the Commission to the Council of Ministers and Mr. Solana. It is not just a paper, but a proposal on taxation for the next few years. My hon. Friend may agree with its proposals, but he should not denigrate an extremely important document that has to be addressed by the members of the Council because it has been sent to their higher representatives.
    Mr. Connarty: I take my right hon. Friend's point. I am sure that when I read the document I will treat it more seriously than I have just done. I hope that we can agree to differ; the case has not been proven by my right hon. Friend's speech or intervention.
    Article 1, paragraph 13, which would be removed by the amendments, is not binding on any group other than those who wish to be involved. Under paragraph 13, it is clear that no cost arising from co-operation will be borne by any countries other than those who participate, which seems like a good deal. If someone wants to go ahead, look at certain topics, work out a structure and demonstrate the advantages of a scheme that others may wish to join, that seems sensible. Paragraph 14, which would also be removed by the amendments, makes it clear that everything should be consistent with EU policy. The intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli comes in here: is there any capacity to do something that would be contrary to the many provisions listed in the treaty, including the fundamental conditions of entry to the EU? There will be quite a substantial debate on that.
    Amendment No. 56 would remove article 2, paragraph 1, which says that, to commence co-operation, the Commission has to submit the matter for discussion to the European Parliament which, clearly, would air many questions and problems and would possibly suggest other routes. The matter would then have to go to the Council and would have to be approved by QMV, which seems sensible. In some policy areas it is necessary to have the assent of the European Parliament before matters can proceed. I happen to have some faith in the double belt and braces approach.

    219
    The proposals in the new clauses are typical of an Opposition who have nothing to say about the substance. The proposals are obstructive.
    Mr. Cash rose—
    Mr. Connarty: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is a signatory to the new clauses. If they were agreed to, a report would have to be placed before Parliament. That would relate to anything that was ever done about the effects of co-operation and does not relate to anything that I have ever seen during the nine years that I have been in the House of Commons. No attempt has been made to assess the result of a proposed policy, but it is then demanded that an affirmative resolution should be passed by both Houses. We are faced with obstructive nonsense that adds nothing to the debate and therefore should be rejected. In the same way, the conspiracy theories of the hon. Member for Stone should be rejected. We are faced with attempts to obstruct the process of sensible co-operation between nation states that want to build an economic and political union of which we want to be part.
    Mr. Spring: The hon. Gentleman is expressing a fascinating view of what Parliament is for. Is he saying that Parliament should not consider something as important as the issue before us? If he thinks that parliamentary scrutiny and consideration are somehow obstruction, that says something about an attitude of mind that explains precisely why the EU is so rapidly disconnecting with the peoples of Europe.
    Mr. Connarty: The idea that the EU is disconnecting with the peoples of Europe is not borne out by any of the surveys. I believe that the EU is becoming more and more embedded in the processes whereby we make our wealth and people get their work. I believe also that it is an area in which we might learn some lessons on social, employment and other relationships that were not enhanced by the previous Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was probably a member.
    The hon. Gentleman's ignorance is compounded by the fact that he makes a point and then turns to talk to a Member who is sitting behind him; that tells us much about his attitude to Parliament. My simple point is that the new clauses are obstructive. They have nothing to do with anything that the last Government ever used. No reports were made on speculative legislation that might relate to the EU and might be determined by resolutions of the House of Commons, although Labour Members asked for that on several occasions.
    Mr. Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the recommendations of the Conservative party are implemented, and other EU member states implemented them as well, in the sense that individual nation state Parliaments could amend treaties, there would be potential in an enlarged European Union of 28 member states to have 28 different versions of a treaty, none of which would be workable and none of which could be resolved? Is it not better to have a treaty that has been negotiated and can be passed by Parliament?
    Mr. Connarty: I think that the issue is more serious than that. It is not about a treaty. The new clauses provide that the Government
    "shall lay before Parliament a report showing the implication … incorporating the effects of related Articles on enhanced co-operation".
    In other words, if any other eight countries wished to have an enhanced co-operation treaty, the UK Government would have to bring forward an analysis of the effects on the UK, a debate and then a vote. It would be ludicrous to debate decisions by other countries that were designed to be co-operative for the benefit of those other countries. It would be nonsensical to discuss motions of that nature, which would be trivia.
    Mr. Spring: I am grateful again to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The entire point is that the veto was given up on this issue. The issue would never have arisen had the veto been maintained. The responsibility of this Parliament is to try to preserve the national interest on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom. I am horrified that the hon. Gentleman does not understand that.
    Mr. Connarty: That false horror is not too difficult to see through. The Opposition are trying to score points when they have nothing of substance to say. I am happy to reject the amendments and new clauses. I hope that the House of Commons will see through the obsession of the hon. Member for Stone. I know that he holds his view with great sincerity, but it is an obsession. We are faced with the paucity of the Opposition's proposals.
    Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman skips over the fact that there are new arrangements for voting powers. We have the double majority voting in the European Parliament. For reasons that I cannot go into now but which I dealt with when discussing a previous group of amendments, the arrangements will have a serious adverse impact on the influence of the United Kingdom in matters affecting European law and politics. The bottom line is that it is absurd for the hon. Gentleman to talk about people being obsessive or having conspiracy theories. We are demonstrating that the effects of the treaty that the Government have brought before the House of Commons must be exposed. The hon. Gentleman seems to object to the democratic process. It is weird. In addition, a guillotine motion has been opposed so that we cannot discuss matters in the depth that is required.
    Mr. Connarty: I am not debating the guillotine motion. I sat through the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate, I listened to earlier contributions and I am making a contribution. I am rejecting his analysis, his conspiracy theories and his worries. We are dealing with essential parts of the framework that is required to allow the EU to go forward. We should not hold back and be the last in line. If others think that they can take us forward in different areas of policy, or if the UK thinks that it can take others forward, that should be allowed through co-operation. If that is attractive to others, they can join in. There is no compulsion. The clauses are excellent and should not be removed from the treaty.
    Mr. Hendrick: The improved procedures for enhanced co-operation will do a great deal to oil the wheels of the

    221
    European Union. It is essential that an enlarged EU should have such flexible procedures in place. Member states that wish to co-operate more closely on specific projects will benefit greatly from the proposals. It is bizarre that some Members feel that it is all right for an individual nation state to move in a particular policy direction, but view as a threat or as objectionable a group of member states wishing to move in the same direction together.
    The treaty does much to kill the notion that we are developing a European superstate—a lumbering superstate. Member states may wish to co-operate on different issues and different topics, for which the treaty provides a great deal of flexibility. The treaty also kills the idea of a core set of nation states, because any eight of a possible 28 EU member states could take action on any specific project. The notion of a conspiracy involving France, Germany and Italy in every enhanced co-operation agreement has also been killed.
    The process could be used in the fight against organised crime, including drugs, which is an international industry or business. Crime is an international business. An excellent mechanism is being proposed to allow EU members collectively to take action and to co-operate. Europol shares information on crime, including drug trafficking. An enhanced co-operation agreement would be able to use Europol to share information and to take action against drugs and other forms of cross-border crime.
    Bob Spink: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully, and I think that he is becoming slightly confused. Is he arguing that individual nation states are unable to co-operate on these important matters without the treaty, and therefore that the treaty is unnecessary?
    Mr. Hendrick: I am saying that the mechanisms will make any such co-operation more effective. If two countries wish to co-operate on an individual project, they will be free to do so. When eight or more member states wish to contribute on an important issue, the proposed mechanism will be extremely useful. Co-operative action should not prejudice the fight against crime and drugs in non-participating countries.
    A number of hon. Members have threatened us with the spectre of the treaty acting as a back-door mechanism for killing the veto on taxation or on energy taxes in particular. In fact, the changes affect only the countries that want to participate and will have no other effect on other countries, except indirectly, that want to alter their policies as a result of the co-operation that is taking place. There is nothing to be frightened of. I must re-emphasise the fact that non-participating countries are under no obligation to become involved.
    8 pm
    The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who unfortunately is not in the Chamber, said that, with the exception of child abduction, he opposed extensions of qualified majority voting. He also opposes the treaty's new mechanisms for enhanced co-operation. I have a simple question: how can the 28-member European Union that we envisage make decisions if we do not use QMV
    222
    in more instances and do not introduce a mechanism of enhanced co-operation? Without those changes, the European Union would be unworkable and it would be impossible to make decisions: refusal to accept them would cause a sclerosis, would make the European Union inoperable and would be a recipe for disaster. That is why Labour Members and some hon. Members from other parties will support the treaty.
    The mechanisms proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) to enable this Parliament to amend the treaty would also be a recipe for disaster. If each of the 28 national Parliaments—assuming that we achieve an enlarged European Union—could amend the treaty, we would end up with 28 different versions that could not be resolved into a single treaty. The Opposition have sought to achieve such a recipe for disaster by tabling their amendments, which aim to throw a spanner in the works of the European Union so that member states feel that it is better to give up their membership rather than continue down our current route.
    We have also heard the old chestnut that the treaty is all about Germany and is a German conspiracy. Under the procedures agreed at Nice the UK now has 29 votes in the Council of Ministers; Germany has the same number, although it has a population of 82 million compared with our population of only 57 million. At least 258 votes in favour would be needed for the adoption of a Council agreement, so the fact that Germany has only 28 votes demonstrates the ridiculousness of the argument that the treaty is about Germany taking over Europe.
    We know that a minimum of eight states will be involved. If eight states want to proceed with an agreement or project, who are we to stop them? If we want to go ahead on a project with seven other members of the European Union, why should other member states prevent us from doing so? Opposition Members spoke of spin and hype, and the hon. Member for Stone used words such as "unworkable", "implosion", "damage", "difficulty", "chaos" and "outrageous". All those words are obviously meant to scare the British public and to frighten them away from a measure that is modest, workable and likely to bring great benefit to members of the European Union.
    I also find it strange that Opposition Members argue that a single member state should be able to do as it wishes, but that a number of member states should not be allowed to get together and reach an agreement through enhanced co-operation. That argument seems very strange and anti-democratic, as the Governments of those member states were elected by their people. If they want to act through enhanced co-operation, they should be free to do so.
    We have a recipe for flexibility and a European Union that works. I believe that the amendments should be rejected on that basis.
    Mr. Spring: First, I want to pay tribute to two hon. Members who made their maiden speeches today. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) generously paid tribute to her predecessor, John Home Robertson, whom we all remember as a formidable parliamentary champion of Scotland and home rule. She spoke about the many battles in her constituency and recalled the Deputy Prime Minister's visit on the day after the famous punch. She also spoke about her career as a nurse; she was,

    223
    of course, president of Unison. In addition, she praised the people of Northern Ireland; all hon. Members would join her in doing that. I congratulate her on her speech and wish her well in her parliamentary career, in which I am sure she will make many more speeches. She is the first woman MP for East Lothian, which is another basis for congratulations.
    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison). I thank him for his kind tribute to David Faber, who made an important contribution in the House in many aspects of parliamentary life. He expressed doubts—I think that they are widely shared not only this country, but in many parts of the European Union—about the wisdom and development of a future European army. He spoke about the beauty of his constituency. His desire to do so is understandable, as it is one of the most beautiful parts of England. He welcomed the Prime Minister's decision to spend some of the summer in England. I hope that he is right and that the Prime Minister will visit Westbury as part of his holiday. Finally, he spoke about defence medical services with considerable knowledge. I am sure that, after making such a competent maiden speech, he will make such first-rate contributions while representing his constituents in this House. I applaud him and the hon. Member for East Lothian for their speeches.
    The amendments apply to general provisions on enhanced co-operation and to specific provisions on the Community pillar. We are also considering two new clauses tabled by Opposition Front Benchers. One of them concerns effective enhanced co-operation in the UK, while the other relates to UK participation in any enhanced co-operation measure.
    Conservative Front Benchers take a relaxed approach to the principle of enhanced co-operation—the procedure under which groups of countries can integrate more closely if they wish to do so without taking everyone with them. Indeed, we called for a flexible Europe well in advance of the Government. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary observed in his speech in Berlin in June, we believe that the way forward for Europe is the gradual development of a Europe of interlocking and overlapping groupings and relationships, and of nations combining in different combinations and purposes to different extents: a multi-system Europe. Europe has already edged in that direction with the Maastricht opt-outs, Schengen and the single currency.
    I fully appreciate that some of my hon. Friends may fear that such opt-outs have a tendency to be given up and that enhanced co-operation will therefore drive forward uniform integration, but there is nothing inevitable about opt-outs being given up. The Danish people showed that in their single currency referendum, and I trust that the British people will continue to share that attitude to the single currency.
    In a European Union—especially a substantially enlarged one—where the needs and wishes of member states differ, the development of a more flexible, multi-system Union is natural. We should respect the desire of other countries to integrate more closely in certain areas, just as they should respect our desire not to do so if we so choose. Without such mutual respect, the logical consequence will be endless tension, as different countries try to pull everyone else in different directions.
    224
    Foreign Office Ministers had appeared to be extremely sceptical of flexibility, fearing that Britain would be left behind, kept out of the guard's van, missing the boat, and all the other mixed metaphors that tend to be used in this context. The notions of an inner circle and an outer tier, of concentric rings and of first and second-class members belong to yesterday. Some may fear that accepting enhanced co-operation for ever condemns Britain to being on the edge, excluded from this elusive heart of Europe. But that misses the point. As The Economist said,
    "The old argument of the Foreign Office that flexibility is to be resisted because it will lose Britain influence—`a place at the top table'—is no longer convincing."
    That old argument continues to be used, however. Ministers doubted the need for any substantial change at all at the IGC.
    The White Paper of February 2000 on the IGC said:
    "Some member states have suggested that, in an enlarged EU, there will be more occasions where a core of Member States want to move ahead with an activity, whilst others stay out. They argue that the procedures currently in the Treaty are too difficult to use and should be changed. In particular some feel that the emergency brake should be removed. The Government feels that a stronger case will have to be made in order to justify changing procedures that were agreed only in 1997 and which have not yet been put to the test, or indeed used at all. The conditions governing the use of closer co-operation were intended to ensure that too much flexibility did not undermine the Single Market, or could not be used against the interests of a minority of Member States. Those remain important objectives."
    At that time, the then Foreign Secretary said:
    "The flexibility that other member states propose means the enhanced co-operation of a tighter group. We agreed to such a model at Amsterdam. It has never been used. It is hard to understand why a provision that has not been used already needs amendment."—[Official Report, 15 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 780.]
    As late as October last year he said:
    "We are happy to discuss options for change. But we remain cautious about any substantial change to the political and legal safeguards introduced at Amsterdam … If we alter the current safeguards too much, the danger is that closer co-operation will become the norm rather than the exception. That could damage both the coherence of the Union and send the wrong signal to the new Member States. We do not want them to appear second-class members before they even join."
    One can only imagine the surprise of Foreign Office Ministers when the Prime Minister announced in his Warsaw speech that he was now going to support the principle of enhanced co-operation. He said:
    "Efficient decision making in an enlarged Union will also mean enhanced co-operation."
    He also said:
    "I have no problem with greater flexibility or groups of member states going forward together. But that must not lead to a hard core; a Europe in which some member states create their own set of shared policies and institutions from which others are in practice excluded. Such groups must at every stage be open to others who wish to join."
    He went on to say:
    "That is why enhanced co-operation must not be used to undermine the single market or other common policies. In particular, we must not invite new members to come into the European Union and then consign them to second-class membership."
    It seems that later that year the Government showed as much pathetic lack of leadership on that issue as they have on all the other issues surrounding the Nice treaty. Having been told by the Prime Minister to support the principle of enhanced co-operation, Ministers not only cast aside

    225
    all their previous reservations but, in their haste to agree to anything put before them, signed away essential safeguards as well. It is the usual story.
    It would be interesting to hear from the Minister where, if anywhere, the Government stand on the matter. Do Foreign Office Ministers still have their previous reservations about the concept of enhanced co-operation, or do they share the Prime Minister's seeming enthusiasm? Did they reverse direction out of principle, or in order to get through the negotiations? Perhaps we shall have an answer from the plain-speaking Minister.
    The Opposition have been willing to support some changes to make the enhanced co-operation procedure easier to use—for example, a reduction in the number of states that want to be involved in a measure before it can go ahead from a majority to eight. That makes sense in an enlarged Europe of 27 or 28 countries: but at Nice the Government went much further. They abolished the national veto, the so-called emergency brake, in two of the three pillars. A right of reference to the European Council remained, but not a veto. In the case of the first pillar, that is covered by amendment No. 56.
    8.15 pm
    Under the existing provisions of article 11.2 of the European Community treaty, a member state can declare that
    "for important and stated reasons of national policy"
    it will oppose the granting of authorisation by QMV. The matter may then be referred to the European Council for a decision by unanimity. Under Nice, that unanimity provision is abolished.
    The extent of the ministerial U-turn on the issue is illustrated by what was said at the time of the Amsterdam treaty. The then Minister with responsibility for Europe, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), said that
    "critically, although flexibility proposals can be agreed by majority voting, the Government ensured in the Amsterdam negotiations that the clauses will he subject to the emergency brake—the veto mechanism—that allows any member state that opposes a specific flexibility proposal to veto it by bringing it back to the Council."—[Official Report, 15 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 543.]
    Yet that so-called "critical" safeguard, which the Government apparently single-handedly secured at Amsterdam, was jettisoned at the very next IGC—so much for consistency, and for what? What did the Government receive in return for that major concession, and for sacrificing a huge negotiating counter should any country wish to use those procedures in future? Did they even ask for anything in giving up the veto on enhanced co-operation?
    We have grave concerns. We have always made it clear that we would expect to use the veto only sparingly where our national interests were genuinely challenged, but it is absolutely right that we should have preserved that right to veto. It remains an essential safeguard and the Government should not be signing it away. It means that in future Governments will be unable to block integration by others even if our interests were being damaged.
    Issues also arise under the remaining pillar—common foreign and security policy. The Government have made clear their view that the emergency brake veto remains in
    226
    place for this pillar. In so far as the existing article 23(2) provides for that, the Government may be correct in that interpretation, but the House of Commons Library—I hope that the Minister will take this on board—points to what it describes as an ambiguity, in that articles 43 to 45 do not provide for an emergency brake. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point today.
    Furthermore, other changes to enhanced co-operation measures were agreed at Nice about which we also have concerns. For example, article 43 of the European Union treaty, as amended by paragraph 11 of article 1 of the Nice treaty, sets out a new condition of such co-operation, namely that it must be aimed at
    "reinforcing the process of integration".
    In addition, measures must not affect the "competencies, rights and obligations" of member states not participating in them, rather than
    "competencies, rights, obligations and interests",
    as at present. That is an important point. Again, perhaps the Minister will explain why those changes were made, the basis of the changes and what the advantage to Britain was in giving way in that respect.
    Surely it is time for a proper and considered debate on enhanced co-operation as EU enlargement occurs. Policies on the central issue should be determined according to the requirements of a modern, enlarged Europe, not those of Ministers who seek seemingly cost-free concessions during late-night haggling at Nice for no apparent advantage.
    New clause 9 would provide for such a debate, and I hope that hon. Members accept our genuine anxiety about the need for it. New clause 10 would provide for additional safeguards should Britain wish to participate in measures that were agreed under enhanced co-operation procedures. We have given up the veto on that crucial issue, and it is important to gain some clarification. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister's opinion of our balanced new clauses. I commend them to the House.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): We have had an enjoyable debate, which was enhanced by two remarkable maiden speeches. I believe that the 2001 intake will prove one of the strongest additions to Parliament for several decades. I suspect that the new Members in question have long, strong parliamentary careers ahead and a chance to contribute to our national life. The maiden speeches that were made this evening prove that assertion.
    My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) made a remarkable and polished maiden speech. Like her, I was a former trade union president, but I did not manage quite the same turn of phrase. She paid tribute to her two predecessors, whose membership of the House totalled more than 30 years. I recall John P. Mackintosh speaking on the radio when I was a young man. He was articulate and had a great command of ideas. He was followed by John Home Robertson, whom I was proud to call a personal friend. We went skiing—that great and noble parliamentary sport—together, and I invite my hon. Friend to take her place in the parliamentary ski team. Scots are always much better at the sport than those who live south of the border. My hon. Friend referred to the centrality of public service. I believe that all Labour Members would agree with her about that.

    227
    The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) also made a strong maiden speech. He referred to a predecessor with a Spanish-sounding name, who represented the constituency at the end of the 19th century and came to a sticky end. Those who know their Trollope remember Mr. Ortiz, the Conservative Member of Parliament who came to a terrible end. Perhaps bearing a Spanish name does not enhance a Conservative career. Given that all the shadow spokespeople for Foreign Affairs supported the loser in tonight's great election, I look forward to a freshening up of the Front Bench for future Foreign Affairs debate.
    Mr. Spring: Was that the Prime Minister's view when he sacked all the Foreign Office Ministers before the hon. Gentleman arrived on the Front Bench? The Minister for Europe has returned to glory, but perhaps the sackings summed up the Prime Minister's view of the Ministers who served the Foreign Office in the last Parliament.
    Mr. MacShane: I am glad that my hon. Friend effected his recycling policy when he changed from being Minister for Energy to Minister for Europe. I should prefer to dwell on the Prime Minister's appointments than on his dismissals.
    We have held a good debate. I believe that the enhanced co-operation provisions of the Nice treaty strongly contribute to promoting British and European interests in the next stage of constructing the European Union.
    The EU's ability to develop and change—its flexibility—has made it a success throughout the years. That flexibility is tested every time more member states join. In a European Union that stretches from Lisbon to Tallinn, it will be increasingly difficult to get agreement to move ahead on all subjects with all member states unless we have flexibility.
    Flexibility in the EU has been called many names. For example, it has been described as differentiated integration, which sounds like the Eurobabble that my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe denounced in a speech outside the House in past few minutes. It has also been called variable geometry. I believe that that phrase was first used by the former Prime Minister, John Major.
    The treaties have settled on the term "enhanced co-operation". Perhaps that is inelegant, but it neatly encapsulates the wish behind the provisions. In plain English, it means that the EU member states do not have to do everything together. It allows smaller groups of member states to take action together on subjects that the EU treaties cover without requiring every other member state to join in.
    Mr. Cash: Perhaps another way of putting it is: all the member states cannot avoid being affected by the actions of those who decide to go ahead.
    Mr. MacShane: That was close to being a triple negative. The other day, the hon. Gentleman called not only for enhanced co-operation but for the abolition of the veto on family law. He did that with great passion, and I believe that he was right. Perhaps enhanced co-operation could be used to effect what the hon. Gentleman wishes.
    The provisions for enhanced co-operation already exist; they were introduced in the Amsterdam treaty. However, they have never been used. The Nice treaty makes them
    228
    easier to use for those who want to do that while strengthening the safeguards for those who do not. That is a sensible move to prepare for the enlarged European Union that we want, and we welcome it.
    However, the Bill is not about building a two-speed Europe, or a hard core of states that prevent others from joining in. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech in Warsaw last year:
    "Enhanced co-operation is an instrument to strengthen the Union from within, not an instrument of exclusion."
    The safeguards that we built in at Nice will prevent that. Those provisions are important. Enhanced co-operation must be a last resort, not the rule. As many member states as possible will be encouraged to join in. Those that want to join an existing enhanced co-operation action later should be given every opportunity to do so.
    Enhanced co-operation may not harm the rights of those that do not participate. Actions under enhanced co-operation will not form part of the acquis or basic rules of the EU, so neither existing nor new member states will be required to take part.
    It was right to strengthen the safeguards. It was also right to amend the procedures, as we did at Nice, so that, provided the safeguards are respected, no single state can veto a proposal for enhanced co-operation. The so-called emergency brake has gone.
    The Opposition have made much of this change, but we are clear that it is not reasonable in an enlarged EU for one member state to hold up those wishing to proceed with enhanced co-operation, provided that the rigorous conditions have been met. Therefore, while we have rightly removed the veto on enhanced co-operation for action in the community field, we have built in a further safeguard: the right of appeal to the European Council. Any member state that strongly objects to a proposal for enhanced co-operation can make its case to the elected Heads of State and Governments in the European Council, and if the Council so decides, the proposal will not go forward. There will still be a veto on proposals for enhanced co-operation under the common foreign and security policy pillar, because decisions are taken on a basis of unanimity in that area.
    The Opposition cannot have it all ways. They cannot be in favour of more flexibility in Europe, as they said that they were in their manifesto, while demanding that the emergency brake be retained.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. MacShane: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am just coming to the end of my remarks.
    Mr. Cash: They were a bit short.
    Mr. MacShane: Well, I am trying not to follow the hon. Gentleman's example in these debates.

    229
    The Opposition cannot support the principle of enhanced co-operation—
    Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. In relation to the programme motion, it is pretty monstrous of the Minister to allege that somehow or other we are stringing things out when the Government are stringing us up.
    The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sylvia Heal): That is entirely the Minister's responsibility.
    Mr. MacShane: The thought of stringing up any Member in this debate might appeal to some but not to me. I am a pacifist kind of person. I shall make these remarks as short as possible, to leave more time for the hon. Gentleman to contribute to the next section of the debate. I would not deprive the House of that pleasure.
    Mr. Spring: As the Minister is making his remarks so brief, I am sure he will not mind if I intervene on him. It is a little unclear to me what point he is making. He said that there was never any difficulty and, in practice, nothing happened on enhanced co-operation after Amsterdam. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom Government were willing to give up the veto based on the theoretical idea that, somehow, a member state would hold up that process. There has been no evidence of that happening so far, yet our national interests, which are obviously vital, have been given up. Some very confused thinking is coming from the Minister, in relation to practice and to theory. Will he clarify the Government's thinking on this matter?
    Mr. MacShane: It is very clear that we are preparing for an enlarged EU. We want the great democracies of Europe to come home to join the European Union. Since the treaty of Nice, the Conservatives have said consistently that they wish to oppose that process. That is the huge difference between many Opposition Members and Members on this side of the House—and, I suspect, the man who emerged as winner of the poll whose result has just been announced. I hope that the House as a whole will now revert to where I think British interests lie, and call for the enlargement of the European Union, rather than seeking to put barriers in the path of that process, as some Opposition Members are doing.
    Mr. Spring: I do not understand the Minister's difficulty in answering the question. Enlargement is one issue; enhanced co-operation is another, separate issue dealing with a more limited group of countries, which in no way impairs enlargement. I would like an explanation of the Government's thinking. I have not received one so far, and I am disappointed in the Minister. Will he please explain what has happened since Amsterdam to make the Government change their mind in this way?
    Mr. MacShane: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the safeguards on enhanced co-operation have now been built more strongly into the Nice treaty by the reference to the Council, constituted by the elected Governments responsible to this and the other Parliaments of the European Union. The basic principle remains: one cannot
    230
    support the principle of enhanced co-operation, as the Conservative party did in its manifesto, while demanding that the Nice provisions that will allow it to work be struck down. Unlike the Opposition, on their showing today, we see enhanced co-operation as an opportunity, not a threat.
    There are a number of scenarios in which Britain might want actively to join in areas of enhanced co-operation, and it is right that I should put those to the House. In the community pillar, for example, the UK might want to join an initiative on scientific research while some other member states might not, or to participate in an initiative to improve transport links between the UK and neighbouring member states.
    In the common foreign and security pillar, the UK might want to join other interested member states in implementing a common EU policy in Africa, such as managing election monitors. In justice and home affairs, it is possible to imagine the UK joining a group of member states to agree tough action on an issue that directly affected only a small group of countries, such as drug trafficking across the North sea. All in all, the improved enhanced co-operation arrangements are a valuable feature of the treaty. We strongly support them and, for that reason, we reject the amendments tabled on these issues.
    Mr. Cash: By making such a brief and ineffective speech, the Minister has opened up an opportunity, which I shall not miss, to give a proper explanation of the implications of enhanced co-operation. I can do so in a manner that will undoubtedly illuminate the Government as well as, I hope, people outside who are interested in learning more about its operation.
    We have already discussed the fact that enhanced co-operation can be undertaken only as a last resort when no further progress can be made in the Council of Ministers under the existing rules. Thus it can be seen from the provisions that countries with misgivings, such as the United Kingdom, apparently had the satisfaction of having many of their demands met. That is easier said than done.
    The question is, who decides whether the provisions are satisfied or not? We see that, in the voting rules, enhanced co-operation in all areas can be decided with a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers. That means 62 of 87 votes at present, or 169 of 237 votes from 2005, or 258 of 345 in an EU of 27 countries. In an enlarged EU, the 13 smallest countries could be voted down by the 14 largest. In theory, the 14 largest countries could also introduce enhanced co-operation between themselves, or between eight of them, an arrangement with which 13 other countries would not be happy.
    Conversely, three large countries, including Germany, could prevent enhanced co-operation, which might be desired by 24 other member states. Now that we have got down to a proper analysis of what is going on, hon. Members are perhaps beginning to see what a mess all this is. I shall continue until I finish explaining to the Committee for the record exactly what it is all about.
    The qualified majority itself decides what is possible. The blocking minority can prevent the decision. If the opponents do not have a blocking minority of 26 of 87 votes, or the corresponding number after 2005, enhanced co-operation can be established. It may be

    231
    possible to avert clear breaches of the agreed conditions with the aid of the Court of Justice, but as we all know, the Court of Justice, with its judicial activism, has been the most powerful engine of integration. It considers its task and its objective to be extending European integration, not bringing it to an end.
    I move to a question that I regard as of great importance: the weakening of the small countries' negotiating position. There is something pretty disgusting about the manner in which people pontificate about this European Union as if it benefits everybody in equal measure. Let us cut the cackle and get down to the facts. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) to laugh, but does he think it a good thing to bulldoze and blackmail the smaller countries?
    Mr. Hendrick: I thank the hon. Gentleman for inviting me to intervene. The debate is about countries that want to get on with it, not bulldozing or blackmailing. Those who do not want to get involved can stay out. I would be grateful if he said what enhanced co-operation is about, instead of making up his own fiction.
    Mr. Cash: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman would include as a little bit of fiction the vote by the Irish in their recent referendum. Ireland is a small country, which is one reason why its people took such exception to being bulldozed. That was a main argument made by the no campaign and it is proof of what I am saying. The same goes for the Danes.
    If we are to start trotting out remarks on what happens when the Danes hold a referendum, I should say that I was in Denmark when they voted on the Maastricht treaty. I campaigned for and with the Danish people with their consent, and enthusiastic consent at that. The bottom line is that we won that debate. And what happened afterwards? The Konrad Adenauer Siftung, in its journal "German Comments", said in an editorial—I paraphrase, but this is what it came down to—"Something very dangerous is going on in Europe today. Elections are being used as a means of protest. This must be stopped."
    That is the kind of language that we are hearing. That is the kind of blackmailing and bulldozing that I am talking about. The British people must be told about it, and this forum—this House of Commons—gives me an opportunity to explain it.
    There is a gentleman across the way who is shaking his head. I do not know his constituency, but if he wants to shake his head, let him rise to his feet and dispute what I have just said—or does he not have the nerve to do so?
    Mr. Bryant: I thank the hon. Gentleman for enticing me to my feet, but his argument is completely fallacious. He seems to be saying that the people of Ireland should be allowed to make a decision on behalf of the whole of the rest of the European Union, which is fundamentally anti-democratic. A similar point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies).
    It is all important that, in any consideration of the use of enhanced co-operation, we take account of the views of smaller member states that might indeed constitute
    232
    eight states wanting to co-operate. It would be profoundly anti-democratic of us to decide that we should be able to create a veto to prevent them from doing so.
    Mr. Cash: Let me quote from the no campaign literature, which represents the successful side in the debate in Ireland.
    "Very Basic Facts on the Nice Treaty.
    1. Nice is about shifting power in the EU from the Small States to the Big States. 2. Nice divides Europe into first-class and second-class Members, breaking up the EU partnership of legal equals. It provides the necessary legal path to making possible German Chancellor Schröder's plan to turn the EU Commission into a European Government, with harmonised company taxes …".
    I pay tribute to the perception of my right hon. Friend—in this case—the Member for Llanelli, who, in a brilliant speech, exposed exactly how enhanced co-operation would achieve that objective.
    The campaign literature continues:
    "… an end to the basis of our 'Celtic Tiger' economy—and a Constitution that would give the EU Court the final say on our human rights. 3. Nice is about abolishing the national veto in 30 areas and centralising more power in Brussels. It trebles the votes of the Big States in making EU laws"—
    Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cash: No, I will not. It goes on:
    "… while only doubling the votes of the Small States. This happens automatically in January 2005, even if not a single new Member has joined the EU by then."
    The reason I will not give way is this: I think it at least helpful to try to get across just exactly, for example, what the Irish people did vote on. Both the hon. Member for Preston and the hon. Gentleman whom I enticed to intervene—
    Mr. Bryant: My constituency is Rhondda.
    Mr. Cash: They may find that what I am quoting is not what I have said but what the no campaign in Ireland has said.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
    Mr. Cash: I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because I rather enjoy his interventions.
    Mr. Campbell: Me too.
    If the Irish people are as perspicacious as the hon. Gentleman suggests, why does he think that they voted to join the single European currency?
    Mr. Cash: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should cast his mind back to that particular referendum and debate, which took place some time ago. He should bear it in mind that the Irish Government clearly did not think the Irish people would vote the way they did. It was precisely because of the compelling nature of the arguments that they did so.
    I have here a paper published by the Referendum Commission, entitled "An Insight into the Treaty of Nice: Your Voice, Your Choice. Treaty of Nice 2001". It is a

    233
    formal publication by the Referendum Commission. It is on the web at www.refcom.ie. Anyone who wants to read it can visit the site, rather than me reading it all out today.
    Mr. Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cash: I will. I am glad that we are beginning to have a debate because I have not started yet by a long way.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Connarty: I find the hon. Gentleman's comments slightly disingenuous. A number of my relatives live in Ireland. They told me that the biggest argument in their area was that, if Ireland agreed to enlargement, it would lose the grants it received from the EU: they would go to places such as Poland and other parts of the eastern bloc. That is what influenced a lot of people to whom I have spoken in Ireland to vote in that way. Believe it or not, other people do not read the esoteric documents that so delight the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Cash: It so happens that the document to which I have referred was sent to every person in the Irish Republic, so the hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that one. The Irish no campaign made the point that Nice is not primarily about EU enlargement. It argued that it is about dividing Europe along the lines that many of us have described today.
    On the grants, to answer that question directly, long before the Irish referendum came up, everyone knew that the Irish grants were going to disappear by 2006 at the latest. The Irish have known that for the best part of eight years, so there is nothing new in it. I do not see what the hon. Gentleman's point is. They knew it before they even voted on the treaty.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Cash: I shall carry on a little because I would like to develop the point about the weakening of small countries' negotiating positions.
    We have seen the rules of play for new enhanced co-operation. If a country says no to an extension of EU co-operation—for example, because it has been rejected in a referendum—the countries that want it can simply go ahead on their own and use the Union's institutions for a purpose that voters may have expressly rejected. That procedure can be used for proposals on which a large majority of the European electorate, according to public opinion surveys, agree with the nation that rejected the proposals in a referendum. The fact that a scheme of enhanced co-operation can be voted through by majority decision—that takes us back to the group of amendments that we considered at the beginning of these debates—limits the capacity of Government to negotiate in the EU.
    As I said earlier and on Second Reading, two parallel operations are running together. One is enhanced co-operation and the other is qualified majority voting. They interweave to achieve the objectives. It is all part of a seamless operation to take us further and deeper into European integration. Indeed, during the negotiations on the treaty of Nice, the Danish negotiator, Mr. Cristofferson, often said that if this or that wording
    234
    were adopted there would he a referendum in Denmark—heaven forbid. Hence there would be a risk of the entire treaty being rejected. For those reasons, they were frightened sick of another referendum in Denmark. In every single instance it is the elite that is heeded, not the people, because they have common sense: the Swiss people, the Danes, the Irish and for that matter the people of the United Kingdom, particularly under the potential new leadership of the Conservative party.
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I fail to understand how the hon. Gentleman can argue that small countries are being bulldozed when each one of them has an absolute veto over the treaty. Unless every one of those countries agrees to the treaty, there will be no treaty. How can that be bulldozing them? They should make the decision in their interest. We should be debating what is in our interest, not going over the Irish interest, as the hon. Gentleman is.
    Mr. Cash: Not so. The fact is that we are all affected by what goes on in the other countries. The difficulty is that there is a referendum only in a limited number of countries. That is the point that I am making.
    One cannot say that the people of any particular country have consented to the invasion of their right to decide who governs them—which is what the process is all about—if they have not been given a referendum. That is why I argued for a referendum from the very earliest days after Maastricht. I ran the Maastricht referendum campaign, for which I obtained 500,000 signatures, and have consistently campaigned for a referendum ever since.
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman really is going a little wide of the amendment.
    Mr. Cash: I am quite happy to accept that. There are many issues that one might raise, and fortunately we have enough time to raise some of them.
    Mr. Spring: I am not sure about that. Mr. Cash: We are heading that way.
    The consent of the people would be gained in referendums. The issue of whether a small country's negotiating position would be adversely affected and weakened is directly related to the issue of consent.
    Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cash: Only once more.
    Dr. Ladyman: Our country has just had the ultimate referendum, a general election. Conservative Members said that the general election would be a referendum on Europe and European matters. Labour Members made clear our position on those matters and on the treaty of Nice and we won that general election. How therefore can the hon. Gentleman say that the United Kingdom has not been consulted?
    Mr. Cash: I do indeed say that. First, in the last general election, the Government made absolutely no attempt to address the European issue. Secondly, the Conservative party failed in that election to address the issue properly.

    235
    All we did was to talk about not being run by Europe without explaining the impact of, for example, the European monetary rules on public expenditure. Nor did we point out the fact that we achieved a stable economy, which the current Government have inherited, only because we were out of the exchange rate mechanism. The Government now intend to re-enter the ERM. However, I am digressing and shall not pursue that point.
    The bottom line is that there are very important issues in this business of enhanced co-operation, extending to enhanced judicial co-operation and the treaty establishing the European Community. Enhanced co-operation would extend to a range of matters. The vast impact that it would have is a matter of gravest concern. Every line of this Bill—it is subject to a programme motion, thereby preventing us from explaining precisely what is proposed in the treaty—is the equivalent of a whole Bill that it would take Parliament the best part of six months to consider and pass. That is what is so undemocratic about these arrangements.
    We are legislating on a monumental scale. Many of the lines of this treaty which we shall be enshrining in statute are the equivalent of an entire Bill. I suggest that Labour Members carefully consider how democratic that is.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 1, line 9, after "to", insert "4 and 6 to".
    The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 39, page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 2, paragraph 11'.
    No. 71, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 2, paragraph 38'.
    No. 72, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 2, paragraph 39'.
    No. 73, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 2, paragraph 40'.
    No. 74, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 2, paragraph 42'.
    No. 75, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 2, paragraph 43'.
    No. 76, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 2, paragraph 45'.
    No. 77, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 2, paragraph 46'.
    No. 96, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 3, paragraph 19'.
    No. 97, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 3, paragraph 20'.
    No. 98, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 3, paragraph 21'.
    No. 99, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 3, paragraph 22'.
    No. 101, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 3, paragraph 24'.
    Mr. Cash: We come now to an entirely different subject, social protection, which is very important and
    236
    related to the blank cheque book that I have mentioned. What is actually happening is that we are introducing laws that are not capable of being reversed in any reasonable sense as any future amendment would require the agreement of all the member states. There is no apparent intention to amend the provisions, but they entail vast costs. It is perfectly right that there should be social protection in certain areas and I have never had a problem with that. Indeed, when my party was in government, we introduced laws—
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could help the Chair and explain how what he is now referring to relates to the amendment on various institutional matters. We are debating amendment No. 54.
    Peter Hain: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, whose diligence on these matters is well known, he is not speaking to the amendments and I respectfully suggest that either we should move immediately to a conclusion or that he should speak to the subject we are debating.
    The First Deputy Chairman: I have asked the hon. Gentleman to address the amendment under discussion.
    Mr. Cash: Under the circumstances, I am perfectly prepared to move on, as the Chair may request, but I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring)has some remarks to make on these provisions. By the time that he has finished, I will have had the opportunity to find the place in my notes. I understand what the Minister has said, and I am happy that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk should take up the thread.
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Has the hon. Gentleman finished moving the amendment?
    Mr. Cash: Yes, indeed. I invite my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk to pick up the thread of the argument. I shall return to it later.
    Mr. Spring: This group is another miscellaneous group of provisions, and I shall keep my remarks short.
    Amendment No. 39 relates to the new Social Protection Committee. We will be discussing social policy in connection with new clause 6 at a later date, so at this stage perhaps the Minister could provide us with some further information on the role of that Committee.
    The issue arises from the Council decision of June 2000 setting up the Committee to strengthen co-operation on social protection policies. It is meant to promote exchanges of information, formulate opinions and the like. Its remit under the treaty has been expanded slightly, so that it will now be charged with monitoring the social situation in member states.
    This would appear to be another example of Ministers' views evolving somewhat during the Nice discussions. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) asked the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Dowell), now the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, about the Social Protection Committee during a debate in European Standing Committee C in November. The right hon. Lady said the proposal for a

    237
    Committee would need to be examined very closely before it was given support. Can the Minister say why the result of that examination was to change ministerial scepticism into support? What was the reasoning behind establishing a new treaty base for the Committee and broadening its remit? Can he assure the House that this will not lead to a further increase in the number of social policy measures, including harmonisation, arising from the EU institutions? Each member state appoints two members of the Committee. Can he tell us how the UK representatives are chosen?
    Perhaps the Minister could also set out how he sees two of the other Committees included in this group developing in future years—namely, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Both sets of members will now be appointed by qualified majority voting.
    The Nice treaty stipulates that the Economic and Social Committee represents
    "the economic and social components of organised civil society".
    The Minister of State's predecessor told the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) in a written answer that the aim would be to make the UK delegation as representative as possible. What progress is being made in that respect?
    Finally, is it the intention that the role of the Committee of the Regions will increase? I appreciate that UK representatives on that Committee are all from local government, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh or Northern Ireland Assemblies, but the same is not true of the appointments from other countries. There is some worry that the EU's concern for regions, including transnational regions, is intended to undermine Europe's national identities.
    Does the Minister agree that genuine decentralisation should be to local government, and that regional government is more distant from local communities? Will he be cautious about any expansion in the role of regionalism in the European Union?
    9 pm
    Denzil Davies: The first amendment in this group is No. 54. I have always found it useful if the hon. Member moving an amendment reads out the bit that locates the text to be amended. In this case, it is clause 1, page 1, line 9. The amendment states:
    "after 'to', insert '4 and 6 to'"—
    which I assume means "to 10". The numbers refer to paragraphs in article 2. I am sure that I will be corrected if I am not right when I say that one of the amendment's purposes, therefore, is to delete paragraph 5 from article 2. Thanks to a piece of paper issued by the Foreign Office at the last minute, I have been able to find the treaty. Looking at paragraph 5 in article 2, I see that we are dealing once more with a subject that is an old friend. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister—whose letter I have not yet received—will not mind if I ask familiar questions.
    I think that paragraph 5 refers to article 100 in the consolidated treaty of the European Communities, which is to be replaced. Thanks to the bit of paper from the Foreign Office, I have found that as well. Basically, article
    238
    100 allows qualified majority voting in certain situations where unanimity was previously required. It has been around for a long time. The draftsmen, out of a sense of tidiness, have inserted a reference to "natural disasters", but, except for the phrase "qualified majority", there is little to distinguish the proposed change from the original version.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can answer some questions on article 100, which, in its new version, will state in paragraph 1 that
    "the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may decide upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation".
    I do not want to be a pedantic Welsh lawyer, but what is the word "the" doing there? Which economic situation are we talking about?
    The paragraph goes on to say
    "in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products."
    That is a complete mystery. I apologise again if I sound pedantic, but the House is legislating. The treaty is not the gobbledegook that the EU might churn out almost every two years, and one must hypothesise that it will become British law. If the matter ever came before the courts, lawyers could make a lot of money out of those words.
    To contend that the supply of certain products might be in difficulty in this world of global capitalism is a strange concept. Which products are we talking about? I presume that the supply will be difficult within the European Union. Perhaps the article is referring to oil. I do not know. Apart from Britain, none of the EU member states produce crude oil. May we be told which products? The type of products must be in the mind of the person who drafted article 100. That person did not pick the words "certain products" out of the air. What on earth is the first paragraph of article 100 getting at?
    Mr. Bryant: I presume that it refers to articles 95 and 96. My right hon. Friend is a far more able lawyer than me, but as memory serves me, those articles refer to state aid provisions. I presume that in that light article 100 makes sense.
    Denzil Davies: I am not sure about that, although I do not criticise my hon. Friend. Article 100 comes under title VII entitled "Economic and monetary policy". Chapter 1 is entitled "Economic policy" and starts with article 98, I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend. Article 98 contains the terrible paragraph that upset the Irish. The powers in article 98.4 caused the Commission to issue a recommendation to the Irish Government saying that their economic policies were nonsense. That contributed to the defeat in the referendum. Article 98 comes under the heading of economic policy. My hon. Friend may be right—the article may be about state aids, but what are the products that are of considerable and fundamental importance to "the economic situation"?
    Mr. Cash: The right hon. Gentleman may care to reflect on the possibility that the article is something to do with BSE and products that a country would normally expect to export. The supply of those products may be restricted due to the constraints that have been imposed.
    Denzil Davies: That could be the case. We would like to know why we find concern about the supply of products in article 100.

    239
    What sort of measures could be deemed appropriate? Paragraph 1 of article 100 does not mention money, although it could be referring to state aids. I am sure that the Foreign Office is well aware of these things and that there are bundles of papers in the basement somewhere to explain the drafting of the clause.
    I raised paragraph 2 of article 100 previously. It says:
    "Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters"—
    we understand that; it was in the original article in a different place—
    "or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Community financial assistance".
    What exceptional occurrences?
    Mr. Bryant rose—
    Denzil Davies: Perhaps my hon. Friend is now about to mention state aids. I do not see where it fits in.
    Mr. Bryant: Article 87 was formerly article 92, which refers to state aids. It makes it clear that there are certain situations in which state aid is legitimate. I presume that those provisions follow into the legislation that we are discussing.
    Denzil Davies: I am glad that my hon. Friend is presuming that. I have discovered in debates over 30 years on these treaties that one should presume as little as possible. It may well be to do with state aids. The money seems to be coming from the other countries—financial assistance is given to the member state. I thought that state aid was given by the member state to itself. I am not sure about that, however.
    Mr. Bryant: This is becoming a debate—I do apologise.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: This is not a court of law.
    Mr. Bryant: Indeed; I am sorry. My right hon. Friend is right—
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could address the Chair?
    Mr. Bryant: I am sorry, Mrs. Heal. My right hon. Friend is correct that in the majority of cases in the past, state aid has referred exclusively to the provision not just of financial assistance but of many other forms of assistance to organisations within the member state. However, if there were to be an earthquake in Turkey, for example, it might be appropriate for other member states across the European Union to provide financial assistance to organisations in Turkey. There is a danger that without reform of the present law, that might constitute state aid, to which others might take objection.
    Denzil Davies: I would like to give my hon. Friend my copy of the treaty. This is not about aid to Turkey but to other member states. The treaty says
    "the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Community financial assistance to the Member State concerned."
    240
    That does not mean Turkey, unless Turkey is a member state.
    Mr. Bryant: That is the point that I was making.
    Denzil Davies: I thought that my hon. Friend was assuming that Turkey was outside. In any case, the assistance goes to the member state. What exceptional circumstances, apart from national disasters, did the draftsmen have in mind?
    Mr. Cash: I should have thought that foot and mouth disease might well be covered by exceptional circumstances. The treaty refers to exceptional occurrences beyond a member state's control. Given that aid to the tune of about £4 billion a year has been given to the German coal miners, our farming community, tourism industry and all areas of the British countryside affected by foot and mouth could qualify, on that basis, for several billion pounds worth of aid to get everything back on course.
    Denzil Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It may have been under article 100, or perhaps it was under the common agricultural policy, that assistance was given to the United Kingdom in respect of BSE. No doubt the Minister will tell us what is meant by "exceptional circumstances."
    I come back to the important point before us. We have given up the veto again. The Government argue that it is technical and not important in these areas. Basically, they are saying, "Who cares?" Well, one should care about it. We would not necessarily veto this measure, but it has financial implications and, ultimately, those financial implications concern the member state.
    The President of the Commission wanted a European tax, but Finance Ministers gave that proposal short shrift. Ultimately, if something costs money, the cost falls on us. For the Government to argue that it does not matter is, at the least, cavalier. This is another area in which the veto is important. Nothing could be more important than finance and taxation. For the Government to give up the veto when money can be paid out was irresponsible. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will disagree with me, and I hope that he will give me the answers for which I have asked.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: I share the view of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) that the effect of the amendment is to excise article 5 of the Nice treaty. Article 5 of the treaty, which can be found on page 45 of Cm 5090, would add a paragraph 10.6 to article 10.
    9.15 pm
    Mr. Bryant: It is article 2, section 5 that is being replaced, not article 5. It can be found on page 16 of the treaty.
    Mr. Campbell: No, I think that I am right—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are."] I appear to have support from quarters that have not commonly been supportive in recent times in this debate.

    241
    The right hon. Member for Llanelli expresses the view that article 5 would be removed if the amendment were accepted. If that be correct—
    Denzil Davies: I thought that it was paragraph 5 of article 11, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant)says, can be found on page 16. However, I may be wrong about that.
    Mr. Campbell: As I appear to have support from a variety of quarters, I shall press on. Our debate has been hindered to a degree by the absence of the usual lucid and clear exposition of the position by the hon. Member for Stone.
    Assuming I am right—my view appears to be shared by others—we turn our attention to article 5, on page 45 of the treaty, Cm 5090. There, one finds that article 5 provides for an amendment to article 10 of the protocol on the statute of the European system of central banks and of the European central bank. It would add to article 10 a new provision, paragraph 10.6, the effect of which is to provide that article 10.2 of the protocol can be amended by the Council, provided it is done unanimously and in accordance with the respective constitutional requirements of the countries that are engaged.
    That is what I understand to be the position of the hon. Member for Stone, for which there is some support. In his pamphlet on Nice, the hon. Gentleman deals with the question of the new procedures set out in article 10.6 of the protocol, stating that the new arrangement will
    "introduce the possibility of abolishing equality"
    in the equal voting rights of governors. No doubt, with the benefit of consideration, he will be able to tell us more about that view, but if he persists in pressing amendment No. 54, I shall certainly resist it.
    Currently, the rules of the European central bank reflect neither the populations nor the gross domestic product differentials of the member states. On some future occasion, it may well be considered necessary to amend the deliberative procedures of the ECB, It strikes me as sensible to provide that the procedures are able to be amended, and that is what new paragraph 10.6, which we find on page 45 of Cm 5090, would provide. It seems to me that adequate protection for the interests of the United Kingdom is provided because any amendment has to be unanimous and has to be ratified by the constitutional provisions of all the countries that seek to take part in such a process.
    In so far as amendment No. 54 would delete article 5, it is self-defeating, because the deletion of article 5 would be against the interests of the people of the United Kingdom and, more generally, against the interests of those who want the ECB voting procedures to be controlled or regulated by an arrangement that better reflects either GDP differentials of member states or their populations. Given the remarks made earlier today by hon. Member for Stone, I should have thought that he would argue for the retention of article 5 rather than its removal.
    Peter Hain: I thank the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Menzies Campbell) for adding clarity and light to the issue. I say to my right hon. Friend
    242
    the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) that the amendment does not refer to article 100. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, it refers to article 5 of the Nice treaty, which is the protocol on the European central bank statute. I did not want to intrude on the interesting dialogue between my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) and my right hon. Friend, but there we have it.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: I hope that the Minister will not think it immodest to suggest that one Scots lawyer is equal to two Welsh ones.
    Peter Hain: I could not possibly agree with that, and nor would you, Mrs. Heal, as a good Welsh girl.
    The Nice treaty is about a lot of things. In respect of the amendments, it is about reforming and modernising the European Union's institutions for enlargement. That is what the amendments are seeking to wreck. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) quite properly asked a series of questions about the Committees and I shall seek to answer them.
    The Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee are important and they need reforming. That is why we agreed at Nice that the UK delegations to the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee should remain the same size, with a full 24 United Kingdom representatives on each. Both Committees will expand with enlargement, but there will be no change to the balance struck at Maastricht. We and the other big member states will retain more seats than anybody else.
    The Nice treaty also requires that the Committee of the Regions should comprise representatives who are elected to a local regional authority or who are accountable to an elected assembly. The current practice in Britain is indeed to nominate people for membership who already hold an electoral mandate, so there will be no change to our appointment procedure. Nice brings others into line with our democratic standards. The treaty also introduces qualified majority voting for appointments to the two Committees. That makes sense too. In practice, no member state ever objects to another's nominations. That is another prudent efficiency measure.
    In respect of the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife on the European central bank, the future of the ECB after enlargement is an important issue. The Nice treaty changes the ECB's statute to allow the voting rules in the ECB's governing council to be amended by EU heads of state and the Government acting unanimously. That will allow the European Council to decide how the ECB should best function after enlargement.
    However, any changes to the ECB's voting rules will still require unanimity—a point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—and ratification by all member states in accordance with their own constitutional provisions. That will ensure that British interests are fully protected and preserved, which I would have thought everybody would welcome, too.
    Britain is one of the four major shareholders in the European investment bank, with nearly 18 per cent. of shares. The board currently has 38 members. Britain and the other three large states each have five full directors and two alternates. The distribution of shareholdings

    243
    between the member states will need to be adjusted to include the candidate states when they become members. We must provide for changes in the composition and voting arrangements of the board of directors to accommodate enlargement. The provisions of Nice allow those decisions to be taken in the Council, but only by unanimity. British interests will again be protected—again I would have thought that that would be welcomed.
    I turn to one additional point of substance. We all agreed on the Social Committee at Lisbon that our systems of social protection would need to be modernised to cope with the new flexible marketplace and knowledge-based economy. The Social Committee already monitors the development of social protection policies in member states and promotes exchanges of information and experience among them.
    The Nice treaty gives the Committee a proper legal base. It provides for the Council to act by qualified majority voting in formally setting up the Committee, but there is no question of the Committee forcing change on national social security systems. The Committee will prepare reports and opinions, and that is its job. However, if the Commission chooses to take those up in legislative proposals, they will be subject to the unanimous approval of the Council, as for all social security and social protection legislation. I should have thought that even the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) would welcome that.
    I shall address one more issue in case I do not have a chance to do so before the end of this debate. It concerns a matter raised by the hon. Member for Stone on the question of child abduction. That matter is dealt with in amendment No. 233, which I accept does not come under the umbrella of the amendments that we are discussing, but I want to make a brief point that may help the House.
    I understand and share the concerns of the hon. Member for Stone about child abduction, which is an international injustice and crime. As he knows, his representations have encouraged me to look closely at the issue. I, too, am keen to consider improvements to international rules and, to that end, I should like to invite him, and other members of the all-party group on child abduction, to discuss with me ways in which we can advance work in that area. I shall also ask a Minister from the Lord Chancellor's Department to join us if possible. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance, so that he may not need to press his amendment to a vote at 10 o'clock.
    Finally, lest there be any complaints—I have recently heard mutterings from the Opposition—about lack of time to discuss all these matters, I gently draw everybody's attention to the last full day's debate on the Bill. There were five Conservative speakers and six Labour speakers. The five Conservative speakers took three hours, five minutes; the six Labour speakers took one hour forty-five minutes. Three Conservative speakers took two hours, twenty minutes to make their points. I do not think that there is any reason for arguing in another place or here that there has not been time to address all the issues seriously. If people had been a little less long-winded, all the points that they made could have been addressed.
    Mr. Cash: First, I thank the Minister not only for his concluding remarks but for his generous offer on child abduction, an issue about which he knows I feel strongly—as, I suspect, do many Members on both sides of the House. There has been a great step forward; I hope
    244
    that we can build on that and achieve some protection, both for the children themselves, in this country and throughout Europe, and for parents affected by child abduction.
    Briefly, on article 10 of the statute of the European system of central banks and of the European central bank, perhaps the Minister was a trifle disingenuous because he omitted to mention the fact that we have argued that the Nice treaty introduces the possibility of abolishing equal voting rights for ECB governors. I acknowledge that proposed article 10.6 is governed by unanimity, but recommendation 19 insists that work will begin speedily on reviewing paragraph 2—in other words, it gives a pretty firm indication that the balance currently maintained by the unanimity of voting rights on the ECB is under threat; otherwise, why have recommendation 19 at the end of article 10? In other words, the larger countries appear to be gearing up to grab more power from the smaller ones which, again, fits in with the arguments that I have already advanced on enhanced co-operation.
    The tendency towards a combination of larger states and QMV illustrates the point that I have repeatedly made: the larger states will increase their power. The question is, who will they be? From the voting arrangements that have been set out—double majority voting and the rest of it—they will include our friend Germany yet again; we need to watch out for those things. In an opinion poll, the German people have just said that they want to keep the deutschmark, but would be glad if we managed to lose the pound. It all comes down to one simple thing; they are sensible, and we have to be equally sensible ourselves.
    We can now expect a major pro-euro argument to collapse. The larger economies, particularly Germany, will eventually gain the most political and economic power in the ECB. Furthermore, nation states cannot legally instruct the ECB because, we remember from Maastricht, the governors of the banks congregating at the ECB cannot seek or take instructions from member states. So we have a problem in relation to the powers that are exercised over interest rates and inflation, for example. It is an unaccountable arrangement that affects UK voters. Yet at the same time, running in parallel, is a tendency towards an increase in the power of the larger states at the expense of the smaller ones.
    I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. I shall not press the amendment to a vote, and that is in the interests of my colleagues who are outside celebrating other things. The Committee will have an opportunity to vote on clause 1 stand part. There is no need for me to say anything further on that subject. For the record, in the light of what the Minister had to say, I shall also not press amendment No. 233 on child abduction to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    9.30 pm
    Mr. Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in clause 1, in page 1, line 9, after "to", insert "5 and 7 to".
    The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 19, in clause 1, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 2, paragraph 32.'.

    245
    No. 62, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 2, paragraph 26'.
    No. 63, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 2, paragraph 27'.
    No. 64, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 2, paragraph 28'.
    No. 65, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 2, paragraph 31'.
    No. 66, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 2, paragraph 33'.
    No. 67, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 2, paragraph 34'.
    No. 68, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 2, paragraph 35'.
    No. 85, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 3, paragraph 8'.
    No. 86, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 3, paragraph 9'.
    No. 87, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 3, paragraph 10'.
    No. 88, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 3, paragraph 11'.
    No. 89, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 3, paragraph 12'.
    No. 90, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 3, paragraph 13'.
    No. 91, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 3, paragraph 14'.
    No. 92, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 3, paragraph 15'.
    No. 93, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 3, paragraph 16'.
    No. 108, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 4, paragraph 8'.
    No. 109, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 4, paragraph 9'.
    No. 110, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 4, paragraph 10'
    No. 111, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 4, paragraph 11'.
    No. 112, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 4, paragraph 12'.
    No. 113, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 4, paragraph 13'.
    No. 114, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 4, paragraph 14'.
    No. 115, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 4, paragraph 15'.
    No. 116, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 4, paragraph 16'.
    No. 130, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 1 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    246
    No. 131, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 132, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols" insert—
    '(other than Article 3 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 133, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 4 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 134, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 5 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 135, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 6 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 136, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 7 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 137, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 8 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'
    No. 138, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 9 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 139, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 10 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 140, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 11 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 141, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 12 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 142, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 13 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 143, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 14 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 144, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 15 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 145, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 16 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 146, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 17 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 147, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 18 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 148, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 19 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 149, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 150, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 21 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.

    247
    No. 151, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert-
    '(other than Article 22 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 152, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 23 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 153, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 24 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 154, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 25 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 155, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 26 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 156, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 27 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 157, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 28 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 158, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 29 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 159, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 30 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 160, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 31 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 161, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 32 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 162, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 33 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 163, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 34 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 164, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 35 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 165, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 36 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 166, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 37 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 167, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 38 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 168, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 39 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 169, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 40 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 170, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 41 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    248
    No. 171, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 42 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 172, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 43 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 173, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 44 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 174, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 45 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 175, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 46 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 176, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 47 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 177, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 48 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 178, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 49 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 179, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 50 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 180, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 51 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 181, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 52 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 182, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 53 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 183, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 54 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 184, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 55 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 185, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 56 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 186, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 57 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 187, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 58 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 188, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 59 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 189, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 60 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 190, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 61 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.

    249
    No. 191, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 62 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 192, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    `(other than Article 63 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 193, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 64 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice)'.
    No. 32, in clause 2, page 2, line 1, after "or", insert—
    `save in relation to section 3(l)of this Act.'.
    New clause 29—Extension of jurisdiction of European Court of Justice: legal advice—
    `.—This Act shall not come into force until Her Majesty's Government has obtained specific legal advice from the Attorney General setting out the extent to which the provisions of the Treaty of Nice extend the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the United Kingdom, such advice to form the basis of a report to each House of Parliament and to be subject to an affirmative resolution.'.
    Mr. Cash: The amendments deal with the European Courts. As Members may know, there are severe reservations about the extent and range of the judicial activism of those courts. I think that those matters have been explained so often in the House of Commons that there is no need for us to go through every detail of them, and I have no intention of so doing.
    I merely draw attention to the application of qualified majority voting to the determination of the European Courts' rules of procedure. This applies with respect to the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance. I think that it is stated in "Maine's Ancient Laws" that justice is to be found in the interstices of procedure. We are dealing with an issue that needs to be thought out carefully. The white book governs the panoply of procedure in the High Court, and it would be affected. So much of the law in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 is already part of our law.
    In so far as the overriding superior law of the Court of Justice is to be modified by qualified majority vote, let us consider the downstream impact of that in respect of any decisions regarding procedure that may be taken with regard to our High Court procedures. It is a point worth considering. As with so many of these matters, in one line we can make amendments that are the equivalent of an entire Bill which it could take the House up to six months to produce and deliberate on.
    Mr. Bryant: That is clearly untrue. The procedures have not forced the Napoleonic code on British law. There is no reason to suppose that any changes in the procedure should enforce radical changes across British law.
    Mr. Cash: That is a fairly astonishing statement given the effect of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. However, it is such an irrelevant point that I am not even prepared to respond to it. I leave my argument where it stands and invite my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) to take up the rest of the time that is allotted if he wishes to do so.
    Mr. Spring: Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will appreciate that the changes addressed by
    250
    the amendments are complex. The driving force behind the reforms proposed at Nice is the increasing volume of business in the European Courts. There is no controversy over that. If that increased volume of business is taken as read, some of the reforms in the treaty might be considered necessary, but that is a big "If'. I shall return to that point in a moment.
    I want to make a number of specific points in connection with the reforms with which the amendments deal. I hope that the Minister will address our concerns. First, it is proposed that the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance be expanded. Amendment No. 55 would prevent the members and registrar of that court from being added to the list of Community representatives covered by the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities. More importantly, the Nice treaty would give the Court of First Instance jurisdiction to hear certain categories of preliminary reference cases. Does the Minister recognise that such cases can often be important, as they are the appeal route from national courts to the European Court of Justice?
    Secondly, it is proposed that the Council be given power to attach judicial panels to the Court of First Instance to hear specified classes of business. That is provided for in the treaty of Nice. Such panels might hear competition cases or appeals from the Community trade marks and designs registry. There are numerous cases in both those fields. In effect, a three-tier appellate structure is now developing, with the creation of a further tier of courts below the Court of First Instance. There will be first-instance courts and the judicial panels, and above them, an intermediate appeal court—the Court of First Instance. Above that court, there will be the supreme court: the European Court of Justice.
    Does the Minister agree that the existence of the panels will make it easier to expand the direct jurisdiction of European—as opposed to national—courts in proceedings that involve the direct application of Community law to citizens? It might be said that the growth of the European court system into a full three-tier appellate structure is inevitable given the growth of jurisdictions and the increase in the number of cases going into that system, but one must question fundamentally that growth in jurisdictions and competences. It arises partly because of the flow of legislation, the nature of the court itself and its belief that it needs to continue to further the cause of European integration. As we have repeatedly pointed out, if the mincing machine is becoming clogged up, the best approach might be to try to force less mince through, but instead, the EU keeps installing ever-more powerful engines.
    The institutions of the EU need to learn to do less and to do it better. That applies to the volume of legislation and also relates to the growing concern about the integrationist nature of the court and its tendency sometimes to extend competence beyond what was envisaged in the treaties.
    Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Spring: I am just about to conclude my remarks. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not giving way, but we have many matters with which to deal.
    Will the Minister confirm that the change in definition introduced by the Bill would require our courts to follow decisions of the Court of First Instance or the judicial

    251
    panel? That could mean that our higher courts, including even the House of Lords, have to follow points of EC law that have been decided by judicial panels at a relatively low level, including, for example, the trade mark office boards of appeal at Alicante.
    I realise that I am putting very technical points to the Minister, but I remind him that they have an important impact on our judicial processes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give the House some assurances in that respect.
    Peter Hain: In direct response to the points made by the hon. Members for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and for Stone (Mr. Cash), let me say that an important part of the changes is the package of reforms to deliver a more effective system for justice in the European Union that will cut delays. The British Government have worked hard to achieve that package. Indeed, we overcame the objections of some other member states by insisting that it was included on the 2000 intergovernmental conference agenda.
    The hon. Member for Stone asked about qualified majority voting for changes to the rules of procedure for the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance. It is important for us to secure that change, as it will make it easier to reach agreement in the Council on proposals to enable courts to organise their work effectively and especially to improve how they work within their existing powers. He will be pleased to know that the change does not hold any constitutional phantom threats for him. It is about making access to justice quicker and easier.
    The hon. Member for West Suffolk raised a series of issues which do not apply. The changes introduced by the Nice treaty are much more modest. In particular, to address the hon. Gentleman's first point, the treaty gives the Council the power, by unanimity, to transfer jurisdiction for certain specific categories of case from the European Court of Justice to the Court of First Instance, including preliminary references. That will ease the caseload burden on the European Court of Justice. That is all that this is about.
    Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Peter Hain: Not at the moment, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
    The hon. Member for West Suffolk also asked about the enabling provision to set up judicial panels, as a third tier in the courts, to help relieve the caseload of the Court of First Instance, for example by dealing with specialised areas, such as staff cases. Those panels will be an integral part of the court architecture and each will be set up by the Council by unanimity.
    The creation of such panels is a way of easing the pressure on the Court of First Instance. No big issue is involved here. That is precisely the type of reform that we wanted, to build new flexibility into the court system so that it can adapt its working practices and cut delays in administering justice.
    Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Peter Hain: I am sorry, but I am short of time and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber much this afternoon.
    252
    The Nice treaty also agrees changes that will lead to improvements in the courts' efficiency and effectiveness. Those changes, which will speed up access to justice and build greater flexibility into the court system, will be good for British business and for British citizens. One need only consider the French ban on British beef to see that efficient courts are in the UK's interests. The courts uphold Community law in areas such as the single market. That is vital to enable British business to function effectively.
    By opposing the ratification of the Nice treaty, the Conservative party demonstrates that it puts its own partisan interests before the interests of British business. The Government encourage the Opposition to reconsider their position in opposing such necessary, beneficial and modest reforms of the courts.
    All the changes set out at Nice will deliver better access to justice and contribute to the modernised, reformed EU that we want, better equipped to deal with enlargement. That is why we stand by them and reject the amendments.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: If the lead amendment were to be allowed it would have the effect of taking away the privileges and immunities that ought properly to be available to the Court of First Instance. That is a somewhat nihilistic approach. There may be points, such as those raised by the hon. Members for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and for Stone (Mr. Cash), but to get rid of those privileges is unnecessarily apocalyptic.
    The treaty constitutes a reform of the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance. As the Minister has already said, an efficient and effective European Court of Justice is essential to the proper functioning of the EU and is in the interests of the British people. Without an effective court, there could not be an efficient single market.
    The Minister referred to the Commission taking France to the court in relation to lifting the ban on British beef, and there are similar examples, some perhaps not so enormous in their significance. For example, Greece was forced to open its markets to soft drinks from the UK because of an ruling by the European Court of Justice, and Spain has been forced to change regulations that prevented British confectioners from selling their products there. An efficient and effective court is in the interests of the EU, the single market and the people of the UK. The amendments should be resisted.
    Mr. Cash: The problem that we have with the court is its judicial activism. The more functions that are conferred on the EU in terms of European government and so on, the greater the power that the court has in respect of the government of Britain. The Minister has not referred to the European Parliament, but I do not criticise him for that because it has not been raised. However, the European Parliament will now have the right to bring actions to the European Court of Justice. In practice, that will be used to fight Council decisions which are deemed to be insufficiently centralising. We can expect the European Court of Justice to side with the European Parliament against the Council in such cases, thus reducing the power of national Parliaments. Again, that demonstrates the increasing power of the judiciary in the European Union. I warn hon. Members of all parties: watch this space.
    Amendment negatived.
    9.45 pm
    Mr. Spring: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    `other than Article 2, paragraph 8.'.
    The Nice treaty goes beyond the extension of QMV. It represents the extension of Community competence beyond the existing common commercial policy to other aspects of services and intellectual property. Under the current mixed competence arrangements for overseas trade in services, member states take full part in bilateral negotiations with other World Trade Organisation members, but the Commission acts as lead negotiator in the WTO. Common positions are agreed unanimously with all EU member states. However, paragraph 8 of article 2 of the Nice treaty amends article 133 TEC to allow the Commission to negotiate, and the Council to agree external agreements on the trade in most services and the commercial aspects of intellectual property.
    In addition, agreement will usually be reached through QMV. Labour Members highlighted those provisions when mentioning the alleged benefits of extending QMV. Their view is that the Commission tends to have a liberalising agenda, ergo the move must be beneficial. By questioning it, Conservative Members are told that we stand in the way of liberalisation and trade. However, the changes to article 133 represent a significant extension of Community competence in aspects that are vital to the UK economy. It is disappointing that the Government are content to rubber-stamp them so casually.
    Perhaps it is true that the Commission would currently approach aspects of service trade agreements from a liberal perspective, but the extension of competence that we are discussing is not limited to specific agreements or times. Who is to say that the point of view of the Commission or the Governments of other member states, which are meant to guide the discussions, will not change? If it does, the House would be powerless to put the case for service trade discussions that are in the interests of this country or, as we perceive them, the EU as a whole.
    Britain tends to have an outlook that is generally more oriented to free trade in international negotiations than that of some of our partners. It could be argued that QMV means that the British point of view can prevail. However, it could also be argued that an alternative viewpoint could prevail over ours. No individual state will have a veto on the conclusion of agreements by the Community. That applies to Britain as much as any other country.
    The financial services sector is vital to the UK economy. Its importance continues to increase. Does not the Minister recognise that UK interests often differ from those of continental financial service centres? We have much more international business than our continental neighbours, especially in the bond and foreign exchange markets. The UK has massive investments outside the EU, and massive inward investment flows into this country from outside the EU. Can the Minister clarify whether the Nice treaty provisions mean that the UK would be unable to negotiate with, for example, the United States or Japan, even when our interests diverge from those of the rest of the EU? Could our interests be overridden by QMV? If that is the case, are the Government as genuinely comfortable with the changes as they suggest?
    We are a trading nation par excellence and our capacity to continue as one needs to be assured.
    Denzil Davies: I appreciate that the debate must end at 10 pm, but I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister
    254
    for Europe one or two questions. We are considering an important change, which could be relevant to the general agreement on trade and services and the intellectual property aspect of the Uruguay round. One of the few occasions when the European Court of Justice supported member states was when it upheld the argument that they had a competence in negotiating trade in services. Now, of course, that competence has been taken away and, in effect, given to the Council of Ministers and the Commission. In effect, therefore, a veto that would otherwise have been available to member states has gone.
    New paragraph 5 of article 133—on page 17 of the treaty of Nice—refers to the
    "commercial aspects of intellectual property, insofar as those agreements are not covered by the said paragraphs and without prejudice to paragraph 6."
    Paragraph 7 also refers to intellectual property. What intellectual property is being referred to in paragraph 7 that is not included in paragraph 5? Paragraph 5 covers the commercial aspects of intellectual property. We are then told that other intellectual property agreements are covered by paragraph 7. I am not sure why it should he necessary to have a second paragraph. I would have thought that paragraph 5 would deal with the matter.
    Secondly, why was it felt necessary to get a derogation in respect of human health services? The French got a derogation in respect of cultural services, as I understand it. I am not saying that we should not have that derogation, but what are we talking about? What human health services would otherwise have been affected by the general agreement on trade and services? Is that what the derogation relates to?
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Following the point made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) a moment ago, I understand that the French insisted on agreements relating to trade in cultural and audio-visual services, educational services and social and human health services requiring unanimous agreement being required to remain matters of shared competence. Such agreements would be concluded jointly by the Community and the member states. Will the Minister confirm whether that is indeed the legal position and, if so, what reasoning lay behind it?
    Peter Hain: I am grateful for the points that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members. I continue to be amazed by the position taken by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring).
    Mr. Spring: Good.
    Peter Hain: Well, perhaps I am not really amazed. Perhaps that is what one would expect from the Conservatives.
    These are important changes to the EC treaty that will bring real benefits to Britain. I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) on the loss of the veto, because the common commercial policy helps the member states to combine their strengths to act as a liberalising force in the world market, which will help to open up overseas markets to British companies. That is the point of the measures. Those companies should be told about the Conservative party's position in wanting to block opportunities that will arise as a result of the changes in the Nice treaty.

    255
    We have to be prepared to modernise if our economies are to adapt to this century. That is why we agreed to extend the scope of the common commercial policy to include some services and commercial aspects of intellectual property, as my right hon. Friend mentioned. Those sectors of the economy are increasingly important in the modern world. An example is financial services, in which Britain is especially competitive, and it is important that the European Union should throw its full weight behind discussions on such issues. Britain will benefit from the measures; that is why we supported them and why we completely reject the amendment.
    Mr. Cash: As has been said, the proposal brings in qualified majority voting for international trade agreements. Apart from extending the subject matter to intellectual property, this has a great deal to do with the obsession of France with cultural services. The article's main provisions on cultural services are a sop to France and its concern about losing the international cultural rules, as the French put it, to the United States of America. That is really what this is all about. Elements of unanimity remain, but this is eventually going to have a severe impact on much of the World Trade Organisation's negotiations, which will be affected in unpredictable ways.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Spring: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 2, paragraph 17'.
    The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 79, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 3, paragraph 1'.
    No. 105, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
    'other than Article 4, paragraph 5'.
    No. 119, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than Article 1 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
    No. 120, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
    No. 121, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
    No. 122, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than paragraph 3 of Article 2 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
    No. 123, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
    No. 124, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than paragraph I of Article 3 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
    No. 125, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    `(other than paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
    No. 126, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
    256
    No. 127, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
    No. 128, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
    No. 129, in page 1, line 12, after "Protocols", insert—
    '(other than paragraph 4 of Article 4 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union)'.
    Mr. Spring: Many issues covered by the amendment are vital to the functioning of a post-enlargement EU. I want to address the changes to the European Parliament and then issues connected with Council reweighting and the Commission's size. The amendment relates to the number of Members of the European Parliament. The new limit is set at 732 compared with the 700 envisaged previously, so that is yet another clear reversal of the Government's position.
    In March 2000, the former Minister for Europe told the Foreign Affairs Committee that the ceiling of 700 was an acceptable position. The former Foreign Secretary also opposed a two-stage transition to a lower limit for the number of MEPs. He said:
    "we are less convinced by the EP's idea of a two-stage transition. A single re-adjustment would avoid the need for two separate changes to national arrangements, and to predict how many new countries will accede in the period between 2004 and 2009. The accession of more than had been expected would lead to a breach of the 700 seat ceiling, from which it might subsequently be difficult to row back."
    Guess what happened at Nice? The Government agreed to just such a breach of the 700-seat ceiling. Does the Minister think that it has subsequently been difficult to row back? Are the Government rowing back from their original position or is it still their objective? Having set out the position of trying to keep in balance the size of the European Parliament, have they rowed back from it? Perhaps the Minister will explain his predecessor's failure to persuade others of the Government's case at Nice, which will be all too familiar to the former Foreign Secretary who is now on the Front Bench.
    I must deal with the reweighting in the Council and briefly discuss the amendment and the Commission's size. The Opposition have made it clear that they are willing to accept those provisions in the treaty of Nice as being connected with EU enlargement, which we passionately support. That is not to say that current arrangements are the biggest obstacle to speedy and successful enlargement. The biggest obstacles, such as an unreformed common agricultural policy, are not addressed in the treaty at all. Nor do we believe that the new arrangements are by any means perfect, but an EU preparing the way for enlargement needed to limit the size of the Commission and rebalance the votes in the Council, so we shall not vote against those changes.
    A number of comments have been made about Britain's relative influence under the revised voting procedures. I shall not go into detail about that, but I must ask the Minister about the attitude of EU leaders to the applicant states. Does he share our view on President Chirac's apparent assertion that it is
    "legitimate that old member states, who have contributed so much, have more votes than those who are new and will bring problems"?

    257
    Does he regard that as acceptable or regrettable? In particular, as the Foreign Affairs Committee has noted, the Czech Republic and Hungary have both expressed disappointment that they were allocated two fewer European Parliament seats than Belgium, Greece and Portugal, which have similar populations. Malta also has concerns. Can he clarify whether those provisions in declaration 20 of the treaty of Nice are final?
    The Foreign Office memorandum was at pains to point out to the Select Committee that the vote weights in the declaration do not have legal force. Rather, they represent a political commitment and a guide for accession negotiations. It is said that any applicant country that feels that it has been unfairly treated is free to raise the matter during the negotiations, but that raises two questions. First, at Nice, why did Ministers once again agree to measures that they clearly do not support and are unable to defend? Secondly, if applicant countries raise the issue during the negotiations, can they hope to receive support from Her Majesty's Government?
    Peter Hain: I disagree with all the points made by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), which is why we call on the Committee to reject the amendment.
    It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Orders [4 and 11 July], put forthwith the Questions necessary to bring proceedings on clauses 1 to 4 to a conclusion.
    Amendment negatived.
    Question put, That clause 1 stand part of the Bill:—
    The Committee proceeded to a Division.
    The First Deputy Chairman: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
    The Committee having divided: Ayes 367, Noes 146.

    Division No. 29]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Best, Harold

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Betts, Clive

    Ainger, Nick

    Blackman, Liz

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Alexander, Douglas

    Borrow, David

    Allen, Graham

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Brennan, Kevin

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Brooke, Annette

    Austin, John

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Baird, Vera

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Banks, Tony

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Barnes, Harry

    Bryant, Chris

    Barrett, John

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Barron, Kevin

    Burgon, Colin

    Battle, John

    Burnham, Andy

    Bayley, Hugh

    Burstow, Paul

    Beard, Nigel

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cairns, David

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Calton, Patsy

    Benn, Hilary

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Bennett, Andrew

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Benton, Joe

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Berry, Roger

    258

    Cann, Jamie

    Godsiff, Roger

    Caplin, Ivor

    Goggins, Paul

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Casale, Roger

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Caton, Martin

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Grogan, John

    Challen, Colin

    Hain, Peter

    Chaytor, David

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Hanson, David

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Havard, Dai

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Healey, John

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Heath, David

    Clelland, David

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Clwyd, Ann

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hendrick, Mark

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Cohen, Harry

    Heppell, John

    Coleman, Iain

    Hesford, Stephen

    Colman, Tony

    Heyes, David

    Connarty, Michael

    Hill, Keith

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Corston, Jean

    Holmes, Paul

    Cotter, Brian

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cousins, Jim

    Hope, Phil

    Cox, Tom

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Cranston, Ross

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Crausby, David

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cruddas, Jon

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cummings, John

    Hurst, Alan

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Hutton, John

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Illsley, Eric

    Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jamieson, David

    David, Wayne

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davidson, Ian

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Doran, Frank

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Doughty, Sue

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Dowd, Jim

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Drew, David

    Kemp, Fraser

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Khabra, Piara S

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kidney, David

    Edwards, Huw

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Efford, Clive

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Ennis, Jeff

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Etherington, Bill

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Farrelly, Paul

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Lamb, Norman

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Lammy, David

    Flynn, Paul

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Follett, Barbara

    Laws, David

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Laxton, Bob

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Foulkes, George

    Leslie, Christopher

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    Levitt, Tom

    Gapes, Mike

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Gerrard, Neil

    Linton, Martin

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Lloyd, Tony

    Gidley, Sandra

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    259

    Love, Andrew

    Rendel, David

    Lucas, Ian

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Luke, lain

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lyons, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    McCabe, Stephen

    Rooney, Terry

    McCafferty, Chris

    Ross, Ernie

    MacDonald, Calum

    Roy, Frank

    MacDougall, John

    Ruane, Chris

    McFall, John

    Ruddock, Joan

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Mclsaac, Shona

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    McKechin, Ann

    Salmond, Alex

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Salter, Martin

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Sanders, Adrian

    McNamara, Kevin

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McNulty, Tony

    Sawford, Phil

    MacShane, Denis

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    McWalter, Tony

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    McWilliam, John

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

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

    Mann, John

    Soley, Clive

    Marris, Rob

    Southworth, Helen

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Spellar, John

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Squire, Rachel

    Martlew, Eric

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Merron, Gillian

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Stevenson, George

    Miller, Andrew

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Moore, Michael

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Morgan, Julie

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Morley, Elliot

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Mudie, George

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Mullin, Chris

    Stringer, Graham

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Tami, Mark

    Oaten, Mark

    Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Olner, Bill

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Organ, Diana

    Timms, Stephen

    Osbome, Sandra (Ayr)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Owen, Albert

    Todd, Mark

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Pearson, Ian

    Touhig, Don

    Perham, Linda

    Trickett, Jon

    Picking, Anne

    Truswell, Paul

    Pickthall, Colin

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Pike, Peter

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Plaskitt, James

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Pond, Chris

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Pope, Greg

    Tyler, Paul

    Pound, Stephen

    Tynan, Bill

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Wareing, Robert N

    Price, Adam

    Watson, Tom

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Watts, David

    Pugh, Dr John

    Webb, Steve

    Purchase, Ken

    Weir, Michael

    Pumell, James

    White, Brian

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Rammell, Bill

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Rapson, Syd

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    260

    Willis, Phil

    Wray, James

    Wills, Michael

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Winnick, David

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Wishart, Pete

    Wood, Mike

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Woolas, Phil

    Angela Smith and

    Worthington, Tony

    Dan Norris.

    NOES

    Amess, David

    Horam, John

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Bacon, Richard

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Baldry, Tony

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Barker, Greg

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Baron, John

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Beggs, Roy

    Lansley, Andrew

    Bellingham, Henry

    Leigh, Edward

    Bercow, John

    Letwin, Oliver

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Boswell, Tim

    Lidington, David

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Loughton, Tim

    Brady, Graham

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Brazier, Julian

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Burns, Simon

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Burnside, David

    Malins, Humfrey

    Burt, Alistair

    Maples, John

    Butterfill, John

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Cameron, David

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Cash, William

    Mercer, Patrick

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Chope, Christopher

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    Clappison, James

    Norman, Archie

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Collins, Tim

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Cran, James

    Ottaway, Richard

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Page, Richard

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Paice, James

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Pickles, Eric

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M

    Prisk, Mark

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Duncan, Alan

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Duncan, Peter

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Evans, Nigel

    Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Fallon, Michael

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Flight, Howard

    Ruffley, David

    Flook, Adrian

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Selous, Andrew

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Francois, Mark

    Shepherd, Richard

    Gale, Roger

    Simmonds, Mark

    Garnier, Edward

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Gibb, Nick

    Skinner, Dennis

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Soames, Nicholas

    Goodman, Paul

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Gray, James

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Grayling, Chris

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Spring, Richard

    Greenway, John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hammond, Philip

    Steen, Anthony

    Hawkins, Nick

    Streeter, Gary

    Heald, Oliver

    Swayne, Desmond

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Swire, Hugo

    Hendry, Charles

    Syms, Robert

    Hermon, Lady

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Hoban, Mark

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Tredinnick, David

    261

    Trend, Michael

    Wilkinson, John

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Willetts, David

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Wilshire, David

    Viggers, Peter

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Walter, Robert

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Yeo, Tim

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Watkinson, Angela

    Whittingdale, John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Mr. Peter Luff and

    Wiggin, Bill

    Mr. John Randall.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
    Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 83) (HC88) on Maintenance of Roads Grants 2001–02, which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 82) (HC111) on 2001–02 Special Grants in connection with pilot Local Public Service Agreements, which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.

    TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
    That the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.
    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
    That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) (No. 2) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
    TRANSPORT (SCOTLAND)
    That the draft Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 (Conditions attached to PSV Operator's Licence and Competition Test for Exercise of Bus Functions) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
    That the draft Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.
    That the draft Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (Scotland) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 85) (HC130) on Invest to Save Budget Round 3 projects, which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
    That the draft Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
    Question agreed to.

    SOCIAL SECURITY
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    That the draft Social Security (Literacy Etc. Skills Training Pilot) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Division deferred till Wednesday 18 July, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001]
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 86) (HC147) on 2001–02 Special Grant for Rate Relief in Respect of Hardship caused by Foot and Mouth Disease, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    AGRICULTURE
    That the Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy (Variation) Scheme (Approval) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
    Question agreed to.

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

  PETITION

    Northern General Hospital, Sheffield
    10.20 pm
    Helen Jackson: I wish to present to the House a petition from 62,000—[Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Will hon. Members please leave the House quickly and quietly?
    Helen Jackson: I wish to present to the House a petition from 62,000 members of the community in south Yorkshire who oppose the possible closure of the heart transplant unit in Sheffield's Northern General hospital.
    The petition states:
    The Petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Secretary of State for Health to intervene to ensure the continued functioning and development of the cardio-thoracic transplant unit at the Northern General Hospital.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Southend (Regeneration)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  10.21 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I think that the whole House recognises that Southend is the finest seaside resort in the country. Any hon. Member who saw the exhibition that we held in the Upper Waiting Room before the general election will have been truly impressed by the quality of the different facilities that Southend has to offer. It is a remarkable seaside resort. How could anyone not enjoy Rossi' s glorious ice cream, a trip to the end of the longest pier in the world or the magnificent plants and shrubs that adorn the cliffs at the side of the Thames estuary?
  We recently had a magnificent air show, which attracted people from all over the country. I am very proud of the town of Southend, but, like so many seaside resorts, it faces a number of challenges. It is recognised, for instance, that holidays in this country are not as popular as they used to be. Air fares are much cheaper than they used to be, and our weather can be rather unpredictable, so it is clear that Southend and other resorts have lost much of the domestic business that they used to enjoy.
  For those and other reasons, Southend has found that it has had to reposition itself in the market. The House will know that, for two or three years, I urged the Government to support our bid for funding from the European Union, and the Government gave that support. I welcome the new Minister to her post, and I know that she will want to do her best to support my constituents in Southend, West.
  I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) is present, as is the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who takes a great interest in these matters. When we first tried to secure European funding some considerable time ago, we had meetings with Ministers at which it was well understood that five wards in Southend would be supported. Two of the wards to benefit were in my constituency, and the other three were in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
  I shall not bore the House with details of what went on, but without any warning I suddenly discovered that the two wards in my constituency would not receive any support because we had initially applied for funding under the fisheries strand. I was not involved in the process whereby that bid collapsed. All of a sudden, we found out that we qualified only under the urban strand. All five wards that qualified turned out to be those in the constituency of my hon. Friend. That was a huge disappointment to my constituents and to me.
  We had a debate in Westminster Hall about the bid. The then Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), was gallant and recognised that the matter could have been handled differently. That said, I felt that as we qualified under the urban strand, one of the wards in my constituency—Westborough—certainly would have met the criteria: but there we are, it was done and dusted. I hope that everything that I intend to put before the Minister will persuade her that the fishermen and women who were disappointed by what happened can take some encouragement from what we may be able to secure for them.

  265
  The council has a good working relationship with regional organisations and the east of England objective 2 partnership. A number of projects in Southend are being developed with access to EU funding. Southend has recently been awarded £5.4 million of EU objective 2 funding, about which we are truly delighted. It will go towards a major £17 million project, to be known as Southend seafront high street and pier enhancement. Again, none of the wards falls in the constituency that I represent, but there is no doubt that the development will have a great impact on the whole of Southend and will attract more businesses and visitors to the town.
  The local authority welcomes the project and the financial support from Europe. We thank the Government for their backing, but in the midst of all this good news the fishing community is experiencing difficulties in obtaining financial support for a project that has great potential for innovation and diversity within the industry.
  I pay a warm tribute to two council officers, Philomena Kettlewell and Vivian Byczynski. They have worked hard to try to secure EU funding for the project, but it is a private project led by Mr. Michael King and Mr. Paul Gilson, who have done a splendid job in developing it. It is a remarkable scheme that everyone praises.
  The fishing grounds of the Thames estuary are under considerable pressure as a result of various EU restrictions, as Essex Members know. The number of fishermen has declined, and the retail price of fish has increased, to the disadvantage of the consumer. Fish farming and, more recently, genetically modified fish, have affected consumer confidence in the product. The programme would increase the number of harvestable fish in the area and the opportunity for fishermen to make a living in a manner that does not involve GM fish or fish farming. The project will also enable complementary industries such as marine engineering and transport to prosper. Scientific research associated with the project has educational and tourist potential and will enhance the image of the town, not that it needs too much of that, but I admit that I am biased.
  Dover sole, as most Essex Members know, is the most important fish caught in the Thames estuary. It is a high-value item, but stocks have decreased despite conservation measures. That species will form the thrust of the initial project. Adult fish caught in the wild in spawning conditions will be retained on board fishing vessels in special holding tanks and transferred ashore to fertilisation tanks on the same day. Once fertilised, the larvae will be grown in tanks—half will grow to 5 cm long and half to 10 cm—and then returned to the sea. They will be separately identified to compare survival of the different-sized released juveniles.
  Following the success of the Dover sole scheme and in order to utilise the facility throughout the year, the project leaders believe that the same procedure could be used with turbot and lobster. Lobsters, I am advised, have the advantage of not straying far, so they can be harvested locally. As major growth would take place in the sea, the image associated with fish farming would be avoided. They will be "wild fish".
  Hatcheries are already being run successfully in Canada and Japan, and some have recently been started in the British Isles. There is the Padstow lobster hatchery in
  266
  Cornwall as well as the Wexford lobster co-op and the Dingle aquarium and flatfish hatchery, both in the Republic of Ireland. Members of the committee working on the project have visited all those sites. As far as they are concerned, the two hatcheries could be run in conjunction with an aquarium and would be well supported by local fishing industries and the local authority.
  The hatcheries in Dingle and Padstow are both adjacent to, and reliant on, aquariums. The equipment and expertise needed to operate an efficient aquarium are similar to those for a hatchery, so co-location is desirable. At present, the idea is that the Southend Sea Life centre, which has substantial advantages for the scheme, would be used as a main base, but a number of other possibilities are being explored.
  I hope that the Minister recognises that this project is very important for employment. Fishing has steadily declined in recent years—we are down to about 60 fishermen working in the area. The project would protect these jobs and we believe that there would be an increase in such employment. Members of the Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee support it, as do others. Research is also crucial.
  Some might say that Mike King, the chairman of the project, has been using intemperate language about his disappointment. That is unfair, but he is somewhat frustrated about how the scheme has been handled. The committee first met in February 2000; the scheme was prepared for objective 2 funding, only to be told nine months later that fishing was excluded. The committee checked with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the latest funding became known. It was advised that it was okay, only to be told later that it was excluded because it was aquaculture. We do not have the time to go into detail in this short debate, and I will send the information to the Minister's office, but advice from Brussels seems to contradict that. I am not criticising civil servants or others; I am simply asking the Minister to ensure that we receive the correct information.
  Mike King believes that there are two issues. He believes that the scheme would be widely supported and that it is unable to proceed after 18 months owing to bureaucracy. He has found getting a straight answer about whether the scheme is viable to be a frustrating exercise. I shall not name names, but he is adamant that we were given the wrong information about the scheme at the start.
  From the local authority perspective, I pay tribute to Councillor David Garston and his vice-chairman, Mrs. Anna Whaite, who have done a magnificent job. They have asked me to draw to the Minister's attention a number of points in conclusion.
  We ask the Minister and her officials—I know that she will have to talk to those in other Departments—to see whether there is a way to help the fishermen through the difficulties from which their industry is suffering at the moment. Why are the funding restrictions such that the project faces so many obstacles, even though everyone seems to agree its merit and potential? I would like Government advice on how barriers can be broken down so that the most up to date and appropriate advice can be given to fishermen to support their initiative. I ask the Minister to assure the fishermen of Southend that every effort will be made to find a solution before the next bidding round, which I am advised will start in

  267
  September. I therefore hope that, during the long summer recess, the new Minister will use her very best endeavours to bring some joy and hope to Southend fishermen.
  10.35 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing this debate. He has eloquently explained the problems of Southend and even more eloquently set out its attractions. He has tread that very careful line between praising an area and recognising its problems.
  It is widely recognised that, despite its many attractions, Southend has a number of very long-standing problems. The district ranks among the most deprived in the east of England in terms of income and employment. Southend's unemployment rate stands at 4.2 per cent, which compares unfavourably with the east of England average of 2.1 per cent. and a United Kingdom average of 3.2 per cent.
  The problems, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, are rooted in structural weaknesses in the Southend economy—principally its overdependence on tourism, fishing and certain types of financial and business services, which are all in decline. Recent plans to redevelop Southend's former gasworks site by building a 15-bedroom hotel and houses have been axed, and a local manufacturer has announced the redundancies of 33 people.
  I should, however, like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Southend-on-Sea council and other local and regional agencies—the hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the individuals involved who deserve credit—for tackling the problems with exemplary vigour and imagination. I congratulate the council on its successful campaigns for some Southend wards to be included in the east of England objective 2 programme—I recognise the resentment that some feel when their wards are not included in a funding area—and for the whole of Southend to be included in the Thames gateway, which has been extended to include south-east Essex and which will be an important driver for the regeneration of the area.
  The objective 2 programme provides a tremendous opportunity for Southend and other needy areas in east England. Over the seven years from January 2000 to December 2006, almost £100 million of European grants will be available to objective 2 areas in the east of England, supporting projects to the value of more than £260 million.
  Southend-on-Sea council and its partners have come together in a local area group for the Southend-on-Sea objective 2 area, which will oversee the preparation and submission of bids. The partnership's vision is that, by the end of the objective 2 programme, Southend-on-Sea will be known throughout the east of England and beyond as a vibrant and different area that is an attractive place in which to live, work, shop and spend time and—hopefully—money.
  The partnership has already bid successfully for its first major objective 2 project: a £17 million Southend sea front, high street and pier-enhancement project. That will be supported by a £5.4 million grant from the European regional development fund. The project will transform the
  268
  appearance of the town's central corridor, from the gateway entrance in Prittlewell through the high street and along the 2 km pier, which is being restored following the disastrous fire of a few years ago.
  Works to be undertaken as part of the project include a heritage trail, cycle paths, the creation of a series of themed quarters in the high street and the removal and replacement of unsightly and out-dated features. Southend is already visited by 1.6 million people a year. The aim of the project is to increase that number substantially, and I am sure that it will have the hon. Gentleman's strong support.
  Two other major bids are at an advanced stage of preparation. The first is the Milton "investment in learning" project, which will provide community facilities on the new South East Essex college campus in Milton, with the aim of stimulating demand for learning and skills development and delivering business support to local enterprises. The second is the "advance, learn and live" project of the Southend Association of Voluntary Services, which will provide additional facilities for the association's centre in Alexandra street, offering volunteering and training opportunities to people who feel disengaged and marginalised, including the long-term unemployed. As the hon. Gentleman said, Southend also benefits from objective 3 funding which has made a significant contribution to the local economy in a number of ways, through projects totalling £812,151.
  The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the problems of the fishing industry. I shall now address that and discuss the details of the project about which he is particularly concerned. The coastal area around Southend was designated as a PESCA area under the previous European Union community initiative programme—the hon. Gentleman might be familiar with PESCA, which I am told is not an acronym. In addition to the nationally acclaimed cockling industry based in Leigh-on-Sea, the area is known for its stocks of a wide range of fish and shellfish subject to the EU quota system. Local fish merchants, supermarkets and restaurants purchase some of the catch, but the vast majority of locally caught fish is exported.
  The fishing grounds of the Thames estuary are under considerable pressure as a result of EU restrictions. Within the area, the number of fishermen has declined and the retail price of fish has increased, to the disadvantage of the consumer. Fish farming and, more recently, genetically modified fish have affected consumer confidence. I am aware that the fishing industry has been suffering serious decline. One positive outcome, however, is the way in which fishermen have pooled their resources and expertise in a partnership approach to tackling the issues that they face and the challenges facing the industry. The fishing community has considered how to embrace new technology, new ideas and innovative ways to diversify and compete in today's market, and to maintain the skills that have been passed down the generations.
  The fish restocking project is a good example of that. It has been discussed and developed during the past 18 months, with the support of the hon. Gentleman. It is regarded as an innovative project that would address the issues of fish stocks. It involves removing the eggs from caught fish, allowing the larvae to grow in controlled conditions and releasing the juveniles back into the water, so helping to provide adequate fish stocks for local

  269
  fishermen to catch. The project also offers an opportunity for scientific research into the development of fish larvae, tagging of young fish and measuring their rate of growth, the distance they travel and the number that are subsequently caught in local waters.
  The fish restocking project will increase the number of harvestable fish in the area and enhance opportunities for fishermen to make a living in a way that does not involve GM fish or fish farming. It will also enable complementary industries to prosper, including marine engineering and transportation. In addition, the scientific research associated with the project has educational and tourism potential, and it will enhance the town's image. Once the immediate target of increasing stocks of Dover sole has been met, there is a prospect of turning to turbot and lobster.
  Discussions have taken place between the fish restocking project partnership and officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They have identified a question about the project's eligibility for the financial instrument for fisheries guidance scheme: the nub of the issue is whether the project constitutes aquaculture, which is excluded from the scheme. DEFRA officials understand the issues and are working hard to resolve them in the near future. I know that they have been supportive in pointing out issues relating to eligibility and have identified areas where more information is needed for a bid. I understand that the project partners decided not to submit a bid in June as a result of those problems, but I strongly encourage them to continue discussions with DEFRA and to explore fully flexibilities in the scheme. The next round of bidding will close at the end of September this year, which allows time for partners to discuss issues and to submit a formal bid. I assure the hon. Gentleman that DEFRA will do all that it can to help them in the bid process. It is also sensible for those concerned with the project to consider alternative avenues and sources of funding by, for example, talking to the East of England development agency.
  Despite the problems with that project, there is good news about the regeneration of Southend. Plans to renovate and improve Southend pier were unveiled in May and a new pier entrance should be ready in June 2002. A £2 million programme to re-deck the fire-damaged pier head should be finished by December 2002. There are two major developments at Shoeburyness, which is at the eastern periphery of the borough, both of which are former Ministry of Defence ranges and are considered crucial to the regeneration of the area. One development, at Shoeburyness garrison, will result in 600 jobs as the result of the creation of a mini-town comprising 465 new homes, a school, shops, leisure centre and health centre. Moreover, 150 new jobs were created by London Clubs International, which opened a new Casino at the Kursal building earlier this year.
  270
  We are taking action to improve local transport for Southend. Communications are good; the A 127 and A 13 trunk roads link Southend to the national motorway network via the M25, which is 20 minutes' drive from the town. However, both trunk roads are overloaded and we are contributing £14.5 million to the borough council's scheme to improve passenger transport and reduce congestion on the A13 and A127. In addition, Southend received an increase in transport block funding of £4.6 million for 2001–02, against funding of £2.3 million in the previous financial year.
  Southend is now receiving funding under the fifth and sixth rounds of the singe regeneration budget programme. In the fifth round, Southend received more than £1.8 million of SRB money for a £3.758 million seven-year scheme that is aimed at identifying and developing solutions for the deprived wards of Milton, Victoria and St. Luke's. Projects include a community information and learning centre; improving educational attainment and health awareness; and addressing the needs of minority and vulnerable groups. In the sixth round, Southend received £3.75 million of SRB money for a £27 million seven-year scheme aimed at providing information on learning, education and skills through community capacity building and community renewal projects and a mental health project.
  Those were substantial amounts of money from a wide variety of sources, both from the Government and Europe. I am sure that they will greatly enhance the regeneration of all of Southend which, of course, will benefit all its constituents. The hon. Gentleman can take much comfort from the fact that his constituents are getting a large slice of regeneration funds, even though there are difficulties with the project in which he has a particular interest. Clearly, it is an emotive subject because of the area's traditional connections with the fishing industry.
  However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have taken note of his comments on the problems for the fishermen at Southend, specifically the fish restocking project. I know that Southend is in receipt of large amounts of regeneration funding, which should have a huge impact on the area. Once again, I should like to take the opportunity to encourage the project partners to work with DEFRA officials on a bid for September. I assure the House that the Government office for the east of England is well aware of the difficulties surrounding the project and of the hon. Gentleman's interest in it; it will work with partners to ensure that all of Southend can make best use of the opportunities offered it by the funding and initiatives that I have mentioned.
  In conclusion, I again congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this subject. I am sure that, with his skilled advocacy on behalf of his constituency and town, Southend will truly realise its full potential.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eleven o 'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Urban Community Relations
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Caplin.]
9.30 am
Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to have such a debate, but I am not happy that we are having to hold it at the end of this summer term. Given the short time that is allowed for response to a Home Secretary's statement, it is however timely to have a more considered view of the events of the past few months, hence this debate on community relations and unrest in our urban communities. I hope that it encourages support for leaders in urban Britain as well as encouraging us to listen to each other and hear the messages that come from towns and cities where, all too sadly in recent weeks and months, there has been local unrest.
Later today, the Conservative party will choose the two people who will go forward to its wider membership for its leadership election. That causes me to reflect on the fact that it matters to people in urban communities—indeed, in all our communities—not so much who the political leaders are, but what they do. During the 18 Tory years when many of us were critical of some of that party's policies, many of which did not work, it would be fair to say that some of its statements of intent would, however, apply equally well today. One of the most widely quoted, but often ridiculed, statements by Lady Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, related to our urban communities. When she quoted the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi, many people reacted as though they did not believe that that really was what she aspired to achieve. The prayer's core message was about bringing harmony and unity out of discord. I want this debate to achieve that, too.
My political background is appropriate to this debate in two respects. I was born and brought up in the northwest, on the outskirts of Manchester in what is now the borough of Stockport—the constituency that was recently won back for the Liberal Democrats by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Patsy Calton). In those days, not long after the end of the war, the regeneration of Britain was a key issue in Manchester. When I came to London after having been a student, I settled in the constituency that I am now proud to represent. I was driven into active party politics more by a sense of urban dereliction, decay and frustration than anything else. I was a youth leader. Young people and their families felt so frustrated by their powerlessness within the system that they had little hope for the future. Those facts led me to make the contribution that I have made as a Member of Parliament. I feel very strongly about these issues.
Recent written commentary in many newspapers—the think pieces—have often been helpful. Some television and radio commentaries have not.
2WH
Immediately after the events in Burnley, Bradford, Oldham and elsewhere, the press fell into the easy trap of exaggerating the disorder, trouble and problems and looking for people with extreme views to make the position seem worse, which is positively unhelpful. In contrast, over the following weekends, some helpful and perceptive comments were made, including one reported in The Observer by someone clearly of Asian background, called Faisal Islam, who said:
"Racism makes matters far worse. But the essential problems facing all the communities of these northern towns are the same: lack of jobs and prosperity.
The cream … will head to the south-east for the high paid jobs … Those that are left, white or Asian, do not have an exciting menu of career options. Some drift into the general pattern common to disaffected British males: crime, drugs, and assorted forms of yobbery.
These threads of commonality should be the starting-point for concerted action across estates of this kind. Regeneration is required on a regional scale. The racist agitators who have been stirring up trouble offer no solutions to the long-term problems of de-industrialisation."
Around the Chamber are colleagues from places such as Stoke-on-Trent, Sheffield, Keighley and so on who, like me, live in such communities all the time and will speak with possibly just as much understanding and experience as I do.
A perceptive analysis of what is often over-simplified as a racial divide was also provided by Yasmin Alibhai Brown last week in The Independent, who referred to the identity crisis of both many Asian youths and many white youths. Asian men are not accepted as British by this country's white culture but are chastised as too British by their own families. I have experience of young Asians in exactly that position—not fully accepted by the white community and rejected by their own community. Many white youths feel equally detached and alienated from the society for which they are supposedly standing up against foreign cultures. Yasmin Alibhai Brown writes:
"Both groups feel like aliens in the knowledge economy, which is passing them by, and in a society where you are what you own. Pimping and drugs offer prospects of control and money, which is why so many of these white and Asian rioters are involved in such activities. Police racism and violence provoke understandable hostility but some of the anti-police anger stems from irritation that the law intervenes in their business activities … The young men who are burning cars today remember this lesson well. People in power ignore you until you make them fearful. White voters who supported the BNP think the same."
I do not pretend that that is an entire analysis, but it is a perceptive one of some of the issues involved.
When we debated the Home Secretary's last statement, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) sidled up to me and said that we must not paint a picture that suggests that burning cars happens only in big cities such as Bradford, Leeds or Manchester. He said that in a constituency such as his, which has only small, ex-mining towns as well as a rural community, such activity is equally common at weekends in the rundown estates.
Two years ago we had our own party leadership election, and those of us involved went around the country to meet our members. I visited an estate on the outskirts of Rotherham that was God's neglected territory. It was absolutely grim. Every property seemed

3WH
to have been damaged in some way. Every fence had been pulled down, and cars and rubbish littered the street. No sense of community pride was possible. I drew the tragic conclusion that I have had to draw regularly and that the year's events confirm: in many places in north and south Britain, north and south England and the midlands, especially in inner-city and outer estates, people believe that opportunity and accessibility to a decent life are passing them by. The places are sometimes reservoirs of almost entire hopelessness, and escape is the only way for people to better themselves. I am sad that that is still the case in our rich country, and I have a sense of anger and urgency that unless we deal with the matter more effectively, we will lay out for ourselves not treasures on earth but major problems such as those we have seen over recent weeks.
This summer, part of my community, which is just two or three miles from here, has also been on the edge of severe community difficulties. Happily, a combination of factors has kept things quiet. However, a lack of belief in the fairness of the housing allocation system, a lack of belief in the opportunities offered, a lack of belief in the fairness of the police, lack of respect for other people, intolerance of one's neighbour, or a small community dispute can turn a community that has lived adequately but tensely into a place where suddenly cameras and newspapers report civil unrest.
We must clearly and publicly pay tribute to our colleagues of all parties in public office who seek to lead communities in cities such as Bradford and Stoke-on-Trent, and towns such as Burnley and Oldham. We must remember that many people do an extremely good job seeking to lead and to bring communities together. Before the difficulties of this summer, all those places had commissioned reports on how better to go forward. That was the case in Bradford with the well-publicised report by Lord Herman Ouseley, and also in places such as Oldham and Burnley. I am grateful to all the colleagues to whom I have spoken in those places, and in Leeds, for their wise advice and intelligent analysis of what is needed.
Councillor Richard Knowles, the leader of Oldham metropolitan borough council, makes it clear that there are no instant solutions and that the increase in sporadic acts of violence was not necessarily racially motivated. The root cause is the high degree of segregation and deprivation, and the fact that much of Oldham is economically depressed with a low-wage economy. There is a major housing problem. Most of the Asian families live in privately owned housing and have not benefited from regeneration funds in the same way as estates that are predominantly occupied by white residents. There has been huge segregation over the years, and the community leaders in the places that we are discussing say similar things, although each place has local issues. There has been increased segregation in education because some schools are almost entirely white and others are almost entirely Asian. That repeats on itself and encourages people to reinforce it when they apply for school places.
I talked to Councillor Gordon Birtwistle, who is the Liberal Democrat leader in Burnley. He said that many of the larger problems escalated from individual small criminal acts. Funding has been used in geographically
4WH
defined areas meaning that people who live in other areas feel that they have not shared the benefit. If one racial group predominantly inhabits the areas where the funding has been used, that produces a sense of alienation and marginalisation, which, in time, is fertile ground for agitation. If Government interest is generated as a response to disorder but people feel that the Government are not consistently interested, the feeling will grow that there is support only with publicity, and that support recedes without it.
My colleague, Councillor Jeanette Sutherland, who leads the Liberal Democrat group in Bradford, where there is no overall control on the city council, makes it clear how much we must be careful not to undermine all the good work that is continuing. We must not make it sound as if Bradford is a city that is entirely full of hopelessness, agitation, community difficulty and despair. The message is the same—"Please don't generalise. Please look at our particular problems. Please keep a continuing interest."
I therefore want to suggest what might be the right response. Clearly, we must say together that criminal activity is unacceptable. Unless we say that, we are immediately in difficulty. It may be understandable sometimes, but it is clearly unacceptable. Together, we must seek to dissuade those who are motivated to act in that way from doing so again. The issues become slightly more complex beyond the debate about criminality.
First, we must reinforce the idea that, in every case, solutions will be arrived at best at local community level. Building blocks must be established at that level, and local people must own and participate in community regeneration. As far as possible, initiatives should be bottom, up not top down. We must be careful to remember that communities can be cheek by jowl yet entirely different. In my constituency, some rich communities are next to some of the poorest communities. To state the obvious, that does not help.
One positive move by the Government would be to facilitate the creation in all our urban areas—in the metropolitan areas, unitary authorities and London boroughs—of the parish and community council network. That happens throughout the rest of the country—it is the building block of our society throughout rural England. As a result, people know more clearly that they can share in the running of a particular place, whereas in urban areas that does not happen. I believe strongly that if we allowed parish and community councils to exist where people who were able to stand for election could speak with authority as the representatives of that community, we would have a much more accepted, acceptable and participatory democratic structure, and a much more organised way of distributing funds and the like.
We need to understand that the crime and disorder partnerships and the local strategic partnerships that the Government created a couple of years ago are extremely good vehicles, although it is early days to see how they are working. However, we must also make sure—a similar message came from all my colleagues—that the funding that comes from central Government does not get split in Whitehall and sent in pockets to different places, depending on who bids best, who knows how to bid best, and who gets their act together most quickly. It must be distributed so that the democratically elected

5WH
local council, together with the other partners in its local strategic partnerships and in its crime and disorder partnership, can decide, on advice from the community, how best to allocate the funds. There must be much more coherent management of the financial mechanisms for renewal, and I hope that we can move to much less ring-fenced and much more community-led distribution of local finance.
Funding in those areas, whether for economic regeneration, housing renovation or something else, is too often largely reactive and applicant-led. It should be much more proactive, responding to the vision of the community put forward at local level. In an area such as mine, the major issue is the need for more affordable housing, of which we are desperately short, whereas in the north, where housing is in much greater supply, much renovation is needed, as is economic regeneration. It is therefore necessary for design and promotion to be done locally.
We must be honest and admit that regional policy is not working. There is a pull to the south-east, because unemployment is low there in most parts whereas it is high in much of the rest of the country. The south-east economy is overheating. We need more strong strategic levers to encourage business, enterprise, building and development in the areas that most need and can best benefit from that prosperity. I agree with the Prime Minister—it is not simply that the north is less prosperous than the south. There is huge prosperity in the middle of Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield or Manchester. However, a mile away from the centre of Manchester are some of the worst estates in the whole of Greater Manchester.
We must examine the problem in the context of what the old Department of the Environment called the local urban parishes, the Z scores and so forth. We must identify areas of great deprivation, but understand that a regional policy that encourages regional development away from the south-east is also important.
Nationally, it is coincidental that figures came out last week showing how the Government are doing in achieving their poverty targets. They are not achieving them. Child poverty is still enormous and by the Government's indicators the poverty total is still approximately 14 million people. Where there is great poverty, there is often great inequality. My noble Friend Earl Russell asked a question in the House of Lords the other day about black males under the age of 25. The Minister answered:
"Only 31 per cent, of ethnic minority men and women between the ages of 16 and 24 in Bradford, for example, are in work. Nationally, for ethnic minority young people the figure is 40 per cent. For the country as a whole, including people of all communities, the figure is 65 per cent. In other words, the figure in Bradford is less than half the national average."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 1008.]
If one lives in a community in which the prospect of a job for a certain type of person is half what it is elsewhere, such people are bound to feel thoroughly disadvantaged and disaffected.
We must face the fact that, at local level, the political system is often not working. The current electoral system militates in favour of division and segregation, and against co-operation and participation. Until we learn the lessons learned in other places, we are highly unlikely to increase participation and a sense of
6WH
empowerment in the political process. We need a properly representative electoral system in which every vote counts. People must have a chance to change the local party in power. Young people must be able to he elected on a ticket of young people's issues and others on one of local or regional issues. Unless people think that they can make a difference politically, they may not even try.
If young people are involved, they are more likely to be positive and work with the grain of the community rather than against it. To achieve that requires many things that we do better in some places than in others, although in many places such things are not done at all well. We need more young people to participate in youth forums and youth parliaments. Some primary schools have mock elections to encourage young people—I participated in one in my borough the other day in which the whole school elected their school council, year by year, in a system much like a parliamentary election.
In addition, other countries offer many more extra-curricular activities than we do. For young people whose prospect of energetic work is reduced, unless we offer the chance of outward bound courses, cadet forces, more sports such as swimming at school, or an active youth service that offers alternatives, they do something of their own choice—they make their own fun. Let us be honest, setting a car alight or smashing a window—as Matthew Parris argued in an article over the weekend—is fun for that age group.
Let us not run away from that self-evident truth. We should work with the grain of the Government Connexions programme for mentoring and careers but also put someone into the top-year primary schools to find out what motivates each child so that they can be supported in that interest. We must go back into secondary schools to find out which pupils are interested in judo, cricket, dance or computers, so that those interests can be developed. We should make the ridiculously neglected and belated change of putting the youth service on a statutory footing.
I put it to the Home Secretary that, welcome though the new Minister is in his co-ordination role—I am absolutely convinced of his integrity and commitment—if we have a Secretary of State responsible for rural policy, we should have one for urban policy, as we did when Michael Heseltine was in the job. Some 80 per cent, of people in this country live in urban and suburban communities, and it is nonsense that we do not have a co-ordinating role at that level for one of the key Departments of State. I hope that that will soon change.
In addition, we need to consider the thorny issues of education admissions policy and new school creation. I understand that the White Paper on education has been delayed until the autumn, not least because of the difficulties created by those issues. I would rather it was deferred and right than rushed through hastily and wrong. My area, unlike that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), does not have a co-ordinated school admissions system, so parents run around from school to school rather than choosing a school using a system like that for university entrance. The reality is that bright, motivated parents will do far better for their child than less motivated ones.
Some faith schools do well, but if one allows Christian schools one must allow Sikh or Muslim schools, and such schools may be 90 per cent. Asian. Is that what we

7WH
want? If it is, as my colleagues in Oldham make clear, we must have many better links between schools and more combined activities in sport, drama and educational activity, so that young people grow up among different faiths, colours, creeds, backgrounds and communities. In that way, pupils from different backgrounds will not be separated from each other when they leave school, but will be integrated and together.
My last substantive point relates to the apparent increased activity of far right organisations. It would be wrong not to pay attention to that. The Government have an equality Act on their agenda, which I urge them to introduce as soon as possible, as it would ensure equal treatment for all people in this country. We must also consider how we might, by policy changes, undermine any agitation by the far right that preys on disaffection and offers simplistic solutions. I am not one of those who believe in proscribing people if I do not agree with their views—down that road is a dangerous outcome. However, scope exists for a sensible collective look at whether, in those places where organisations keep on marching, there may be grounds for giving further powers to alter the day, the route, the time or the frequency of marches, when they cause severe community disruption.
The police arrest and charge people for incitement to racial hatred far too infrequently. I have asked for figures in my recent parliamentary questions, but my sense is that the police almost never take action. I understand why that may be so sometimes, but the number of occasions on which people walk around saying "Pakis out" or "This area for whites" and no action is taken add up to a collective disgrace. I urge the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police to be absolutely clear that that sort of behaviour is incitement to racial hatred and should be dealt with accordingly.
In many of our urban areas there is far too much prejudice. As someone said to me when I was preparing for the debate, and as the Bradford report makes clear, we need to replace communities of prejudice with communities of pride. That means replacing people of prejudice with people of pride. Someone with pride in their possibilities in life, attainment, culture, work and family prospects is far less likely to be prejudiced against their neighbour or the person or community down the road. We can continue to build Britain well together, but the current policies are not sufficient. We must do more and listen to the voices appealing for help every day in some of the most disadvantaged parts of the country.
10 am
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I associate myself with all the comments made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). Clearly, I could not put things better myself because I do not know his area, but his speech also applies to the situations in Bradford and my constituency. Most of my comments will relate to the riots on 7 July in Bradford, which took place within a few miles of my home.
I welcome the report that was published on 11 July by the team led by Lord Ouseley: "Community Pride not Prejudice, making diversity work in Bradford". I should like to place on record my appreciation for Lord
8WH
Ouseley's work. He has delved into areas of Bradford that had previously been untouched, and I hope that his work has inspired many discussions there. My comments follow 30 years of work and friendship with the Asian community in Keighley, which constitutes a fifth of the Bradford district.
Since I was elected in 1997, I have had many anxieties about the under-achievement of the Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities in my constituency. Last year, Warwick university published a report confirming my worst fears: the Sikh and Hindu communities are doing extremely well, but the indigenous population is not doing so well and the Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities are massively underachieving, both academically and economically. The time has come to ask why.
After lengthy discussions, my view is that the riots were led by a criminal minority responding to fascist taunts. The criminals were supported by hundreds of young Asian men hellbent on causing havoc, mainly for their own community. It is always their own community that suffers. Those young men were also determined to punish police officers and prevent them from carrying out their legitimate duties.
We need to examine why those young Asian men were so keen to join in the criminal activity. Was it because they had little to lose, little else to do and therefore felt that such activity was a way of making their presence felt, as they had not impressed the world or Bradford with anything else? Do they and many other young Asian males in Bradford feel that they have little, if any, stake in the United Kingdom's growing prosperity, which was created by the Government I support? Do those young men feel disaffected, disenfranchised and let down by their country of birth? Do they ask why all the qualifications, good jobs, nice houses and powerful cars seem to go to the whites? That is a rough guide to the attitudes that I have encountered over many years.
Let us consider the causes. There is little point in blaming the situation simply on racism and Islamophobia. We must instead consider in detail what causes the under-achievement that I have mentioned. The main cause is the lack of a good level of English, which stems directly from the established tradition of bringing wives and husbands from the sub-continent who have often had no education and have no English. As a result, the vast majority of Keighley households have only one parent with any English and children go to school speaking only Punjabi or Bangla. That frequently gets children off to a slow start, which can damage their progress and mean that they leave school with few, if any, qualifications. Many cannot get paid work or find only poorly paid jobs.
I should like to suggest some remedies, which I know will be regarded as controversial by many of the self-styled Asian leaders in Bradford. Asian parents should consider arranging marriages for their children with Asian Muslims brought up and educated in the United Kingdom. That would avoid the present importation of poverty into their families and the problems that I mentioned for the next generation when the children go to school, and would also stop the increasing number of cases of young men and women having extremely unhappy and difficult marriages with spouses from the

9WH
sub-continent with whom they have nothing in common. I have dealt with such cases, and they are a growing problem in Keighley.
Months off school for extended holidays in the subcontinent should be avoided. At the moment, there seems to be little regard for the problems that this can cause. Instead, people in the Asian community could add a week before and after the long summer holiday, because I would be the last person to suggest that they sever their links with the sub-continent.
When possible, English should be used and encouraged in the home in addition to Punjabi and Bangla. Much more should be provided in further education colleges and community centres for non-English speakers by way of high-quality teaching of English as a second language. That should include crèche provision, with the funding coming from both central and local government. Such projects would be much better than channelling finance towards extra policing, as we have seen over the past few weekends. Sponsors should be encouraged to enrol husbands and wives who enter from the sub-continent in full-time English courses.
My most controversial point is one that I have made previously. It has not gone down terribly well, although I have had support from hon. Members. I will repeat what I said, so that I place on record precisely what I mean. If, after possibly five years, we are no nearer to achieving the solutions and ambitions, and the deprivation, with all that flows from it, continues, the Government should consider having an element of English as an entry clearance requirement for husbands and wives who seek permanent settlement. There should be a further requirement for them to take a full-time English course to reach a reasonable level. The conditions should apply to all applicants outside the European Union. My proposals are in line with immigration requirements in many countries, including the United States of America, Canada and the Netherlands.
I should like to examine the "Community Pride not Prejudice" report by Lord Ouseley. I am pleased that he has written that report, which is excellent. Many of his recommendations dovetail into my previous comments, including, for example, his remarks on pages 13 and 14 about other education concerns. Although many of us who have worked with the Asian community over the past 30 years may claim that he says nothing new, it is good to see the comments in print. I hope that it will enlighten debate, particularly for those who have not had the good fortune of a good relationship with our Pakistani and Bangladeshi constituents during the years as I have.
Lord Ouseley's report remarks on the need for understanding between communities, and the fact that everyone must take on board the advantages of integration, for the Asian community in particular. That will be easier to achieve when all members of the Asian community have some grasp of English and when whites and Asians recognise that there can be gain only from all sides living together in peace and understanding. The alternative is a Belfast-like situation in which we will all be the losers, including whites. I have been encouraged to express my views by Lord Ouseley's comments on the
"fear of talking openly and honestly about problems".
10WH
He has helped me to overcome my fear of verbal abuse from the so-called leaders among the Asian community and the politically correct whites. Following my experiences in the past few days, I can say that the thought police are alive and well in Bradford.
I should like to finish on a silver lining. The Asian women and children's group in my constituency is doing wonderful things for the women and children of Keighley. Many women who worked with that group are now taking a leading part in their community, and not before time. The sure start experiment is working so well with whites and Asians, especially at Guardhouse in Keighley, to bring together white and Asian children and young mothers—fathers, too. Unfortunately, too little effort is being made in the Bradford district to get whites and Asians to work together.
I visited Greenhead comprehensive school—formerly Greenhead grammar school—in my constituency just before the election, where I met many young, capable Asian women who were completing their A-level courses. They were going on to universities with their parents' approval and enthusiasm.
I mention those aspects of the silver lining, because, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, it is not all doom and gloom. We are moving in the right direction, especially in respect of the projects that I mentioned in Keighley. I apologise for being so parochial, but I only know about the situation in Keighley and, to a certain extent, in Bradford. There is a south-north divide on these issues, with difficulties especially in West Yorkshire.
10.11 am
Ms Joan Walley: I shall not detain the House for long. In view of events in Stoke-on-Trent at the weekend, I felt that it was important to listen to the debate.
I very much appreciated the important contribution of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and I thank him for the thoughtful way in which he introduced the debate. My only sadness is about the events that prompted the debate, which should have been held long ago, and that relates to the way in which Parliament operates.
Parliament may seem to be proactive and Back Benchers may have the opportunity in Westminster Hall to listen to a statement or to debate an event that has taken place, but there are few opportunities for hon. Members to shape the debate and perhaps to influence policy and to see that action follows vision. We want Government and Parliament to show the way forward.
I want to put the disturbances in Stoke-on-Trent at the weekend into perspective. There were no serious injuries and the police did an absolutely wonderful job in ensuring that the situation did not escalate. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that at the time the Staffordshire police were also responsible for policing the Northern Ireland peace talks in Staffordshire. I thank the police for doing such a good job, in the country as a whole and in individual constituencies.
That brings me to my next point, about how public services are financed. In whatever town or city we live, we all have a vision of people working together for urban regeneration, but to make that vision a reality

11WH
adequate funding is needed across the board. Throwing money at the problem is not the only answer, but without adequate funding there will be less progress than there could be.
I take this opportunity to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to review the way in which almost 17 per cent. of Staffordshire police funding is spent on police pensions and to look for a means of ironing out through the funding formula the inequalities in the system that are the result of decisions about police funding many years ago.
I was pleased to attend the annual meeting of the North Staffordshire Race Relations Council on Thursday night last week. The many people who attended that wonderful event reflected all strands of society. It was clear that the statutory agencies, the voluntary sector, community leaders and business representatives in our community all have a vision of how we can work together to take the agenda forward. We must look at the mechanisms for doing that. I was interested in the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey's comments about mechanisms. Perhaps we do have a new approach to local government and more opportunities for partnership funding. However, if we do not ensure that there are enough people on the ground with the expertise, skills and commitment to deliver the policies and see them through, we run the risk of seeing a piecemeal and fragmented approach with an initiative here and an initiative there.
I hope that my hon. Friend, in his Home Office coordination role and in the working group that I believe he chairs, will bring together the means to implement the new Government policies. If the Government do not deal with the thorny issue of local government finance, the success of the new partnerships will be limited. I know that there is a consultation paper and that the Government will be dealing with the issue from September onwards, but I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the example of Stoke-on-Trent, which may have lost as much as £5 million in education funding. That loss reduces the ability of community workers to work with young people outside school hours and reduces the opportunities to open schools for wider community purposes once school is out for the day. It is critical that we look at local government finance and ensure that, whatever else we might want to add to an area, we have a baseline of services so that we are able to employ teachers and provide the education that is the foundation on which we build society.
The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 is a wonderful tool to bring about the equality that we want, and I am confident that my hon. Friend will look at ways to ensure that the provisions of the Act are properly introduced and monitored.
We have the Rogers report on urban regeneration, the regional development agencies and the extra money coming in to many of our most deprived areas for neighbourhood renewal. We have the skeleton of a system that can deliver the services that are needed. If we do not have the mechanisms for delivering the services, the money stays in the pot and is not unlocked; it does not go where it is needed. Members of Parliament have a role in ensuring that all the different agencies, businesses
12WH
and local partners at community level are properly coordinated so that needs are met in the areas concerned. We are in touch with our people and do not need focus groups to tell us what needs to be changed. Given the Cabinet co-ordination that now exists, I hope that we can look at urban regeneration from the angle of community relations to ensure that we develop a genuinely joined-up approach.
My final point concerns citizenship. I have introduced a citizenship award in some schools in my constituency. During the long years of Thatcherism and the last Conservative Government when there was no such thing as community, we did not home grow community leaders for the future. We must use citizenship to bring about a can-do culture, where people, whatever their age and colour can say, "This needs doing. This is how we can do it. This is our vision. This is how we can change our communities."
I want support from the Government for the citizenship project that I have introduced. It is already supported by Britannia building society and the local newspaper. We have a vision. We have the whole issue of neighbourhood renewal, not just for certain communities, but for all our people. We have to find a way of delivering. The Prime Minister is right: it is about delivery—but if we cannot deliver at community level, we cannot bring about the changes that we want to see.
The Minister has a wonderful opportunity in his work at the Home Office to bring all those strands together. I know that the Home Office no longer has responsibility for electoral change but we will receive the report from the Electoral Commission before the end of July. I hope that he will look at that and at the democratic deficit that clearly exists in some parts of the country and see whether we could have some pilot projects, perhaps in an area such as Stoke-on-Trent. It is not about voting in supermarkets, but about building citizens for the future. I hope that he will look at all my suggestions and get back to me in a positive light.
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. I think it appropriate to remind all hon. Members that it is normal practice in Westminster Hall to commence the closing Front Bench comments no later than 30 minutes before the termination of the debate. I hope that everyone will bear that in mind.
10.22 am
Mr. Khalid Mahmood: Having made my maiden speech on Friday, I hope that I am in accord with the procedures of the House if I speak today. I apologise for arriving late as I was detained at another meeting. I want to participate in the debate because it is on an important issue.
The disturbances that have taken place in our communities recently are a serious matter, particularly for those of us who represent integrated communities, as I do in Birmingham. It is not just a matter of funding. We must look at how we build up the moral fabric of our societies. Those are the issues that I want to address. Youth service is a particularly important area that needs to be looked at. If the health authorities, the education authorities and the youth services could work together, they could play a vital role. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley)

13WH
pointed out, Members of Parliament need to play an active role in their constituencies. They have their eyes on the local issues and represent the people of those areas, as do local councillors and representatives on neighbourhood and community forums.
It is important that we do not overlook the issue of the community as a whole. We should consider integration. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) mentioned assimilation as opposed to integration, an issue that I want to pick up, although perhaps not as blatantly as some of the self-styled community leaders in Keighley.
I came to this country when I was nine and my first language was not English. I was educated at local primary schools and the local comprehensive, and I then ended up in this place. My experience of going through that structure shows that the opportunities are there for all of us.
As my hon. Friend said, the backgrounds of different groups of people are important. The majority come from rural areas—my father came from a rural area in Kashmir. Parental education, particularly that of mothers, is as crucial as education for the children. Further education has a tremendous role to play and the sure start scheme offers a good beginning. Local colleges and the learning and skills councils established by the Government need to play a more active role in reaching into the community. Further education for parents and young adults in problem areas can help to close the gap
I disagree with my hon. Friend's comments about visits to the country of origin. It is important for children to have a feeling for their own identity and culture, but it must happen in a more positive and integrated way. Schools should assist by suggesting projects for children when they go back to their parents' place of origin. Projects should be focused on cultural differences and cultural richness and the trip should be more constructive than simply allowing children to go away for a month's holiday. They should come back with a project and share it with others. That is what integration is all about.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) spoke about the electoral system. It may engage the wrong sort of people as much as the right sort of people. People on the far right have equal claims and the same influences on the environment. We need to engage the whole community and encourage participation in the current political process. That is the important challenge before us.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about racial incitement charges and with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North about the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. It should be applied to all people—the ethnic minorities and the far right—who use racist abuse. All should be treated severely. We are here to integrate and work together. Any form of division from any side is deplorable and should not be tolerated by the police.
I accept the point about the low academic achievement of Pakistani and Bengali children. It also applies to the Afro-Caribbean children in my constituency. We need to think about how best to deal with the problem. Involving the parents could be the answer.
14WH
I hope that I have not taken up too much time in my first contribution to Westminster Hall, but I felt it necessary to say a few words on this important subject.
10.29 am
Mr. Richard Allan: I am grateful to have an opportunity to pick up some of the threads of the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on securing this debate in such a timely fashion.
I want to discuss the wider context of the debate. It is important at the outset to recognise that the far right have poisoned the debate. They complain that they are deprived of free speech—I do not think that they are but they often deprive the rest of us of free speech. They twist what is said in ways that are unhelpful to the debate. Those of us who fiercely oppose them often end up constrained in what we can say because we know that they will pick up what we have said, twist it and use it against people in wholly destructive ways. Their responsibility in stirring things up should not be forgotten. It is not the most important element but it is a significant factor. It is no coincidence that they have been present at places where fighting has broken out. Other community relations problems are factors in the riots, but elements of the far right have been present at almost every such riot.
I therefore do not agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). That is partly because of my fear that the far right will take such comments and say to people, "If you cannot speak English properly you should not be in this country." I know that that is not what the hon. Lady means and I wish that the fear of the far right twisting our remarks did not make it so difficult to have an open debate. I hope that we can have a debate without it being poisoned by those who will twist our words. We visualise that happening and we all fear it.
We need to move beyond thinking about community relations issues purely as ones of race. Anthropologists and sociologists have done much work on that—people such as Claude Lèvi-Strauss spoke as far back as the 1950s and 60s about the way in which people identify themselves within communities. Ethnicity can be an element of community relations, as can religion, but they are not essential elements and are not necessarily part of the equation. We see many incidents in the United Kingdom in which ethnicity is not a factor. In Sheffield, for example, we have inter-area gang warfare. It has gone on for years in most cities. It is not a question of race or religion, but is about self-identification and "us against the rest". People express the belief that "Them lot are out to get us and we need to defend ourselves." That dynamic is as old as the hills. Understanding it is important, rather than simply seeing the problem as one of ethnicity or religion.
There are some important elements to consider in terms of how we fight the forces that pull people apart. We should not play into the hands of the far right and over-play the difficulty of the situation. There are problems that need to be managed but we need to be clear and consistent across the political spectrum in expressing our belief that there is an imperative political will to manage them. We need to be clear that we believe positively in a diverse and multicultural society and that

15WH
we wish to defend that and make it work. At no stage must we give in to those forces that have said, "That is impossible; it cannot happen. The only solution is to separate the communities."
British people are people who live in Britain. It is important to make the lives of British people as positive and beneficial as possible and to make us all into good neighbours who look after each other. We should not define one group as British and another as less than British because of where their parents or relatives came from—or, indeed, where they came from if they married into or joined a British family here, claiming British citizenship and identity. It is important not to give in to the forces of darkness, as it were, but to understand the dynamics and deal with them.
Early intervention is vital. The problems that resulted in the recent riots were trailed long in advance. We could see them coming yet have been like rabbits trapped in the glare of headlights, seeing the problem, being frightened of it but not taking any action until the car hits us. The same was true of the riots of the early 1980s. We see trouble building, read the reports and know that tension is increasing, yet seem incapable of intervening early in a way that could effectively prevent it.
In some cases, the police start to intervene once trouble has started. I was pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) that that happened in her area. She also made an important point about the intervention of local authorities. During the summer riots of the early 1980s, when I was a teenager in Sheffield, Sheffield city council put on concerts and a series of youth events as a deliberate way of diverting people from trouble. It worked. People did not riot in Sheffield. Empowering local authorities with sufficient financial discretion, thereby enabling them to say, "We can see it coming. Let us do something about it." would be important. I want councils such as Bradford and Oldham to be confident that, whenever they see signs of trouble, they can intervene, often by spending money, and find ways in which to divert people away from unrest.
The Rogers report on urban structural regeneration is important, but there have been no signs that such information has been picked up. The police should be congratulated, and we all felt for them when we saw what they were being dropped into, as it were. I do not want to force the police into such situations. I want councils to have the ability to intervene early enough so that problems do not result in hundreds of youths and policemen being involved in pitched battles.
I come now to community consultation. We are all aware of the same faces turning up in consultation exercises. Such matters are not confined to ethnic minorities, but involve business and other communities. Consultation exercises draw out committee people and we somehow think that that is enough. We do not make contact with the important people—young people and those from harder to reach communities. We must be serious about such matters and break down language and style barriers. The method of communication used whereby people in suits and ties talk about regeneration budgets and objective 1 or objective 2 status is thought of as rubbish by communities.
16WH
Too often we settle for the fact that, if someone from the ethnic minorities is a member of the committee, it is a true partnership and matters must okay. The same pattern occurs in the business community. I hope that the Minister can deal with the community consultation issue and support the broadening out of such matters. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey on securing the debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to his substantive points as well as to others that have been raised in the debate.
10.36 am
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury): I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on securing the debate and on his thoughtful and constructive introduction. I agree that the problems are national. I disagree with the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), however, when she said that the north had far greater problems than the south. I am the first to acknowledge that northern cities probably have more acute social and racial problems than urban communities in the south, but as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and others know, various London districts have had their troubles in recent years.
A few years ago, there were riots in the Blackbird Leys estate in Oxford. Whether one is thinking of Aylesbury, High Wycombe or Reading, many communities in the south of England have had equivalent problems. It may be that, because of the general prosperity of such areas and the smaller size of the towns, problems will be present but in a less acute and more manageable form than in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley.
My thoughts have been informed by the experience of my constituency, by the visit that I made to Bradford for a day last week and by my conversations with police officers and community leaders in the two years that I have held this brief on behalf of the Conservative party. I want to refer first to police and disorder. If streets are unsafe or if law-abiding people believe that the streets are unsafe, we will have problems and there will be an opportunity for criminal gangs and political extremists to thrive.
The police service in many of our urban areas is badly overstretched. Police officers of all ranks say that there are too many target and performance indicators. They have referred to problems of recruitment and retention, which we have debated in the House many times. There is also doubt among a worryingly large number of officers about what is expected of them when it comes to policing ethnically diverse areas. They often feel beleaguered. I remember one police constable in London saying to me after the publication of the McPherson report, "All my career, I have worked on the basis that I should police impartially and treat everyone alike, regardless of their colour, religion or ethnic origin. Now, suddenly, I am told that that approach is all wrong, and I have to do things differently." We need to understand those uncertainties and address them.
While the police feel beleaguered, it is also the ease—I certainly got the impression that this was true in Manningham—that many local people feel that the

17WH
police service has been slow to respond to their calls for assistance. Too often, low-level disorder, drug dealing, racist abuse and harassment have been allowed to go unchecked. It is only when criminal activity has got more serious that the police have been prepared to crack down in force. People feel the lack of neighbourhood police officers whom they know and trust, and to whom they feel that they can impart confidential information about what is going on in their area. I spoke last week to people in Manningham who said that they only see the police patrolling in vehicles, and that the police seem to have no connection with the neighbourhood. The police officers were horrified at the impression that had grown up, but there was an undoubted gulf of understanding between the service and a large number of residents—by no means just disaffected youths or criminals.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred to social problems, to which the hon. Members for Keighley, for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood) also referred. All Members should be concerned when they reflect on the fact that a large number of young men have gone through 11 years or more of full-time education in this country's tax-funded schools and still come out unable to communicate effectively in written or spoken English and lacking the skills to make them employable.
In Bradford and other cities, a fair number of young men are coming out of school unskilled, and can make far more money by carrying heroin round the corner for the local drug dealer than they could hope to earn from any legitimate unskilled occupation. That is not a problem that affects ethnic minorities alone. As other hon. Members have said, it is a problem that is found in estates and cities throughout this country, and it affects people from all ethnic backgrounds. Certainly, recent events have been aggravated by the racial element. It was summed up well in Lord Ouseley's report from Bradford, which states:
"The current Bradford scenario is one in which many white people feel their needs are neglected because they regard the minority ethnic communities as being prioritised for more favourable public assistance. Some people assert that the Muslims, and in particular the Pakistanis, get everything at their expense.
Simultaneously, the Asian communities, particularly the Muslims, are concerned that racism and Islamophobia continue to blight their lives, resulting in harassment, discrimination and exclusion. They argue that they do not receive favourable or equal treatment and their needs are marginalised by decision-makers and public-service bodies."
While there are good things going on at the Bradford Mela and various local initiatives, to which the hon. Member for Keighley referred, there are also big problems. In February this year, the Home Office published its report on race equality in public services. That made it clear that under-achievement among British Pakistanis and Bangladeshis is a serious challenge. Whereas British Indians seem to be succeeding in formal education, that is not the case with people of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin. Those problems are also true of far too many poor young white men. Those experiences make those groups ready and attractive prey for political extremists of whichever wing.
Ms Diane Abbott: We all understand the argument about educational under-achievement, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that all the evidence shows that even where Afro-Caribbean and Asian young people have exactly the same formal education as young white people, their chances of getting a job are much worse?
Mr. Lidington: There is evidence to support the hon. Lady's contention, but it is a mistake to classify people as either white or from an ethnic minority, because the experiences of people from various ethnic communities are different. In addition, a young white man growing up in a rough area with no family experience of or support for higher education and professional achievement has a hugely different experience from a young white man growing up in a supportive home with role models to demonstrate that he can achieve something in life.
One challenge that we face in integrating young men of Pakistani origin is that although many do not feel at home in their parents' traditionalist culture, they are not welcomed into mainstream British culture either. Hon. Members have spoken about that. I find that feeling among my constituents and I suspect that it is common in most British Pakistani communities. I agree with those who said that the British National party and the National Front—I would add elements of the ultra-left—are only too willing to exploit those real social tensions.
What are the solutions? There are no panaceas or magic wands, but I shall make a number of suggestions. We must ensure that there is effective policing, particularly neighbourhood policing, which means more officers. It also means giving a greater national priority to intelligent patrolling and rigorous consideration of police functions. For example, the booking of suspects into custody could be carried out by a different agency, freeing police officers to go back on duty. We need to cut back on centrally imposed targets and performance indicators.
We must give priority to the teaching of both spoken and written English in our schools. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr about the importance of helping with the education of mothers from the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. We do not hear much about the views of British Asian women in such debates.
The hon. Member for Keighley's heart is in the right place, but perhaps the key to achieving her objective is to present opportunities in the English language as just that—opportunities for new Pakistani or Bangladeshi immigrants to play their full part in British society and to allow their children to do the same. They should certainly be encouraged to take part. I agree with the hon. Lady about the problems caused by long absences from school for overseas visits. Local education authorities and head teachers need to tackle that problem.
We need to consider Government spending programmes. Under Governments of both parties and local authorities run by all three parties, we have been spending millions of pounds on what was called section 11 funding but is now called ethnic minority grants. When we find that too many children from ethnic

19WH
minorities leave school without an adequate command of English and the skills that make them attractive to employers, we must ask ourselves about the effectiveness of some of that spending. Similar questions could be asked about the single regeneration budget. I was told that a lot of money has been spent in Manningham, which caused resentment in areas such as Keighley, but that the people living there did not feel that they had ownership of the projects. They felt that the projects had been imposed from on high.
I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey in his call for greater decentralisation. We must find ways of tackling the problems at a local level, whether that is the policing of urban areas or sustained action to encourage social and economic regeneration. That will mean a loss of power for Whitehall, but it is only through the empowerment of local people that we will achieve solutions to the deep-seated problems.
10.50 am
The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on initiating the debate, and thank the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood) and for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) for their contributions.
Hon. Members will appreciate that I have limited time to reply to the many issues that have been raised. I hope that that does not matter, because none of us can say that we have a monopoly of wisdom on or all the answers to the issue. The opportunity to have such a debate in which we have wide-ranging, measured and uniformly constructive discussions is enormously helpful, and I will reflect after the debate on the more detailed issues that hon. Members have raised.
I start by placing on record our unequivocal view on the disorders. There can be no excuse for the destruction and violence that we have seen in Burnley, Oldham, Bradford and, albeit on a lesser scale as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said, Stoke. The communities from which those who are responsible come suffer deep-seated problems, and I will speak about how we can address those. However, throwing stones and petrol bombs at police officers, burning down businesses that are part of the local community and putting people in fear of their lives cannot be justified in any circumstance.
I pay tribute to the work of the police in Greater Manchester, Lancashire, West Yorkshire, Staffordshire and other places for their response to the events. Officers from throughout the north of England have been involved in Bradford and were on the receiving end of attacks that they should not have had to suffer. I repeat my thanks to them and to the other emergency services that handled the difficult problems.
Having said that, I do not want to minimise the malign influence of racism in the events. The work of the far right to inflame and make political capital out of community tensions is wrong. Those who work to set
20WH
one community against another are attempting to exploit prejudice for their own political interests. It is important that, in addition to the necessary police response to those activities, democratic political parties must ensure that they consistently resist the temptation, not only in Parliament but at every level at which they operate, to give sustenance to those who are involved in those far right activities.
We have heard a lot of talk about the involvement of Asian youths. However, to use the term "Asian" in a broad and loose way causes offence particularly to those members of communities who have not participated in certain recent events. We know that, especially in Bradford, those involved in the disorder included a substantial number of young white males. We must always be careful about our language.
This is not just a matter of addressing problems faced by part or all of the Asian community or of tackling the systematic racism that they undoubtedly face. We must recognise that the people who peddle racist views, whether in an organised or an unco-ordinated way, often find their audiences among an equally alienated group of young white people who also feel excluded from many of the things enjoyed by the rest of society. Whatever else we say, we must agree that the solutions we seek must work for all communities and that all communities must be part of the solution in the months and years ahead.
I should like to touch briefly on a few important areas. First, there is a broader police response than the response to disorder itself. The massive programme of change in the police service set in train by the Stephen Lawrence inquiry is under way and is as necessary as ever. The police are working consistently to build on their response to the needs of policing a diverse community. The Association of Chief Police Officers recently wrote to chief constables all over the country reminding them of the guidance of good practice in policing diverse communities that has been produced over the last couple of years.
We all accept that we must address our response far more widely than just the towns and cities that may have suffered from disorder. There are good reasons not to simply tailor a response to those areas and ignore the needs of others. That would send all the wrong messages. There are many other areas that have much in common with those where there has been disorder. They have high levels of deprivation, pockets of high unemployment, de facto segregation and subsections of the community involved in crime and hard drugs. We will need to look at all those issues.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told the House last week that a group of Ministers has been established across Government. I chair the group and it has met on three occasions. Our task is to look at the practical help that the Government can give to local communities both in the short and long term. Like other hon. Members, I emphasise that we must help local communities to find their own solutions. Solutions that are imposed from the top will not work. We want to collaborate with local government and other statutory agencies, but also to involve other less formal structures, whether they are neighbourhood forums, faith organisations or other places where local people who are

21WH
concerned about their communities come forward to demand or take action. We must invest in the capacity of those communities to tackle some of the problems.
While I would not put it forward as the solution, over the summer we are expanding the range of activities that are available for young people, particularly those that bring young people together from different communities. That is an important and immediate response to the needs of many communities across the country. We will be working through the Government offices for the regions to do that. We also need to look at ways to assist local communities and local authorities to promote dialogue and to strengthen democracy. As hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North have said, a lead from local government will be important in leading the way to local solutions.
We are working closely with the Local Government Association, drawing on its knowledge of best practice and what has worked in different parts of the country to strengthen that programme of work. We need to find ways to enable the voices of those who have the least say to be heard. It has often been said that traditional structures in some of the ethnic minority communities do not work as they did in the past. Elders do not automatically represent the younger people. It is equally true that talking to the tenants association on many predominantly white council estates does not automatically put one in touch with the local 16 or 17-year-olds. We have to find voices for all communities, ensuring that young people's voices can be heard.
I acknowledge the need to examine the substantial programme of single regeneration, new deal, community and neighbourhood renewal and other such investment to ensure that we overcome the problems identified by hon. Members today. Those concerns will certainly be included within the work programme of the ministerial group.

Private Finance Initiative
11 am
David Taylor: The full title of the debate, which I am delighted to have secured, is the rather prosaic "Implications of the Private Finance Initiative". If I were to provide a subtitle, it would be "Myths, Sorcery and Other Accounting Devices". As a public sector accountant—I declare an interest to that extent—I must confess dismay and astonishment at the readiness of my Government to prod and coerce public agencies down the PFI and public-private partnership route using a rationale that is frequently dubious, shot through with subjectivity and based on figures of doubtful authenticity to demonstrate the desirability of projects that, in the medium term, are costly, inflexible and will depress the quality of public services, accelerate privatisation and divert taxpayers' hard-earned cash into the pockets of multinational companies that view the ethos of public service and the existence of the public sector only as a barrier to trade and an obstacle to profit.
I referred at the outset to myths. One of the most persistent myths is that PFI somehow squares the circle of bringing in new money while reducing the need for scarce public finance that otherwise could not be afforded. That is financial illiteracy raised to an art form. Every penny raised for PFI schools, hospitals and the prisons to which tomorrow's electorates will no doubt commit today's responsible Ministers is paid for by the public purse, plus interest, plus profits. Stretching over half a century, in some cases, PFI does not lever in private finance; it merely allows private shareholders to dip their large ladles into an increasing stream of tax revenue.
Independent research shows quite unambiguously that the Government could have paid for the whole programme of PFI projects without breaching the sustainable and golden fiscal rules articulated by the Chancellor. The Major Government lost control of public borrowing. In a frenzy of creative accounting, they conceived public-private partnerships and involuntarily bequeathed that poisoned chalice to Labour on 1 May 1997.
It is a sadness that the Government have been so seduced by the flawed and feeble justification for this abandonment of prudence that they have conveyed the firm impression that PFI is the only show in town. Local government and health authorities have trudged down this rocky path with increasingly heavy hearts and increasingly lighter purses.
Let me deal more thoroughly with value for money. PFI projects cost much more than conventionally funded projects, not least because the private sector borrows at higher rates than the public sector, which is underpinned by the lowest-risk borrower of all: the Government. The extra costs are boosted by lengthy negotiations with expensive City lawyers, consultants and fine wines employed by both sides. The escalation of costs is accelerated, notwithstanding the low risks, by the large returns demanded and the ballooning of scale.
The Birmingham schools PR is a good example. It started in 1996 at £20 million for eight schools and presently stands at £80 million for 13 schools. The higher levels of finance unsurprisingly lead to an

23WH
affordability problem for the client authority, which often responds by reducing service and capacity, drives down labour rates and drains subsidies from other budget heads to bridge the PFI gap. PFI hospitals are another example. They have worse staffing levels and, typically, 30 per cent. fewer beds.
At the heart of the judgment as to whether PFI provides better value for money than its public sector comparator is the allocation of risks between the public client and the private deliverer. At this point we enter the seedy world of accountancy massage parlours, where figures are pummelled and distorted into unrealistic shapes. Research for Unison by Professor Allyson Pollock into the transferred risks that allegedly made schools and hospital projects value for money showed that calculations of risk are arbitrary and unreliable; what a surprise. A specific example is that the average cost overrun for national health service capital projects in the 1990s of 7 per cent. can be almost doubled in typical transferred risk calculations to upwards of 12.5 per cent. No wonder that the first PFI hospital at Dartford failed to make projected savings.
Despite frequent assertions by Front Benchers of both main parties, there is little or no evidence that private sector management, with its hallowed status as a third way icon, is more efficient at delivering quality services than workers in the public sector. As PFI projects come on-stream, the anticipated quality standards and adherence to cost and time scale are not delivered as frequently as their advocates suggest.
There is insufficient time to examine the litany of failures. Three will suffice: the fiasco at the Passport Agency, when Siemens paid only £2 million of the £13 million bill; Andersen Consulting's national insurance recording system, which needed to provide £35 million compensation to pensioners; and PFI's own big daddy—the channel tunnel rail link, bailed out by a Government bond guarantee that, at a stroke, took back the project's risks.
The belief in the natural superiority of the more creative, innovative and risk-taking private firm over the poor old public authority is seriously flawed. In practice, the private sector relies on the expertise of public sector professionals to run their newly acquired services. It shies away from too-intensive competition, through takeovers and mergers that have led to a handful of mega-multinationals dominating the sector. Such touching faith in private management flies at the speed of sound into the face of the evidence experienced on a daily basis by those who must endure some contracted-out services in the public sector. Most notoriously, Britain's filthiest hospitals are cleaned, if that is the right word, by private contractors.
My party and my leader seem to take it as read that innovation and the efficiencies of the private sector can be straightforwardly harnessed to deliver public health priorities and goals. However, the fragmentation caused by the PFI approach will divert resources and miss more goals than a Chris Waddle penalty. A key component shoring up the whole PFI edifice is the lowered pay and conditions of staff engaged. High-quality public services need high-quality employment and although transferred staff receive some protection, new ones tend to have poorer pay, weaker conditions and little in the way of
24WH
occupational pensions. Women, the crucial and under-valued resource in the public services, take the biggest hit. As PFI contracts last for decades, the original tier of staff is steadily replaced by an entire class of women working under weakened conditions and terms. PFI depends on the exploitation of staff. There is a strong link between poor employment practices and poor quality services.
The Government state that value for money is the sole issue when PFI projects are assessed against the cost of traditional procurement. That appraisal is heavily shaped by the discounting of future cash flows at 6 per cent. Payments from taxpayers for the capital elements of PFI schemes are typically made later than is the case under conventional procurement. The higher the discount rate used, the better value the PFI project will look in comparison with the public sector option. Such discounting to a net present cost is flawed in two key ways. First, it does not acknowledge that public sector purchasing now tends to spread costs over time through borrowing, and the formulaic approach tends to assume a clumping of expenditure in the early years of public sector projects.
Secondly, the real costs of public borrowing have reduced and the arbitrary 6 per cent. discount rate used by the Treasury can no longer be justified. Reducing the rate to 5 per cent. would make a typical PFI project in this cost area 5 per cent. more expensive over its lifetime than its public sector comparator. That difference is enough to level the spreadsheet in favour of public purchasing for a raft of projects that have been forced down the PFI route. This is not some arcane discussion between sad accountants who should get out more; it really does matter.
The recent Sharman report reviewing accountability for public expenditure showed the difficulty of accounting for public funds when the private sector is the provider of public services. In the brave new PFI world, it is not clear that the Government have sufficiently strong and flexible mechanisms to guarantee the probity of public expenditure. Politically, PFI and the wider use of PPP restrict the operational terrain for politicians and inhibit our ability to make a difference. Services are supplied increasingly by private bodies that are not accountable in any way that people can recognise. That may lead to a lack of responsiveness by service providers to users, a blame culture between different public bodies and widespread electoral disenchantment.
Ms Diane Abbott: I am reluctant to interrupt my hon. Friend's excellent speech, but I want to comment on the issue of transparency as regards elected Members of Parliament. In my borough of Hackney, in common with many other inner-city boroughs, the housing benefit service was privatised and the service promptly collapsed. As a Member of Parliament, I found it almost impossible to get information from the private service contractors. There was no transparency whatsoever in that case.
David Taylor: I am pleased to be given further evidence of the flaws of private sector management, which, in my experience as a senior public sector manager, are as frequent as in the public sector. At the

25WH
very least, in an improved world, taxpayers, citizens and consumers have a right to expect that grievance procedures and effective sanctions will give them the prospect of redress when service failures occur.
In responding to today's debate and to the stream of criticism about PPP that will no doubt characterise this Parliament, the Minister and the Government may be tempted to pray in aid the recent publication from the Institute for Public Policy Research entitled "Building Better Partnerships". The commission that produced the report was critical of how some PFI and PPP projects operated in the past, but endorsed the Government's view that expansion of private sector involvement into the heart of public sector provision should be pursued energetically.
Even that stacked commission felt moved to say that the link between private provision of public services and cost-cutting would have to end, and that partnership should not be seen as privatisation by stealth. It, too, asked that PFI proposals be subjected to a sensitivity analysis to examine whether different assumptions on risk allocation would lead to different value for money conclusions. Even that commission comprehensively demolished the fatuous theory, so frequently articulated in this place by people who should know better, that PFI allows Governments to undertake more projects than would otherwise be the case. It does not, cannot and never will.
The IPPR is to be congratulated on initiating what appeared to be a rational and measured debate on this most provocative of topics, the interface between the private and public sectors and the possible takeover of the latter by the former. However, we must set that report in context. The commission carried out its inquiry in private, with an unprecedented coalition of big business and Government movers and shakers. Sponsors of the commission can in no way be described as politically neutral; they have a direct interest in the expansion of the PFI market and in tapping into public funds for education and health. They have been quick to recognise the possibility of positioning themselves to benefit from the dismantling of the barriers that previously protected the public sector from the warm embrace of private firms.
As the Catalyst Trust said, the IPPR makes the case for extending PFI by setting aside or downplaying the fact that almost all analysis of the potential of PPP acknowledges the inability to improve efficiency, concentrating instead on the benefits of alleged risk transfer. I referred earlier to the lack of objectivity in risk calculation, but the position is worse than that. The methodology used does not take into account the additional risk presented by outsourcing services when the most vulnerable people in our society are the ones who will suffer most if essential services falter or fail and, to quote the intellectual mother of PFI, "there is no alternative". Even when risk has been transferred, it has frequently proved impossible to enforce that contract in a practical way. PFI apologists will say that these are just teething problems. My view is that the private sector seems to talk up the risks in contract negotiations but talk them down when raising capital finance from the market.
"Does it matter whether public services are delivered by the private sector?" say the commission, the official Opposition and some of those at the heart of
26WH
Government. Of course it matters. The public sector's motivation is social responsibility, while commercial firms have a responsibility to their owners and shareholders, with obligations to clients and customers some way behind. In countries such as Australia and the United States of America in which health privatisation—by PFI and other means—is further advanced, evidence strongly points towards poorer services with a lower quality of care, more bureaucracy and more inappropriate and less effective treatment. In short, services are down to a price, not up to a standard.
Our party should be the last to stand aside when the necessary modernisation of public services on which millions of our people depend is accompanied by the unnecessary collateral damage inflicted by the PFI: the inflexibility and rigidity of service provision, reduced access, decreased diversity and, ultimately, the failure to meet public need. We should resist the PFI-inspired erosion of the foundations of our public services that usher in the expansion of user charges and show the door to the principle of the public funding of services that are free at the point of delivery.
My comments have drawn on research from a range of organisations and the early evidence of the effect of PFI contracts on a number of public services, not least the NHS, which has experienced significant changes whenever PFI has been utilised. The express concerns of health professionals encapsulate the serious flaws inherent in PFI and render it incapable of being a longterm strategy for increasing capital investment.
The British Medical Association is concerned that the planning of PFI hospitals presumes increased output because of reduced bed numbers, with attendant implications for clinical services in the hospital as well as for primary care and social services in the community that do not have provision in the contracts. The BMA also points out that an implicit assumption of long-term contracts is that there will be a continued demand for the services of a particular hospital. That pre-empts revenue decisions to be made by local health authorities and primary care trusts for the foreseeable future.
Naturally, the BMA points out that PFI funding is effectively hypothecated and forces resource constraints to focus on staffing. That may lead to unplanned changes in work force configuration. The non-NHS owners of PFI hospitals will employ former NHS staff, but there has not been guidance to back up the welcome assurance from the top of our party that clinical staff will remain in the NHS. I am unconvinced that that is possible in a PFI context.
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton): I realise that the hon. Gentleman is reaching the end of his speech, which I have enjoyed. He is speaking rationally and clearly. So that others do not try to misrepresent his remarks, does he think that there will ever be a role for the private sector in the delivery of public services?
David Taylor: Of course there is. The private sector has always been involved in the delivery of public services; the debate is about scale and location. In the recent election campaign we were told by the electorate to invest or lose. In yesterday's speech, the Prime Minister told us to reform or bust. Today, we should robustly say that public provision, not privatisation, is the way ahead.

27WH
It may be clear that I am opposed to the PFI on accounting, economic, social and political grounds. I remain convinced that public finance and provision remain the most effective, efficient and equitable way in which to modernise our hospitals, schools and other public services. The route that we are pursuing will take us more steeply into a private sector swamp that is populated by those who set the price of everything but who rate the value of public services as low.
A former Prime Minister criticised a later Administration for selling off the family silver. We run the risk of a house clearance of that on which our national family depends. When my children ask me in 2020—if I am still alive—what I did in Parliament to prevent the disaster of the PFI that will, no doubt, beset them at that time, I shall point to the text of this debate and, I hope, future debates. The PFI is prohibitive in cost, flawed in concept and intolerable in consequences for the taxpayers, citizens and workers who put us in this place and look to us to defend their interests.
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that it is normal procedure in such debates to commence Front-Bench Members' closing statements 30 minutes before the termination of the debate, which in this instance is 12 noon. It is not necessary to be a great mathematician to work out that with eight Members trying to catch my eye, 40 minutes does not allow much time for anyone. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will bear that in mind and make their contributions pertinent, proper and brief.
11.20 am
Hywel Williams: I shall make two broad points on PFI in health; one on risk, and the other on value for money. We all face the risk of ill health, and health care will always be in demand. As the private sector realises only too well, under this Government—as with the previous one—the market for health care is good. PFI projects in health are a rock-solid investment for the private sector. Demand is infinite, and the Government are the guarantor; not the final one, but the first and only one necessary. It is right to ask how the obscene profits that have already been reported are justified. PFIs are a licence to print money; money that the NHS can ill afford.
On value for money, people see through the "Buy now, pay through the nose for 30 years" scam. My constituents have campaigned long and hard for a hospital at Porthmadog. One may now be on offer, but on the basis of PFI, if a private investor can be tempted. What are my constituents to say about that? Should they say, "No thanks, PFI is a con we'll do without. We prefer to travel up to 50 miles to the local district general hospital up in Bangor"? They have no choice but to take a bad deal, as no other deal is on offer. The market is good for the seller, if not for the buyer.
The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) referred to a distinguished critic of the previous Administration, who said that they had sold off the family silver. It is a case not of selling off the old family silver but of gambling in silver futures.
28WH
Imprudent gamblers often burn their fingers in the futures market. For example, according to yesterday's Welsh edition of the Daily Post, a kilo of silver that cost £125 in 1975 can now be had for £106—much-devalued pounds. By the end of 30 years of a PFI contract, the taxpayer will be left not with some devalued pounds but with precisely nothing—quite an example of value for money.
Before I came to this place, I ran my own business. Had I done so in the way I have described, I would be not here but in the poorhouse. It is not this Government who will pay the price in 30 years' time. They will be long gone. It will be our children and, I fear, our children's children who will have to face the results of the Government's actions.
However much we in Wales might object to PFI, the National Assembly in Cardiff has no choice in the matter. That is one more reason why the so-called devolution settlement is untenable in its present form. We in Plaid Cymru call for proper investment in a reconstructed public sector that has faith in its capacities, is publicly accountable and whose activities are not shrouded because of alleged commercial sensitivity. New Labour may not have an ideological objection to putting shareholders before hospitals and profit before patients, but Plaid Cymru most emphatically does.
11.24 pm
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) on initiating this important debate and on his magnificent introductory speech. His was a root and branch demolition of any case that might have been made for PFI. Many Labour Members believe that PFI is irrational nonsense, and it is also extremely unpopular with the public. An opinion poll for The Guardian suggests that only one in ten thinks that bringing the private sector into the public services is a good idea. That means that privatisation and PFI are less popular than the poll tax, and the Government ought to take careful note of that. The poll tax destroyed a previous Prime Minister. If Labour Members are not careful, we could find ourselves in political trouble. I want to avoid that above all, because it is vital for the future of the country that our party remains in government and continues to do its best for the great mass of ordinary people, and not for big business and those who make money.
Popularity is not everything, of course. Sometimes I am slightly unpopular with my Whips, but I do not necessarily take that as conclusive evidence that I am wrong. On the other hand, popularity is important in politics. We should bear it in mind that, although we have won two elections with big majorities, the public are watching us. We should note that they do not like privatisation and one day they may judge us more harshly than they have so far.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire talked about the costs of privatisation and the rates of return. The rate of return required on private investment is vastly higher than on public investment. The typical rate in the old days of the Public Works Loan Board was, perhaps, bank rate plus 2 per cent. Current examples of required rates of return are 18 per cent. for the Skye bridge and 19.4 per cent. for

29WH
Bridgend prison—vast sums of money—and, of course, the assets still belong to the private sector. I will not dwell on escalation, which my hon. Friend has already mentioned.
The illogicality of insisting on expensive private investment instead of cheap public investment defeats me. We have been told that it is about the importance of containing the public sector borrowing requirement. However, there are two types of borrowing: borrowing to finance the poor and unemployed during a recession, which is cyclical borrowing, and borrowing for long-term investment in assets, which is different. The risk involved in the provision of public hospitals and schools is not high. It is not a risk at all, because there will always be a demand for such facilities. It is just pushing extra cash into the pockets of the private sector rather than paying more cheaply to get things done in the public sector.
Llew Smith: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) gave a somewhat different view in his criticism of the PFI. He said that, for the companies involved, PFI was a gamble; they could have their fingers burned. Does not all the research from people such as Professor Allyson Pollock prove that the risk is virtually minimal? It is a sure way for a few multinational companies to make a lot of money.
Mr. Hopkins: Of course I totally agree. The channel tunnel is one of many examples. It was a type of public-private arrangement that effectively was underwritten by Government. It made vast losses, which have been financed by the public sector. I do not mind paying from the public purse for those things that are valuable and essential for public use or a vital part of our infrastructure. However, let us not pretend that things must be bought in either the private or the public sectors. Indeed, the public sector could have built the channel tunnel—I would have preferred that—and it would have been built more cheaply, more effectively and, I suspect, more quickly. However, that is neither here nor there.
The important point is about public borrowing. On the continent of Europe, much of the public borrowing that we include in the PSBR is not included. Those Governments rightly look at the public borrowing level in relation to the state of the economy. Those countries are concerned with cyclical borrowing and not longterm borrowing for risk-free investment in necessary public services. We have introduced a new ethos into the public sector, which is deeply worrying. If we pursue it in the long term, a situation may develop in which some of the values that now drive people who work in the public services may be lost for ever. That would cause terrible damage to our society.
Many outside the Government take a critical view of privatisation and the PFI. I end with a quotation from Will Hutton, the director of the Industrial Society and former editor of The Observer. He said:
"For the NHS is no longer governed principally by considerations of public health, clinical need and patient care. Its overriding values are cost reduction, operational efficiency and the need to reproduce the managerial culture of a privately-owned PLC. Patients' interests have become secondary to those of ideological public-accounting principles and the enthronement of market values in public provision. A policy begun by the Conservatives, which the nation voted to change, has been continued largely uninterrupted by new Labour."
30WH
It is time we changed that and reverted to the view that the Labour party has traditionally taken—that public provision should be provided by public investment.
11.32 am
Dr. Richard Taylor: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) on his demolition of the arguments for the private finance initiative. I was delighted to hear so much understanding of it and its iniquities. All he missed out was the devastating fact that the first call on a trust's money, before anything goes into patient care, is paying off the PFI debt.
I shall briefly mention two concerns, illustrated by local events in Worcestershire. First, everyone knows that most PFI hospitals have far fewer beds than the hospitals that they replaced. To our amazement, the Worcestershire health authority has tacitly admitted that fact, by agreeing to provide an extra 112 beds, over and above those in the PFI hospital, in existing buildings that were to be decommissioned. As beds represent money, that must immediately put the cost of the PFI above the hallowed public sector comparator.
Secondly, I shall give a characteristic example of the spin that has been used. When the previous Secretary of State went to Worcester to cut the first sod for the marvellous new PFI hospital, the press release—of which I have a copy—from the Department of Health heralded it as costing £116 million. When Professor Allyson Pollock conducted the survey last year, she was kind and said that the cost was £108 million; she excluded the cost of equipment and of money that would be obtained from land sales. The health authority pilloried her for getting the sums wrong, although they were taken from health authority figures, and claimed that the cost was only £91 million, despite the figure of £116 million given in the press release.
Now, the health authority has at long last admitted that the true cost is £109 million. The difference between £91 million and £109 million is the cost of raising the finance to provide the building—which cements the arguments of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire that the initiative will damage the health service in the long term. In a comment column just before the election, The Guardian, described the PFI as "bleeding the hospitals".
11.33 am
Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the debate and the contribution of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor). I had hoped that he would tell us the rate of return on the £109 million capital invested in the new hospital in Kidderminster and the comparative figures if it had been built by traditional public sector finance methods, which would, I suspect, be much cheaper.
Dr. Taylor: I can compare it in another way. The cost to a trust of capital charges, which were the previous way of paying for one's premises and equipment, is approximately 8 per cent. of a trust's income. The cost under the PFI is approximately 13 per cent. of income.

31WH
While the 8 per cent. is recycled within the NHS, the 13 per cent. goes into the private pocket. That is as close as I can get to the answer.
Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. A report by Professor Allyson Pollock compares the cost of repayments for several hospitals, pre and post PFI: for Norfolk and Norwich hospital, it was 0.7 per cent. pre PFI and 18.9 per cent. post PFI, for Swindon and Marlborough trust, it was 3.3 per cent. and 14.3 per cent. respectively, and for Calderdale Healthcare, 3 per cent. and 11.3 per cent., and so forth.
I welcome the debate, because it gives us a chance to challenge the ethos that the use of PFI finance in public services is the manna from heaven, money from God-knows-where that will give us the shining new building on the hill. A good, new hospital can be built, apparently at no cost, under PFI. However, the reality is that we are storing up an enormous charge for future generations; if there is a problem in financing those hospitals, the first call, the absolute priority of the debtors, is the private finance, not the patients.
Mr. Hopkins: Is it not unfair to ask a local electorate, "Would you like a PFI hospital or no hospital?" Local people could be asked, "Would you like a PFI or a publicly financed hospital?" Which would they choose?
Jeremy Corbyn: Indeed. As my hon. Friend suggested, it is a ridiculous question, because clearly there is an option. Either projects are financed by the public sector in the normal, traditional, cheaper and more secure way, or the vultures of private enterprise banks are brought in—a rip-off at public expense—and given an absolute guarantee of income.
It is time that those promoting PFI realised that public attitudes have changed. I was brought up on a diet of publicity that told me that public investment in industry and anything that was publicly owned and publicly run was intrinsically dangerous, probably imported from the Soviet Union and a threat to freedom, health and democracy. I remember the campaign, "Say no to nationalisation". Those who are even older than I am will remember Mr. Cube.
On a cold morning in March, I was outside Euston station in the company of the general secretaries of RMT, ASLEF and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association—very nice people, fine folk—handing out leaflets saying, "Bring back the track. Take Railtrack into public ownership". The leaflets pointed out that Railtrack had been given away to its shareholders by the Conservative Government at much less than the capital value of the land it owned, never mind all the infrastructure. Is that a rip-off or what? We were collecting signatures from people who wanted Railtrack to be brought back into public ownership. That is nationalisation if you like—a word that people do not like to use these days. There was a queue across the concourse to sign the petition and the staff asked us if there was anything we could do about it. I told them there was nothing I could do about it because people wanted to sign the petition to secure the jobs of staff and to ensure that Railtrack was properly run. We must think again about the ethos of privatisation.
32WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) described what happens when public services are put out to private contractors. I have wearied the House before on that subject, so I shall speak briefly about housing benefit in my borough, which used to be run by the local authority. The system was not wonderful, but people could get answers and solutions to problems at the neighbourhood offices. The system was centralised by the local authority and it got worse. The local authority was then denied the capital allowance from central Government to invest in the new computer systems that were necessary and along came the wonderful company from Birmingham known as IT Net, which said that it would run the scheme for the local authority.
A short time later, 20,000 people were awaiting answers to their queries about housing benefit, private sector tenants were being evicted, people were having breakdowns and families were breaking up. There were horrendous problems because of the sheer incompetence of the company, which seemed to have the local authority in an armlock. That company was being paid—the directors were even getting bonuses. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I have been tearing out what remains of our hair to ensure that the company does its job properly. We were reduced to having a meeting with two directors of IT Net to ask them to improve the service.
Public money paid through a local authority should be providing a service to local people, but we have been reduced to talking to two directors who are answerable to shareholders, who have no interest whatever in the needs of the people of Islington. It is a negation of democracy that we hand our services over to the private sector.
Ms Abbott: The privatisation of housing benefit caused the collapse of the service and there was a total lack of transparency. One could not discover anything from the private firms about internal targets, or any other information. Those were not the only bad aspects of the privatisation, however. When it was clear to my local authority that the housing benefit service in Hackney was collapsing, it delayed a long time before removing the contract. People in the authority said, "In practice, Diane, we cannot remove the contract once we've handed it over to them, because there is no genuine in-house competitor or capacity."
Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right. On Thursday, the Liberal Democrat-run council in the London borough of Islington will have a chance to remove that contract from IT Net. As I understand it, however, the Liberal Democrats propose to continue with the contract. I trust that when the Liberal Democrat spokesman speaks, he will give us some good news after his promise to intervene with the local authority leadership on that matter.
Finally, I am a former official of the National Union of Public Employees, I later became part of Unison and I am acutely aware of the enormous commitment that public sector workers make to the public sector. They resent the fact that their jobs are sold to the lowest bidder every few years, even under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations

33WH
1981 by which they may receive a guarantee that their employment will continue if the transfer takes place. If we want good-quality public services, we should remember to respect and support the people who work in the public sector and give them decent conditions. We must invest properly and cheaply and get ourselves better, democratically accountable public services rather than handing them over to those who have proved that they cannot provide them.
11.41 am
Mr. John Horam: We are all in debt to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) for this debate, because PFI is an important part of the debate on public services that will, I am sure, play a huge role in this Parliament. I apologise to him, to the Minister and to you, Mr. Cook, for having to leave before the end of the debate to attend a memorial service for the late Reg Prentice in St. Mary's Undercroft.
I want to contribute briefly to the debate because I was responsible for the PFI in the Department of Health in the last Conservative Government. I am sure that the Minister will point out that PFI has at least enabled a lot of new hospitals to get under way since the beginning of the last Parliament. That is to the credit of PFI.
At the same time, there are severe problems with PFI, which I want briefly to adumbrate. First, as the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire said, every penny of PFI comes from the public purse and the taxpayer. It amounts to spending now and paying later, which builds up a huge problem for the future. In the March Budget it was revealed that £79 billion of PFI project finance would have to be financed in the future. Later figures suggest that another £16 billion have been added to that sum. That money will have to be provided by our children and our children's children in 30 or 40 years.
David Taylor: Even those costs understate the true impact because of the asset and land sales to which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) referred, which tend to be invisible in the equation advanced by advocates of PFI.
Mr. Horam: I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
With PFI, one is over a barrel with the finance houses, which are in a position to exact a hard deal. Governments under the pressure of public opinion are naturally anxious to get a move on with building hospitals, and so on. Therefore, one is always a demandeur—as it were—and the finance houses, companies and consortiums that finance the PFI can sit and wait until they get what they want. One must eliminate as much risk as they want, and it goes on from there. That is a problem.
I agree, too, with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about transparency. I hope that the Public Accounts Committee will investigate the matter thoroughly, because we still do not have the facts on PFI in anything like the detail that the House should have before it commits itself to further billion-pound deals.
We should take the point that the Prime Minister always makes in Question Time—there are always huge overruns with traditionally financed public sector
34WH
projects such as the Jubilee line extension. That is true, and it is equally true that, because of the responsibilities of the PFI contractor, projects finish within budget. Contractors are responsible if projects are not finished on time or within budget. The difficulty is that one tends to get cheap, short-cut solutions when projects run up against budget. One can end up with poorly finished hospitals such as those in Carlisle and Dartford—of which I have personal knowledge—and that is a tragedy. We may therefore have to face the fact that some large infrastructure projects are not easy to finance or estimate costs for. We must either finance them traditionally from the public sector and finish them properly or suffer the results of an inferior product.
The existence of PFI causes huge problems for the management of large infrastructure projects, especially hospitals, which I am interested in. Such projects are extremely complex to negotiate. The piles of documents are enormous, as is the amount of time that senior executives of the hospital have to put in to negotiate them. During that period, their eyes are inevitably off the ball when it comes to running the hospital. I frequently found such examples when I ran the PFI in the Department of Health. The standard of service deteriorated during the two or three years in which senior executives were negotiating the PFI, even though they had a contract team to deal with the matter, but it is enormously complex. One or two people had heart attacks and their health seriously deteriorated during the time that they were involved.
The end results of such projects are also extremely inflexible. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) made that point about beds. One may have fewer beds in a new PFI hospital and one may find oneself in the situation that we face in Bromley, where rising house prices have resulted in developers converting nursing homes. There are fewer nursing spaces in the area and fewer beds. The budgets of the local authority and the social services department are under pressure and the result is that far fewer people can find nursing care, which is a real problem for the local authority.
To get public services on their feet Governments of all persuasions—this is a non-political point—should give primacy not to financial considerations but to the management of the resulting utility and its employees. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire rightly said that one cannot have a satisfactory public service without motivated employees who can come only from properly structured management. Wherever possible, one should not get involved in complicated financing deals. One should keep the management—whether public or private sector, which I support in many cases—simple and uncomplicated so that it can do the job that it is meant to do.
11.48 am
Mr. Tony Colman: I declare an interest in being the founding chair of the Public Private Partnerships Programme Ltd., which is a PFI local government company. I remain an unremunerated director, appointed by the Local Government Association.
When I became a local authority leader in 1991, I was appalled by the public squalor that I saw around me; the result of approximately 50 years of under-investment.

35WH
I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, listened to a number of people, including myself and, as a party, we adopted the policy of PFI in 1992. It is a Labour party policy alternative to privatisation.
My experience is not in the health service but in local government, dealing with schools, social services, housing, police, the fire brigade and transport. In each case, PFI has been the result of a choice—one in five of the investments made since 1987 have been PFI—made by local politicians. Unions are consulted and there is full TUPE and pension transfer. It works: the finance is almost as cheap as Government borrowing, buildings are built on time or earlier and long-term maintenance costs are agreed so that no future local authority leader inherits the squalor that I inherited. 'The staff will remain in comparable pension arrangements and significant savings to the public purse—from 5 to 12 per cent.—are made on schools alone. I was surprised that the IPPR report did not fully analyse what was happening in local government. In each case, because local politicians are involved, PFI must be proven to be better value than running the project under any other basis.
I am not an expert on the national health service, but I believe that it can learn from local government. My constituency has one of three trials in which facilities management stays with the NHS. The trial is at Queen Mary's hospital, and I await developments, because I understand that all other PFI arrangements for the NHS are waiting for the completion of those trial projects before they go any further.
Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Colman: No, I shall not give way because I am short of time.
I understand that the maximum delay is about six months, so we should deal with the protection of workers' rights, which to me is the nub of the implications of PFI. PFI provides much better value than other arrangements, but the key is the protection of workers. I suggest three alternative ways forward for the NHS. First, if there is staff transfer, there should be full TUPE rights including full pension entitlement for existing staff. That is what happens in local government. Any new staff should be recruited on the same basis as those transferring, and there should not be two-tier pay and conditions. The Minister should examine how Lincolnshire county council has dealt with PFI—it balloted its staff three times—and Middlesbrough council's work on the matter.
The alternative is that if staff stay in the NHS, the operational side of PFI should remain in the public sector. When I first set up the Public Private Partnerships Programme in 1996, I met the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who agreed that direct service organisations could act as the operational section of the design, build, finance and operate contracts, which are in PFI. That has been done by Cornwall county council, where the catering staff remain council employees, and by Cumbria county council, where the architecture department is part of the council.
36WH
The third option is for staff to stay fully in NHS employment. It is interesting to note what happened yesterday in Liverpool, where a joint venture has been set up with British Telecom for the corporate services. Some 900 members of staff have been seconded to BT but remain employees of Liverpool city council. Those different projects are all worth examining.
The phrase "build and disappear" was used by Digby Jacks at the launch of the IPPR report in terms of the situation, which he describes as the bad old days. All public infrastructures have been built by the private sector for a profit. It built them and disappeared, creating the squalor that I inherited. On the other side, we must protect workers' rights. Last weekend, I saw the excellent film by Ken Loach called "Bread and Roses". In fact, I saw it twice because I was so moved by it. We must ensure that justice for janitors—what that film is about—also means justice for public sector workers as they move forward with any new arrangements.
11.53 am
Ms Diane Abbott: I want to join colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) both on securing the debate and on giving such a brilliant demolition job on PFI.
PFI has been analysed extensively in the past 45 minutes and I want to make only a few points. In the first part of the Labour Administration, our slogan was "what works", and that is still the slogan of Labour Back Benchers. However, people are regarding with increasing horror the doctrinaire belief that the private sector has a magic answer to the problems of the public sector.
Mr. Andrew Love: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Ms Abbott: I am sorry but I must make progress.
Nobody on the Labour Benches is opposed to any private sector involvement in the public sector; there has always been private sector involvement. Indeed, some public sector projects, such as toll bridges, are suitable for a PFI. Any public sector project with a natural revenue stream is probably a suitable candidate for PFI. However, once we move away from such projects, PFI becomes much more problematic, and hon. Members have explained some of the issues.
Ministers in previous Governments and the current Government have extolled the virtues of private sector management and talked about how it can achieve value for money. The truth is that it achieves value for money in highly labour-intensive public sector operations such as hospitals and schools mainly by bearing down on employees' wages and conditions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire said, most of those employees, particularly in the health service, are women. In the inner city, many are working-class white, black and Asian women who are the sole wage earners in their families. If my right hon. Friend the Minister is still uncertain about what working under private sector contractors is like for those women, he can go to

37WH
Harlesden with me any day of the week and talk to them about their experiences in cleaning, catering and other areas.
As a Member of Parliament for an inner-city area, I have seen what happens to employees when they have to work for private sector contractors. An important issue of PFI schemes is what happens to staff and at whose expense the savings are really extracted. I make no apologies for repeating that point, made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire.
All too often, private sector contractors obtain supposed increased efficiency, savings and output by the simple rigging of the public sector comparator that is used. We have tried to debate the virtues of the PPP proposals for the London underground with Ministers, but for a long time they would not reveal the public sector comparator, because they knew that if they did so, we would see how rigged it was. The improvements and savings that the private sector is supposed to produce are often the result of rigged comparators and management's bearing down on wages and conditions.
All that Labour Members want is to return to the Government's earlier mantra—"what works". Time and again, we can point to PFI schemes that have not worked and have produced a worse service and worse conditions for workers. These include a host of schemes for hospitals and the administration of housing benefit in local authorities that have not produced the outcome that the public wanted. If PFI schemes were so wonderful, we would not be sitting in this Chamber with the independent hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor).
I congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken. I urge the Government to move away from an excessively ideological approach to the so-called magic of the private sector and to adopt a more pragmatic approach, building on experiences with PFI schemes and listening to the informed contributions that we have heard this morning.
11.58 am
Llew Smith: I apologise in advance for having to leave before the end of the debate.
Recently, there has been a big debate about privatisation or the role that private companies will play in public services. Some people give the impression that that is a new debate about a third way, but we all know that that is not the case. The United States went down the road of privatising public services many years ago. I was reminded of that and the role of money for companies when I read a book about the so-called privatisation of public services in the USA. It mentioned that the chair of Kentucky Fried Chicken had decided to resign his position to join the new Hospital Corporation of America because the growth potential in hospitals was enormous; even greater than Kentucky Fried Chicken. I do not know how many hon. Members have tasted Kentucky Fried Chicken's product; those who have will be justifiably concerned that the quality of that product will be transferred and affect the quality of our public services.
That is already happening. As Professor Allyson Pollock pointed out, four out of the five trusts that control 10 hospitals are the same trusts that are responsible for the dirtiest hospitals in the United
38WH
Kingdom. Even some in my own party tell us that there is no reason to worry, that the Government have announced a pause to privatisation and that as long as we retain a Labour Government, we shall avoid privatisation of the public services. Almost in the same breath and the same sentence, such commentators proceed to extol the virtues of PFI and are willing to debate with former representatives of the Tory Government who implemented the most PFI projects in the shortest period.
If we are to believe the Government, there is no contradiction between opposing privatisation and supporting PFI. We are told that they are totally different creatures. As a party, we certainly did not hold that view a few years ago. In 1995, a Labour party document stated that PFI was "creeping privatisation". The Solicitor-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), proclaimed that when the private sector builds, owns, runs and manages a hospital, it has been privatised. I agree, and so does the Trades Union Congress, which instructed its council to campaign for the end of PFI.
The public services are an integral part of my socialism. Whatever the leadership has dumped from the party's past, our constitution still commits us to democratic socialism. I am supporting the party constitution in opposing PFI; those who support PFI are opposing the constitution. Some people have a lot to learn from the 1945 Labour Government, who developed a pact with the people to expand the public services, which were to be owned by and accountable to the people.
If we go down the road of privatising services and implementing PFI, our pact, some 50 years later, will no longer be with the people, but with the multinational companies that are making so much money from these initiatives. For them, the public services are simply another opportunity to make a profit. A financial analyst estimated that expanding trade in the public services could yield the private sector £30 billion extra revenue a year. Those companies will end up controlling not just the expenditure but the policy.
For the vast majority of people, public services are not about profit, but provide an opportunity to make life more decent and dignified. Without public services, many opportunities would be absent. We must respond to need, not to private profit. We must view people other than according to how much money they have in their pockets as consumers.
I have the privilege of representing the constituency of Blaenau Gwent, the birthplace of the national health service, which is the jewel in our crown and the finest piece of socialist legislation of the past 100 years. When Nye set up the national health service, he intended it to respond to people's health needs. He was not concerned with how much money those involved had in their pockets.
Sadly, another hospital has been built through PFI in the neighbouring constituency of Chepstow. We were told that it would cost between £13 million and £14 million. The sale of the land brought in £12 million, so the hospital could almost have been self-financing. Instead, the people in authority opted for PFI, which has proved incredibly expensive. The hospital could

39WH
have been built by taking money from current taxation or by borrowing. Governments can borrow money at a far lower rate than the private sector. We know that Governments pay the money back in the end and so the interest rate is that much lower. The project can be produced far more cheaply.
We have obviously run out of time but, unlike in 1945, there is no shortage of money. If Nye Bevan were alive today, he would remind the Government that their current account in 2001–02 was in surplus to the tune of £23 billion, while PFI capital investment deals signed between 1997 and 2001 amounted to £14 billion. There is £9 billion to spare for further investment. It is an act of madness to go down the road of PFI. People who want to do so should have the courage to admit that they are going down the road of privatisation. My constituents and I could never accept that and one of my predecessors certainly never accepted it when he introduced the NHS.
12.6 pm
Mr. Edward Davey: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) both on securing the debate and on his initial remarks. He has done the House a service. We have heard today a great deal of hostility to PFI; much of it understandable, most of it well made. The key problem with PFI is that, in too many cases, it has been the only game in town. The capital could not be obtained from other sources in other ways. The decision to go down the PFI route has not been made for value for money considerations—the real test that should apply—but because it is the only way for the hospital to get its improvement. That is a poor way of making capital decisions, whether in the private or public sector.
We should now decide, across parties and across Government, that the PFI is not a way to find new money. The accounting analysis that the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire gave us in his opening remarks makes that clear. The public sector still has to pay the annual unitary payments for privately financed projects. Unitary payments to the private contractor are equivalent to interest payments on the debt that the public sector will have taken. There is no real difference in accounting or economic terms, so the PFI should never be considered as bringing new money into the game to provide better public services. That is a false argument that should be dismissed for good.
What the PFI can do—here I may disagree with some hon. Members—is produce better efficiency in certain circumstances. That is where the Government's value for money test should be applied. Indeed, it should not be called the private finance initiative but the private management initiative. PFI brings in private sector know-how and may well provide a service to the public. There may be private sector managers who can provide us all with a good service. There may not be enough public sector managers, or they may not have the qualifications or experience to manage a project efficiently. By bringing in private sector know-how, we can perhaps improve efficiency and get a better result for the taxpayer and our constituents, but a much tighter test would apply.
40WH
The question that Ministers must ask is how they can improve the quality of public sector managers as well. If the whole argument behind the PFI were about private sector management know-how, surely we should say to ourselves, "Let's see if we can also improve the competences within the public sector." Much can be done in that regard.
The Liberal Democrat approach to the issue comprises several key principles. First, there should he a level playing field. The public sector, whether at local government or national Government level, should be able to contest those tenders with the same financial framework behind it, as should not-for-profit companies and the voluntary sector. That would increase competition and diversity, which would in turn lead to great innovation. A level playing field gives the best of both worlds. To create it, we have to improve public sector competences.
The development of resource accounting of budgeting will give public sector managers the information and the accounting techniques to put forward bids that can equate with ones from the private sector. We should consider giving local government borrowing powers that are equivalent to those of national Departments. We also need to ensure that PFI has tougher tests applied to it.
The public sector comparators that the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire mentioned are our highest objective. However, we need much greater openness in terms of the information that goes into them. The PFI contracts that we specify need to be more output-based so that the contracts tendered to public and private sector suppliers are based on quality of service delivery. That is often easier to specify than an input-based contract. We need to ensure that if the provider of the contract makes windfall gains, there is a clawback. The clawback and penalties that have existed in PFI contracts have been lamentably lacking in bite.
We need to consider alternatives to the way in which PFI has been developed. A proposal that has much merit and should at least be piloted is open book procurement. That would allow a private sector company to provide the service, using the money raised by the public sector. The open book would be the key to ensuring accountability. The managers and the public sector auditors would have full access to the information, ensuring that the private sector provider is properly monitored. Such a system might enable us to gain the benefits of extra private sector know-how and the potentially better competences of the private sector, while ensuring cheaper capital costs, a better deal for the taxpayer and accountability.
I have talked about a level playing field, but accountability is key to the way in which we should approach the question. In so many PFI deals we have seen a complete lack of accountability. There has not been a full analysis, in the House or in Whitehall, of the deals before they have been signed. The deals have been pushed through with political drive and the issue of whether they are good for the taxpayer and the user of that service has been neglected. We need to build accountability before the deals are signed, while they are going on and afterwards; that would involve a radical change in the way in which Whitehall and some of the private sector contractors approach the issue, in regard primarily to openness of information. We must ensure

41WH
that as we explore new ways of providing public services, information, financial planning and management are available. That might cause problems within private sector companies, but they must meet the tests of openness and transparency if they want to get involved.
12.14 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) on obtaining the debate at an important time. It is important to look back over the 10 years in which PFI has developed to learn from the mistakes and successes, and it is also important to look forward. This is an occasion when the Government could set out their PFI intentions with regard to the health service. I believe that most citizens do not understand them; nor do I. I have been advised that certain NHS trusts have been notified of a new policy that all non-medical arrangements in PFI-financed hospitals must be PFI-subcontracted. Is that the case or not? People want to know.
The problems with PFI were well commented on by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who has been involved with it from day one. There has been a lack of accountability; there have often been cost discrepancies and overruns; there have been problems such as poor cleaning services in hospitals and so on. In my constituency, the results of subcontracting the street lighting maintenance have been appalling. However, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) made a good point about why PFI developed. It would be disingenuous for anyone to claim that the record of capital investment, management of capital investment and, in many cases, general management of the public sector was so wonderful that we did not need PFI.
I was particularly struck by the inefficiencies of the operational side when, as a young man of 17, I worked as a hospital porter for three months one summer. I was one of two students who basically ran the hospital for three months, while 10 extremely nice porters sat and enjoyed themselves. They were good people, but they subscribed to an ethos that was not about doing the job efficiently but about doing the minimum work for maximum money. As has been mentioned, efficiency and accountability are crucial.
If PFI is to work properly, first, there must be good contracts. Woolly contracts have been a problem; the public sector has not been good at contracting. Secondly, there must be an adequate and competitive supply of subcontractors and investors. That situation did not always exist as PFI developed, and sometimes profitability was too great for that reason. The National Audit Office pointed out that no provision existed for refinancing. The public were not able to share the benefits when interest rates fell and sometimes PFI profitability was excessive.
There is a crucial difference between PFI, which is about subcontracting the operating risks to the private sector, and many public-private partnership deals, which are about trying to pull in public money but leaving the risk with the poor old taxpayer. That is my concern about the London and Continental deal and the potential arrangements for the London tube. Without that discipline, the public are likely to be ripped off.
42WH
The subject of bond issues that are not implicitly or explicitly Government guaranteed has not come up. However, from the experience in the United States, non-recourse bond issues for projects within the public sector have brought some of the disciplines of the private sector. A chief executive or politician whose bond defaults is dead; there is no escaping it. A situation in which Government debt is shrinking and the marginal cost of potential public sector bond issues above gilts is not nearly as great as it was should be considered.
There has been criticism of the unsatisfactory results of PFI in technical work for the Passport Agency and social services. The main problem in both cases was that the contracts were inadequate. In the private sector itself, there have been few computerisation programmes that have not been subject to glitches. A major problem in the national health service is that patient records are not computerised; it still uses an incredibly archaic system of cards, which get lost and delay operations. That is not good public management. When I speak to friends at the sharp end of NHS management, they say that such problems are the real practical issues, and that there are restrictive practices in many parts that are not being addressed. Whether the system of reform is called PFI or something else, it is those issues that need to be tackled.
Finally, I repeat that we are at a crucial point. The Government have made noises about their intentions for PFI in the health service, but it is time to find out what their policies are. There must be a thorough appraisal of the policies in the light of the failures, as well as the successes, of PFI to date.
12.20 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): This has been a good debate, with passion and commitment, and one for which we owe my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) a debt of gratitude. There was passion and commitment on both sides of the argument. One side was ably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), who brought a considerable body of experience as a local government leader; the other was put by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire, who brought his experience as a trade unionist and public accountant.
We have a duty as a Government and party to reverse the record of decades of decline and under-investment in and undervaluing of our public services and our nation's infrastructure. That was seen under the Government who were supported by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). Our recently refreshed mandate will allow us to reverse that record of decline and deliver to people better public services and value for money. That is a task in which we are entitled to take pride. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday:
"There can be no greater crusade for a centre-left government than to invest in and reform our public services. We should embrace it and build it with every bit as much zeal and commitment as the Attlee government built the welfare state".
Several of my hon. Friends referred to that post-war Labour Administration and have done so with approbation, commending them for their zeal and passion. I am here to show that this Government have an equal zeal and passion.

43WH
In our first term, our first task—on which we delivered—was to deliver economic stability and strong public finances. Having secured the fundamentals of our economy, we can now make the sustained investment in our public services and infrastructure that we on the Labour Benches all want and for which we have all campaigned throughout our political lives. We will deliver that in the context of public-private partnerships, which as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said, originated during our long period in opposition. It is important that my hon. Friends and hon. Members understand that PFI is but one part of public-private partnerships. They, too, must be seen within the overall context of increased investment in our public services, because PPP is but one part of the wider investment in our public services.
We must get the debate in proportion, and understand the extent to which we are investing in our public services. There is an additional £4 billion of capital spending this year and a doubling of net investment by the public sector over the next three years to £19 billion in 2003–04. The scale of the investment in infrastructure that we plan dwarfs the investment of recent years. Total investment has increased from £24.4 billion in 1996–97 to nearly £35 billion this year, and that will rise to £41.9 billion in 2003–04.
We are carrying forward a major programme of hospital building, which is the biggest in the history of the NHS. In England, 68 major hospital developments worth over £7.3 billion have been given the go-ahead since 1997. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) shared his experience of PFI, but he did not deliver a single hospital under PFI. That was the Conservative party's record, but we are in the business of delivering on our commitment to the NHS. However, the matter does not end there. We are carrying forward a £180 billion 10-year modernisation of our transport infrastructure, and the replacement or refurbishment of 650 schools.
Public sector investment is growing rapidly, and we must show that the public sector can spend money well and efficiently to create the infrastructure and services that people want and value and that are delivered on
44WH
time, at best value and to budget. Public-private partnerships, including PFI, are one of several tools that will allow us to deliver our ambitious programme of investment, and the PFI should be seen in the wider context of a Government strategy to revitalise the nation's infrastructure and to deliver quality services.
Our approach is not dogmatic or ideological, but pragmatic. We want public-private partnerships to be used only when they offer value for money. It may be appropriate where projects are complex or long term, or where on-going maintenance and upgrade requirements are significant. The rationale for using PFI is straightforward: it is to ensure that there is a clear discipline on the public sector stating its output requirements, and to build on incentives for the private sector to deliver specified services on time and to the right standard, otherwise it does not get paid. Risk is transferred to the private sector, and its management skills are brought to bear to deliver value for money.
Of course, people are important and no one should pretend that we do not recognise that. We have made major improvements to TUPE to safeguard the transferring of employees' terms and conditions. We are prepared to innovate with Partnerships UK, which was set up to develop new approaches to PPPs. We are piloting new approaches in NHS-PFI deals with ancillary staff remaining in the public sector but being managed by private sector partners.
We are not saying for one moment, "Private is good, public is bad." However. neither are we saying that public is good and private is all bad. We must recognise that the responsibility that we have to the public is to deliver value for money and to ensure that we make the necessary investment to build infrastructure and to deliver higher-quality services. The PFI should not be seen simply as a device to bring about more investment. We are always concerned to improve the quality of investment, and we want better investment when it is appropriate and delivers value for money.
This has been an important debate and we can all learn from the points that have been made. We make a commitment to the public to deliver better public services and better value for money, with PFI and private-public partnerships being but one aspect of that mission.

Police (Hertfordshire)
12.30 pm
Mr. James Clappison: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise a subject of particular interest to my constituents, as it is to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), who will say a few words after I have spoken. A recent public opinion survey in the borough of Hertsmere revealed that the maintenance of law and order was the No. 1 concern of local residents. As my constituents have made clear to me and others many times, they regard that as being linked intimately to the provision of sufficient numbers of police officers to provide a visible police presence in the borough, to respond to crimes and emergencies and to be available in police stations when the public need them.
The Hertfordshire police force has had particular difficulty in attracting the number of new recruits that it needs. Before I refer to those recruitment difficulties, I wish to make it clear that I do not intend any criticism of the Hertfordshire force. My feelings are quite the opposite. I hold the Hertfordshire police force and its leadership in high regard. Its recruitment difficulties are not of its making. It has done its best to overcome such problems and to recruit as many new members as it can, and to overcome the consequences of not having sufficient police numbers. For example, it has done as much as it possibly can to put police officers on the front line when they can be of assistance to members of the public.
However, the Hertfordshire police force is not attracting the number of recruits that it needs. An apparent increase in police numbers in Hertfordshire in the past year has to be put in the context of an extension of the boundaries of the Hertfordshire force and the secondment of Metropolitan force officers to areas such as Hertsmere, which were policed formerly by the Metropolitan police. Hertfordshire is falling behind its target for recruiting enough officers to police the county. The recruitment target per year for the Hertfordshire force is 250 recruits. That is made up of 25 recruits in each of the five-weekly intakes of new recruits. Until recently, the number of recruits coming forward has been about half of that target—about 13 new recruits in each intake—whereas 25 recruits were needed to meet the force's target.
In response to that deficiency, the Hertfordshire force launched a recruitment drive last February. That was a sensible decision, but it has cost £250,000. As a result, recruitment has increased to about 18 in the most recent intake, but that is still well below the number needed. Overall, the force is about 145 officers short of its establishment target of 2,049 officers, excluding the crime fighting fund.
Such matters have serious consequences for Hertfordshire constituencies. Following changes in the governance of London, Hertsmere was transferred from the Metropolitan force to the Hertfordshire force on 1 April 2000. The Metropolitan officers who served Hertsmere were temporarily seconded to the Hertfordshire force. However, the secondment began to come to an end at the beginning of this year. Since 1 April, Metropolitan police officers have been returning to the Met from Hertfordshire at the rate of
46WH
between eight and 12 a month. I understand that 31 have already returned and the remaining officers will return between now and March 2002.
Metropolitan officers who return to the Metropolitan force from Hertsmere are replaced by Hertfordshire officers, which is why the recruitment difficulties of the Hertfordshire force are of such direct relevance to my constituents. The Hertfordshire force has made it clear that the problems caused by the shortfall in recruitment will be shared throughout the force area. Hertsmere will not suffer alone. Nevertheless, Hertsmere's share of the recruitment problem will have consequences for policing the borough.
The number of police officers in Hertsmere is already below strength. The target for the Hertsmere division is 105 officers. The number in place is 95 and it may fall even further as Metropolitan force secondees continue to return to that force.
In Hertsmere, there is a widespread perception among local residents that the thin blue line is getting increasingly thinner and that, through no fault of its own, the Hertfordshire force cannot always provide the visible policing or response to crime that the public want. With some justice, Hertsmere residents feel that there are simply not enough police officers in Hertsmere. At the same time, there is also a perception that in various parts of Hertsmere there is a rising tide of antisocial behaviour, especially on the part of youths—it is low level in some cases, but local residents should not have to put up with it. Examples include gangs of youths in Grosvenor road in Borehamwood terrorising residents; a particularly unpleasant attack by vandals on the Threeways community and old people's day centre in Borehamwood, resulting in graffiti and damage; and harassment of shopkeepers, mess and vandalism by youths in the Harcourt road area of Bushey. Those are just some examples of the antisocial activities perceived to be taking place.
Sadly, in several instances the police have been unable to respond promptly to criminal activity, despite their best efforts. A recent and well publicised local example involved the theft of belongings from the clothes of participants during the installation of a new incumbent clergyman in the parish of Elstree, conducted by the Bishop of St. Albans. According to reports of the incident, on the evening of 11 June thieves entered a room in which members of the visiting clergy had left their clothes, and stole jackets, handbags, wallets, cash, credit cards, keys, diaries and personal documents belonging to about 12 clergy, while the new clergyman was being installed in the church nearby. The police could not attend that evening, as they were dealing with other calls and simply did not have enough officers. I understand that the police subsequently attended, but no one has yet been arrested in connection with the incident, and they could not respond on the evening that the offence took place. That is just one of several cases that have come to my attention.
Against that background of wide-ranging anxiety about the number of police officers available to police Hertsmere I met the Minister then responsible, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), on 3 April and representatives of the three major political parties from Hertsmere. On 22 June, the present Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs wrote to me following that meeting. In that letter, the Minister drew attention to

47WH
some of the measures that had already been taken to deal with Hertfordshire's recruitment problems, but he could not offer anything new to deal with the recruitment circumstances that I described. More needs to be done. As far as Hertsmere is concerned, the situation is unsatisfactory and could get worse. Residents of Hertsmere, local councillors and I are not prepared to allow that to happen without doing more.
I invite the Minister to look into three issues that may help. First, I invite him to consider reducing the pay differential between the Hertfordshire and the Metropolitan forces. It is true that the recommendation of the Police Negotiating Board for a £2,000 allowance for Hertfordshire officers was implemented on 1 April this year. However, Metropolitan force officers had already received an even bigger allowance in the previous year. Therefore, in recent times, the pay differential between the Hertfordshire and the Metropolitan forces has widened. A young person considering a police career in my constituency can make the short journey to London, join the Met and receive £4,000 more than if he or she had joined the Hertfordshire force. That is a substantial differential in terms of a police officer's salary.
Secondly, will the Minister consider the arrangements for concessionary travel for Hertfordshire officers, to bring them into line with those enjoyed by Metropolitan police officers? The latter enjoy free rail travel within a 70-mile radius of London. I believe, and the Minister may be able to confirm, that some Home Office funding has gone into that. Hertfordshire officers have some free rail travel as a result of agreements negotiated locally, but it is not as extensive as the travel arrangements enjoyed by Metropolitan officers, which are much more extensive and advantageous.
Thirdly, will the Minister consider the rate of return of Metropolitan force secondees from Hertsmere back to the Met? Any slowing in that rate could help Hertfordshire tackle the consequences of its recruitment difficulties. If the return of secondees continues at its present rate, Hertsmere and other parts of Hertfordshire could be left with fewer officers than are needed to give residents the service that they want.
More generally, I invite the Minister to consider the position of counties such as Hertfordshire in the overall framework of police pay and conditions. Will the Minister also take on board the fact that what is needed to recruit and retain officers in a high cost of living area such as Hertfordshire may be different from elsewhere. What provides a good standard of living in, say, the west midlands or the north of England, may not necessarily do so in Hertfordshire.
Those are matters of real concern to my constituents. It is not sufficient to say, as some sometimes do, that Hertfordshire is a relatively safe place with a low level of crime relative to other areas. There is a growing problem in Hertfordshire. Hertfordshire residents pay their taxes, both local and national, and look for a police service to be provided for them. Currently, through no fault of the Hertfordshire police force, it is difficult to provide that service to my constituents. They should not have to put up with not having the number of police on the streets, the police response to incidents and
48WH
emergencies, and the general level of policing that they would want in their borough. I am sure that the same goes for residents in the rest of Hertfordshire.
Today, we are looking for constructive help and I am anxious to hear, after my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford has spoken, what the Minister has to say.
12.43 pm
Mr. Mark Prisk: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on taking the initiative in this debate. Like his constituents, my constituents regard this matter as one of the critical issues affecting the quality of life in Hertford and Stortford. We face the daunting prospect that by Christmas the number of police officers may have declined to 250 fewer than the establishment level that the chief constable has advised me is required for full and effective policing.
My constituency differs slightly from that of my hon. Friend, as it encompasses four market towns and several attractive villages, and has no real centre. It is true to say that some districts in my constituency have some of the lowest historical levels of crime in England and Wales. Nevertheless, in recent years there has been a consistent and growing level of violent crime. Coupled with that is a strong recognition by all my constituents that the profile of police officers has declined year on year.
To see the consequences of that, I took the opportunity, earlier this year to go on patrol with officers and gain experience of the practical issues. It was a Friday evening shift in Bishop's Stortford. It showed me that a town such as Bishop's Stortford, which has 32,000 people, is often served by a shift of approximately seven officers. Clearly, that is inadequate and will lead to further problems in the town. I was also struck by the quality of the professionalism and commitment of the officers in Hertfordshire, to which my hon. Friend referred. I want to put on record my respect for the commitment of Inspector Radwell and his team in Bishop's Stortford and the officers in the rest of my constituency. The truth is, however, that those officers are overstretched and overworked.
The recruitment crisis in Hertfordshire is generating problems with retention because, inevitably, experienced officers who are stretched beyond their limit tend to leave earlier and earlier. Of course, that compounds the problem.
As my hon. Friend emphasised, the root of the issue is that the Government's attempts to solve the problems of the Metropolitan force and improve the situation in London—by changing the pay, and so on—have led to a worse situation in Hertfordshire and other home counties. That financial gap of £4,000 is clearly significant to new recruits, let alone existing officers, and it has led to a ridiculous situation whereby police officers resident in Hertfordshire towns almost invariably work for the Metropolitan police, because Hertfordshire police officers cannot afford to live in the communities that they are responsible for protecting. That is why I endorse my hon. Friend's recommendations and analysis and look forward to hearing what the Minister says in response.
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on obtaining the debate, as it gives us a useful opportunity to air some concerns that have been raised about police recruitment in Hertfordshire and to set out the Government's actions in helping that recruitment. I hope that my response will deal with the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Police strength in Hertfordshire increased by eight between March 1997 and March 2000. That strength grew by a further 155 between March 2000 and March 2001, to a total of 1,922. The force has set a target strength of 2,049, which is 127 officers higher than the force strength at March 2001. As the hon. Gentleman said, the growth in strength in 2000–01 was as a result of boundary changes with the Metropolitan police in April 2000. Following those boundary changes, more than 180 Metropolitan police officers were seconded to Hertfordshire. Some 170 Metropolitan police secondees remain with Hertfordshire at March 2001, but all are due to return to the Metropolitan police force by March 2002, as that force will naturally need those officers back.
Hertfordshire police are therefore faced with the triple challenge of recruiting to cover natural wastage, to replace the departing secondees and to reach target strength. It would be unrealistic to expect the force to achieve that within a single year and the strength of Hertfordshire constabulary may fall this year before starting to rise when the exceptional drain created by the returning Metropolitan secondees is over.
Hertfordshire constabulary recruited 110 officers in 2000–01—fewer than the number recruited before, but well up on each of the two years before that. To counter the difficulties experienced in attracting recruits, the force has made a substantial investment in recruitment advertising. That is reflected in the forecasts provided to monitor the crime fighting fund, in which the force suggested that it would take on 214 officers this year, excluding appointments on transfer.
I have been advised by the Hertfordshire constabulary that the measures taken by the force to boost recruitment include setting up a recruitment website—it has received more than 9,500 visitors since it went live in February—and making other innovative uses of high-tech advertising, for example, the distribution of CD-ROMs in the form of business cards to enable potential recruits to connect to the website. There is a widespread poster campaign, as well as cinema advertisements and open days for potential recruits. The Hertfordshire constabulary is trying to ensure that its recruitment is targeted at the whole population by reflecting the make-up of the area so that it does not miss out on potential applications.
The Government are supporting police recruitment, including recruitment in Hertfordshire, in several ways. The crime fighting fund is enabling forces in England and Wales to recruit 9,000 officers over and above their previous plans in the three years to March 2003. With the help of the CFF, forces in England and Wales recruited 7,415 officers—64 per cent. more than in the previous year. The increase in police strength of 1,349 was the largest annual increase since 1988–89. We expect
50WH
police strength to reach record numbers by March 2003 and to have 130,000 officers by March 2004. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that when police strength reaches that number he will set a new target to take police force strengths higher.
Hertfordshire has been allocated 107 CFF recruits in the three years of the scheme. The force was unable to recruit any of the 40 CFF recruits allocated to it in 2000–01. In recognition of the difficulties that the force has had in attracting recruits, we have allowed it to carry over the 2000–01 allocation to next year. Hertfordshire will be able to recruit up to 70 CFF-funded officers in this financial year. Monitoring returns submitted by the force show that it expects to take up the full allocation of the crime fighting fund recruits. If the force recruits as planned it will qualify for just over £1 million from the CFF this year.
Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as the matter concerns many people involved in policing in Hertfordshire. If, for the sake of argument, one accepts that the money is available to fund new police recruits in Hertfordshire, even so, new recruits may not come forward because the pay and conditions in Hertfordshire are not attractive enough. Will the Minister take those sentiments on board?
Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman should be patient and allow me to move on to that point. If he does not interrupt me too often, I shall get there.
In August last year, to help forces to achieve the extra recruitment enabled by the crime fighting fund, the Government launched the first ever national recruitment advertising campaign for the police service. There were more than 150,000 responses to the campaign and 32,000 expressions of interest have been forwarded to forces. The next phase of the campaign will begin in August and will have a regional element. We shall focus some of the advertising in areas where forces are in need of greater support, including Hertfordshire.
Officers in Hertfordshire may benefit from the starter home initiative under which £250 million will be made available in the next three years to help key workers to purchase homes. A bid from Ridgehill housing association, targeted particularly on police officers in Hertfordshire, has gone forward to the second phase of the bidding process. We are reviewing entry requirements and standards for police recruitment with a view to ensuring that unnecessary barriers to recruitment are removed. The review is exploring a range of criteria, including age, nationality, medical, eyesight and fitness requirements as well as the police initial recruitment test. We intend to develop new recruitment standards and requirements that are job related and non-discriminatory, and they will be applied nationally. That should help to ensure that potential recruits are not unnecessarily excluded and help all forces to recruit. We are also considering the way in which candidates can apply for the police service, so that potential recruits might be directed to apply to those forces with the greatest need rather than have them wait until there are vacancies in their local area.

51WH
The pay and allowances available to officers in the Hertfordshire constabulary have a bearing on the force's ability to recruit. Officers in the constabulary who were appointed after 1 September 1994 and are not in receipt of a housing allowance are, since 1 April this year, entitled to an additional £2,000. My right hon. Friend the previous Home Secretary approved that new allowance, following a joint recommendation by the official and the staff sides of the Police Negotiating Board on 8 February, in recognition of the special recruitment and retention difficulties associated with the high cost of living in Hertfordshire. The hon. Gentleman said that that is not good enough, although when his party was in government, it did not take any such action. He claimed that there is a major problem with the Met living next door, a matter that I am more than happy to look at with him.
However, my figures show no evidence of a drain of police from Hertfordshire to the Met. In the past two years, the figures—I am happy to make them available to the hon. Gentleman—show that there has been movement in the opposite direction. In the year 2000–01, 15 Met officers moved to Hertfordshire and so far this year there have been five, whereas 10 officers moved in the opposite direction last year and five officers moved this year. My figures do not support the evidence that there is a great drain of police constables from Hertfordshire to the Met.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say that Hertfordshire was not a high crime area. However, he said that after considerable comment along the lines of "The thin blue line is getting thinner and thinner" when he gave details of crime problems in the area. It is true that Hertfordshire is a low crime area. It does not do his argument any good to paint the picture in the way that
52WH
he does. Let us consider violent crimes per 1,000 people. There are five violent crimes per 1,000 people in Hertfordshire compared with 11.6 crimes throughout the national scene. The clear-up rate of violent crimes in Hertfordshire is 69 per cent. compared with 45 per cent. throughout the country.
Thus, Hertfordshire is a low crime, pleasant area in which to live, which is different from the picture that the hon. Gentleman tried to paint. If he is not willing to accept my argument, I refer him to the annual report of the local force, the salient point of which is:
"Despite the increase in territorial size, overall crime is down by two per cent. and violent crime has also fallen."
The situation is Hertfordshire is a lot better than that in many other parts of the country.
Mr. Clappison: It is an historical fact that Hertfordshire has a relatively low crime rate. If the Minister is saying that residents should be expected to put up with a lower level of policing and police response, an insufficient number of police officers and recruitment problems, I shall take issue with him as will many people in Hertfordshire.
Mr. Ainsworth: I was not attempting to say that at all. In the majority of his speech, the hon. Gentleman painted a picture of a rising tide of disorder, which led me to think that we were talking about the more serious problems in one of our inner-city areas and not one of the more pleasant parts of country, in which there are relatively low levels of crime. There are recruitment difficulties that are caused partly by the Hertfordshire police force trying to replace the metropolitan secondees at a time of substantial recruitment elsewhere. I do not underestimate those difficulties and I am happy to talk about the situation.

Housing (Birmingham)
1 pm
Lynne Jones: There is a lot of excellent housing in Birmingham but that is not what I intend to talk about today. The Minister and I were supposed to have attended a reception organised by the National Housing Federation, formerly called the National Federation of Housing Associations, to launch its housing checklist. I now have the chance to bring forward my checklist for investment in housing in Birmingham.
A few weeks ago, there was a debate on housing in London. In replying to that debate, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions admitted that, as leader of Southwark council, she was responsible for some of the worst housing in the country. Therefore, I know that she feels deeply about some of the issues that I shall raise today.
Between 1984 and 1987, I was chair of housing in Birmingham and I, too, was responsible for some poor housing. Throughout that time, I was passionate about campaigning for additional investment in housing stock and a more responsive service to tenants, to get away from some of the paternalistic attitudes of the past.
In the 1985 stock condition survey, each local authority had to report the condition of its housing stock to the Department responsible. Birmingham's submission was independently audited and it was concluded that approximately £750 million worth of repair work was needed to secure the condition of council housing stock. There was also a problem in the private sector, but my main purpose today is to discuss council housing stock.
Despite that conclusion, during the years that I was chair, the amount allocated under the housing investment programme averaged £56 million a year compared with our bids of approximately £160 million a year—the amount that we knew was needed. I still have the officer's calculations, which I requested, that compare what would have happened had the investment in Birmingham's housing stock been maintained at the levels set by the previous Labour Government for 1979 and 1980. Had those levels been maintained, an additional £300 million of resources would have been invested in Birmingham's housing stock.
At the same time as we fought to improve investment, we realised that we needed a more responsive housing service. Therefore, the council created new devolved services and opened neighbourhood offices. All housing services were devolved from the central housing department to local offices, and the housing department was streamlined, with housing managers at constituency level given authority and responsibility for devolved budgets.
I was proud of my work and sad to see it turned upside down almost overnight, when new people came in and, in my opinion, returned to the previous failed system. I had inherited a system in which few responsive repairs were carried out. Planned maintenance took place, but in between that tenants could not get work done. The new regime introduced responsive repairs and a reduction in planned maintenance. We never seem to get a happy medium, but go round in circles.
54WH
At the same time that we did not get investment in our housing, social trends meant that the poorest and most disadvantaged people were concentrated in particular neighbourhoods. Those were mainly council estates and inner-city older housing stock where the tenure was owner-occupation, but by very poor people, mainly from ethnic minorities.
The stock continued to deteriorate. In 1993, Birmingham's house condition survey showed the need for investment of £1.3 billion in council housing and £700 million in the private sector. It found that there were 47,000 unfit private dwellings, with 80,000 other houses in the private sector on the borderline of being unfit. There were 27,000 privately rented homes, of which 6,500 were unfit.
The council's 1995 housing investment programme submission made the case for an annual investment of £220 million per year, with £83 million of that going to the private sector. That was not forthcoming, and a meagre £38.6 million—even less than I received during my tenure as chair of housing in Birmingham—was allocated. Things went from bad to worse and in 1997–98 the housing investment programme allocation was down to £28.4 million. I emphasise that that was not money given by the Government, but the council had permission to raise the resources to meet the costs through the housing revenue account.
At the same time, a new subsidy system meant a net loss to Birmingham of £17 million of revenue per year. Birmingham's housing revenue account—the council housing account—has paid more in rent rebates than it receives in rent rebate subsidy. In other words, council tenants paid to subsidise the social security benefits expenditure, which should be paid by the Government. In other tenures, housing benefit is fully covered by the Government. Over that time, council housing was subsidising social security to the tune of £34 million. The lack of investment in housing and the sheer daylight robbery of resources from council tenants' rents demonstrate the previous Government's discrimination against council housing and council tenants. Sadly, this Government have only now changed the system: over the past four years we have lost £34 million.
The dire situation includes deterioration of the housing stock and the increased dissatisfaction of tenants, as well as massive problems in the private sector that need to be dealt with. However, local authorities are blamed for the inadequacies of the services that they have been able to provide to their tenants and other people in need. The situation is so bad that the latest stock conditions survey, which was carried out by FPDSavills on behalf of the council, indicates a maintenance liability of £3.75 billion over 30 years in council housing stock alone. It says that £1.5 billion will be needed in years one to five, yet the council projects that only £315 million will be available during those years. In year one, the investment gap is £187 million.
Faced with that hopeless position, the council is now considering transferring its stock to registered social landlords under the Government's stock transfer programme, and the Government have held out a place for Birmingham. Ministers' letters say that additional investment is possible because registered social landlords can raise private finance outside the borrowing constraints to which local authorities are subject, but why are local authorities subject to that

55WH
kind of constraint? The same housing and people are involved, and by and large they will need help in the form of housing benefit in paying their rents. That is not fair, and is yet further demonstration of the discrimination against council housing.
What is now proposed? Apparently, the Government are prepared to write off £650 million of overhanging debt. The new registered social landlords will be released from borrowing constraints. That will enable them to invest more money, and the money that would have gone into debt payments will be released for new investment. However, we must ask whether that is a good way to get a better deal for council tenants. The overhanging debt may be paid off, but the council will face early redemption penalties of £240 million, the cost of carrying out the transfer is £38 million and, on top of that, the improvement work will be subject to VAT.
Why do we have a system under which £240 million will be spent to pay off the moneylenders, but not a penny of that will go into bricks and mortar or improving housing? A total of £38 million will go into the pockets of well-paid consultants for their advice. I remember a time when local authority housing officers in Birmingham were invited by august bodies to provide advice. For example, the deputy city housing officer worked with the Audit Commission and the previous city housing officer sat on the Duke of Edinburgh's inquiry into housing. It now seems that we have to hire consultants at a rate of £1,000 a day to tell us how we should deal with our housing stock.
It is clear for all to see that the problem is a lack of investment. Even if that situation improves, the resources released will be woefully inadequate for the task in hand. As I mentioned, we need £1.5 billion over the next five years. It is unlikely that that level of resources will be released. It is something like a third of what will be required after the stock transfer.
A comparison already exists with one small stock transfer in Birmingham, when 2,636 properties were transferred to the Optima housing association. Funding to finance improvements in that housing equated to £89.9 million over five years. If that was scaled up for the whole of Birmingham's council housing, some £3 billion would be needed for the whole stock.
Ironically, one of the beneficial aspects of the proposals is that the management of the stock will be devolved to 10 registered social landlords, which will be locally based under the aegis of one citywide trust. Those proposals are similar to the kind of devolution that I was trying to bring about back in the mid 1980s. That demonstrates that it is not necessary to have stock transfer to have responsive management. I share the Government's desire to empower tenants so that they have more control over the day-to-day decisions that affect their lives, but I question whether stock transfer will achieve that.
Elections have been held in Birmingham for the shadow board for the proposed new landlords. Sadly, many tenants' representatives were elected unopposed. I have not yet been able to find out the turnout from the council. I wrote to the council in May and sent a reminder in June, but have still received no response. My guess is that it would be rather low considering how
56WH
little information was given to tenants about the candidates. There have already been two resignations of successful representatives who objected to having to sign what they regarded as a gagging order. The feeling in Birmingham is that the council is not being open about what is going on.
The council has set up housing liaison boards that are, unfortunately, often poorly attended and have not galvanised tenants to participate. However, there is an active leaseholders board, to which I was invited to speak about stock transfer and the Government's proposals for the reform of leaseholder laws. The council no longer seems prepared to allow the board to use council facilities for meetings with an elected Member of Parliament. The chair of the board says that the council's attitude is obstructive.
If we genuinely want to empower tenants, they need to deal with officials who are themselves empowered. One of the problems with the involvement of the housing department is that there are so few clear lines of accountability. Officers on the ground have little power to determine the sort of services that their tenants want.
For example, I recently received a letter from the local neighbourhood housing manager in response to correspondence about the repairs complaints of a constituent who has been waiting several years for a chronically blocked drain to be cleared. Although a promise was made that work would be carried out, the department did not get round to doing the work before it transferred its direct labour organisation to a private organisation known as Accord. The housing officer tells me that Accord is now solely responsible for the inspection and issue of that work and has apparently decided that it will not be carried out because of the cost. Ultimately, Accord controls the work and the budgets, and the housing officer has no authority to insist that it carries out the work.
Housing officials who have to deal with tenants have no say in the repairs that are carried out, and such decisions are made by private contractors who owe no allegiance to the tenants whom they are supposed to serve. I do not believe that that is how to achieve tenant empowerment. If we genuinely want to empower tenants, we need to re-examine the housing benefit system. How can tenants be genuinely empowered if they cannot pay the rent themselves? Many have the rent paid direct, and no customer service contract is involved. If we genuinely want to empower tenants, we should consider that.
The Government, and no doubt the Minister, will tell us that resources for housing have substantially increased. That is true, but such matters are relative, and we must consider the low base from which we started in 1997. In comparison with total investment over the seven years to 1997 under the previous Administration, the average is about £3.3 million a year. The projected average for the first seven years of this Government—the first seven of many to come, I hope—is £2.6 billion. We inherited £1.7 billion; to the Government's credit, it has gone up to £3 billion but it is still woefully inadequate.
The Government are committed to ensuring that all social housing is brought up to a decent standard by 2010, and a third to that standard by 2004. The question

57WH
Birmingham council tenants will ask is, "Will the necessary resources be made available, whether or not we vote for stock transfer?"
1.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on securing the debate. I am well aware that she has had a close interest in housing issues in Birmingham for a long time.
I shall deal with the important issues raised in the debate and put them in the context of the Government's wider policies for housing, which were so effectively taken forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) during his term as Housing Minister. The housing policy statement last December made it clear that the Government are committed to the aim of offering everyone the opportunity of a decent home, thus promoting social cohesion, well-being and self-dependence.
The breadth of our agenda is extensive by any standards and I shall set out just a few points. We have underlined the role of local authorities as strategic housing authorities and they have extra powers in that regard. We will raise the quality of social housing; our target is to bring all social housing up to a decent standard by 2010. We are providing new, affordable housing, and increasing investment through the Housing Corporation to more than £1.2 billion by 2003–04, almost double the level of 2000–01. We want to move towards a fairer system of affordable social rents and we are committed to bringing greater fairness and coherence to the structure of social rents. We are also determined to strengthen the protection available to the homeless, in respect of which our main provisions were set out in the Homelessness Bill.
Against that wider background, I shall turn to the position in Birmingham. It has long been recognised that the city council, as the strategic housing authority, faces problems which, given the size of the city, are inevitably on a massive scale. Chief among those problems is the poor physical condition of housing in all tenures. In the council sector, recent stock condition survey information shows that expenditure of nearly £3.5 billion is needed. Some registered social landlords operating in the city report significant problems with regard to stock condition and obsolescence. The private sector also has an estimated 48,000 unfit properties. Those problems can have a particular impact on black and ethnic minority communities in the inner city.
Another major issue facing Birmingham is the relative unpopularity of some of its council housing—for example, some maisonettes and high-rise flats—and low demand for social housing in some parts of the city. The council also faces the problem of failing neighbourhoods and social exclusion. There is an increasing concentration of social deprivation in particular areas, principally in the inner city, but also on some outlying council estates. There is also a close correlation between social deprivation and the social exclusion of particular groups such as black, ethnic minorities and women.
58WH
I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises the importance of housing in the agenda for tackling social exclusion and urban regeneration. She will therefore also recognise that—apart from policies on housing—the work being done through my Department and the neighbourhood renewal programme will be extremely important in dealing with some of the problems and the issues that she identified.
The city council will submit its housing strategy and business plan for 2002–03 at the end of this month. However, the documents provided last year clearly show that the council had already given careful thought to the issues it faces. The city council has gathered information, set out priority issues and explained options for dealing with them.
The city has examined several options for its council housing, including arm's-length companies, securitisation, the private finance initiative, partial and whole stock transfers and retention of stock. The council explained how all the options were assessed against a list of objectives, including the need to secure sufficient investment, to modernise all homes in the least possible time across the whole city and to maintain the improved properties in the long term. It also had to consider how to guarantee affordable rents and increase housing choice for all tenants. Housing management issues and how best to promote community regeneration were also relevant considerations.
The council carried out option appraisals in 1999–2000 and its tenants were consulted throughout. As a result of the process, the council concluded that the whole stock transfer represented the best means of enabling it to secure its objectives for council housing. The council also intends that the new community-based successor landlords will play a major role in wider regeneration initiatives in partnership with other organisations and across all tenures.
My hon. Friend pointed out that over the lifetime of the last Administration the Birmingham housing sector effectively lost £300 million in subsidies for repairs and she will recognise that such figures cannot be made up overnight. Different methods and different sources of financing are needed to make up the shortfall.
Lynne Jones: I recognise that we need to make up that loss, but I am asking why it cannot be made available from straightforward public sector borrowing and why the council cannot be given the same freedom to borrow as registered social landlords.
Ms Keeble: I take those points and I will deal with them, but I suspect that we shall be debating this matter for some time. The Government have invested substantial extra money in Birmingham's housing. The housing investment programme allocation for 1999–2000 was £26.5 million; for 2000–01 it was £80.885 million. A drop is projected for 2001–02, but on the basis of a stock transfer. An allocation for major repairs allowance will continue to allow the council to address other housing matters. Even after a stock transfer, the council would still be required to deal with other housing issues.
My hon. Friend asks why the total amount cannot be provided out of public funds. The pressures in Birmingham are replicated across the country because

59WH
of the lack of investment in infrastructure during the last Conservative Administration. The council has taken decisions to make it possible to pay off the overhanging debt and to secure extra finance based on the rental stream.
I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to ensuring that every council tenant and every tenant of social housing will be able to enjoy a decent home by 2010. It remains up to each local authority—in this case, Birmingham city council—to produce a housing strategy that will secure more say for tenants as well as providing them with good-quality housing. Every local authority should consult widely and decide which investment option it wishes to pursue. Birmingham city council is a forward-looking authority, so I am sure that it will aim to improve the quality of housing as well as its management. We must deliver not just on quantity, but on the quality and choice agenda that is central to the Government's strategy for housing.

Manchester Airport
1.29 pm
Mr. George Osborne: I am grateful for this early opportunity in my parliamentary life to raise an issue that blights the lives of many of my constituents in Knutsford, Wilmslow, Mobberley and elsewhere. It is easy for those who do not know what it is like to be woken night after night by the roar of aircraft engines, to be unable to open windows on a hot day and never to be able to sit peacefully either indoors or in the garden, to dismiss aircraft noise as a small price to pay for the great expansion of our airports and aviation industry. For my constituents, however, who experience the daily misery of planes using Manchester airport's second runway, aircraft noise is central to their quality of life.
I spoke to a meeting of several hundred Knutsford residents on Friday night and I have to tell the Minister and, through him, the authorities of Manchester airport, that they feel that their voice and their concerns are often completely ignored. They are angry and bitter and today in this debate I speak for them. I am not asking for the impossible. I know that Manchester airport is crucial to the economic development that I and other hon. Members from the north-west want. It employs, directly and indirectly, several thousand people who live in Tatton and in the constituencies of other hon. Members who are present in the Chamber. I know that whether or not the second runway was necessary—I believe that it was not—it cannot be unbuilt. It exists, it is operational and it will be used. I also know that there is little point in trying to reverse the huge growth in the number of air passengers. We all use aeroplanes more and more in our lives and will go on doing so.
We need to find an acceptable balance between the demands of the aviation industry and its passengers and the impact on the lives of many hundreds of thousands of people who live around airports. In that context I look forward to the Government's promised White Paper on air transport. I also welcome the fact that they have consulted widely on how best to control aircraft noise. I recognise that some of the most important steps needed to reduce the impact of aircraft noise have to be taken at an international level through the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the European Union. I look forward to the phasing out of chapter 2 aircraft next year and I urge the Government to press for further international pressure for quieter engine technology and, for example, the introduction of chapter 4 status for aircraft.
However, I know my limits. Attempting to rewrite global aviation agreements is one of them. Instead I shall focus on three practical steps that would make a huge difference here in Britain and to my constituents. The first and most important step is the enforcement of so-called preferred noise routes, or PNRs. When planes take off from Manchester airport's second runway in an easterly direction they are supposed to follow an agreed track that takes them to the right, skirting around the town of Knutsford, over the Tatton estate after which my constituency is named, and avoiding built-up areas, before turning south towards London. The technology that enables them to do that is straightforward. As a pilot confirmed to me on Friday, there is no reason for any plane taking off from Manchester to fly over

61WH
Knutsford, yet every day planes do precisely that. Indeed, Manchester airport itself confirms that last year 6,624 aeroplanes did not stick to the agreed noise routes. That is almost 8 per cent. of all departures.
The reason is simply because some pilots cannot be bothered to follow the tracks and some airlines cannot be bothered to insist that they do so. There are some excellent operators, such as British Airways and Continental Airlines, which keep their planes on track, but others, including major airlines such as PIA, Swissair, Cathay Pacific and Iberia, are repeat offenders. It is hardly surprising that that goes on when all that happens when they deviate from the preferred noise route is that they get a letter from the airport ticking them off. Most of the time they do not even reply and the airport does not chase them up.
I shall read a letter that my constituent, Mr. Barry Scott, received on 15 June from the airport, when he complained about an off-track aeroplane over Knutsford. The airport says that
"in the case of extreme track deviations the airlines are corresponded with and offered the opportunity to comment. I must state that unfortunately not all airlines are forthcoming with replies".
The airport says that it does not
"chase around after replies as this is very time consuming and prevents other more proactive development work from taking place."
Clearly, the only way in which to enforce the preferred noise routes and keep departing planes on the tracks that keep them away from people's homes is by changing the law, so that the people responsible, instead of receiving a warning letter that goes straight in the bin, are given a stiff fine that comes straight out of their bank account. Manchester airport, to its credit, is also pressing for the power to levy fines. I welcome that, but I disagree with the airport's opinion that the power should be voluntary and used at the airport's discretion. The fines should be automatic, unless a good excuse is provided on safety grounds, for example. If the law were changed I am sure that every departing plane would stick to the agreed route.
The Minister will no doubt tell me that the last Conservative Government said that they were in favour of new primary legislation to achieve those things that I have outlined, but failed to find the necessary parliamentary time for it over an 18-year period in office. The present Government say that they are in favour of that legislation, but in the last Parliament failed to find parliamentary time and did not accept the necessary amendment. I urge the Minister to find time to introduce the much-needed change to the law.
The second practical step that we can take is to make existing fines for aircraft that break the noise limits much heavier and apply them to planes that are landing as well as to those taking off. At present, the fine for an aircraft that breaks the noise restrictions around Manchester airport is £500, plus £150 for every decibel unit above the limit. That is barely more than the cost of a club class ticket and hardly a powerful incentive for airlines to change their practices and improve their technology.
As with off-track aeroplanes, it is striking how a great proportion of planes breaking the noise limits come from a very small number of operators. Of the 173
62WH
infringements reported last year at Manchester airport, more than 100 were caused by planes operated by either Virgin or PIA. If those airlines consistently fail to meet acceptable noise limits and will not respond to heavy fines, they should be banned from using the airport. We would all be presently surprised at how quickly they cleaned up their act, with that threat hanging over them.
The fines and the threat of a ban should also apply to planes that are landing as well as to those taking off. I spoke to the airport on Friday and the excuse that it gave was that pilots could do little to reduce the noise when coming into land. I do not believe that that excuse any longer holds true. Pilots living in my constituency have told me that new technology, piloting techniques and new profiles of flaps and wheels can make a huge impact on noise. Those things should be insisted upon.
The third practical step that could be taken is to ban night flights at Manchester airport. That is perhaps wishful thinking—it is certainly the most difficult of the steps that I propose. However, night flights make up only a small proportion of Manchester airport's daily activity, yet they are the greatest source of misery for people living around airports, as they deny them the basic right of a decent night's sleep. A single noisy aircraft at 4 am can ruin the night for literally tens of thousands of people in Cheshire and Manchester. The track and noise fines that I propose will help, although the simplest solution would be to ban all night flights, as has been done by many major United States airports and in Canada. In the past, night flights often offered the only opportunity for some people to go on holiday abroad. These days, however, cheap flights are available throughout the day, so there is no reason to travel in the middle of the night.
If the Government or Manchester airport will not ban night flights, they should at least extend their night restrictions from 6 am to 7 am, when most people get up—although, as a father of a four-week-old son, that does not apply to me. Many of my constituents find it most irksome that the main daily flights begin at 6 am rather than 7 am. That simple change would make a huge change to many of their lives.
Many other things could be done to reduce the detrimental impact of Manchester airport on the environment around Knutsford, Mobberley, Wilmslow and Handforth. For example, the Government could finish the long-awaited Manchester airport link road, which would stop heavy airport traffic going through Wilmslow and using completely unsuitable country roads in Morley and Styal.
Today, however, I have concentrated on aircraft noise. Instead of demanding changes to international conventions that I have little chance of influencing, or grandstanding about the growth in air traffic, which I cannot alter, I have focused on three practical steps that we could take.
First, we could fine aeroplanes that do not stick to the preferred noise routes. Secondly, we could increase and extend the fines for those that break noise limits. Thirdly, we could stop night flights at Manchester. I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to each of the three proposals, as those small steps would greatly improve the quality of life of the many thousands of people whom I represent.
1.40 pm
Paul Goggins: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on securing what I believe is his first Adjournment debate and I thank him for allowing me to make a short contribution. Clearly, his constituents have lost little time in making him aware of some of their concerns. It is worth recording, however, that people who live in what the boffins call the 69 LEQ contour in the Woodhouse Park ward in my constituency suffer the highest levels of noise from Manchester airport. That is why I warmly welcomed the airport's announcement more than a year ago that it was introducing an enhanced soundproofing scheme.
I support the hon. Gentleman's call to give the airport greater powers over track keeping. As long ago as 1997, when I came to the House, I was a member of an all-party delegation that included his predecessor, Martin Bell, and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). We met the then Minister for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), who seemed to indicate that the Government were moving in that direction. Since then, there has been consultation and I hope that the Minister will tell us more today. Greater powers on track keeping would put more pressure on airlines and ultimately reduce noise levels still further.
As a supporter of runway 2 throughout the inquiry, its construction and now that it is in operation, I have never pretended that the development at Manchester airport would have no adverse impact. However, we must always balance any such impact with the benefits and the other arrangements that have been made. The airport signed a section 106 agreement as part of the planning consent, which included many detailed commitments such as a major environmental management plan at the airport and important commitments on noise levels. It is important to record the fact that noise levels from daytime and night flying are now lower than in 1992. The expectation is that they will remain lower.
A myth seems to be going around the airport that there has been more noise from night flying since runway 2 opened. That is hard to understand, as all night flying is done from runway 1. The arrangements for night flying are therefore exactly as they were before runway 2 opened.
Many other benefits flow from the expansion of Manchester airport. New routes are opening up to places such as Kuala Lumpur and Istanbul and there are direct flights to Washington and Chicago. That increases access for north-west passengers and could relieve the great pressure on the London and south-east aviation system. Major improvements in the ground transport system around Manchester airport are being introduced. A new interchange is under construction and we hope that it will not be too long before metrolink trams arrive not only at Manchester airport, but at Wythenshawe hospital and town centre.
The crucial point is the impact of the expansion of Manchester airport on the economy and jobs: 19,000 people work at the airport and 70,000 jobs depend on it and the activity there. That activity and those jobs simply could not exist without aircraft taking off and landing and therefore producing some noise. On
64WH
balance, the people of the north-west support the expansion of Manchester airport and runway 2, because of the prosperity that it brings to my constituency, that of the hon. Gentleman and the whole region.
1.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on securing the debate so early on in his time in the House. We look forward to hearing him speak on many more occasions. While he was making his speech, he was being doughnutted by two of his hon. Friends. I might write a note to the Whips Office to say that he is already keeping bad company.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he introduced the debate. I am aware that he had a public meeting on Friday and I am sure that some of the issues that were raised then were repeated today, which is a job that all good Members of Parliament undertake. Unfortunately, he will find out that good Ministers have to explain sometimes why actions supported by hon. Members cannot be undertaken instantly.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) for his contribution to the debate, which was somewhat in counterbalance to some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend has obviated the need for me to refer to certain matters in my response. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) is in the Chamber, too, showing an interest in the debate.
Aircraft noise can have an impact on people who live near airports, particularly on departure routes. Many people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tatton and those of other hon. Members appreciate the prosperity that the airport and the second runway have brought to the north-east region. Manchester estimates that it generates about £1.7 billion for the local economy. By 2015, we expect there to be about 40 million passengers per year and the contribution to the local economy to be about £4 billion, which is not an insubstantial amount.
As the hon. Member for Tatton said, an acceptable balance must be found between the economic benefits and some of the problems that clearly occur in his constituency. There is no doubt that one of the least desirable consequences of airport growth is aircraft noise. It is suffered by far fewer people than the number who share in the prosperity, but that is probably of little consolation to the people of Knutsford and those who attended the meeting on Friday night.
I will try to put the debate into context and then move rapidly to the important points made by the hon. Gentleman. Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports are designated under section 80 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 for the purposes of section 78. That means that my Department is responsible for setting noise mitigation measures for those airports. Elsewhere, circumstances vary greatly between the large airports and the many small local airfields. The policy of successive Governments has been that aircraft noise is a local issue and is best resolved locally. From time to time, there have been calls for Manchester airport to be designated

65WH
for the purpose of section 78 of the 1982 Act, most recently in 1995. Each request was carefully considered, but was rejected as unnecessary in view of the noise mitigation arrangements that are in place in Manchester.
On the immediate effect of aircraft noise on the Tatton constituency and on Knutsford, in particular, the new runway at Manchester, which was opened earlier this year, lies closer to Knutsford than the previous runway. As a result, there is no doubt that the town has suffered an increase in noise. The International Civil Aviation Organisation rules for the use of staggered parallel runways state that aircraft should utilise the first available runway. That means that, during the day, when the wind is from the north or east, aircraft on approach will be using the new runway and will be approximately 300 ft lower over the town than when approaching from the original runway. When the wind is from the south or west, aircraft will take off towards Knutsford. There, aircraft will be lower and, on the revised departure routes, they will bring more traffic to the north of town. I regret that that is the case.
The second runway at Manchester was the subject of a public inquiry in 1994–95, which carefully considered the issue of air noise. The inspector recognised adverse impacts on Knutsford, for example. A package of mitigation measures was crucial to the granting of planning permission to build the second runway. The measures are subject to an enforceable agreement with Cheshire county council and Manchester city council under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I will take the opportunity to explain some of those measures, as they are important for the understanding of the House, and so that the hon. Gentleman can pursue some of the measures on behalf of his constituents.
The airport has undertaken not to use the new runway for night flights other than when it would be unsafe to use the existing runway or when it is undergoing repairs. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman said, he might want to pursue that matter with the appropriate authorities. That obligation and the whole night flight regime at Manchester are to be reviewed in 2005. I dare say that his constituents will want to be part of that review. The current night restrictions at Manchester are based on the Department's night quota—the quota count scheme at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. The airport has a noise points budget, based on the quota count classification. In addition, it has night movement caps. If the hon. Gentleman wants more details on those, I am sure that my Department will be happy to assist him.
Enlarging further on the matter may be beyond the scope of today's debate. Manchester sets noise limits for departing aircraft, which are 92 decibels during the day—2 decibels lower than the new daytime limit at the London airports—and 87 decibels at night. Aircraft that exceed those limits are subject to a surcharge of £500, with an additional £150 for each perceived noise decibel by which the limits are exceeded.
Noise penalties in 2000 totalled £154,300 and the money is used to support community and charitable organisations close to the airport. Manchester has preferred noise routes that keep aircraft as far away as possible from built-up areas. Although that is of little comfort to the people of Knutsford, it benefits other
66WH
communities in the area. I understand that, during 2000, the total number of track digressions represented 7.8 per cent. of all standard instrument departures.
The Manchester airport noise and track information system is a computerised system that allows the airport to monitor aircraft within 20 km of the airport, up to a height of 12,000 ft. It is interesting that we measure along the ground in metric and upwards in imperial; I have yet to discover why that is the case. The system also enables the airport to identify aircraft that break the noise limits, investigate and record complaints from the community, measure the effectiveness of the noise reduction programme and provide statistical information to allow assessment of effectiveness of new procedures. The airport has operated a noise insulation scheme for many years. Under the present scheme, it contributes between 50 and 80 per cent., depending on the glazing specification, towards the costs of sound insulation and glazing to those properties within the scheme boundary.
Since 1999, an inner zone of almost 1,000 properties has been created, which allows the properties to be eligible for repeat grants, loft insulation and higher-performance double glazing. Manchester airport operates a policy of surcharging the chapter 2 aircraft, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, for use of the airport, in an attempt to encourage the use of the chapter 3 aircraft prior to the phase-out deadline. Daytime engine tests are normally carried out within the engine test bay and there are tight restrictions on the number of night time engine tests.
As part of the Department's air quality monitoring automatic urban network, an air quality monitoring station is located under the main approach flight path. It continuously monitors nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and ozone. There were no exceedances of the national air quality strategy objectives at the station in 1997, 1998 or 1999.
The airport is continually working to reduce the impact of its operations. It has invested over £100,000 in additional mobile transformers to enable more aircraft to use fixed electrical ground power facilities rather than their own auxiliary power units, which helps to reduce emissions and noise on the ground by providing power for jet aircraft while they are parked. The airport has also developed an airfield infringement fine system that includes a provision to levy fines for vehicles left running while unattended within the airport's boundaries.
Section 38(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 states:
"an aerodrome authority may … fix its charges by reference, among other things, to any fact or matter relevant to—

(a) the amount of noise caused by the aircraft in respect of which the charges are made; or

(b) the extent or nature of any inconvenience resulting from such noise."

The hon. Gentleman may wish to follow that through.
Mr. George Osborne: Will the Minister respond to the point that I raised about changing the law to allow airports to fine planes that deviate from tracks? That is a huge problem in Knutsford, and the airport would support such a change. Although we disagree on the extent to which the fines should be used, we all agree that

67WH
the law should be changed. Will the Government include that in the forthcoming White Paper and the following legislation?
Mr. Jamieson: That can certainly be considered. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make that point during the consultation, I am sure that he—and many others—will do so. We look forward to receiving his comments.
In July 2000, the Department issued a consultation paper entitled "Control of noise from civil aircraft". Paragraph 27 of the paper suggested that
"section 38(1) might be amended to make it clearer that charges could relate. for example, to compliance with 'noise preferential routes'."
Manchester airport has long supported the idea of improved powers to ensure compliance. The consultation has now closed and the responses are being considered.
Manchester airport has a committee that actively consults with four local environmental groups—the Knutsford and Mobberley joint action group, the Heald Green and Long Lane Ratepayers Association, the Styal Action Association and the Wythenshawe Combined Tenants Association—to discuss the concerns of those living around the airport, in addition to the local authority representatives. I welcome the involvement of those groups and trust that local people, particularly those from Knutsford, will make good use of that opportunity to air concerns and possible
68WH
solutions with the airport management and other interested parties. It may be helpful for the hon. Gentleman to discuss with some of those organisations and the consultative committee the degree of involvement that they may or may not have had on particular matters. That might be a good avenue for making his views known at the local level to those who have some influence over the policy.
The airport is the terminus of one of the new Manchester metrolink extension lines, which will improve access to employment for the large non-car owning section of the population in the Wythenshawe area.
The hon. Gentleman raised several other matters that I wished to cover, but there may not be adequate time. If at some time he draws those matters to my attention, perhaps in a note, I will be happy to write to him. He may wish to follow through on some of the legal detail to form a better understanding of the issue. Perhaps when he has done that, he might come and have a chat with me so that I understand it as well.
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman raised these important and sensitive matters on behalf of his constituents. I, too, have an airport in my area, and I know that the issues are difficult to resolve. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East said, sometimes we must balance the problems of our constituents with the wider aspects of economic regeneration, which are also important in our areas.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much public funding has been allocated to each of the national museums and galleries to facilitate the introduction of free admission where this does not already apply(a) in the current year, (b) in 2002–03 and (c) in 2003–04. [2691]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: The amount of public funding allocated to each national museum and gallery to facilitate free admission is listed in the following table:

  £ million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  National Museum of Science and Industry1

  3.2

  6.5

  6.6

  Natural History Museum

  3.4

  6.7

  6.8

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  1.1

  2.6

  2.7

  National Maritime Museum

  1.7

  2.7

  2.8

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  0.4

  0.7

  0.8

  Museum of London

  0.4

  1.1

  1.2

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  1.4

  1.9

  2.4

  Royal Armouries

  0.4

  0.8

  0.9

  Imperial War Museum

  1.5

  4.5

  4.6

  Tate St. Ives

  0.2

  0.5

  0.5

  Totals

  13.7

  28.0

  29.3

  1Including the National Coal Mining Museum for England

  Tourism
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to make further funds available for the marketing of Britain as a tourist destination. [120]

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what additional funding for marketing she expects to provide to the British Tourist Authority in response to the foot and mouth disease crisis. [189]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: As in other sectors of the economy, businesses themselves take the lead in marketing their services to overseas markets. We as a Government back those efforts only where they need special co-ordination. In this case the Government have pledged additional funding of £14.2 million, supplemented by £2.1 million re-deployed by the British Tourist Authority from existing plans. This provides in full what was sought by the British Tourist Authority, after full consultation with the industry, for the whole of 2001.
  76W
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the European Investment Bank regarding assistance for tourism businesses affected by foot and mouth disease. [135]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: I have had no discussions with the European Investment Bank. However, Government Ministers have discussed the problems of business affected by the outbreak with the British Bankers Association. The association has undertaken to help businesses by providing extra lending, deferring repayments, waiving arrangement fees and providing information and advice.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she was first informed about deduction of VAT from the money paid to the British Tourist Authority as part of the tourism recovery plan; and if she will make a statement. [3852]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]: The British Tourist Authority brought to my Department's attention on 24 May that, under their long-standing agreement with Customs and Excise, VAT would need to be payable for goods and services paid for with the additional funds allocated for the authority's recovery plan. We are assessing the implications of this with BTA, and the recovery plan is going ahead as planned.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals she has to encourage domestic tourism in England. [2435]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: Building on "Tomorrow's Tourism", the sound strategy for tourism that we developed in our previous term of office, we will also consider giving greater emphasis to three areas: (a) changing the perception of the industry as an employer through further Government-industry partnerships; (b) continuing to drive for better and less regulation so that the industry can concentrate on growth and increasing our international competitiveness; and (c) examining whether the marketing of Britain as a tourism destination could be more efficiently co-ordinated.

  The recent foot and mouth disease outbreak has highlighted the importance of tourism to the domestic economy and we will do what we can to ensure a speedy and sustained recovery. In addition to taking forward strategy, experience so far has shown that we clearly need better and more up-to-date statistics and economic data for the sector and we will need to work with the industry to that end.

  British Museum
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many British Museum staff have been made redundant, dismissed, or taken early retirement over the past 12 months; at what costs; and with what period of notice in each case. [90]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: During the 12 months from 1 June 2000:

  a) There were no redundancies.

  b) One member of staff was dismissed on 5 October 2000. He was given five weeks' notice, but did not work the notice period. The total cost for five weeks' salary was £2,227.

  77W

  c) Six staff were retired early and two members of staff took voluntary early retirement. The costs were met from the Principal Civil Service Pension Fund, not from the Museum's budget.

  d) The total cost of payments made by the British Museum during the period to staff who had been given notice before 1 June 2000, including out of court settlements, is £368,021.

  BBC
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received about(a) the BBC's application for new children's channels and (b)network digital radio channels. [3709]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a range of representations on all the BBC's proposals for new digital television and radio services including the children's channels and network digital radio channels, both supporting and opposing the application. Those who have commented include broadcasters, production companies, regulatory bodies, platform providers, and organisations representing listeners and viewers.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how she monitors the actions of the BBC in providing a distinctive schedule of benchmark quality programmes on all its services. [3708]

  Dr. Howells
  This is a matter for the BBC Board of Governors, who review and publish their objectives in the BBC Annual Report.

  Drug Testing
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who represented her Department at the meeting of the first international drug testing seminar on Wednesday 4 July; and if she will make a statement. [3733]

  Mr. Caborn
  Only 4 July, the Medicines Control Agency held a public seminar on the issue of sports supplements. The Director of the Anti-Doping Unit at UK Sport, and the Chair of the Nandrolone Review Group, which was set up by UK Sport, both attended that seminar. UK Sport is the non-departmental public body funded by the Department for Culture Media and Sport with responsibility for the drug testing programme in the UK.

  The Nandrolone Review committee reported in January 2000 and gave a strong warning to sport about the potential dangers of using supplements which may be incorrectly or inadequately labelled. Since then, considerable research has been undertaken on supplements, both in the UK and abroad, to see whether they can be responsible for producing adverse findings among athletes. Doping remains a strict liability offence in sport in order to protect athletes from those who do seek to cheat by misusing drugs. This means that athletes must be confident that what they are putting into their bodies will not lead to an adverse finding. The Nandrolone Review Group will be considering research findings in further depth and are due to produce a follow up report shortly.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many full-time equivalent staff have been employed to test for drug usage per sport in Britain in each of the last five years. [3732]
  78W
  Mr. Caborn
  Drug testing arrangements are organised on a UK rather than British basis to provide a consistent standard across all UK sportsmen and women subject to this type of testing. UK Sport is currently the agency with responsibility for the drug testing policy and programme and they employ 12 staff to oversee the testing operation, policy, education, information, research and international advocacy roles. UK Sport also contracts a team of 85 independent sampling officers to carry out sampling. This figure will rise and fall depending on need. For example, it will increase when international competitions are held in the UK, as next year when we host the Commonwealth Games.

  Prior to the reorganisation of the GB Sports Council in UK Sport in 1997, five full-time officers, and a considerable number of part-time independent sampling officers were employed in the fight against doping in sport. It is also the case that a number of governing bodies of sport employ staff, on a full, or part-time or voluntary basis in the anti-doping field. To calculate the number of staff on a per sport basis would be extremely difficult as there are currently no centrally held statistics which would accurately reflect the individual arrangements of all governing bodies. Also, calculation on a per sport basis would not provide an accurate reflection of the complexity of anti-doping procedures in the UK.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many drugs tests were conducted per sport(a) in Britain and (b) outside Britain on British sportspeople in each of the last five years. [3731]

  Mr. Caborn
  Drug testing arrangements are organised on a UK rather than British basis to provide a consistent standard across all UK sportsmen and women subject to this type of testing. UK Sport is currently the agency with responsibility for the drug testing policy and programme. The complexities of the drug testing programme are such that it is not possible to break down figures in the way which my hon. Friend has requested. For example, footballers playing in the football league in England and Wales might not be British but may be subject to testing as they are participating in a domestic competition. Also, UK Sport does not have records of all UK athletes tested overseas unless they have commissioned the testing themselves. Where UK athletes are tested overseas at the request of the International Federation or as part of the host nation's testing programme, this information is relayed to individual governing bodies, not to the national anti-doping organisation of the athlete.

  A summary of the UK drugs testing programme for each of the last five years is as follows:

  Total number of samples

  Number of findings

  1995–96

  4,327

  89

  1996–97

  4,469

  90

  1997–98

  4,574

  79

  1998–99

  5,147

  76

  1999–2000

  6,141

  119

  A full breakdown by sport is available in UK Sport's Anti-Doping Programme Annual Reports. I will arrange

  79W
  for copies of these for each of the past five years to be placed in both Libraries of the House, and for copies to he sent to my hon. Friend directly.

  Formula One
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the motor racing industry about the future of Formula One racing facilities; and if she will make a statement. [3851]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has met representatives of the industry.

  Digital Radio
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to encourage the introduction of commercial digital radio. [3745]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]: The Broadcasting Act 1996 established a framework of legislation which has encouraged the take up of digital radio. There are currently two national radio digital multiplexes and 28 local digital radio multiplexes with more to come. These are already carrying 135 stations (including 50 broadcasting simulcast on an analogue licence). In London there are currently 17 stations broadcasting, with a further 11 more to come by the end of the year.

  We expect to conduct a review of progress made in digital radio in 2003, by which time we shall have a much clearer idea of where digital radio development is placed.

  I welcome industry plans to produce cheaper digital radio sets.

  Voluntary Sports Clubs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what measures her Department is taking to encourage the work of voluntary sports clubs; [4042]

  (2) what recent representations she has received on taxation of voluntary sports clubs; and if she will make a statement. [4041]

  Mr. Caborn
  Since my appointment, the Department has received a number of representations concerning the current taxation treatment of voluntary sports clubs. Following the announcement from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget of plans to consult on the best way for tax relief to help community amateur sports clubs, I am now working closely with Treasury colleagues and the sports organisations, including Sport England, The Central Council for Physical Recreation and The National Playing Fields Association, on the shape of a possible relief. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will publish a consultation paper later this year which will invite comments on the proposed relief and I have asked that copies be forwarded on to all those who have previously written to the Department on this issue.

  Millennium Dome
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the total amount spent on the dome by the Millennium Commission and NMEC Ltd. since 31 December 2000; and what is the estimated total for the end of the current financial year. [3648]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: There has been no direct spend by the Millennium Commission on the Millennium Dome since 31 December 2000. Grant is made to the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) who have incurred a spend of around £7.5 million for the period of 1 January to 30 June 2001. This sum falls within the £628 million allocated by the Millennium Commission.

  Responsibility for the dome passed to English Partnerships on 1 July 2001.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the information technology contracts in excess of £500,000 let by her Department or its predecessor since April 1991, giving in each case the original estimated cost and original estimated completion date, the actual cost and actual completion date and the names of the contractors involved and consultants retained by her Department. [3494]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport's predecessor, the Department for National Heritage, was established in April 1992 so information can be provided only from that date. My Department has let only one information technology contract in excess of £500,000. This is the ongoing contract for outsourced IT support and services let to Sema, now SchlumbergerSema, in May 1993 which is worth about £1 million per annum.

  Gambling Review Body
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will publish the report of the Gambling Review Body. [4980]

  Tessa Jowell
  I am today laying copies of the report before Parliament. It is being published as a Command Paper, and the full text will be available on my Department's website (www. culture. gov.uk).

  I am very grateful to Sir Alan Budd and his fellow members of the Review Body for their work. They have done a fine job. They were given a wide and challenging remit: to modernise the regulation of gambling in Great Britain, taking account of all relevant factors, including its social impact. Their report, based on extensive evidence and research, provides a thorough analysis of the issues and a coherent package of proposals. We are all in their debt.

  All around the world legislators have grappled with the problem of how best to regulate gambling. There is no single solution which is right for all times and for all places. Gambling itself is continually evolving. Our present gambling laws were, for example, enacted before the internet was created and they make no provision for its use as a gambling medium. Regulation equally needs to take account of changing social circumstances and public expectations. There is no doubt that our current

  81W
  laws, as well as being too complex and out of date, fail to reflect the extent to which gambling has become an everyday part of the way in which millions of people choose to spend their leisure.

  The Gambling Review Body has identified a number of proposals which would lift regulatory constraints which may no longer be justified. At the same time there are proposals which would provide additional safeguards which the Review Body sees as needed to achieve the overall policy aims of protecting children and the vulnerable, ensuring fairness to the punter and keeping crime out of gambling. The report accordingly recommends a new balance of regulation in the public interest. It is also clear from the report that we are looking at the scope for improving a system with many strengths: through its own and its regulators' efforts British gambling is among the world leaders.

  We now plan to discuss with interested bodies the issues which implementation of the Review Body's recommendations would raise. We shall also welcome comments from members of the public and all sources: these should be sent to my Department by the end of October. I shall want to take these consultation and comments into account before reaching final decisions on the way ahead. I shall also want to consider carefully the potential impact of the Review Body's proposals on the National Lottery before deciding how to proceed.

  In the meantime there is no reason to halt all work on changes which are consistent with the Review Body's conclusions and which can be taken forward without cutting across future legislation. We shall, for example, continue to work on plans to sell the Tote to racing and to end the horserace betting levy; and there are also regulatory reform proposals which are already subject to public consultation or parliamentary scrutiny. We need to consider them again in the light of the Review Body's work, but where progress can sensibly be made which will bring early benefits to the public and the industry alike, it should be made.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the contracts awarded to W. S. Atkins, Buro-Happold and Kvaerner by his Department and its predecessor, agencies and non-departmental public bodies from May 1999 to the latest date for which information is available. [3241]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Details of contracts awarded to W. S. Atkins, Buro-Happold, and Kvaerner by the former Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies from May 1999 to the current date are listed:

  1999–2000

  W. S. ATKINS

  DETR (C)
  IT support and ECommerce
  Advice on working environment issues
  Aspects of noise impacts
  Regional airspace co-ordination study
  82W
  Research management support
  Co-ordination of regional air services studies
  Assistance with investigation of drinking water quality incidents 1999–2000 and audit of water companies
  Feasibility report on relocation of Audit Commission
  A50 Stoke to Derby (PPP/PFI)
  A30/A35 Exeter to Bere Regis (PPP/PFI)
  Scientific research management support
  Agencies and Non Departmental Public Bodies
  Countryside Agency
  Planning support
  Review of recreation strategies
  Local heritage initiative marketing survey
  DSA
  IS strategy project management
  DVLA
  Training needs analysis
  Evaluation of project management
  Support for project assurance unit
  Environment Agency
  Engineering consultancy (feasibility design and supervision of flood defence work)
  Environmental consultancy and flood plain mapping and modelling
  Health and Safety Executive
  Safety Assessment of Carmarthen Bus Station
  Review of the applicability of Large Eddy Simulation Techniques to Safety Studies
  Effects of Secondary Containment on Source Term Modelling
  Updating and Support of Pooltire6
  Scientific Support—Explosives In Demolition
  Structural Risk Study
  Thermal Radiation Criteria for Vulnerable Populations
  Scientific Support—Crashworthniess Project
  Fire Risk Assessment for Workplaces Containing Flammable Substances
  Preparation of Maps for Use by NII
  Rovie Level Crossing Review
  Survey of Characteristics of People Working with Chemicals and the Companies They Work For
  ACE Model, Code Development
  Methodology for On-Site Ignition Probability
  System Reliability Updating Using Results from Underwater Joint Inspections
  Ladbroke Grove Accident Investigation
  Ladbroke Grove: Vehicle Storage Costs
  Presentation of Information on Momentum Releases
  Assessment of AGR Concrete Pressure Vessel Behaviour in Loss of Cooling Fault Conditions
  Dense Gas Dispersion Studies Using the MLFP Method with HSE Software
  IRR 99 Training
  Assessment of Railtrack's response to two Improvement Notices issued as a result of a accident at Ladbroke Grove on 5 October 1999
  OFGEM's inquiry to HSE dated 12 October 1999
  Investigation of a Gas Explosion at lark Hall, Hamilton Topographical Survey at Lark Hall, Hamilton
  Risk and Safety Implications—Geotechnical Characterisation and Analysis
  Nuclear Reactors (Environmental impact assessment for decomissioning) Regulations 1999 (EIAD) 1999

  83W
  Highways Agency
  Area 18 Design Commission
  M25 CCTV Enhancement (Areas 3/4/5)
  A23 Coulsdon Relief Road Employers Agent
  R and D Advisory Service 99/02 for Pavement Engineering Group
  Specialist Traffic Transportation and Economic Advice
  NAD Execution of Steel Structures—Bridges
  Managing Integration
  Trial Application and Sample Survey in Respect of Draft Fatigue Assessment Requirements
  Abnormal Indivisible Loads Notification—System Trial Management of NMCS2 Specification
  Framework Agreement Research Service Contract—Pavement Engineering
  Review of Highway Drainage Maintenance Practice—Phase 2
  South East England Development Agency
  Heat and power study

  BURO-HAPPOLD
  DETR (C)
  Constructing a prototype cardboard building
  Agencies and Non Departmental Public Bodies
  English Partnerships
  Multi modal interchange
  South East England Development Agency
  Framework study

  KVAERNER
  DETR(C)
  Dartford river crossing (PPP/PFI)
  Birmingham northern relief road (PPP/PFI)
  M1-A1 link road (PPP/PFI)
  Agencies and Non Departmental Public Bodies
  Highways Agency
  Yorkshire Driver Information System

  2000–01

  W.S. ATKINS
  DETR (C)
  Additional aspects of noise impacts
  Health and Safety
  Assistance with investigation of drinking water quality incidents 2000–01 and audit of water companies
  Review of drinking water quality aspects of serviceability relating to infrastructure and non-infrastructure assets
  Groundwater protection code for petrol stations
  Responding to water consultation documents
  Environmental impact of metals—review of nickel in the UK
  GMOs for the bioremediation of organic and inorganic pollutants
  Provision of scientific and technical advice
  Technical support standards and assessment Branch of the Air and Environmental Quality Division
  Agencies and Non Departmental Public Bodies
  Countryside Agency
  Chilterns integrated access research contract
  Health and Safety Executive
  Rough Weather Rescue
  Gas Releases from Buildings—Enhancement to GRAB-T
  84W
  Source Terms Modelling of Releases Within Building Complexes
  Specialist Support to Risk Assessment and Probablistic Aspects of Ind. Intro of Probablistic Structural
  Reliability Based Land Pipeline Design
  Peer Review of MSDU Land Use Planning Methodology
  Specification for a Study into Sources of Variability and Uncertainty in Probablistic Safety Assessments
  Graphics of Larkhall Explosion Site
  Fire Compartmentation in Chemical Warehouses
  New Information Leaflet—Asbestos Based Gasket Alternatives Software (PAN) Support
  Inspection of Waulkmill Reservoir
  Comparisons of Safety Levels Implicit in Structural Codes
  Carmarthen Bus Station—Appeal against Improvement Notice
  Decommissioning and removal of the concrete gravity structures in the UKCS
  Specification to Study Performance Indicators for Use in Nuclear Facilities
  PIPIN Revision to Provide NT4 Compatibility and Additional Datasets
  Provision of Maps with LUP Zones
  Review of Railtracks Maintenance Strategy for the Forth Bridge
  International Common Cause Failure Data Exchange
  Development of Methodology to Assess Pipeline Safety Cases
  Accident Investigation, Linfield Street, Dundee Gas Explosion
  Phase 2, Accident Investigation, Linfield Street, Dundee Gas Explosion
  Development of the ACDC Database
  Level 3 Guidance Update
  General Management of the Technical Support Framework Agreement
  Ad Hoc Support
  Assessing Investigations into Signals Passed at Danger (SPADS)
  Research on the effect of HSE campaigns and their effects on rooflights and nets
  Advanced Fluid Loading Models
  Assessment of Railtracks's response to two improvement notices
  Conference on Risk in Civil Engineering
  PCPV Structural Integrity: Prolonged Natural Circulation/Loss of PVCS Fault Condition: Phase 1
  HSE intranet database for Offshore Division HF support
  Performance Indicators for Fixed Structures
  Characteristics of extended survival in the North Sea
  Fall of Stanchion A10, Project Arrow
  Highways Agency
  Area 16 Design Commission
  M62 New Junction 8 and J8–9 Widening
  A47 Thorney Bypass
  Framework Agreement for Structural Bearings Advice
  Framework Agreement Advice on Steel and Composite Bridges
  Framework Agreement for SLVR Consultancy
  Environment Research and Development Framework Arrangements
  Tactical Traffic Control—Alternative Vehicle Detectors (for Elevated Motorways and 5/6 Lane Motorways)
  Health and Safety Assessment of HA's offices
  Scheme Forecast Monitoring/Post Implementation Evaluation

  85W
  Consultancy Framework for TSE 2000–03
  Implementation of Eurocodes
  Foresight Vehicle Probe-IT (collaboration agreement)

  BURO-HAPPOLD
  DETR (C)
  Facilitating the benefits of technological innovation
  Capturing how to construct a timber gridshell safely
  Capture and analysis if vibration data from an unfinished laboratory floor
  Agencies and Non Departmental Public Bodies
  South East England Development Agency
  Eastbridge master plan

  KVAERNER
  DETR (C)
  Nil
  Agencies and Non Departmental Public Bodies
  Highways Agency
  M1/M45 Northamptonshire Control Office Area NMCS (Design and Build)

  2001-to date

  W.S. ATKINS
  DETR (C)
  Nil
  Agencies and Non Departmental Public Bodies
  Health and Safety Executive
  Sources of Variability and Uncertainty in Nuclear Reactor PSAs
  Assistance with NSD Emergency Arrangements
  Forth Bridge TG2
  Case-by-case support on Nuclear Reactors (Env. Impact Assessment for Decommissioning) Regs 1999
  Assessment of layout of Buchanan Bus Station, Glasgow
  International Common Cause Failure Data Exchange
  Assessment of railway industry SPAD investigations
  Tay wastewater project: assessment of ground conditions
  Expert Report on the security of temporary traffic signs and sign frames
  ACE Model Development
  Highways Agency
  Maintaining Agency Contracts: Area 6 (Hertfordshire, Essex, Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Norfolk)

  BURO-HAPPOLD
  DETR (C)
  Nil
  Agencies and Non Departmental Public Bodies
  South East England Development Agency
  Boiler shop disposals
  Sector works

  KVAERNER
  DETR (C)
  Nil
  Agencies and Non Departmental Public Bodies
  Nil.

  Lorries
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date the impounding of trucks running without O licences will be implemented by the Vehicle Inspectorate. [3463]
  86W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Transport Act 2000 gave the Government powers to make regulations which would enable the Vehicle Inspectorate to detain the vehicles of unlicensed goods vehicle operators. I intend to lay these regulations before this House shortly. Subject to the approval of the House, we aim to bring the regulations into effect in October 2001.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to introduce HGV lanes on strategic routes; and at what locations he has trialed such schemes. [R][3548]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have not yet identified any locations on the strategic network where designated lanes would improve the flow of traffic for HGVs.

  Air Traffic Control
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what mechanism will be used to allocate the 5 per cent. stake in NATS to staff under the Government's proposals for the part-privatisation of the National Air Traffic Service. [3698]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government, in conjunction with the Airline Group and NATS staff representatives are working together on the precise detail of the employee share scheme. In broad terms, the shares will be allocated via an Employee Share Ownership Plan, to be approved by the Inland Revenue, which will be administered by a new subsidiary of NATS called NATS Employee Sharetrust Limited. The directors of this new company will be appointed by the Government, the Airline Group and the NATS trade unions. A fundamental principle of the scheme will be that all employees, regardless of grade or length of service will have the same entitlement to shares from this scheme.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what meetings(a) Ministers and (b) officials have held in the last month with representatives of the airline consortium which is purchasing NATS. [3696]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers held a number of meetings with bidders for the National Air Traffic Services public-private partnership, including the Airline Group, as part of the bidding process. No meetings between Ministers and the Airline Group have taken place since the preferred bidder was selected.

  Officials meet regularly with representatives of the Airline Group as part of the preparations for putting the PPP in place.

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he last travelled on the London Underground in the course of his official duties. [3678]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers travel by public transport on a regular basis in the course of their official duties and under the Ministerial Code are required to always make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements.
  87W
  Since being appointed as a Minister for the Department, I have used the London Underground on several occasions in connection with my duties.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what directions he has given to London Underground Limited and London Transport regarding future arrangements for the London Underground; what decisions by those organisations have been taken following discussions with Government representatives which complied with agreements reached at those discussions; and if he will make a statement. [4724]

  Mr. Byers
  No directions have been given to either London Underground or London Transport regarding future arrangements for the Underground.

  I have today written to Mr. Kiley, informing him that his appointment as chairman and member of London Regional Transport is terminated forthwith.

  Mr. Kiley was appointed chairman of London Regional Transport on 8 May to lead negotiations on contracts for the modernisation of London Underground. On 29 June, he wrote to the Prime Minister reporting that he had been unable to reach agreement with the bidders which met his objectives and the key criteria for modernising the Tube. In the light of Mr. Kiley's inability to reach an agreement with the bidders, the Government asked London Underground to proceed with their plans for improving and updating the Tube's infrastructure within parameters acceptable to them and the bidders.

  When the Government decided on 5 July that London Underground should be invited to press ahead with their plans for investment in a publicly-run, privately-built Tube, we hoped that Mr. Kiley would continue to be able to play a fully co-operative role. This has not been the case. Mr. Kiley has tried to use his board position to block negotiations with the bidders. He has, without authority from the board, issued instructions to senior management to halt those negotiations.

  I have today received a letter signed on behalf of a majority of the London Transport Board saying they cannot work with Mr. Kiley and thus it is impossible for the London Transport Board to function effectively. I have therefore decided to end Mr. Kiley's appointment as chairman and as a board member and to re-appoint Sir Malcolm Bates as chairman of the London Transport Board.

  Integrated Transport
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress towards better integration between railway stations and(a) cars, (b) buses, (c) taxis and (d) bicycles. [3552]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are committed to delivering long-term improvements for the travelling public, and recognise that an important aspect of doing so is to ensure better integration between modes of transport.

  We have seen a number of new and improved rail interchanges opened since 1997 including—Warwick Parkway, Clitheroe Interchange, Canning Town Transport Interchange, North Greenwich Station, Stratford Regional Station, Feltham Gateway and Tottenham Hale Station.
  88W
  There is also a new London Underground Interchange at Canada Water and a number of new bus interchanges, notably St. Paul's Bus Station, Walsall.

  The Safe Routes to Stations project, on which the Department is collaborating with Sustrans, Railtrack and other bodies, is progressing well. It will open up new opportunities for people to access rail and bus stations by bicycle and on foot, and demonstrate the advantages of combining public transport with cycling and walking. Work has already been carried out at a number of locations around the country, including Peterborough, Norwich, Tiverton Parkway, March in Cambridgeshire, Temple Meads in Bristol, Waterloo in London and a cycle/pedestrian access bridge linking Bodmin with Bodmin Parkway station.

  Last December we gave full or provisional approval to three major local transport schemes, the Allerton Interchange in Merseyside, and the Outer Circle bus showcase and Wolverhampton Centre Access in the West Midlands, which each include better interchanges between rail and public transport.

  Authorities have also included a range of smaller-scale interchange improvements in their local transport plans. The exact choice of measures will be for authorities to determine, but we will be monitoring closely the implementation of local transport plans—including progress on interchange facilities—through an annual progress report system. The first reports are due to be submitted by local authorities at the end of August 2001.

  We expect to see further progress towards integration between modes as a result of the increased investment under the 10-Year Plan.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans to upgrade rail freight routes to major ports. [3553]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The amount of freight moved by rail has grown steadily over the period of this Government. Our 10-Year Plan for transport reinforces our commitment to ensure that that growth continues.

  We have established the Strategic Rail Authority to implement detailed plans for rail freight. The SRA published its Freight Strategy in May. This includes plans for delivering a major programme of improvements to rail links to major ports.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the potential for switching imports of fruit and vegetables from road to rail; and if he will make a statement. [4290]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The import of fruit and vegetables represents a significant opportunity for rail. The SRA's Freight Strategy, published in May, discusses a number of actions aimed at realising the potential of this market and at facilitating the establishment of sustainable international services through the Channel Tunnel.
  89W

  Park-and-ride Schemes
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made in the last 12 months with introducing park-and-ride schemes in towns. [3459]

  Ms Keeble
  Last December as part of the Local Transport Capital settlement for 2001–02 we gave full or provisional approval to a number of major local transport schemes, including the Allerton Interchange in Merseyside, Somerset's North West Taunton Package, Plymouth's Northern Corridor improvement, South Bradford's and Salisbury's integrated transport packages, each of which contains park-and-ride as an element of the proposals.

  Authorities have also included a wide range of smaller-scale measures in their local transport plans (LTPs), including park-and-ride schemes. The exact choice of measures will be for authorities to determine, but the capital settlement should enable authorities to start work on as many as 120 new and extended park-and-ride facilities over the five-year LTP period. We will be monitoring closely the implementation of LTPs—including park-and-ride schemes—through an annual progress report system. The first reports are due to be submitted at the end of August 2001.

  Roads
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much of the trunk road network has been given a lower noise surface in the past 12 months; and when he intends that(a) 10 per cent., (b) 25 per cent., (c) 50 per cent. and (d) 60 per cent. of the trunk road network will have received such a service. [3549]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Over 3 per cent. of the network received a lower noise surface during the last year. A target has been set in Transport 2010, the 10-year Plan, for 60 per cent. of the trunk road network to have lower noise surfacing by March 2011, including all concrete surfaces. A detailed 10 year programme is not available, but approximately 6 per cent. of the network is expected to be treated annually. On this basis 10 per cent. would be achieved by 2002, 25 per cent. by 2005, 50 per cent. by 2009 and 60 per cent. by 2011.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list each of the roads in the Highways Agency Targeted Programme of Improvements indicating in each case(a) when work is likely to commence and (b) when the road is likely to be opened. [R][3550]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Contracts have been let and in most cases work has begun on the following 14 schemes in the Government's Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI) to the trunk road network. The planned completion date is as shown:

  Planned completion

  A1 Willburn-Denwick Improvement

  Winter 2002

  A6 Clapham Bypass

  Spring 2003

  A6 Great Glen Bypass

  Winter 2002

  A11 Roundham Heath-Attleborough Dualling

  Spring 2003

  A27 Polegate Bypass

  Summer 2002

  A41 Aston Clinton Bypass

  Summer 2003

  90W

  Planned completion

  A43 Whitfield Turn-Brackley Hatch Improvement

  Summer 2002

  A43 Silverstone Bypass

  Summer 2002

  A43 M40-B4031 Dualling

  Summer 2002

  A63 Selby Bypass

  Winter 2003

  A66 Stainburn and Great Clifton Bypass

  Winter 2002

  A500 Basford, Hough, Shavington Bypass

  Summer 2003

  A650 Bingley Relief Road

  Winter 2003

  A1033 Hedon Road Improvement, Hull

  Summer 2003

  The following contracts are still to be let in the years stated. The precise timing of the start of work will be a matter for the contractor:

  2001–02

  A5 Nesscliffe Bypass

  A6 Rothwell-Desborough Bypass

  A6 Rushden and Higham Ferrers Bypass

  A10 Wadesmill-Colliers End Bypass

  A21 Lamberhurst Bypass

  A46 Newmark-Lincoln Improvement

  A120 Stansted Braintree

  2002–03

  A6 Alvaston

  M25 J 12–15 Widening

  A1(M) Ferrybridge to Hook Moor

  A1(M) Wetherby to Walshford

  2003–04

  A249 Iwade-Queensborough Improvement

  M60 J 5–8(formerly M63 J6–9 Widening).

  Start dates for construction of the remaining schemes in the TPI cannot yet be set as they are still subject to the completion of the remaining statutory procedures. Those schemes are:

  A2 Bean-Cobham Widening Phase 1

  A2 Bean-Cobham Widening Phase 2

  A11 Fiveways to Thetford Improvement

  A11 Attleborough Bypass Improvement

  A34 Chieveley/M4 J 13 Improvement

  A2 A2/A282 Dartford Improvement

  A5 Weeford-Fazeley Improvement

  A14 Rookery Crossroads Grade Separated Junction

  A47 Thorney Bypass

  A63 Melton Grade Separated Junction

  A74 Carlisle-Guardsmill upgrading to motorway

  A303 Stonehenge

  A421 Great Barford Bypass

  A500 City Road/Stoke Road.

  Eight schemes were added to the TPI on 28 March 2001. Two schemes, A3 Hindhead Improvement and A30 Bodmin—Indian Queens Improvement, are subject to statutory procedures. For the remaining six schemes the next stage is under review:

  M62 Junction 6 Improvement

  A1 Peterborough-Blyth Grade Separated Junctions

  A14 Haughley New Street—Stowmarket Improvement

  A38 Dobwalls Bypass

  A46 Newmark—Widmerpool Improvement

  A595 Parton—Lillyhall Improvement.

  East Thames River Crossing
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to construct new East Thames river crossings for(a) road and (b) rail;and what the timetable for construction is in each case. [3540]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. Proposals for new East Thames river crossings are now a matter for the Mayor of London. The crossings are discussed in his Transport Strategy published on 10 July. Copies of the Strategy are available in the Library.

  Multi-model Transport Studies
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to make a decision on the findings of the(a) West Midlands to North West, (b) North/South movements in East Midlands,(c) London to South West and South Wales, (d) London orbitals, (e) South East Manchester, (f) West Midlands areas, (g) Tyneside areas, (h) access to Hastings, (i) Cambridge to Huntingdon and (j) A453 M1-Nottingham multi-modal studies. [R][3462]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Each study is expected to report to the relevant Regional Planning Body as follows:

  Multi-modal study

  Date expected to report

  (a) West Midlands to North West

  Autumn 2001

  (b) North/South Movements in East Midlands

  Early 2002

  (c) London to South West and South Wales

  April 2002

  (d) London Orbital

  April 2002

  (e) South East Manchester

  September 2001

  (f) West Midlands Area

  September 2001

  (g) Tyneside Area

  February 2002

  (h) Access to Hastings

  Reported December 2000

  Decision announced 12 July 2001

  (i) Cambridge to Huntingdon

  July 2001

  (j) A453 M1—Nottingham

  Early 2002

  Regional Planning Bodies will consider these reports and make recommendations to the Secretary of State in due course.

  In regard to the Access to Hastings Multi-Modal Study decision, I refer to the answers given on 12 July 2001, Official Report, columns 635–37.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many fatalities there were per million passenger miles on the railways in each of the last 10 years; what the projected costs of current plans to improve safety are; and what percentage increase in safety is planned to result from them. [3838]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate, publish fatality and injury rates to passengers in their Annual Report on Railway Safety, copies of which are placed in both House Libraries. The information is compiled per billion passenger rail miles. Fatality rates per billion passengers miles for each of the last ten years are reproduced in the following table.
  92W

  Fatality rate passengers—all railways 1990 to 1999–2000

  Year

  Train incidents per billion passenger miles

  Movement incidents per billion passenger miles

  Non-movement incidents per billion passenger journeys

  1990

  0

  1.43

  1.29

  1991–92

  0.08

  1.16

  0.63

  1992–93

  0

  0.68

  1.29

  1993–94

  0

  0.62

  1.30

  1994–95

  0.14

  0.55

  1.26

  1995–96

  0.04

  0.29

  1.23

  1996–97

  0.04

  0.48

  1.79

  1997–98

  0.24

  0.51

  2.24

  1998–99

  0

  0.56

  1.60

  1999–00

  0.90

  0.43

  2.01

  Key to table headings:

  "Train Incidents" include: collisions, derailments, trains running into obstructions, fires on board trains and missile damage to train windows;
  "Movement Incidents" are injuries caused by the movement of the train excluding train incidents e.g. a passenger falling off a platform and struck by a train; and
  "Non-movement Incidents" are injuries not caused by trains, e.g. A passenger slipping on the station platform.

  Figures for 2000–01 are still being compiled.

  All aspects of railway industry activity have potential safety impacts. These safety impacts are not always separately identified in the business planning process. Therefore, the projected cost of current industry plans to improve safety cannot be estimated.

  In the 1999–2000 Railway Group Safety Plan, the railway industry set itself a target to halve the annual number of accidental equivalent fatalities by 2009. (In calculating an 'equivalent fatality' 10 major injuries equate to one fatality and 200 minor injuries equate to one fatality.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has(a) made to and (b) received from Railtrack about the continued enforcement of speed restrictions; and when he estimates all restrictions will be lifted. [4649]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the Railtrack chairman last month expressing concern about the continued enforcement of speed restrictions on the national rail network and pressing for a firm timetable for reducing further the number outstanding, without in any way compromising safety. Railtrack will respond substantively once it has reached agreement with the train operating companies on the best balance between early removal of the restrictions and additional disruption to services that the necessary engineering work might cause.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has(a) made to and (b) received from each of the train operating companies about the continued enforcement of speed restrictions; and if he will make a statement. [4650]

  Mr. Spellar
  Ministers have met representatives of the train operating companies on several occasions and discussed, among other issues, the continued enforcement
  93W
  of temporary speed restrictions, and the steps that Railtrack and the operators, working together, can take to minimise their impact.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will set out the timetable for completion of the inspection schedule used by Railtrack to assess track conditions; and if he will make a statement. [4651]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

  PPG25
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action his Department intends to take to develop Planning Policy Guidance Note Number 25; and if he will make a statement. [4008]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]: The Government today published the new Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 25 "Development and flood risk", following the fast-track consultation in February-March this year. It substantially follows the recommendations of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee in their December 2000 report on "Development on, or affecting, the flood plain", and strengthens the guidance that was previously contained in Department of the Environment Circular 30–92, which is now cancelled.

  The new PPG makes clear that building should be wholly exceptional in areas of flood plain that are currently undefended or defended to a relatively low standard and thus effectively function regularly as flood plains where water flows or is stored at times of flood.

  A risk-based sequential test outlines the appropriate planning responses to levels of flood risk to help to ensure that the problems that have occurred due to inappropriate development in flood-risk areas are reduced in future. This test gives clear priority to the development of areas that are not at high risk of flooding. It is intended to operate alongside the sequential test in PPG 3 "Housing", by which previously developed land is the first choice for housing, and to be consistent with sustainable development objectives in other PPGs.

  Application of this test through the development plan system and in the determination of individual applications will require planning authorities and developers to consult closely with the Environment Agency. Applicants will be required to assess the flood risk and impact of their proposals and to incorporate sustainable drainage systems as far as possible. Where flood defences and other mitigation measures are needed because of development, these should be fully funded as part of the development, including the necessary arrangements to maintain them for a 30-year period, after which they will be regarded as public assets and liabilities. The Government are preparing supplementary guidance on flood-resistant construction techniques to enable buildings to cope better with flooding and to recover faster.

  The emphasis on looking at flooding on the wider scale of the whole river catchment or coastal cell will be complemented by the initiative on catchment flood
  94W
  management plans being undertaken by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency.

  The implementation of PPG 25 will have some impact on construction costs and the running costs of planning authorities and the Environment Agency. However, the events of last autumn have clearly demonstrated that these are far outweighed by the future costs to householders, businesses and a range of public authorities, including local government and the Environment Agency of not adopting it as current policy on development and flood risk.

  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish new planning guidance on flooding. [4646]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government today published the new Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 25 "Development and flood risk", following the fast-track consultation in February-March this year. It substantially follows the recommendations of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee in their December 2000 report on "Development on, or affecting, the flood plain", and strengthens the guidance that was previously contained in Department of the Environment Circular 30–92, which is now cancelled.

  The new PPG makes clear that building should be wholly exceptional in areas of flood plain that are currently undefended or defended to a relatively low standard and thus effectively function regularly as flood plains where water flows or is stored at times of flood.

  A risk-based sequential test outlines the appropriate planning responses to levels of flood risk to help to ensure that the problems that have occurred due to inappropriate development in flood-risk areas are reduced in future. This test gives clear priority to the development of areas that are not at high risk of flooding. It is intended to operate alongside the sequential test in PPG 3 "Housing", by which previously developed land is the first choice for housing, and to be consistent with sustainable development objectives in other PPGs.

  Application of this test through the development plan system and in the determination of individual applications will require planning authorities and developers to consult closely with the Environment Agency. Applicants will be required to assess the flood risk and impact of their proposals and to incorporate sustainable drainage systems as far as possible. Where flood defences and other mitigation measures are needed because of development, these should be fully funded as part of the development, including the necessary arrangements to maintain them for a 30-year period, after which they will be regarded as public assets and liabilities. The Government is preparing supplementary guidance on flood-resistant construction techniques to enable buildings to cope better with flooding and to recover faster.

  The emphasis on looking at flooding on the wider scale of the whole river catchment or coastal cell will be complemented by the initiative on catchment flood management plans being undertaken by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency.

  95W
  The implementation of PPG 25 will have some impact on construction costs and the running costs of planning authorities and the Environment Agency. However, the events of last autumn have clearly demonstrated that these are far outweighed by the future costs to householders, businesses and a range of public authorities, including local government and the Environment Agency of not adopting it as current policy on development and flood risk.

  Second Homes
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of(a) second homes entitled to a 50 per cent. council tax discount and (b) holiday homes for which a business rate is payable in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [4329]

  Dr. Whitehead
  (a) We estimate that approximately 220,000 second homes (defined as furnished and no-one's main residence) in England were entitled to a 50 per cent. council tax discount as at October 2000.

  (b) No estimate is available for the number of holiday homes in England for which a business rate is payable. This is because many holiday homes form part of a larger site, and in many cases it is the site as a whole—rather than individual properties—that is liable for business rates.

  Information on council tax and business rate liability in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly of Wales.

  Council Tax
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) second homes and (b) other dwellings entitled to the 50 per cent. council tax discount there are in each district and county/unitary authority area; and what percentage they represent of domestic housing stock in each area. [4330]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We estimate that approximately 220,000 second homes (defined as furnished and no-one's main residence) and 370,000 other dwellings were entitled to the 50 per cent. council tax discount as at October

  PFI and PPP contracts signed since 1997

  Year contract signed

  Name of contract

  Status of service

  Has part of service charge payment been withheld?

  PFI

  1997

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre —Catering

  Operational

  No

  2000

  Highways Agency—A13 "Thames Gateway"1

  Under construction

  n/a

  2000

  Vehicle Inspectorate—MOT computerisation

  Under construction

  n/a

  2001

  Highways Agency—Traffic Control Centre

  Under construction

  n/a

  PPP

  1997

  Manchester Metrolink —extension to Salford Quays and Eccles2

  Operational

  No

  1999

  Tower Hamlets Housing Action Trust

  Operational

  No

  2001

  National Air Traffic Control Services (NATS) PPP

  —3

  n/a

  1The A13 Thames Gateway contract has been transferred to Transport for London.

  2The Manchester Metrolink contract was let by Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive and received substantial funding from DTLR.

  3NATS have announced their preferred partner—Airlines Group (British Airways, British Midland, Virgin. Britannia, Monarch, Easy-Jet and Airtours) and is due to let the contract shortly.

  96W
  2000. These represent 1.0 per cent. and 1.8 per cent. respectively of the total domestic housing stock in England.

  Comparable figures for each district and county/unitary area in England are not available.

  Silverhill (A21)
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will ensure that the storm drain for Silverhill on the A21 is reconstructed so that it drains into the river below the bypass. [3860]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: The Environment Agency, who are responsible for flood alleviation, has not suggested that any work is necessary to the A21 culverts to alleviate the flooding problems in and around Robertsbridge. The Highways Agency has no plans to reconstruct the storm drain at Silver Hill.

  Private Finance Initiatives
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the PH contracts on local authority leisure centres entered into since 1997, indicating(a) the value of the PH, (b) the name of the successful contractor, (c) those PFIs which have benefited from refinancing arrangements, (d) the value of the benefit accrued to the company concerned and (e) the extent of the clawback. [4533]

  Dr. Whitehead
  No contracts have yet been signed for central government supported PFI leisure centres. No information is held on PFI schemes funded entirely by a local authority.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) PFI and (b) PPP contracts have been agreed by his Department over the last five years; how many have been satisfactorily completed; and in how many has compensation been (i) paid and (ii) claimed for performance failure. [4599]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The table provides details of DTLR's PFI and PPP contracts signed in the past five years. It states whether the service is operational, and whether service charge payments have been withheld. Should PH and PPP contractors fail to provide the contracted service they will not receive the full unitary service charge payment for the relevant month.
  97W

  Channel Tunnel (Rail Freight)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what work his Department has(a)commissioned and (b)evaluated on the viability of freight traffic using the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (i) on the tracks currently under construction and (ii) using the same corridor; and if he will make a statement. [3641]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: My Department, and its predecessors, have not commissioned any studies of freight use of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and the same corridor. In 1993 Union Railways evaluated the impact of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link on rail freight traffic. The results of this work were used by the Department to inform the decisions to go ahead with the construction of the Link.

  Central Railway
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what evaluations his Department has(a)commissioned and (b)reviewed into the operation of Central Railway. [3640]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: My Department has not commissioned any evaluation of Central Railway's proposals. The Strategic Rail Authority's Freight Strategy outlines a programme of infrastructure and freight-specific investment, and discusses the concept of a new strategic route between the Channel Tunnel, the West Midlands and the north. It is in this context that the SRA initiated a high-level review of Central Railway's proposals. The SRA's consultants have now delivered their report and the SRA will advise the Government of its findings in due course. We will respond to Central Railway taking the SRA's conclusions into account.

  Train Passengers
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures exist to require train companies to regulate the number of passengers that trains may safely carry(a) at peak times of travel and (b)at other times; and how such measures are enforced. [4590]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive consider overcrowding on trains to be a matter of comfort rather than one of safety. Accordingly there are no statutory safety limits on the number of passengers that can travel on trains. For commuter routes into London and Edinburgh train operators are required to keep overcrowding within specified thresholds. All trains in use have a nominal capacity, and operators must plan their services to ensure that the aggregated number of Passenger's In Excess of Capacity is kept to 3 per cent. over the morning and evening peaks or 4.5 per cent. for either peak in isolation. Train operators conduct annual passenger counts to demonstrate compliance. If the thresholds are breached the company is required to produce an action plan to remedy the problem.

  Boundary Changes
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will decide on the recommendations of the Local Government

  98W
  Commission regarding the boundary changes in the Swale borough council area; and when he will issue an order with regard to such changes. [4609]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have made the preliminary decision to accept the recommendations of the Local Government Commission for Swale borough council without amendment. We are now consulting on a draft Order which, if made, would give effect to the Commission's recommendations. Subject to the consultation I envisage making the Order implementing the revised electoral arrangements in Swale in the autumn.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 9 July 2001,Official Report,column 1408W, concerning rough sleepers, how many rough sleepers are aged (a)under 16, (b)16 to 25, (c) 26 to 35, (d)36 to 45, (e)46 to 55, (f) 56 to 65, (g)66 to 75 and (h)over 75 years. [4182]

  Ms Keeble
  "Coming in from the Cold", the Government's strategy on tackling rough sleeping, has delivered a raft of policies and services that are preventing vulnerable people coming on to the streets and rebuilding the lives of former rough sleepers.

  The RSU has introduced a range of services in London to help vulnerable rough sleepers off the streets. A recent analysis of rough sleeper ages recorded by London Contact and Assessment Teams from 1 December 2000 to 31 March 2001 showed that around 40 per cent. of rough sleepers were aged between 26 and 35, with roughly 20 per cent. aged between 16 and 25, and 36 and 45. Around 10 per cent. were aged between 46 and 55 and roughly 10 per cent. were aged over 56 years of age, of which a very small percentage were between 66 and 75 and over 75. Contact and Assessment Teams found no rough sleepers under 16 during the period.

  A similar picture showing the greatest proportion of rough sleeping in the 26-35 age band is also found in other areas of the country.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the Information Technology contracts in excess of £500,000 let by his Department or its predecessor since April 1991, giving in each case the original estimated cost and original estimated completion date, the actual cost and actual completion date and the names of the contractors involved and consultants retained by his Department. [3508]

  Mr. Byers
  The information my right hon. Friend requests is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  M25 (Resurfacing)
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish the timetable for decision making and the subsequent development and execution of plans to resurface the M25. [4562]
  99W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Humfrey Malins, dated 17 July 2001:
  The Transport Minister, David Jamieson, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about plans to resurface the M25.
  The Highways Agency have published a leaflet giving advance notice of roadworks, including resurfacing, on the M25 motorway. The leaflet, which is updated quarterly, is widely available and currently covers the period July to September 2001. A copy is enclosed and copies have been placed in the Library.
  The trunk road network is regularly monitored by the Highways Agency who will continue to make maintenance a priority over the next 10 years, with a maintenance programme of around £7 billion between 2001–10.
  If you would like more details: Peter Rix in the Agency's Dorking Office will be able to help. His telephone number is 01306 878356.

  Fleet Driver Training
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Driving Standards Agency regarding fleet driver training and the applicability of police advanced training standards based on the National/International Roadcraft Manual; and if he will make a statement. [4563]

  Mr. Jamieson
  When setting appropriate standards for fleet driver training we will consider carefully all comments received in response to the recent consultation exercise undertaken by the Driving Standards Agency, together with the work that the Agency has been undertaking in partnership with the police service developing national standards for police drivers.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what consultations the Driving Standards Agency is undertaking regarding fleet driver training; and when these consultations will be concluded. [4561]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Driving Standards Agency issued a consultation paper in February about registering driving instructors who specialize in fleet driver training. The consultation period ended in May. Responses are now being considered together with our proposals for the wider reform of the regulation of driver instruction, which was announced in our Road Safety Strategy: "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone," and suggestions for improving "work related" road safety. I hope to be in a position to make announcements later in the year.

  Jubilee Line
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on how many weekdays this year the Jubilee underground line has been run without interruption. [4504]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground who inform me the standard they used to measure "without interruption" is that there are no service delays of 15 minutes or more. They have provided the following information for this financial year to date (1 April 2001 until 23 June 2001): the Jubilee line has run for 24 days out of 56 without interruption. The 24 days 100W
  does not include four bank holidays which are treated as weekends rather than weekdays. Of the remaining 32 days, there were three in which the delays were attributable to external factors, such as a person on the track, and two where suspect packages caused delays.

  Regional Chambers
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the outcome was of the Government's consultation on the proposed fund for regional chambers. [4971]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have had a very positive response to the consultation on strengthening the regions which my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor launched earlier this year.

  I am therefore announcing today the go-ahead for the new £15 million fund for regional chambers—£5 million this year, and in each of the next two years. This will help them to enhance their role in providing regional input to, and scrutinising, the plans and work of the Regional Development Agencies, and to develop their position as the strategic focal point for the regions. The aim is to provide a stronger framework for representing the regions' views, not to impose burdensome new procedures on the RDAs or others.

  In 2001–02, £500,000 is available for each chamber to develop its scrutiny role, with a further £1 million set aside for initiatives, supported by the chambers collectively, on setting up the new regime. While we envisage that bids would normally be for the first year only, we have not ruled out the possibility of bids for two, or even three, years' worth of funding where that is what the chambers want. The deadline for receiving bids has been extended to 29 July.

  Detailed arrangements for allocating the funding in the following two years will be settled in the light of further discussions with the chambers. The future of the funding beyond the current three-year period will be a matter for the next spending review.

  Local Government Commission for England
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made on the transfer of the Local Government Commission for England to the Electoral Commission; and if he will make a statement. [4972]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have now consulted the Electoral Commission, the Local Government Commission for England and other interested parties, on a draft of an order to be made under section 18 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which would provide for the transfer of functions with effect from 1 April 2002. In the light of comments received, our firm intention is now, subject to parliamentary approval of a draft, to make this order as soon as practicable.

  Flooding (Kimpton)
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will provide financial assistance to North Hertfordshire district council
  101W
  under the Bellwin Scheme in respect of costs incurred following the severe flooding in the village of Kimpton on 24 and 25 February. [4973]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified in the case of North Hertfordshire district council, given the exceptional nature of flooding. A scheme will, therefore be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grant will be paid to cover 100 per cent. of the eligible costs above a threshold, which the authority has incurred in dealing with the flooding.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the information technology contracts in excess of £500,000 let by her Department or its predecessor since April 1991, giving in each case the original estimated cost and original estimated completion date, the actual cost and actual completion date and the names of the contractors involved and consultants retained by her Department. [3502]

  The Solicitor-General
  The information is as follows:

  Project

  Estimated and actual cost (£million)

  Estimated and actual completion date

  Major contractor

  Other contractors and consultants

  SCOPE Case Tracking System

  Est. 8.0

  Est. March 1994

  Unisys

  Act. 10.6

  Act. April 1997

  SPIRE Payroll System

  Est. 3.0

  August 1996

  ADP Chessington1

  Act. 3.0

  August 1996

  Finance System

  Est. 2.1

  Est. April 1997

  HBOC

  Act. 2.3

  Act. April 1997

  Connect 42 Office Automation

  2Est. 18.0 Act. 23.5

  Est. July 2001 Planned November 2001

  Integris1

  MG Admiral4; DSCe Integration Ltd.; Donaldson Ericsson Ltd.; Farebrother Engineering Services Ltd.; GCat Computacentre (UK) Ltd.; Harold Palfreyman Ltd.; Hays Accountancy Personnel; Xansa UK Ltd.5; Parity Resources Ltd.; SQA-Herman Miller Ltd.; Workplace by Design Ltd.; Yale Data Management Consultants Ltd.

  1 Formerly Chessington Computer Services

  2Plus £5.5 million expenditure on ergonomic furniture, building and 3electrical works

  Formerly Bull Information Systems

  4Formerly Admiral Management Service

  5Formerly Kermon Management Consultants

  Homosexual Convictions (Appeal to ECHR)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Solicitor-General if the appeal made by five of the men convicted at Bolton Crown court of homosexual activity in private has been listed for a hearing at the European Court of Human Rights; and if it is the British. Government's intention to defend the appeal. [3460]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I have been asked to respond on behalf of the Solicitor-General. The case of Connell and others v.UK has not been listed for hearing by the European Court of Human Rights. The court has extended
  102W
  Crown Prosecution Service

  A list of contracts awarded by the Crown Prosecution Service since 1993 is shown in the table. Records are not available for the period before April 1993.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) signed a PFI contract with IBM in January 1998 to develop an integrated document management system for the SFO. As an additional service, IBM took on the management of the internal IT services. This latter contract was to run for seven years, with the option to extend for a further three years. The estimated value of the contract over its life was £15 million. Since 1998 £4.8 million has been paid to IBM. In September 2000 a variation to the contract was agreed under which IBM continued to provide internal IT systems for a further three years.

  In 2000 it was recognised by SFO and IBM that it was no longer appropriate to continue with the development of the document management system due to changes in the SFO' s business environment and in technology. No payments have been made to IBM in respect of their work on the integrated document management system.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department has not entered into any information technology contracts in excess of £500,000 since April 1991.

  the period in which the Government can submit written observations on the case to allow it to negotiate a friendly settlement with the applicants. We are actively pursuing such a settlement with the applicants' representatives.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last travelled on the London underground in the course of his official duties. [3671]
  103W
  The Prime Minister
  I travel making the most efficient and cost-effective arrangements, and use the underground as and when appropriate.

  Energy Policy Review
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the expertise available to the energy policy review. [3963]

  The Prime Minister
  The PIU energy policy review will draw on expertise from:

  the energy review team led by Nick Hartley, on secondment from OXERA:

  the advisory group chaired by the Minister for Industry and Energy;

  Government bodies including central Departments and ECG posts; and

  an experts group consisting of academics and other experts.

  Details of the energy review team, including short biographical notes, and the full membership of the advisory group will be published on the PIU website next week. The membership of the experts group will also be posted on the website.

  As the project proceeds, the review team will commission discrete research projects as required, receive submissions from key organisations and meet with stakeholders.

  Sustainable Development
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister which is the lead Department for delivering the Government's sustainable development policy following the reorganisation of Government Departments; and how his office deals with sustainability issues. [3949]

  The Prime Minister
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has the lead in driving forward UK sustainable development policy. However, delivery of sustainable development remains, as in the last Parliament, a cross-Government responsibility. That is why we have established a committee of Green Ministers from every Department, ENV(G), to consider the impact on sustainable development of Government policies and improve the performance of Departments in contributing to sustainable development. In that way we can ensure that sustainable development is integrated into decision making across Government, including in my office.

  Sellafield
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has received in respect of nuclear reprocessing at Sellafield. [3955]

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that I have received a small number of representations.

  Peers
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 11 July 2001,Official Report,column 566W, which peers created since 2 May 1997 were working peers; and which were not. [4369]
  104W
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]:All peers are appointed in the expectation that they will make a valuable contribution to the work of the House of Lords.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to distinguish formally between those peers that(a)were and (b)were not ennobled through the Appointments Commission. [4368]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: None. All peers have the same status. With the exception of peerages created to enable individuals to serve as Ministers, all recommendations that I make to the Queen are referred to the House of Lords Appointments Commission for scrutiny. This includes all recommendations from leaders of political parties, and a very limited number of recommendations for holders of high public office. The decision on whether to recommend candidates in these last two categories rests with me, unlike those non-political recommendations proposed by the Commission itself, which I submit automatically to the Queen.

  Srebrenica Massacre
  David Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans the heads of Government of European Union member states have to mark the sixth anniversary of the massacre at Srebrenica. [4509]

  The Prime Minister
  The sixth anniversary of the massacre at Srebrenica took place on 11 July. EU Ambassadors in Sarajevo, including the British Ambassador, attended the commemorative event and unveiling of a memorial stone, funded by the British Government, to the victims of the massacre.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Capitol Publishing
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations her Department has received on the homeworking company Capitol Publishing. [3382]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have checked through the Department's records in relation to homeworking activities for the last 12 months and can find no record of any representations received on Capitol Publishing.

  Miners' Compensation
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims for miners' compensation are outstanding in(a)Cynon Valley and (b)the rest of Wales. [3230]

  Mr. Wilson
  IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have registered 3,559 outstanding claims in respect of respiratory disease in the region of Cynon Valley as defined by the postcodes with prefixes CF 37, 44 and 45. There are 25,155 outstanding claims in the rest of Wales.
  105W
  With regards to vibration white finger, VWF, there are 1,736 outstanding claims in Cynon Valley and 11,641 outstanding claims in the rest of Wales.

  Following recent significant progress, the rate of assessments has increased from 8,000 at the beginning of the year to over 25,000 now. In Wales alone assessments have increased from 2,000 to 5,000. Around 500 claims a week are now being reviewed following the Medical Assessment Process.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the information technology contracts in excess of £500,000 let by her Department or

  Original

  Actual

  Contract

  Cost (£ million)

  Completion

  Cost (£ million)

  Completion

  Contractor

  Mainframe computer services

  6.0

  1995

  6.0

  1995

  Capita Managed Services

  Mainframe computer services

  6.3

  1999

  6.3

  1999

  Cap Gemini

  Mainframe computer services

  8.0

  2004

  1—

  2—

  Hyder Business Services

  Document processing (devpmt)

  1.0

  2000

  1.0

  2000

  IBM UK

  Document processing (support)

  1.8

  2000

  1.8

  2000

  IBM UK

  Document image storage (devpmt)

  1.0

  1997

  1.0

  1997

  IBM UK

  Document image storage (support)

  1.5

  2002

  1—

  2—

  IBM UK

  Internet managed services

  6.0

  2002

  1—

  2—

  Orchid Telematics Ltd.

  Financial Systems Application

  1.6

  2006

  1—

  2—

  QSP Group plc

  Local Office Information System

  5.1

  1994

  5.4

  1995

  Sequent Computer Systems

  Batch Accounting and Nominal Ledger Control System

  0.6

  1994

  0.8

  1996

  AMP Systems Ltd.

  Local Office Ledger Accounting

  0.6

  1996

  0.7

  1996

  Radius Computer Services

  Integrated Bibliographic and Image System

  1.9

  1999

  1.9

  2001

  ICL Ltd.

  Open Individual Export Licence system development

  0.6

  2001

  1—

  2—

  SEMA

  Export Control Licensing System (ECLIPS)

  0.7

  1993

  0.9

  1995

  UNISYS

  CWC Database System

  0.5

  1995

  0.7

  1996

  Cap Gemini

  IT support

  1.1

  2003

  1—

  2—

  Cap Gemini

  IT services

  2.5

  2014

  1—

  2—

  ICL

  Data Communication Services

  1.1

  2006

  1—

  2—

  Cable and Wireless

  OSPREY Office System

  23.1

  1999

  24.1

  1999

  ICL Ltd.

  Electronic Government via Administrative Re-engineering

  200

  2014

  1—

  2—

  ICL Ltd.

  Century Date Change (Year 2000) Support

  0.5

  1999

  0.5

  1999

  CMG Ltd.

  Personnel and Related Information System

  0.8

  1997

  —

  31999

  Unisys Ltd.

  1On track

  2 Still running

  3Contract terminated

  Note:

  The table excludes details of an IT services contract let to Gap Gemini which ran from 1995 to 1999. This was a 'framework' contract covering a number of projects and services of varying values. Information on this contract would involve disproportionate cost arising from the need for a manual search of relevant registered files

  Broadcasters (Fair Trading)
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers the Office of Fair Trading has to prevent the abuse of market power by broadcasters. [4507]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Under UK competition law the Director General of Fair Trading is required to apply and enforce the provisions of the Competition Act 1998 to prevent conduct by one or more undertakings which amounts to the abuse of a dominant position in a market in the UK (or a part thereof) and which may affect trade within the UK (the Chapter II Prohibition).
  106W
  its predecessor since April 1991, giving in each case the original estimated cost and original estimated completion date, the actual cost and actual completion date and the names of the contractors involved and consultants retained by her Department. [3507]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested by my right hon. Friend which is readily available from central records is listed in the table. In several cases contracts are still running and a final cost figure cannot yet be provided. Expenditure within some contracts cannot be precisely estimated, because it is affected by volume of business or because the contracts concerned allow the development of solutions to changing business requirements not originally foreseeable. In no contracts were consultants retained (or are there plans to retain consultants) beyond completion of their assigned tasks.

  Sub-Post Offices
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices closed in the first quarter of the 2001–02 financial year. [4656]

  Ms Hewitt
  I understand from Post Office Network that the figures are not yet available.

  Business Regulation
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she intends to take in respect of the reports(a) 'Economic Regulators' and (b) 'Local Shops: a Progress report on Small Firms Regulation'. [4754]
  107W
  Ms Hewitt
  We expect to publish Government responses to these two Better Regulation Task Force reports in September.

  Enterprise Grants
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many enterprise grants were awarded in the south-west in(a)2000 and (b)2001. [4146]

  Alan Johnson
  The number of enterprise grants awarded in the south-west was(a)13 in the calendar year 2000 and (b)25 so far in the calendar year 2001.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the size of the fund for enterprise grants in the south-west was in(a)2000 and (b)2001. [4145]

  Alan Johnson
  The budget for enterprise grants in the south-west was £450,000 in 2000–01. An indicative budget at the same level has been set for 2001–02.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many enterprise grants were awarded to businesses in the Forest of Dean in(a)2000 and (b) 2001. [4030]

  Alan Johnson
  The number of enterprise grants awarded in the Forest of Dean was(a)one in the calendar year 2000 and (b)nil so far in the calendar year 2001.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the(a)largest and (b)smallest amount awarded in enterprise grant in the south-west in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001. [4029]

  Alan Johnson
  The largest and smallest amounts awarded in enterprise grant in the south-west in the calendar year 2000 and so far in the calendar year 2001 were:

  £

  Enterprise grant

  2000

  2001

  Largest

  74,250

  75,000

  Smallest

  1,815

  1,150

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last travelled on the London underground in the course of her official duties. [3686]

  Ms Hewitt
  In the course of my official duties, I travel using the most efficient and cost-effective mode of transport and travel on the underground as and when appropriate.

  Energy Resources Review
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Performance and Innovation Unit's Energy Resources Review will examine the options set out in the report on interim storage of spent nuclear fuel, prepared by Harvard university and the university of Tokyo published in June. [3960]

  Mr. Wilson
  The review of energy policy will be considering what role, if any, the nuclear industry should play in meeting longer term environmental and security of supply objectives and will take into account any relevant 108W
  information. I will refer the report referred to by my hon. Friend to the attention of the PIU team which is undertaking the review.

HEALTH

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what date the NHS and local councils will have concluded the work set out in paragraph 7.19 of the National Service Framework for Older People; and what he expects to be included in specialist residential care services. [4087]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are working with local councils, National Health Service agencies and care providers on an agreement to give greater direction to the commissioning of care for older people. This includes encouraging the development of specialist residential and nursing care services for people with dementia.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment the Task Force for Older People has made of delivery of the National Service Framework for older people to date. [4082]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Taskforce for Older People has an advisory role on the implementation of policy. It gives advice on the basis of its members' expertise in the delivery of frontline services. However, it does not have an executive role to monitor performance of the National Health Service or social services against National Service Framework targets. This task is undertaken by the officials responsible for NSF implementation and the information is fed through to taskforce members to inform their discussions.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the remit, membership and reporting lines of the national implementation group for the National Service Framework for Older People are; and how the group relates to the Task Force for Older People. [4078]

  Jacqui Smith
  A national implementation group for the National Service Framework (NSF) for Older People met during development of the NSF in March 2001. A group of officials from the National Health Service and social care regional offices together with departmental policy officials continues to meet regularly to plan and monitor implementation of a range of policies, including the NSF. The discussions of this group are also fed through to the members of the Older People's Taskforce.

  The Taskforce for Older People has an advisory role on the implementation of policy. It gives advice on the basis of its members' experience in their delivery of frontline services, which is fed into the policy making process. It does not have an executive role to monitor performance.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the extra numbers of staff required to establish the falls services described in paragraphs 6.37 and 6.38 of the National Service Framework for Older People; and what assessment he has made of the numbers of such staff(a)already trained and (b)in training. [4084]
  109W
  Jacqui Smith
  The detailed assessment of the number and appropriate skill mix of staff teams to establish the falls service described in Standard Six of the National Service Framework for Older People will be undertaken by the National Workforce Development Board, informed by the Care Group Workforce Team for older people which will be established shortly.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out how many(a)consultants in old age medicine and (b)consultants in rehabilitation there were in each of the last three years for which figures exist; how his Department calculated its estimate of old age medicine consultants on page 139 of the National Service Framework for Older People; and what his estimate is of the number of extra rehabilitation consultants required. [4086]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of consultants employed in old age medicine and rehabilitation are set out in the table.

  There are already a number of specialist registrars, based on the Specialty Workforce Advisory Group's assessment of demand, training in old age psychiatry and geriatric medicine. The figures quoted in the National Service Framework reflect the increases that would be achieved if those trainees are employed as consultants as they complete their training. The increases are offset by estimates of the annual number of retirements

  The number of extra rehabilitation consultants required will be determined by the National Workforce Development Board informed by the Care Group Workforce Team for older people.

  Hospital medical consultants within the geriatric and rehabilitation medicine specialities

  Numbers

  England as at 30 September

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Geriatric medicine

  710

  720

  770

  Rehabilitation medicine

  70

  70

  80

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the assessment working group to provide the further evidence referred to in paragraph 2.44 of the National Service Framework for Older People. [4085]

  Jacqui Smith
  Guidance on the introduction of a single assessment process across health and social care promised in the National Service Framework for Older People will be published shortly.

  Respite Health Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will define(a)respite health care and (b)specialist health care support, set out in paragraph 16 of HSC 2001/015: LAC (2001)18. [4090]

  Jacqui Smith
  Respite health care is typically understood to describe packages of care to provide respite for the main carer of a person where the care being provided is primarily health care, for example continence care.
  110W
  Specialist health care support is typically understood to describe the expertise of health care professionals available to patients with more specialised health care needs, such as tissue viability or continence, or the maintenance of domiciliary equipment.

  Patient Consultation
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for reforming patient consultation in the national health service; and if he will make a statement. [1841]

  Ms Blears
  Sections 7 to 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 make provision for strengthening patient and public consultation and involvement in the operation of the national health service. Local authority overview and scrutiny committees will scrutinise the NHS including decisions on local NHS reorganisations and service change. NHS bodies will have a statutory duty to make arrangements with a view to securing that the public are involved in and consulted on the planning of NHS services and decisions affecting the operation of those services. We intend to build on these foundations to make sure patients and the public are at the heart of shaping and developing NHS services in the future.

  National Cardiothoracic Transplant Service
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision will be made to meet the additional travelling expenses of transplant patients receiving extended post-operative care following the reorganisation of the National Cardiothoracic Transplant Service. [2832]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: Under the hospital travel costs scheme, transplant patients are treated in the same way as any other patients receiving treatment at specialist centres.
  Patients who are in receipt of benefits including weekly Income Support, Working Families Tax Credit, Disabled Persons Tax Credit, or Income Based Jobseeker's Allowance are entitled to receive help with their hospital travel costs. Other patients may be eligible for full or partial reimbursement on the basis of a low income and patients who would not normally fall into the low income category might become entitled to receive help if they have to travel long distances frequently.

  Antidepressants
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the World Health Organisation figures relating to SSRI antidepressants and benzodiazepines; and if he will issue further guidance to GPs on the prescribing of these drugs. [2955]

  Ms Blears
  The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) has on-line access to the World Health Organisation (WHO) data on adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and routinely evaluates these data. MCA contributes all United Kingdom suspected ADR reports to the WHO database. Prescribing information on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and benzodiazepines in the UK is consistent with the known safety profiles of these medicines.

  111W
  Guidance on how to prescribe SSRIs and benzodiazepines, including information on dose and duration of treatment and possible adverse effects, is available in the authorised summary of product characteristics for these medicines. Guidance is also provided to general practitioners in the British National Formulary.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his assessment is of the therapeutic value of antidepressants compared with placebos. [2377]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]:There is a large scientific literature that indicates that antidepressant medication is superior in efficacy to placebo. This is particularly the case where depression is more severe. Placebos have been noted to be of some benefit and there is a range of so-called non-specific factors (care, interest and attention from the clinician) which are relevant.

  An example is the National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Research Program in the United States reported in the mid 1990s. They compared two forms of psychotherapy, antidepressant medication (imipramine) and placebo. The latter two treatments also involved "clinical management" which included a weekly meeting with the clinician to discuss symptoms, side effects and progress. For mild depression no significant differences were found between the treatment groups. However for the more severely affected patients the antidepressant treatment was the most effective.

  Early studies with tricyclic antidepressant drugs showed that 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of patients with depression will respond to antidepressant drug treatment as compared with 15 per cent. to 30 per cent. of those treated with placebo. The response to antidepressant medication will take at least two weeks but in some cases up to four weeks or more. The newer antidepressant drugs have been shown to have similar, but not greater, efficacy to the older style medications. The advantage of the newer drugs lies in lower toxicity and different side effects.

  RSI and Fibromyalgia
  Dr. Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he has issued to general practitioners and hospitals regarding RSI and fibromyalgia; and what recent clinical studies of these have been commissioned by the Department. [2960]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has not issued guidelines in respect of repetitive strain injury and fibromyalgia. However we are constantly reviewing the subjects in the light of research which is being commissioned. One such research project is entitled "A Randomised Control Trial of exercise prescription in fibromyalgia" which is due to be completed in September 2001.

  The Department also provides support funding for research commissioned by the research councils and charities that takes place in the national health service. We are currently supporting 13 such ongoing projects on fibromyalgia and one on RSI. Full details can be found on the national research register.
  112W

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what means NICE defines and identifies experts to advise their appraisal committees. [3289]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 July 2001]: Details of the appraisal process are a matter for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. NICE has recently published details of the process, including a full description of the selection of experts. Experts are now nominated by stakeholder bodies, and the selection is made by the chairman of the appraisal committee using published criteria.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the membership of the Appraisal Committee following recent appeals against NICE. [4166]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: No. Appeals are a part of the Institute's process for developing robust and reliable guidance.

  Road Accident Casualties
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money NHS hospitals have claimed from motor insurance providers to recover the cost of treating road accident casualties over the last three years. [4072]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: Prior to 5 April 1999, National Health Service trusts had responsibility for collecting charges for hospital treatment following road traffic accidents under the provisions of sections 157 and 158 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The system changed with the introduction of the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999, which came into effect on 5 April 1999 and there is now a new centralised recovery system, which is undertaken by the Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU). The table gives income collected for the last three years during which the system for recovery changed.

  NHS trusts (England) income from activities: Road Traffic Act

  —million

  1998–991

  19.6

  1999–20002

  26.4

  2000–0l3

  67

  1Income collected under the old scheme taken from NHS Trusts (England) Summarisation Schedules.

  2Transitional year, this is income collected by the CRU under the new scheme as other income received by trusts as a spill over from the old arrangements cannot be identified separately in Trust Accounts.

  3Income collected by the CRU under the new scheme.

  Fraud (NHS)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he will take to tackle the rise in fraud in the NHS. [4612]

  Mr. Hutton
  Losses to fraud in the National Health Service have fallen since the creation of the NHS Counter Fraud Service (CFS) in 1998 and will continue to fall. The NHS CFS have achieved a reduction of £48 million in losses to patient fraud within pharmaceutical services and have recovered over £5 million within cases of fraud by pharmaceutical contractors.

  The NHS CFS objectives are to minimise all fraud and corruption in the NHS and to ensure that money is not lost to fraud but is spent on providing better patient care and services. We will continue to work closely with all the associations representing those that deliver or use NHS services. This inclusive approach means we will be able to continue to take positive action that is in the best interests of the NHS.

  Children Act
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government will report on the operation of the Children Act 1989. [4628]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Lord Chancellor have today published a report on the Children Act 1989, pursuant to their duties under section 83 of the Act. Copies are available in the Library and Vote Office; and are being sent to all local authorities in England and to a wide range of organisations. A copy of this document can also be found at the following website address: www.doh.gov.uk/scg/ childrenactreport2000.htm.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to fulfil the pledge made in the NHS Plan to introduce free nursing in nursing homes. [5031]

  Organ awaited

  Total

  Total where ethnic origin is recorded

  Asian/Asian-British

  Asian/Asian-British as a percentage of total where origin recorded

  Renal (kidney, pancreas kidney/pancreas)

  6,220

  5,793

  827

  13.9

  Cardiothoracic (heart, lungs, heart/lungs)

  464

  430

  18

  4.2

  Liver

  159

  157

  14

  8.9

  Total

  6,843

  6,557

  859

  13.1

  Source:

  This information was provided by United Kingdom Transplant

  Acute Services
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of staffing levels in acute NHS hospitals in respect of the ability of the service to provide comprehensive diagnosis and treatment within the agreed national clinical standards. [4342]

  Mr. Hutton
  The work force commitments to recruit additional nurses, doctors and therapists in the NHS Plan take account of the need to increase the number of staff
  114W
  Jacqui Smith
  We have today issued draft guidance and directions on implementing free nursing care in England and copies have been placed in the Library. The Department will introduce this from 1 October for those who pay for their care themselves. This will bring financial benefits to approximately 35,000 people who currently pay for their care from their own resources and could save up to just over £5,000 in a full year for some people.

  It will also end the anomaly of people having to pay for care that is provided free of charge by the National Health Service in other settings.

  Those people whose care is currently provided by councils and who receive free nursing care anyway will receive it free via the NHS from April 2002.

  Organ Donors
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people in the United Kingdom of Asian heritage have registered as organ donors; what percentage of the total this represents; and if he will make a statement; [3840]

  (2) how many patients of Asian heritage are waiting for organ transplants; and what percentage of the total number of patients this represents. [3839]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service organ donor register does not provide any information on ethnicity.

  The Department launched the South Asian community campaign in 1999 to recruit more donors from the community. The campaign involves a variety of community lead initiatives, using advertising in the broadcast media, press as well as public relations activities. This campaign has generated a great deal of interest—both in transplantation and in preventing the underlying causes of renal failure. The campaign is ongoing.

  Patients on the national organ transplant waiting lists at centres in the United Kingdom is shown in the table.

  necessary to deliver diagnosis and treatment within the agreed clinical standards set out in the National Service Frameworks.

  Nurses
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the support available to those adults on low incomes and with child care needs who wish to enrol as(a) atrainee nurse and (b)for a nursing qualification. [4344]
  115W
  Mr. Hutton
  National Health Service funded students are provided with a favourable level of non-repayable bursary and have their contribution to tuition fees, currently £1,050, paid in full on their behalf.

  The diploma level route into nursing provides a generous level of bursary which is non-means-tested. No contribution is therefore required from the family income.

  The means-tested bursary, available to degree level students, targets low income families as it provides a higher level of support for those in the greatest need. In addition, degree level students are also eligible for assistance through Student Loans (available from the Student Loan Company), Hardship Loans and NHS Hardship Grants.

  Although the NHS bursary does not specifically provide help with childcare costs, extra allowances are available for single parents and for those who have dependants (including children).

  A number of NHS hospitals have started schemes where they employ individuals as healthcare assistants/nursing auxiliaries, train them to entry level standard for nurse training and allow them to retain their salary while they undertake the diploma nurse training programme.

  Student families on low income are also eligible to claim Working Families Tax Credit.

  Assistance with childcare costs is also provided for some students through charitable organisations.

  Ministers aim to provide the widest possible access to nurse training, and continue to take a close interest in ensuring that student support arrangements promote this objective.

  Bursaries (Nurses)
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated saving is from the proposal to withdraw bursaries from nursing students from non-European countries. [4334]

  Mr. Hutton
  No cost saving is anticipated.

  The change to the student support arrangements was not introduced as a cost-saving measure but to bring conditions for access to the National Health Service bursary for applicants to diploma nursing and midwifery courses into line with those for degree nurses, and students in higher education as a whole.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on the recruitment of nurses in the United Kingdom of the proposal to withdraw bursaries from student nurses from non-European countries. [4332]

  Mr. Hutton
  We do not expect any impact on student nurse recruitment.

  The change to the National Health Service bursary regulations requiring applicants to diploma level pre-registration courses in England to meet a prior residence requirement, will be phased in over a 15 month period. The staging of the changes will minimise the impact on higher education institutions. This change will bring diploma level courses into line with degree courses.

  116W
  In areas which traditionally have recruited significant numbers of students from beyond the European Union, NHS workforce confederations will work closely with Higher Education Institutions to ensure that places on nursing/midwifery courses continue to be filled.

  A 10.4 per cent. increase in the basic rate of bursary, effective from September 2001, will also assist in the recruitment and retention of nursing and midwifery students.

  This year we are on course to deliver just under 21,000 nursing and midwifery training places, in English higher education institutions, nearly 6,000 more than four years ago.

  By 2004, on current plans, we expect more than 45,000 new nurses and midwives to come out of training.

  Student nurse recruitment in other parts of the United Kingdom is a matter for the devolved assemblies.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of bursaries to nursing students from non-European countries. [4335]

  Mr. Hutton
  With effect from 1 November 2001 applicants to diploma level pre-registration courses in nursing and midwifery in England who wish to access the National Health Service bursary will be expected to meet a prior residence requirement. This brings the NHS bursary regulations for these courses into line with those for degree level nursing and midwifery courses, and for higher education as a whole.

  The changes are staged over a 15 month period in order to minimise the impact. In areas which traditionally have recruited significant numbers of students from beyond the European Union, NHS workforce confederations will work closely with higher education institutes to ensure that places on nursing/midwifery courses continue to be filled.

  Officials consulted fully with the representative bodies for higher education before Ministers decided to change the residence requirement.

  Ministers will continue to take a close interest in the effective operation of these new arrangements.

  Strategic Health Authorities
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce the borders of the new strategic health authorities. [4132]

  Mr. Hutton
  The boundaries of the new strategic health authorities, of which we expect there to be around 30, will be announced after a formal public consultation that will take place in the autumn.

  Hospital Readmissions
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were readmitted to hospital within two months of being discharged for each of the past 10 years. [4061]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information for 1998–99 on emergency re-admissions to hospital within 28 days of discharge was published in graphical form in July 2000 in "Quality and
  117W
  performance in the National Health Service: NHS Performance Indicators", copies of which are available in the Library. Standardised rates for England for 1998–99 and for the years 1997–98 and 1996–97 are available from the Department's website: http:/www.doh.gov.uk/nhsperformanceindicators/hIpi2000/h1137.html.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations have been cancelled in east Sussex, in each quarter of 2000 and 2001, as a result of hospital beds being occupied by(a)delayed discharge patients who were awaiting social services funding or assessment and (b)delayed discharge patients who had fully funded social services packages arranged. [4022]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer sent 16 July 2001]: Information is not collected centrally in the format requested.

  Information on the number of operations cancelled at the last minute for non-medical reasons, and breaches to the standard to re-admit patients within one month following such cancellations, are collected on a quarterly basis at health authority level and placed in the Library. The latest figures cover the five quarters up to quarter 4 (January to March 2001) of the 2000–01 financial year.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute hospital beds were unavailable in east Sussex to incoming patients as a result of their occupation by(a)delayed discharge patients who were awaiting social services funding and (b)delayed discharge patients who had fully funded social services packages arranged, in each quarter of 2000 and 2001. [4023]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]:Bed statistics are not collected centrally in the format requested. Figures on the average daily number of beds

  The number of patients waiting more than 18 months, up to 15 months, and up to 12 months for in-patient treatment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust on 31 March 1997 and 31 May 2002

  End of March 1997

  End of May 2001

  Number waiting over 18 months for in-patient treatment

  0

  0

  Number waiting less than 18 months for in-patient treatment

  8,391

  8,868

  Number waiting less than 15 months for in-patient treatment

  8,381

  8,676

  Number waiting less than 12 months for in-patient treatment

  8,287

  8,159

  Source:

  KHO7 quarterly return/monthly returns

  Nursing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what deadline strategic health authorities will have to align continuing NHS health care criteria, described in HSC 2001/015: LAC (2001)18. [4093]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is intended that strategic health authorities will be established from April 2002. Any alignment of continuing care criteria that may be required should be an early priority of the new SHAs. This should build on the request in Health Service Circular 2001/015: Local Authority Circular (2001)18 that existing health authorities ensure that continuing health care policies comply with the new guidance. Any action arising from this review should be commenced from October 2001.
  118W
  for each national health service trust are published annually in "Bed Availability and Occupancy, England", copies of which are in the Library.

  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish an annual report under section 22 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. [4626]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is publishing today the annual report for 1999–2000, and copies are being placed in the Library. The report covers research and development work carried out by (or on behalf of) Government Departments in relation to equipment that might increase the range of activities and independence or well-being of disabled people, and in particular such equipment that might improve their indoor and outdoor mobility.

  The current report places such research in the context of the NHS Plan, and outlines the role of assistive technology in making independent living easier for older people and people with disabilities. The report describes the wide range of Government-funded projects supporting the development, introduction and evaluation of assistive technology. Relevant projects funded by the European Union are also listed.

  Hospital Waiting Times (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Mid Essex Hospital Services Trust area were waiting for in-patient treatment for(a)more than 18 months, (b) up to 18 months, (c)up to 15 months and (d)up to 12 months on (i) 31 March 1997 and (ii) 31 May 2001. [3756]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Carers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 9 July 2001,Official Report,column 343W, concerning carers, for what reasons his Department is revising the Hospital Discharge Workbook; what status the workbook has; and how compliance with its guidance is monitored. [4181]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Hospital Discharge Workbook issued in 1994, needs to be updated to take into account the new policy changes introduced by the NHS Plan, including the use of intermediate care services.

  The workbook is a framework for good practice. Health authorities, in consultation with local authorities, general practitioners and other agencies, should ensure that

  119W
  hospitals and community health services keep discharge procedures under review and should regularly audit performance.

  Stroke Patients
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to ensure that all those who suffer a stroke are admitted to a specialist stroke unit; [3922]

  (2) what measures he plans to increase the number of specialist stroke units in hospitals; [3921]

  (3) if he will take steps to improve the quality of stroke aftercare. [3923]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department published the National Service Framework for Older People (NSF) on 27 March 2001. Its 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.

  Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he(a) has taken and (b) plans to take to give assistance to carers of people with Alzheimer's and dementia. [3925]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 2 July 2001,Official Report, columns 30–31W.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he(a) has taken and (b) plans to take to improve the quality of life of those with Alzheimer's disease and dementia. [3924]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Service Framework for Older People, launched in March 2001, will, for the first time, set national standards and define service models for older people's health and social care, driving up the quality and reducing the variations of that care.

  Doctor Numbers
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors and (b) consultants she estimates are employed full-time in private sector acute hospitals. [4419]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information about the number of doctors and consultants employed in the private sector is not collected centrally.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Palestinian Authority
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking to encourage economic development in the Palestinian Authority areas. [1274]

  Clare Short
  The UK is working within the middle east peace process to support the building of the Palestinian nation's ability to generate economic and social development that benefits the poor. DFID's support includes technical assistance to increase Palestinian capacity to negotiate with the Israelis on economic and other issues to build institutions and to improve health, education and water and sanitation services. DFID has recently approved a contribution of £1.5 million to the World bank's emergency employment generation programme to the West bank and Gaza Strip, aimed at protecting vulnerable groups from falling further into poverty.

  However, economic and social benefits are being eroded by the continuing conflict. A report by the Office of the United Nations Special Co-ordinator for the period 28 September to 26 November 2000, estimated that confrontations, mobility restrictions, and border closures are costing the Palestinian economy at least US$8 million per day.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Burundi
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy on establishing a UN tribunal on Burundi; and if he will make a statement. [1403]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are concerned over growing instability in Burundi and continue to press all parties to make progress on implementing the Arusha peace process. The international community is not currently considering the establishment of an international criminal tribunal for Burundi. Issues of accountability arising from the conflict are part of the ongoing Burundi peace process.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts are being made to investigate war crimes and human rights abuses in Burundi; and if he will make a statement. [1404]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our emphasis now is on supporting the Arusha peace agreement, which offers the best chance for bringing peace and stability to Burundi. We support fully last week's UN Presidential Statement (SPRST2001/17), which calls for the suspension of hostilities, and reaffirms the international community's concern over continuing human rights abuses and violations of humanitarian law.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support he gives to NGOs and human rights groups investigating war crimes and human rights abuses in Rwanda and Burundi; and if he will make a statement. [1405]
  121W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK is playing its role in supporting NGO groups working in Rwanda and Burundi. DFID are providing approximately £500,000 over three years to improve the quality of the judicial system. They also plan to establish a civil society fund to support local NGOs involved in human rights reconciliation activities. Our embassy in Kigali (Rwanda) uses a significant portion of its small grant scheme (worth £200,000) to support human rights NGOs in Rwanda and Burundi.

  In 2001 the UK will provide the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda with over £3 million. The tribunal does significant work with victims and witnesses.

  Ian Stillman
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the case of Ian Stillman; and what action he has taken on his behalf. [2674]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised our concerns about Mr. Stillman's welfare at a meeting on 26 June with the Indian High Commissioner and Prime Minister Vajpayee's Principal Secretary. The Indian High Commissioner asked for a written note highlighting our concerns and the Foreign Secretary duly wrote to the High Commissioner on 28 June.

  We will continue to speak to the Indian authorities to ensure that his appeal is heard swiftly.

  Israel
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken by the UK Government to encourage the Israeli Government to lift the blockades in the Israeli occupied areas of the West Bank and Gaza. [3232]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have serious concerns with the Israeli policy of closures on political, legal and humanitarian grounds. It is hard to justify the closures, even on the narrow security grounds which Israel presents. The closures radicalise the Palestinian population and fuel violence in the occupied territories. They cannot, therefore, achieve their stated purpose. We continue to urge Israel to lift the closures, bilaterally, in ministerial and official level meetings, and collectively with our EU partners in statements and in the political dialogue established by the EU-Israel Association Agreement.

  Lifting the closures also forms part of the Mitchell Committee recommendations. It is vital that the parties move ahead with full and early implementation of those recommendations.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial aid his Department has provided to the Government of Macedonia since 1 January. [2824]

  Mr. MacShane
  So far this year Foreign Office funding for projects in Macedonia amounts to £687,000. This money is to fund projects in the fields of stability, conflict prevention and human rights, each with a particular emphasis on inter-ethnic relations. A large 122W
  proportion of this money was given for the construction of the South-East Europe University in Tetovo, a project sponsored by the OSCE to provide higher education in the Albanian language for the first time in Macedonia.

  HMG are also backing local projects: £56,160 for a disability rights project and £30,000 for a project against institutional violence.

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office funding is in addition to the Department for International Development's pledge of £5 million to provide for technical assistance programmes, over a three-year period, and the European Union's euro 90 million stability assistance programme.

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last travelled on the London underground in the course of his official duties. [3675]

  Mr. Straw
  I have not travelled on London underground in the course of my official duties since my appointment as Foreign Secretary on 8 June.

  Shageldy Atakov
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further contact he has had with the Turkmen Foreign Minister concerning the continuing incarceration of Shageldy Atakov; and what representations he has made to the Turkmen authorities concerning the persecution of Christians in Turkmenistan. [3837]

  Peter Hain
  Since the then Minister for Europe's reply to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on 11 May 2001,Official Report, column 452W, the US embassy, with the agreement of the Turkmen authorities, offered Mr. Atakov asylum in the US. Mr. Atakov rejected this offer. The UK, together with EU partners, continues regularly to raise the case of Mr. Atakov with the Turkmen authorities. At a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna on 21 June, the EU Presidency pressed the Turkmen OSCE representative for Mr. Atakov's release. We also seek every opportunity to raise with the Turkmen Foreign Ministry the wider issue of persecution of Christians in Turkmenistan. Our ambassador in Ashgabat will raise the issue when he makes his introductory call on the new Turkmen Foreign Minister, Rashid Meredov.

  Hezbullah
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the kidnapping of Elchanan Tannenbaum by Hezbullah. [3806]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  This Government condemn hostage taking under any circumstances. On 3 May the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and the then Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), met the families of the reservist Colonel Tannenbaum kidnapped by Hezbullah on 4 October and the three soldiers kidnapped on 7 October. The Government are doing what they can to help and have raised these cases, and continues to do so, with the relevant countries in the region pressing particularly for
  123W
  access to the hostages for the ICRC. We strongly support all efforts to secure the release of all hostages, particularly efforts led by the United Nations Secretary-General.

  Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) on what date a Green Minister was first appointed in his Department; when subsequent appointments were made; and if he will make a statement; [3894]

  (2) what the terms of reference are for the Green Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement. [3978]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 13 July 2001,Official Report, column 689W.

  EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings he has had to discuss the impact on the English legal system of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. [2615]

  Peter Hain
  I have not met the Lord Chancellor to discuss this issue. The Charter of Rights is a political declaration. It is not legally binding. It is addressed to the EU Institutions, and to member states, only to the extent that they are implementing EU law.

  War Crimes Tribunal
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with the authorities of Republika Srbska regarding bringing Radovan Karadzic and General Mladic to the international War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague; and if he will make a statement. [4508]

  Mr. MacShane
  Primary responsibility for detaining indictees rests with the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We take every opportunity to raise this issue with the appropriate authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including in Republika Srbska. They are in no doubt of the importance we attach to co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal. I discussed this issue myself with political leaders when I was in Sarajevo on 12–13 July. I also told Bosnian Serb media that Karadzic and Mladic should be handed over to The Hague. We remain committed to ensuring that all of those indicted for war crimes in former Yugoslavia, including Karadzic and Mladic, are brought to justice.

  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the failure by NATO forces to arrest Radovan Karadzic and General Mladic. [4505]

  Mr. MacShane
  Primary responsibility for detaining indictees rests with the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. NATO SFOR troops are mandated to detain any indicted individual they encounter during their operations. To date NATO has detained 25 of those indicted, demonstrating its commitment to support The Hague tribunal's efforts to ensure that all of those indicted for war crimes in former Yugoslavia, including Karadzic 124W
  and Mladic, are brought to justice. Of the 25 detentions so far, over half have been carried out or supported by UK forces.

WALES

  Flooding (North Wales)
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly about flooding in north Wales. [4130]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues, including the flooding in north Wales.

  The Assembly responded urgently to the autumn 2000 floods by offering local authorities additional funding in support of both current and capital costs.

  The Assembly has also commissioned a review of flood defence arrangements in Wales, to determine what steps are needed to improve existing arrangements.

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last travelled on the London underground in the course of his official duties. [3681]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In an official capacity I last used the underground when I travelled to the Millennium Dome. It was the most efficient and cost-effective mode of travel. However, as Secretary of State for Wales I have few official engagements in London that require the use of the underground.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the information technology contracts in excess of £500,000 let by his Department or its predecessor since April 1991, giving in each case the original estimated cost and original estimated completion date, the actual cost and actual completion date and the names of the contractors involved and consultants retained by his Department. [3510]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since it was established on 1 July 1999, the information technology requirements of the Wales Office have been met by the National Assembly for Wales under the terms of a service level agreement.

  There is no central record of contracts entered into by the former Welsh Office prior to that date. However, one contract in excess of £500,000 has been identified—OSIRIS, a contract under the Private Finance Initiative for provision of networked office automation facilities, for which the requested details are as follows:

  original estimated cost—£20 million (excluding VAT);

  original estimated completion date—this is a service contract of seven years duration which ends in January 2004;

  actual cost—the contract has yet to reach its full term. It is estimated that expenditure by January 2004 will be £55 million (excluding VAT);

  actual completion date—January 2004 (the contract has transferred to the National Assembly for Wales); and

  supplier—Siemens Business Services.

  125W
  The cost of the contract is dependent on the number of users of the system. User numbers have risen both as a result of exploiting the opportunities offered by IT for changes to working practices and also by a variety of steps which have been taken to strengthen the democratic process in Wales.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  James Ashley
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost of the internal police investigations which were established following the shooting of James Ashley. [3136]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 July, 2001]I am informed by the Sussex Police Authority that they have reimbursed costs of £6,443 for the investigation led by the former Chief Constable of Hampshire into the conduct of senior Sussex officers; and that Sussex Police have reimbursed Kent Police £313,000 for the costs of the investigations of other aspects of the case. Those costs exclude the costs of Sussex officers involved, and the costs of legal advice for the Police Authority and the force.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations have been initiated to discover the source of the leak of documents relating to the internal police investigations into the shooting of James Ashley; and if he will make a statement. [3137]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]These documents are the property of the Sussex Police Authority and Chief Constable, and it is for them to consider what investigations should take place. The Police Authority wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on 25 May about this. He replied on 15 June that investigations into possible criminal offences are a matter for the police.

  Nurses
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for granting leave to remain for nurses recruited from abroad to work in the NHS after their initial contract has expired. [3383]

  Angela Eagle
  The Immigration Rules enable nurses recruited from abroad to apply for leave to remain for a period of up to five years once they have obtained full registration with the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and where a work permit has been issued for their employment. The work permit arrangements allow health sector employers to apply for work permits to recruit and retain nurses who are not nationals of a European Economic Area (EEA) state. These applications are granted provided the criteria set by Work Permits (UK) are met. In common with other 126W
  work permit holders, indefinite leave to remain may be applied for and granted after four years and provided the other conditions specified in the Rules are met.

  Extradition Requests
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on what date he last received an extradition request for Nadhmi Auchi; and for what reasons this request was refused; [4316]

  (2) on how many occasions, and on what dates, since 1 May 1997, the French authorities have contacted (a) his Department and (b) the Metropolitan Police concerning Nadhmi Auchi, with particular reference to Elf Aquitaine. [4315]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  For good and obvious reasons, it is our policy and practice not to comment, ahead of arrest, on whether an extradition request for a particular individual has been made or is under consideration. Neither in these matters do we comment on whether and what contacts have taken place with the authorities of other jurisdictions.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many extradition requests have been received from the French authorities since 1 May 1997; how many have been acceded to; how many have been refused; and how many are outstanding. [4317]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Reliable statistics are available only from 1 January 1998. Since that date, the United Kingdom has received 22 extradition requests from the Government of France. The table provides for the same period the outcomes of French extradition requests, irrespective of when those were first received.

  French extradition requests to UK since 1 January 1998

  Number

  Fugitives surrendered to France

  7

  Fugitives discharged by courts

  4

  Withdrawn by French authorities

  9

  Refused by Secretary of Stare

  0

  Requests outstanding

  12

  Forced Marriages
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken since the publication of the report on forced marriages. [3825]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government will make a full announcement in September of action taken, including reporting progress on the Joint Action Plan published by the Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office last August.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who entered the United Kingdom in(a)(b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [3879]
  127W
  Angela Eagle
  The numbers of unaccompanied children who sought asylum in the United Kingdom are as follows:

  Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children

  1998

  3,037

  1999

  3,349

  2000

  2,733

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the countries from which the majority of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children come to the United Kingdom. [3878]

  Angela Eagle
  In 2000, the majority of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children came from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (666), Afghanistan (300), Somalia (177), Sri Lanka (170) and Turkey (153).

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 100W, on asylum seekers, what plans he has to monitor the reasons for non-compliance of asylum applications. [4416]

  Angela Eagle
  No specific arrangements are currently in place systematically to follow up asylum seekers who fail to comply with procedures without providing a reasonable explanation to ascertain reasons underlying their failure to comply. We are, however, always open to looking at our procedures to ensure that any genuine difficulties applicants have in complying with them are minimised.

  The main reasons for non-compliance refusals are failure, without reasonable explanation, to attend on time an interview connected with the asylum claim or to complete and return a statement of evidence form (SEF) within 10 working days. The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) does take account of events outside the asylum seeker's control, for example the serious disruption to rail travel experienced as a result of flooding earlier this year.

  We have made some changes in recent months; for example, a PO box number was introduced to act as a single point for the return of all SEFs to IND, and the explanatory note accompanying the SEF has been translated into 33 of the main languages used by asylum seekers. We are monitoring the effect of these changes closely.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people sought asylum in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years; and what proportion were refused. [3076]

  Angela Eagle
  Information on asylum applications and initial decisions in Northern Ireland is unavailable. Asylum applications data are not available at regional level except by port of application. The requested information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the information technology contracts in excess of £500,000 let by his 128W
  Department or its predecessor since April 1991, giving in each case the original estimated cost and original estimated completion date, the actual cost and actual completion date and the names of the contractors involved and consultants retained by his Department. [3500]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I shall write to my right hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Police Recruitment (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many extra police officers have been recruited in(a) Chorley and (b) Lancashire since May 1997. [2021]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]I am informed by the chief constable that between 1997–98 and 2000–01 453 officers were recruited for the force as a whole, including 33 for the Southern Division of which 11 were deployed to Chorley.

  Lancashire Constabulary—number of recruits 1997–98 to 2000–01

  Year

  Chorley

  Lancashire Constabulary

  1997–98

  2

  135

  1998–99

  4

  55

  1999–2000

  1

  99

  2000–011

  4

  164

  1 Of the 164 officers recruited in 2000–01, 83 were Crime Fighting Fund recruits.

  Wrongful Convictions
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the working party report on support for prisoners who have been wrongly convicted; to whom he intends to make the report available; and who will respond to the report's findings. [3623]

  Beverley Hughes
  The working party will report to me later this summer. I shall look at the options that it recommends and then decide how to proceed.

  Homosexuality
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation to decriminalise sexual activity between consenting men. [3461]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Sexual activity between two consenting adult males in private is not unlawful.

  However, under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, as amended, such activity is not treated as taking place "in private" if it takes place when more than two persons take part or are present; or if it takes place in a lavatory to which the public have or are permitted to have access.

  In "Setting the Boundaries: Reforming the law on sex offences", published in July last year, the Sex Offences Review recommended to the Government that the offences dealing with such activity should be repealed. We are considering the responses to this recommendation along with the others in "Setting the Boundaries".

  Drug-related Murders
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of drug-related murders in(a) London, (b) England and (c) the UK in each of the last 10 years; and if he will provide the figures for last year in London, broken down by Metropolitan police district. [2711]

  Mr. Denham
  The available information is for years 1995 to 1997 and financial years 1997–98 to 1999–2000 and covers England and Wales only. This information is shown in the table.

  Drug-related murders

  Metropolitan police1

  England

  England and Wales

  1995

  2

  13

  13

  1996

  3

  14

  15

  1997

  4

  13

  13

  1997–98

  3

  12

  12

  1998–99

  1

  8

  8

  1999–2000

  0

  1

  1

  1 Excludes City of London where no drug-related murders were recorded.

  The information is held on the Home Office's Homicide Index database. This records drug involvement when (i) either the suspect is reported to be under the influence of drugs at the time of the offence or (ii) the homicide is motivated by the need to obtain drugs, or money to buy drugs or is drug related in some other way, such as rivalry between dealers etc. Data have only been collected since 1995 for each police force area in England and Wales, and include information recorded as at 11 September 2000 when recording was closed for publication purposes. The data do not include homicide where there is no suspect and relate only to those homicides where a suspect is convicted of murder. Cases in the latest year may not have been dealt with by the courts and would not be included.

  These data may contain some error due to the largely subjective interpretation of 'drugs related' and the amount of information available to the police on the motive for a particular homicide, varying from case to case. A current review of the Homicide Index is aiming to increase the accuracy of data on homicide.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a decision is expected on changes to section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [2983]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government have a clear commitment to freedom of information and are equally committed to the maintenance of the necessary protection for individual scientists and their research institutions from the actions of animal rights extremists. I am considering very carefully how these commitments can best be met. A decision on whether to repeal or amend Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 will not be made until later this year.

  Sri Lankan Tamils
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Sri Lankan Tamils seeking asylum in the UK have been deported from the UK in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [3216]

  Angela Eagle
  Information is only available on the total number of Sri Lankan nationals who have claimed asylum in the United Kingdom and subsequently been removed. These data are provided in the table. They will include any Sri Lankan Tamils who have been removed, but we are unable to identify this group separately. It will also include Sri Lankans who have been removed to a third country having claimed asylum here. Again, it is not possible to identify this group separately.

  Year

  Removals1,2

  1996

  80

  1997

  95

  1998

  135

  1999

  375

  2000

  390

  1Asylum seekers removed under port and enforcement procedures.

  2Includes 'voluntary' departures.

  3Estimated due to data quality issues on the main Immigration Service enforcement database.

  Note:

  Data rounded to the nearest five.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Sir Lankan Tamil asylum seekers are held in(a) prison and (b) detention centres. [3215]

  Angela Eagle
  Our records show that there were 11 Sri Lankan nationals detained in Immigration Service detention centres and 65 in Prison Service establishments at 31 May 2001, the latest date for which information is available. We are unable to say whether any of these persons are Tamils as information of this kind is not held centrally. It is currently not possible to say how many of those persons had claimed asylum.

  British Nationality Applications
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of time is for a citizen of Thailand married to a British citizen to apply successfully for British nationality. [3194]

  Angela Eagle
  It is not possible to provide the specific information requested.

  The average waiting times for processing British nationality applications, for persons married to British citizens, is currently 11.5 months.

  In addition there is also a requirement for the applicant to have been resident in the United Kingdom for three years prior to the date of application and not be subject to any time limit under the immigration laws.

  Asylum Appeals
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken from receipt of an asylum appeal is by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to(a) the sending of the appeal to

  131W
  the Immigration Appellate Authority, (b) determination of the appeal by an adjudicator and (c) final determination of the appeal by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. [3304]

  Angela Eagle
  For the 12 months ending 31 March, data from the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) for those cases where data are available indicate that the average time taken from the receipt of an asylum appeal by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to:

  (a) the receipt of an appeal by the IAA is seven weeks;

  (b) the determination by an adjudicator is 21 weeks;

  (c) the final determination by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is 43 weeks.

  Corruption Legislation
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if new legislation concerning corruption and money laundering will make bribery of a foreign official a crime; and if bribery of a foreign person who is not a foreign Government official will remain legal. [4400]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Our corruption legislation applies to both the public and the private sector and makes it an offence for a person in this country to bribe someone who is an agent for another person. The term "agent" is defined to include someone who is employed by, or acts for, another irrespective of their nationality. Thus it is unlawful in this country to bribe a foreign agent. The definition of the term "agent" also includes a person serving under the Crown or any local or public authority. The planned legislation on corruption will make it clear that the offence extends to a person acting on behalf of a foreign Government.

  It is also proposed to take jurisdiction over United Kingdom nationals who commit corrupt acts abroad.

  Animal Testing
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animals were involved in quality control testing for vaccines produced in the UK in each of the last three years. [2926]

  Angela Eagle
  The number of animals involved in pharmaceutical quality control in the United Kingdom for each of the last three years for which figures are available, is given in Table 10A in each of the publications 'Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain' and 'Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Northern Ireland', copies of which are in the Library. It is not possible to identify vaccines separately from other pharmaceutical products. No such testing was performed in Northern Ireland in 1997 or 1999.

  Feltham Young Offenders Prison
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken in each of the last five years to improve(a) education, (b) training, (c) employment and (d) recreation opportunities for inmates at Feltham Young Offenders Prison. [3130]

  Beverley Hughes
  As this information will take more time to collect than that allowed for an answer to a parliamentary question, I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Police Officers (Retirement)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the scheme for retirement of police officers on health grounds. [3007]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on 4 July 2001,Official Report, column 202W.

  Fire Risk Categorisation
  Mr. Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish Her Majesty's Fire Services Inspectorate's comments on the fire risk categorisation survey which have been made available to members of the West Midlands Fire and Civil Defence Authority; [4500]

  (2) what the result was of the West Midlands Fire Service's recent fire risk category survey in Aldridge and Bloxwich; which buildings' risk categorisation is (a) B and (b) C; which buildings in each category have been (i) upgraded and (ii) downgraded by the survey; and what proportion these are of the total. [4499]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply

  Responsibility for providing fire services rests locally with the fire authority. The authority cannot provide a building by building analysis of fire risk categorisation because risk categories are expressed in terms of the "predominant risk" of an area. The methodology used has been validated by HM Inspector of Fire Services in order to ensure consistency across the area and with other fire authorities.

  Women Prisoners
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to restructure the prison estate to accommodate the number of women being given custodial sentences and those people being detained for reasons of immigration; and if he will make a statement. [4974]

  Beverley Hughes
  The use of the prison estate is kept under constant review by the Prison Service Management Board and I have endorsed their decision to change the function of Downview male closed prison to become a female closed prison; to remove immigration detainees from Rochester, making the whole of that establishment a young offender institution; and for Dover young offender institution to become an establishment dedicated to immigration detainees.

  Leave to Remain
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to replace the current application forms for foreign nationals wishing to apply for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. [4975]

  Angela Eagle
  The current application forms are valid for use only until 14 October 2001. Revised forms will be prescribed before then and should be available by the end of September. From the time they are issued until 14 October 2001, applications may be made on either the newly prescribed forms or the present versions. Only the new
  133W
  forms may be used for applications made on or after 15 October 2001. Copies will be placed in the Library when they are available.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Home Education
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many infant children had approval for home education in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000; and if she will make a statement. [2865]

  Mr. Timms
  We do not collect centrally the data requested.

  Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 places a duty on parents to ensure that a child of compulsory school age receives education suitable to his or her age, ability, aptitude and any special educational need the child may have. Parents can fulfil this duty either by their child attending school regularly or otherwise. Some parents elect to educate their children at home. Local education authorities have a duty to monitor the suitability of the education being received by a home educated child by virtue of section 437 (1) of the 1996 Act and can issue a School Attendance Order if they are not satisfied that a child is receiving suitable education.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the percentage of children entitled to free school meals is in(a) schools previously

  Contract

  Contract

  Estimated cost (£)

  Estimated completion date

  Actual cost (£)

  Actual completion date

  Work permits system hardware

  Data General

  600,000

  1992

  600,000

  1992

  Census of employment processing system

  Andersens

  3,900,000

  February 1994

  3,920,000

  March 1994

  Personnel system

  Data General UK

  750,00

  April 1997

  760,000

  April 1997

  Replacement accounting system

  WS Atkins Planning and Management Consultants

  500,000

  April 1999

  500,000

  April 1999

  Supply and Installation of Network Cabling

  Century Electrical Contractors

  525,000

  October 1999

  525,000

  October 1999

  Provision of initial IT infrastructure for the Learning and Skills Council

  ICL

  890,000

  February 2001

  985,000

  February 2001

  The Government Catalogue, framework contract for ICT goods and related services

  EDS

  15,000,000

  October 2001

  —

  —

  On-line training system supply and maintenance

  NETG

  748,000

  March 2002

  —

  —

  Mainframe leasing, system supply & contract management services

  ICL

  24,000,000

  March 2002

  —

  —

  Software applications development and maintenance service

  FI Group

  33,000,000

  March 2002

  —

  —

  Framework contract for supply of software to DfEE

  Trustmarque Solutions

  2,500,000

  July 2002

  —

  —

  Framework contract for supply of personal computers etc.

  Dell Computer Corporation

  15,000,000

  November 2002

  —

  —

  Framework contract for Electronic publishing services

  CTPi

  778,000

  February 2003

  —

  —

  134W
  designated as specialist schools, (b) schools included in the latest annual list of specialist schools and (c) all other maintained secondary schools. [3163]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 11 July 2001]The available information is shown in the table.

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals January 2000

  Percentage

  Schools designated as specialist as at 30 September 2000

  14.6

  Schools newly designated as specialist as at 30 September 2001

  17.6

  Maintained secondary schools not designated as specialist schools

  16.9

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will extend free school meals to those on Working Families Tax Credit; and if she will make a statement. [3737]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department has no such plans.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the information technology contracts in excess of £500,000 let by her Department or its predecessor since April 1991, giving in each case the original estimated cost and original estimated completion date, the actual cost and actual completion date and the names of the contractors involved and consultants retained by her Department. [3497]

  John Healey
  The information that can be provided without disproportionate cost is contained in the table:

  Universities (Public-Private Partnerships)
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if she will list those universities that have agreed public-private partnerships to provide students with residential accommodation; [3872]

  (2) if those universities which have agreed public-private partnerships to provide students with residential accommodation have retained the ability to control rents for that accommodation. [3873]

  Margaret Hodge
  Universities are independent, self-governing bodies which make their own decisions about entering into public-private partnerships. They also make their own decisions on the conditions under which such partnerships exist. The Government do not hold records of these arrangements.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the forecast rise in teachers' pay will be for 2003–04 in(a) real and (b) cash terms. [3927]

  Mr. Timms
  No such forecast has been made. The level of teachers' pay in 2003–04 will be subject to recommendation by the School Teachers' Review Body (STRB) and consultation before a decision is reached. It will need to take account of affordability, recruitment and retention, and other factors that will apply at the time.

  Child Care (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new childminder places have been set up in Coventry through the early years development programme and the child care partnerships. [3930]

  Mr. Timms
  Since April 1999 Coventry early years development and child care partnership has reported the creation of 948 new childminder places in the Coventry area.

  Funding (Suffolk)
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been spent per head on(a) primary and (b) secondary education in (i) the county of Suffolk, excluding Ipswich and (ii) the town of Ipswich in the last 12 months. [4118]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not collected centrally: our information relates to local education authority areas, such as Suffolk, rather than districts within them.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what additional resources her Department will provide for(a) Suffolk county council and (b) Ipswich for education in the next financial year. [4121]

  Mr. Timms
  Most funding for education in the next financial year will not be known until the autumn when the Local Government Finance Settlement will be announced. Listed are the latest funding allocations for education in Suffolk local education authority for the current financial year. The figures are provisional estimates, as final 136W
  decisions on some funding allocations have yet to be finalised. Allocations can only be given at local education authority level.

  2001–02

  £ million

  SSA

  227.3

  Grants

  27.0

  Capital

  20.8

  The following revenue grants have been included: DfES contributions to the Standards Fund; Class Size Reduction Grant, School Standards Grant, Education Budget Support Grant and Nursery Education Grant for three-year-olds.

  School Admissions
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to reform mainstream schools admissions policy in England. [4268]

  Mr. Timms
  We are considering changes to the school admissions framework and plan to consult on detailed proposals.

  School Sixth Forms
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if the guarantee that school sixth form funding will be maintained in real terms, once learning and skills councils take responsibility for them, will still apply if pupil numbers fall. [4296]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]Through our Real Terms Guarantee, we are ensuring that no sixth form can lose compared to its 2000–01 funding levels, provided numbers are maintained. For sixth forms that are reducing in size, the guarantee will be maintained but at a proportionately reduced level. The Learning and Skills Council will use a standard per capita figure for all pupil increases or decreases. The size of the initial per capita adjustment applying in 2002–03 will be published by the LSC in September.

  Further Education Lecturers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she plans to take in respect of further education colleges which do not award annual pay increases to silver book contract lecturers. [4415]

  Margaret Hodge
  Further Education colleges are self-governing institutions. The implementation of annual pay awards is a matter for employers and their staff, and is not a matter on which it is appropriate for the Government to intervene. Nevertheless, I can reiterate the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning on 9 July 2001,Official Report, column 388W, that the additional moneys allocated to FE colleges under the Teaching Pay Initiative are intended to be fairly distributed among all eligible staff.

  Standard Spending Assessment (Bedfordshire)
  Mr. Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 'what the average annual standard spending assessment is per pupil for each(a) primary school and

  137W
  (b) secondary school pupil in England; and what the comparable figures for pupils in Bedfordshire are for the most recent year for which figures are available. [4714]

  Mr. Timms
  The table shows for 2001–02 the Education SSA per primary and secondary pupil for England and Bedfordshire.

  £

  SSA

  England

  Bedfordshire

  Primary per pupil

  2,590

  2,520

  Secondary per pupil

  3,310

  3,240

  Literacy and Numeracy Tests
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of 11-year-olds achieved level 4 or above in the key stage 2 tests for(a) literacy and (b) numeracy in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001. [4802]

  Mr. Timms
  The proportion of 11-year-olds who achieved Level 4 or above in the Key Stage 2 tests in 2000 in(a) English was 75 per cent. and (b) mathematics was 72 per cent. Results for 2001 are not yet available. A Press Notice will be released in mid-September announcing national results for 2001.

DEFENCE

  Army Training and Recruiting Agency
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Key Targets for the chief executive of the Army Training and Recruiting Agency for the financial year 2001–02 are. [4976]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Chief Executive of the Army Training and Recruiting Agency has been set the following Key Targets for FY 2001–02.

  Key Targets 1
  To meet the Army's requirement from the ATRA for 575 trained mainstream officers available to take up their first appointment within a permissible variance of 2 per cent. The 2000–01 performance was an output of 550.

  Key Targets 2
  To meet the Army's requirement from the ATRA for 9,442 soldiers available to take up their first appointment within a permissible variance of 5 per cent. The 2000–01 performance was an output of 8,738.

  Key Targets 3
  To achieve a first time pass rate of 98 per cent. for all officers made available to undergo career or professional development training, while maintaining the required standard and within pre-set training times. The 2000–01 performance was a first time pass rate of 97 per cent.

  Key Targets 4
  To achieve a 96 per cent. first time pass rate for all soldiers made available to undergo career or professional development training, while maintaining the required standard and within pre-set training times. The 2000–01 performance was a first time pass rate of 95 per cent.

  Key Targets 5
  To achieve an overall 3 per cent. improvement in the efficiency of ATRA operations. The 2000–01 performance was an input efficiency achievement of 3.4 per cent.
  138W

  Low-flying Aircraft
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the pattern of military low-flying activity in the United Kingdom during the training year 2000–01. [4977]

  Dr. Moonie
  The ability to fly fast and low continues to be an essential skill in our armoury of tactics. Training for aircrew to achieve and maintain these skills is vital.

  The amount of low-flying training carried out in the UK Low Flying System during the training year April 2000 to March 2001 was the minimum necessary for aircrew to reach and maintain these skills. Hours booked for low-flying training during this period amounted to a small decrease (of 66 hours, or less than 1 per cent.) compared to the previous training year. Since detailed records of hours booked began in 1995, the total overall has reduced by over 36 per cent. (24,360 hours) with fixed wing activity showing the greatest reduction.

  The distribution of low-flying training across the UK has not changed significantly. We continue to try and spread it as widely as practicable, but for a variety of operational, geographical and climatic constraints some parts of the country will see more than others.

  I have today placed in the Library of the House a paper giving a detailed account of low-flying training in the UK Low-flying System for the period April 2000 to March 2001.

  Further copies of the paper can be obtained from the following address:

  Directorate of Air Staff

  Ministry of Defence

  Room 662

  Metropole Building

  Northumberland Avenue

  London WC2N 5BL.

  Duke of York's Royal Military School
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Key Targets for the chief executive of the Duke of York's Royal Military School for the financial year 2001–02 are. [4978]

  Dr. Moonie
  The chief executive of the Duke of York's Military school has been set the following Key Targets for FY 2001–02.

  Key Targets 1
  To achieve 93.5 per cent. of 15 year old pupils gaining five or more passes graded A* to C at GCSE.

  Key Targets 2
  To achieve 22.5 per cent. of GCSE passes at grades A* or A.

  Key Targets 3
  To achieve an average GCSE points score per 15 year old pupil of 53.4.

  Key Targets 4
  To achieve an average of GCE points score per candidate of 20.6.

  Key Targets 5
  To achieve 37.4 per cent. of GCE passes at grades A or B.

  Key Targets 6
  To achieve a pupil per capita cost of no more than £12,798.

  Key Targets 7
  To generate income of at least £550,000.
  139W
  Key Targets 8
  To achieve at least 290 applications for September 2001 intake.

  Bloody Sunday Inquiry
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with the police investigation into the destruction of rifles pertinent to the Bloody Sunday inquiry. [4979]

  Mr. Hoon
  The police investigation into the unauthorised destruction of possible Bloody Sunday rifles announced in my answer of 17 February 2000,Official Report, column 648W, was completed in April 2001. The Bloody Sunday inquiry has been fully informed of the progress of the investigation and asked, at the outset, that the scope of the investigation be widened to establish the histories and whereabouts of the 29 weapons originally examined by the Widgery inquiry in 1972.

  The police investigation revealed, for the first time, that the partial serial numbers provided by the Bloody Sunday inquiry generate 60 possible permutations for the 29 weapons originally sought by the inquiry. The report therefore reveals that the information on which my answer of 17 February 2000 was based, although provided in good faith, was inaccurate and incomplete.

  By establishing detailed audit trails for all 60 weapons, the police have been able to recover 14 weapons and confirmed that 29 have been destroyed. The police were unable to confirm the existence or whereabouts of the remaining 17 weapons, some of which have been sold, complete or in parts. Others may have either been destroyed prior to the creation of the computer record or manufactured and delivered to customers overseas.

  The self-loading rifle (SLR) was declared obsolete in November 1997. A routine disposal programme involving the sale and destruction of the weapons was in progress from January 1998, although some surplus rifles were disposed of prior to this date. At the time of the inquiry's request the disposal programme was reducing stock by 4,000 weapons a month with the aim of completing disposal by April 2000. By the end of January 2000 approximately 116,000 SLRs had been disposed of out of a total of 144,000.

  The dates on which weapons that "match" the partial serial numbers provided by the Bloody Sunday inquiry were destroyed are as follows:

  1995 unknown date (three rifles)

  17 September 1997

  21 January 1998

  3 February 1998

  12 February 1998

  7 April 1998

  27 April 1998 (two rifles)

  2 June 1998 (two rifles)

  25 June 1998

  6 August 1998

  13 August 1998

  23 September 1998

  29 October 1998

  13 January 1999 (two rifles)

  140W

  17 February 1999

  23 February 1999

  24 March 1999

  22 September 1999 (two rifles)

  23 November 1999 (two rifles)

  26 January 2000

  27 January 2000 (two rifles).

  By September 1999, when the inquiry made a formal request for weapons and provided partial serial numbers, the Ministry of Defence held six weapons but was able to identify only five as Bloody Sunday "possible". Two of these weapons identified as Bloody Sunday weapons, together with a third weapon that had not been identified, were destroyed in a routine disposal programme on 26 and 27 January 2000. The destruction only came to light after the event when the computer database was updated. My answer of 17 February 2000 incorrectly stated the dates at which the computer record was updated, rather than the actual dates of destruction.

  The police report concluded that the weapons were destroyed as a result of a combination of factors including inaccurate computer records, duplicated serial numbers and mistakes resulting from human error rather than an overt criminal act. Based on the police report, I am satisfied that there was no conspiracy to destroy evidence sought by the inquiry. The matter has now been referred to the chain of command to implement management improvements designed to prevent a recurrence and to determine whether any internal disciplinary action needs to be taken.

  The evidence contained in the report suggests that the destroyed rifles would have been of little value to the inquiry due to duplicated serial numbers and the lack of certainty that any individual weapon was fired on Bloody Sunday. However, the police report indicates a strong possibility that a L42A1 7.62mm sniper rifle conversion can be matched to a Bloody Sunday weapon. The whereabouts of this weapon were unknown when the report was produced, but it has now been recovered by the MDP. The police investigation also confirmed that it is not possible to determine whether any rifles have retained their original barrels as large numbers of rifles were re-barrelled during the 30 or so years that the weapons remained in operational service. Detailed records were not kept to record whether a rifle had been re-barelled, or how many times this may have occurred.

  The Bloody Sunday inquiry will reach its own view as to the potential forensic value of the weapons.

  Nuclear Weapons (Accidents)
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances of each of the accidents involving UK nuclear weapons referred to in the answer given by the then Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) on 16 July 1996,Official Report, columns 484–85W. [5030]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have a good record on the safety and security of our nuclear weapons and continue to place the highest importance on work in this area. I have today placed in the Library of both Houses a table which sets
  141W
  out the circumstances of each of the seven accidents concerned. The information it contains is drawn from records spanning a period of 40 years and confirms that:
  There has never been a weapons accident resulting in the release of radioactive material;
  there has never been damage to a weapon which risked a radioactive leak or an explosion;
  there has never been a nuclear weapon lost.

  In addition to the three road traffic accidents referred to in the table, our research has identified one other, similar, event which took place in 1960 in Lincolnshire. There is no damage to the weapon involved. Since this event pre-dates current reporting system it is unclear whether, in today's terms, it would be categorised as an accident.

  The Government remain committed to greater openness on nuclear issues wherever possible. A key responsibility, however, must be to protect the safety and operational security of our nuclear forces and the people who support them. The practice of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons at any particular place and at any particular time will therefore continue to be a cornerstone of the Government's policy on nuclear weapons issues.

  Depleted Uranium
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his most recent estimate is of the levels of depleted uranium, monitored in Kosovo and Serbia, arising from the use of allied depleted uranium munitions. [3957]

  Dr. Moonie
  On 21 June, the Ministry of Defence published a detailed paper entitled: 'Report of a Reconnaissance Visit to Develop an Enhanced Environmental Monitoring Programme in the UK Sector in Kosovo', which discusses the findings of a MOD reconnaissance team visit to Kosovo from 19-23 January to plan work, conduct field measurements and take preliminary samples. The field measurements supported the view that the risks from DU to our troops, and the population, are low. Analysis of some soil samples was delayed, as a result of potential asbestos contamination, however the information will be available for publication in the next few weeks. A copy of the team's report is available on the MOD internet website: www.mod.uk/ index.php3?page=2739 and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The full, enhanced environment surveillance programme, announced on 9 January, is expected to take place in August. The programme will be conducted in accordance with a protocol which is currently under expert and public consultation. That consultation period ends on 20 July. Results from the programme will be published accordingly.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish details of the depleted uranium-based `Charm 3' ammunition referred to the letter from the then Minister for the Armed the Forces, the hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), of 26 February. [3958]

  Dr. Moonie
  Yes. As explained in the letter from the then Minister for the Armed Forces dated 26 February, D/Min(AF)/JS PQ 0299/01/Y, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, we have begun to conduct an 142W
  analysis of the composition of the Charm 3 120mm DU-based anti-tank ammunition round using independent laboratories to confirm the data provided by the manufacturer (and published by the Department on 7 February 2001, Official Report, column 521W) about DU contamination by other radioactive materials. The works is currently incomplete owing to technical difficulties.

  Explosives River Tamar)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department has undertaken into the presence of explosives on the bed of the River Tamar, with particular reference to the risks to the local population; if he will publish the outcome of the research; and if he will make a statement. [4445]

  Dr. Moonie
  A rigorous and extensive research, survey and clearance operation was initially undertaken between 1993 and 1997 to confirm, as far as reasonably practicable, the removal of explosives from the Bull Point land area and adjacent River Tamar. Subsequently, further survey and clearance operations were conducted, using experts in the field and state of the art technology, in order to establish safe working conditions as a prerequisite to the dredging for the Remote Ammunitioning Facility Tamar (RAFT).

  The explosive items have remained submerged and incident free for in excess of 50 years. All the clearance operations conducted to date have been completed without incident, including riverbed blasting in support of RAFT.

  Presentations on the clearances and finds have been made to local interest groups, local government representatives and the local press and media over the last 12 months. The issue has also been the subject of public meetings. Information, including research documents, has been displayed at HM Naval Base open days. A copy of the research documents will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Throckmorton Airfield
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his future plans for Throckmorton airfield. [4105]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 23 April 2001,Official Report, column 89W. The main site, known as DERA Pershore, was transferred on 1 July 2001 to QinetiQ, a wholly Government owned plc formed from 75 per cent. of the former DERA Trading Fund. QinetiQ will be responsible for continuing the Ministry of Defence related uses of the site, as well as taking forward any regeneration of the area in concert with the local and regional authorities.

  The part of the airfield used in helping to deal with the consequences of foot and mouth disease is in the process of being transferred to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

  Porton Down
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the advice of the Medical Research Council on the feasibility of an epidemiological study on
  143W
  the effect of research on service volunteers at Porton Down; what his response was to the advice; and if he has plans to establish an independent inquiry. [4586]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on 28 June and 13 July 2001,Official Report, columns 133W and 622W respectively. Any resultant epidemiology study will be carried out independently of the Ministry of Defence. On 1 May I announced that the Department would conduct an historical survey of the Porton Volunteer Trials, and that this would be supervised by Professor Ian Kennedy of University College London. In addition, an investigation by the Wiltshire police of the Porton Down volunteer programme from 1939 to 1989 is under way. There are no plans for a further independent inquiry.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on what dates the Ethical subgroup of the Defence Scientific Advisory Committee Medical Committee scrutinised the experiment in 1989 in which service personnel were exposed to sarin nerve gas at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down; and if he will place in the Library copies of the minutes of the committee which relate to the discussion of this experiment; [986]

  (2) on what dates the Ethical subgroup of the Defence Scientific Advisory Committee Medical Committee scrutinised the experiment at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, in November 1983, in which eight service personnel were exposed to sarin nerve gas; and if he will place in the Library copies of the minutes and other papers of the committee which relate to the discussion of this experiment. [3405]

  Dr. Moonie
  I shall write to the hon. Member and copies of my letters will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Aberporth
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to ensure the continuation of the apprenticeship scheme at QinetiQ, Aberporth after 2004. [4535]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 5W.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the training budget is being transferred from DRE Aberporth to his Department; and what the timetable for the transfer is. [4536]

  Dr. Moonie
  No transfer of funding for apprentice training from QinetiQ, Aberporth to the Ministry of Defence is taking place.

  Kenya
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the British Army stopped using live ammunition at the Dol Dol range. [3206]

  Mr. Ingram
  We do not currently believe that the British Army has ever fired live ammunition at the Dol Dol training area but are examining the records to make 144W
  sure that this is the case. The British Army uses Dol Dol for low level "dry" (ie without live ammunition) training only.

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last travelled on the London Underground in the course of his official duties. [3682]

  Dr. Moonie
  In order to ensure effective use of his time, by allowing him to work on official papers, my right hon. Friend uses the Government Car Service when travelling in London.

  Defence Equipment Demonstrations
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what costs were incurred by his Department in providing armed service personnel support to defence equipment demonstrations in the last 12 months. [3844]

  Dr. Moonie
  Within the Ministry of Defence, the Defence Export Services Organisation is responsible for co-ordinating Government support to industry in promoting legitimate defence exports with other parts of MOD assisting as required.

  No central record is kept of costs incurred for the provision of service personnel support to defence equipment demonstrations. The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The cost of MOD support for defence exports is however far outweighed by the financial benefits to the Department.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the net operating costs of DESO and related support functions were for the financial years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [3815]

  Dr. Moonie
  The net operating costs of the Defence Export Services Organisation for each of the financial years requested were as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1997–98

  14.380

  1998–99

  16.010

  1999–2000

  13.735

  2000–01

  12.360

  These net operating costs are more than offset by benefits to the Defence budget, estimated at around £400 million a year, arising from DESO's activities. These benefits include a reduction in overhead costs for UK Procurement as a result of export orders, and receipts from Commercial Exploitation Levy and disposal of surplus Ministry of Defence equipment.

  Portsmouth Harbour
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place regarding the dredging of Portsmouth Harbour in relation to the Future Aircraft Carrier procurement project; and if he will make a statement. [3294]
  145W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 12 July 2001]As part of the Future Aircraft Carrier Assessment phase, contractors have visited several naval bases and port facilities to analyse their suitability for berthing and basing of the vessels. One of the issues addressed has been access and the requirement, if any, for dredging. Discussions to date have only been of an informal nature and no decisions have yet been made on berthing or basing options for the carriers and any potential dredging requirements. Further studies, involving environmental impact assessments, will take place during the next stage of assessment. The relevant authorities will be consulted on the results, as required.

  Nuclear Tests
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests have been conducted on(a) military service personnel from the United Kingdom and Commonwealth forces in Australia, in respect of exposure to radiation from the detonation of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, since 1971, and (b) children in (i) Hong Kong and (ii) the United Kingdom, in respect of the take up of radiation into body parts; and if he will make a statement on recent representations made to the Government on radiological tests. [3961]

  Dr. Moonie
  No tests have been conducted on military service personnel from the United Kingdom and Commonwealth forces in Australia since 1971 in respect of exposure to radiation from the detonation of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere.

  Tests conducted on children in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom, in respect of the take up of radiation into body parts and recent representations made to the Government on radiological tests, are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Pay (Locally Engaged Overseas Staff)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which British overseas defence establishments locally engaged staff are paid below local poverty datum lines; and if he will make a statement. [4538]

  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Ministry of Defence employs over 13,000 locally engaged civilian staff around the world. Their conditions of service, including pay levels, are set in accordance with the terms of the discretionary authority conferred by the Treasury on Departments. This ensures that pay levels are established by reference to local best practice. Periodic pay reviews must be informed by local surveys of comparable employers thus ensuring that MOD remuneration remains competitive. Locally engaged staff play a vital role in support of the British armed forces overseas and it is in the MOD's interests to ensure that it is able to recruit and retain adequate numbers of the right calibre.

  Defence Spending
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the level of defence spending is forecast to be as a proportion of gross domestic product in 2003–04. [3938]
  146W
  Mr. Ingram
  The settlement for defence announced in the Spending Review last year planned for the first sustained growth in defence expenditure for more than a decade. In 2003–04 defence expenditure is expected to represent 2.3 per cent. of GDP.

  Pardons
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the granting of pardons to those who were executed 'for cowardice during the First World War. [3937]

  Dr. Moonie
  The question of granting pardons to those executed during the First World War, mostly for desertion, was the subject of a detailed review by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, then Minister of State for the Armed Forces. The legal difficulties in considering pardons, particularly the lack of evidence available today, were explained in his statement to this House on 24 July 1998,Official Report, columns 1372–86.

  Those executed have been publicly recognised as victims of a terrible war and their commemoration by the new memorial in the National Memorial Arboretum is particularly fitting.

  Air Group Personnel
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated air group personnel is of each CVF. [3513]

  Mr. Hoon
  At this stage in the procurement of CVF, the Future Joint Combat Aircraft and Future Organic Airborne Early Warning capability, the estimated size of the air group personnel to be embarked on the CVF has yet to be determined. The actual composition of the air group will depend on the number and the type of aircraft embarked and is the subject of on-going work.

  Spearfish
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Spearfish torpedo will be in service with fleet submarines. [3515]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Spearfish torpedo entered Royal Navy service during 1994.

  Apache Helicopters
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Apache helicopters will be in service by the end of(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [3516]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Apache attack helicopter entered service with the Army on 16 January 2001. The number of helicopters delivered by the end of this and the following two years will be:

  2001: 18

  2002: 41

  2003: 64.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Army pilots are qualified to fly the Apache helicopter. [3521]
  147W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Army currently has 17 pilots trained to fly various versions of the Apache helicopter. Of these 17 pilots, two are currently on exchange tours with the US Army, two are on test flying duties and 13 are undergoing further training on the UK Apache at the School of Army Aviation at Middle Wallop.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Army's Apache helicopters will become operationally available. [3523]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Army expects to have an initial operating capability, consisting of the first operational Apache squadron, in August 2004. A full task force capability based on an attack helicopter regiment is planned for early 2005.

  Meteor
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Meteor programme and its development contract. [3517]

  Dr. Moonie
  The UK, France and Sweden signed the Meteor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) at the Paris Air Show. We very much hope that the remaining three partner nations will sign the MOU by the end of September 2001. On that basis, we plan to place a demonstration and manufacture contract for Meteor by the end of 2001, subject to agreeing satisfactory terms with Matra BAe Dynamics, the Prime Contractor.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects all partner nations to sign the memoranda of understanding on the A400M and the Meteor programme. [3524]

  Dr. Moonie
  We very much hope that all partner nations will have signed the memorandum of understanding by the end of September 2001.

  C130
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to begin retiring the RAF's C130Ks from service. [3518]

  Mr. Ingrain
  Under existing plans, the RAF Hercules C 130K long-term fleet will be retired from service towards the end of this decade.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the RAF's inventory is of C130 aircraft; and how many of them are operationally available. [3519]

  Mr. Ingram
  The RAF has a fleet of 57 Hercules C130 aircraft. Of these, 49 are allocated to the operating fleet and are available to operational commanders within specified time scales.

  HMS Ocean
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was of HMS Ocean. [3527]

  Mr. Ingram
  The cost of the contract to design and build HMS Ocean was £150.6 million.

  Tomahawk
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which fleet submarines have been given 148W
  Tomahawk capability; which submarines are scheduled to receive this capability; and when the conversion work will take place. [3529]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is planned the two Swiftsure class, seven Trafalgar class and all of the Astute class submarines will receive the Tomahawk capability.

  HMS Splendid and HMS Triumph are now Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) capable, and HMS Trafalgar will be declared TLAM capable following trials later this summer. Work to equip HMS Spartan, HMS Trenchant and HMS Turbulent with TLAM capability is currently under way as part of their major upkeep periods. It is currently planned that the remaining three submarines—HMS Talent, HMS Tireless and HMS Torbay—will become TLAM capable by about 2006.

  The Astute class submarines will be built Tomahawk capable. HMS Astute, the first submarine of this new class, is due to enter service from 2005.

  ASRAAM
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects ASRAAM to enter into service with the RAF; and if he will make a statement. [3520]

  Dr. Moonie
  Matra BAe Dynamics Ltd., the prime contractor for ASRAAM, encountered a number of technical problems which meant that the in service date of April 2001 was not met. We are working with the company to agree a programme which will bring the missile up to an acceptable standard. When we agree a revised programme we will set a new date for ASRAAM's entry into service. Until that time, Tornado F3, Harrier GR7 and Sea Harrier FA2 aircraft will continue to have an effective short-range air to air capability using Sidewinder missiles.

  Harrier GR7
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF pilots have been trained to fly Harrier GR7 for carrier operations. [3530]

  Mr. Ingram
  As of today, there are 28 front-line RAF Harrier GR7 pilots trained and qualified for carrier operations. Available records suggest that since the Harrier GR7 began carrier operations in 1997, approximately 76 GR7 pilots have been trained in the role.

  MR(TRIGAT)
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings will accrue to the defence budget following the cancellation of the MR(TRIGAT) programme. [3522]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no savings accrued from our decision not to proceed with the industrialisation and production phase of the MR(TRIGAT) programme. The funding allocated to MR(TRIGAT) has been transferred to the Infantry Anti-Tank Guided Weapons programme, which will ensure that future capabilities in this area are fully met.

  Astute Class Submarines
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the entry into service date is of each of the Astute class submarines. [3526]

  Dr. Moonie
  The first Astute class submarine is due to enter into service in June 2005. The remaining two submarines of the class currently on order will follow at approximately two-year intervals.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the information technology contracts in excess of £500,000 let by his Department or its predecessor since April 1991, giving in each case the original estimated cost and original estimated completion date, the actual cost and actual completion date and the names of the contractors involved and consultants retained by his Department. [3496]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

SCOTLAND

  Oil Fabrication
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the future for oil fabrication in Scotland. [2642]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government and the oil and gas industry continue to work together through PILOT to ensure that Scotland and the UK remains a centre of profitable activity for oil and gas for many years to come.

  Rosyth
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the First Minister and the Transport Minister to discuss progress on the Rosyth ferry port development. [2644]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the First Minister and the Transport Minister to discuss a wide range of issues.

  This initiative is a welcome development for business and industry.

  Brownfield Sites (Lanarkshire)
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to discuss the regeneration of Lanarkshire's brown field sites with the First Minister. [2646]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the First Minister on a wide range of issues including the commitment of this Government to maintaining a stable and successful economy in Scotland, as in the whole of the UK, which provides a sound base for economic development and regeneration projects and allows everyone to share in the nation's rising prosperity.

  Scottish Ambassador
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the First Minister on the Scottish Executive's proposals to appoint a Scottish Ambassador. [2648]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I speak to the First Minister regularly on a wide range of subjects. There are no proposals for the Scottish Executive to appoint a Scottish Ambassador.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pensioners in Scotland she estimates will receive payments under the Winter Fuel Payments scheme next winter. [2649]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We estimate that around one million people aged 60 or over will benefit from the scheme in Scotland. This includes around 15,750 people in the Strathkelvin and Bearsden constituency.

  Air Links
  Rosemary McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps she is taking to seek to improve the regulation of air links to and from Scotland. [2650]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The European Commission recently published proposals to revise the current regulation on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports. This proposal emphasises the need for member states to analyse the capacity situation at congested airports for which they are responsible and to consider ways and means of resolving the problems on a regular basis.

  The Government will produce a White Paper next year which will bring together UK airports policy, looking 30 years ahead, and new policies on civil aviation. We published a UK-wide consultation document in November 2000 and a Scottish regional consultation will follow towards the end of this year. I am actively involved in this process to ensure that Scottish interests are fully represented.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement about new proposals to seize the assets of convicted drug dealers. [2651]

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Home Department on measures to confiscate the assets of convicted drug dealers. [2655]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Scotland Office, the Home Office and the Scottish Executive are working closely together on the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which will strengthen the law and procedures for seizing the assets of drug dealers and other criminals.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the effectiveness of the anti-drugs strategy in Scotland. [2652]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Government and the Scottish Executive are working in partnership to ensure that misuse of drugs is tackled effectively in Scotland and that efforts are co-ordinated.
  151W
  Progress made in Scotland towards reaching the targets set out in the UK anti-drugs strategy will be included in the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator's Report for 2000–01 which is expected to be published shortly.

  NHS Funding
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations she has received from the Scottish Executive for her to make representations to the Treasury for additional money for the NHS in Scotland. [2653]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Scottish Executive is able to determine its own spending priorities within its overall spending allocation.

  The 2000 spending review provided the Scottish Executive with significant additions to its overall budget and provided for overall spending some £3.4 billion higher by 2003–04 compared to 2000–01, giving substantial scope for investment in modern public services, including health services. This year's Budget provided an additional £200 million over three years.

  Tourism
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the British Tourist Authority on the effects of foot and mouth disease on the Scottish tourist industry. [2656]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I met senior representatives of the British Tourist Authority some weeks ago to discuss a range of issues on how best to promote tourism to Scotland. I am satisfied that Scotland will benefit both from the support from the Scottish Executive and the extra £14.2 million funding announced by the DCMS to help overseas recovery action.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the British Tourist Authority in encouraging overseas tourists to visit Scotland. [2658]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The STB and the BTA have been working together successfully for many years to promote Scotland and the whole of the UK as an attractive tourist destination. They are continuing to work towards achieving the maximum benefit for Scotland from the work which they are doing around the world.

  I am convinced that there is an advantage for Scotland to be sold along with the rest of the UK. This is particularly true from long haul markets where a visit to Scotland will almost certainly be part of a tour of Britain, where Scotland could easily be left out if it is not clearly visible among the other choices.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she next plans to meet the British Tourist Authority to discuss the attractions which Scotland offers in culture, historical sites and industrial archaeology. [2659]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I am in regular contact with both the BTA and visitscotland to discuss a range of issues in promoting Scottish tourism. I am confident that work is being undertaken to ensure that Scotland achieves the maximum benefit from the work which both organisations are doing around the world.
  152W

  Energy Policy
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will set out the Government's targets for the proportion of electricity to be produced by nuclear, fossil and renewable energies in the next 20 years; and what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive and Cabinet colleagues on this matter. [2657]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have regular discussions with Scottish Executive Ministers and Government colleagues on a wide range of issues. The Government have set a target for the UK of 10 per cent. for the proportion of electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2010. Electricity generation in Scotland already exceeds this level and the Scottish Renewable Obligations will bring the figure to 13 per cent. by 2003. The target will then be to increase use of renewable energy in Scotland by a further 5 per cent. to 18 per cent. by 2010.

  Foot and Mouth
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the First Minister on the foot and mouth epidemic; and if he will make a statement. [2660]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The First Minister and I meet regularly to discuss a whole range of issues including the handling of the foot and mouth outbreak in Scotland.

  Assisted Area Status (Arbroath)
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations she has made to the EU and the Department of Trade and Industry concerning assisted area status for Arbroath. [2661]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The European Commission, which has sole competence in this area, approved the UK's Assisted Areas map on 26 July 2000. The approved map will apply until December 2006. The Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive worked closely with the Department of Trade and Industry in discussion with the Commission to secure the best possible deal for Scotland and the UK as a whole. There are no plans to review the Assisted Areas map.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has to undertake a review of the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into Scottish law. [2662]

  Mr. Foulkes
  None. The Government monitor the effect of the incorporation of the ECHR into domestic law, but there are no plans at present for a review.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the convergence of the Scottish economy with the euro zone. [2638]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron).

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the Information Technology contracts in excess of £500,000 let by her Department or its predecessor since April 1991, giving in each case the original estimated cost and original estimated completion date, the actual cost and actual completion date and the names of the contractors involved and consultants retained by her Department. [3506]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In respect of the Scottish Office prior to 1 July 1999, the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. No TT contracts have been set by the Department since that date.

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has held with the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on the operation of the Barnett Formula. [2645]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on a wide range of issues.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pensioners in Scotland are benefiting from the provision of free television licences to those aged over 75 years. [2647]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We estimate that over 300,000 pensioners in Scotland benefit from the provision of a free TV licence. There are approximately 4,540 people aged 75 or over in the Falkirk, West constituency.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Proceeds of Crime Bill
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Advocate-General what measures she is recommending to the Government to ensure that the Proceeds of Crime Bill will comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. [2604]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  The proposed Proceeds of Crime Bill is the responsibility of the Home Secretary who will also be responsible, in terms of section 19 of the Human Rights Act, for making a statement as to the Bill's compatibility with Convention rights. He is, of course, entitled to seek legal advice, both from within his Department and outside it, including Law Officers' advice, on any matter for which he considers this to be appropriate.

  Road Traffic Cases
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Advocate-General on how many occasions she has given advice on the implications of the European human rights convention on road traffic cases. [2606]
  154W
  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  As the hon. Lady will be aware, I appeared before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Margaret Anderson Brown case which concerned the human rights compatibility of a provision in the Road Traffic Acts. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that the Judicial Committee upheld my arguments, and those made on behalf of the Scottish Executive, and decided that the current legislation was compatible with the Convention. When requested I give advice on a variety of matters including the implications of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Advocate-General if she has intervened in the recent ECHR challenge to the prison regime in Barlinnie. [2607]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  At present, I have not intervened in the case of Robert Napier v. the Scottish Ministers, which concerns the conditions in which the petitioner was detained at Barlinnie Prison.

  Scottish Planning Law
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Advocate-General what effect the recent ECHR challenges have had on Scottish planning law. [2605]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  Scottish planning law is a matter for the Scottish Ministers. However, a number of cases have arisen in Scotland in which there have been challenges on Convention rights grounds and these have been intimated to me as raising devolution issues under the Scottish Act. I have intervened in four such cases to date. The appeal in the first of these cases to be heard, County Properties v the Scottish Ministers and the Advocate-General, has now been completed and a judgment is expected shortly.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Early-day Motions
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals in respect of early-day motions. [2628]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I understand there are no plans to do so at present, but any Member can put proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and they will be considered carefully.

  Private Bill Procedure
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to bring forward proposals to reform the Private Bill procedure. [2629]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  None at present. Private Bill Procedure was reviewed by the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure in 1987–88, and many of the matters previously covered by Private Bill Procedure are now covered by the Transport and Works Act 1992. Before the election the House agreed to Standing Order changes which allow the House to consider the ECHR compatibility of Private Bills.
  155W

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  David Winnick
  To ask the President of the Council to ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans the Commission has in respect of the renewal of the contract of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. [2630]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The present Commissioner's term of office runs until February 2002. The Commission will consider the matter in good time before then.

  Scrutiny
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals he plans to bring forward to improve scrutiny of the executive by the House of Commons. [2631]

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to improve the scrutiny functions of the House. [2636]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson).

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to increase the amount of pre-legislative scrutiny. [2633]

  Joan Ryan
  To ask the President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to increase opportunities for pre-legislative scrutiny. [2637]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave earlier to hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland).

  Terms of Service
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to bring forward proposals to reform the rules relating to hon. Members' terms of service. [2632]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Any hon. Member's term of office is, and should remain, in the hands of the electorate, unless some legal disqualification intervenes.

  Waste Paper
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Council to ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how much waste paper was produced by the House in each of the last two years; how it was disposed of; and if he will make a statement. [2635]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  This is primarily a matter for the Serjeant at Arms; but I can tell the hon. Member that over the last two years, approximately 50 tonnes of paper from the Vote Office was sent for recycling each year. All additional waste paper was compacted with general waste amounting to some 3,000 tonnes per year and was incinerated for the production of electricity in line with Government guidelines.
  156W

  Parliamentary Committees
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the President of the Council if he will commission an inquiry into the roles of(a) the Scottish Parliament's committees and (b) House of Commons Standing Committees in respect of legislation. [3940]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I very much hope the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons will look at the Scottish Parliament to see what we can learn from their experience; I certainly intend to visit that Parliament over the summer adjournment.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Council if he will list the Information Technology contracts in excess of £500,000 let by his Department or its predecessor since April 1991, giving in each case the original estimated cost and original estimated completion date, the actual cost and actual completion date and the names of the contractors involved and consultants retained by his Department. [3505]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  None.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Self-Regulation
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor last met the Law Society to discuss self-regulation for the legal profession; and if he will make a statement. [2611]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor meets from time to time with the president and other representatives of the Law Society to discuss aspects of the current self-regulatory arrangements. While he has not entered into discussions for ending self-regulation, he has made it clear publicly that self-regulation is a privilege and not a right that the society should take for granted.

  Auld Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects the Auld report to be published. [2613]

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

  Court Dress
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review court dress. [2614]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Previous soundings from within the judiciary, the professions and court users have revealed a wide range of views on whether, and to what extent, court dress should be reformed. Given continued concern in some quarters, the Lord Chief Justice is consulting with the professional bodies. Once the results
  157W
  are available, the Lord Chancellor will consult with the heads of division and decide what action, if any, it would be appropriate to take.

  Victims and Witnesses
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made in providing assistance to victims and witnesses at all court centres. [2616]

  Mr. Wills
  There are witness support services, run by Victim Support, in all Crown court centres. Witness services are being introduced into all magistrates' courts with a target date for completion of 31 March 2002. Interim targets of 20 per cent., and 40 per cent., were set for 31 March 2000 and 2001 respectively. These targets have been met. The latest figures show that witness services have been introduced in 46 per cent. of magistrates' courts.

  We are improving facilities in the Crown court to ensure that prosecution witnesses are not forced to sit alongside potentially intimidating defendants and their families. Currently 87 per cent. of Crown court centres have a special witness waiting room available.

  Handcuffs
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance the Lord Chancellor has given on the visibility of handcuffs worn by defendants in court. [2617]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor has not issued any guidance as the decision on whether defendants should wear handcuffs in court is a matter for the judiciary. The Court of Appeal has ruled that no prisoner shall be handcuffed in court unless there are reasonable grounds for believing he will be violent or try to escape. It is open to the prosecution to make an application for handcuffs if they believe a defendant will be violent or try to escape, but the final decision lies with the judge or magistrates.

  Young Offenders (Merseyside)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his estimate is of the Merseyside courts' progress towards meeting Government targets on the time between arrest and court appearance for young offenders; and if he will make a statement. [2618]

  Mr. Wills
  Information is not available in the exact form requested. The Government's target for persistent young offenders is to halve the average time from arrest to sentence from 142 to 71 days by May 2002. The latest available figures are for April 2001. These show that the average time for persistent young offenders charged by the Merseyside police was 91 days. That is a significant improvement over the 1997 figure of 153 days. It reflects the work done by all the criminal justice agencies in Merseyside: the courts, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the youth offending teams.

  Judicial Appointments
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what ethnic monitoring is undertaken of judicial appointments. [2620]
  158W
  Mr. Wills
  Applicants for judicial office are invited to complete a questionnaire about their ethnic origin, although they are not obliged to provide the information requested. Based on the information provided, the Lord Chancellor produces monthly figures showing the number of people from ethnic minorities in the judiciary, and includes in his annual report on judicial appointments statistical information about competitions including the number of applications, candidates interviewed and appointments made, analysed by reference to ethnic origin. This information is available on the Lord Chancellor's website, www.lcd.gov.uk.

  Complaints
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his policy is on dealing with complaints against magistrates. [2621]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor expects all magistrates to behave in a way that allows the community to have confidence in their ability to carry out their judicial duties. His policy and procedure for dealing with complaints against them is set out in chapter 19 of his directions for advisory committees on justices of the peace, copies of which are available in the Libraries. The overriding principle in the procedure for dealing with complaints is the observance of the rules of natural justice.

  Contingency Fees
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment she has made of the benefits of introducing contingency fees as a method of payment for lawyers in personal injury cases. [2619]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  None. Contingency fees are used legitimately in many tribunals and for non-contentious business and have their supporters and detractors. The Law Society and the Bar Council are working together to consider how, if properly regulated, contingency fees might be used more widely to benefit clients and extend access to justice. The Government have no plans to extend the use of contingency fees.

  Child Contact Orders
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many child contact orders resulted in further court action involving(a) violence and (b) death in each of the last five years. [3831]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is not able to collect statistics on events which happen after the court's involvement is concluded. However, officials from this Department are exploring with the Home Office how we can address this information gap.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what analysis her Department carried out on the number of murders of(a) partners and (b) children resulting from child contact orders, as part of her consultation on child contact. [3833]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The consultation exercise on child contact, "Making Contact Work", is being undertaken by the Children Act 1989 sub-committee of the Lord Chancellor's advisory board on family law and is on-going. Information about the number of murders of
  159W
  partners or children where a child contact order is in force is not available. However, officials from this Department are exploring with the Home Office how we can address this information gap.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many child contact orders have resulted in further court action; and what the(a) average and (b) largest number of further court actions was. [3832]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department does not routinely collect statistics on all subsequent court actions. However, the Department is conducting a sampling exercise on this area, the results of which will be published in due course.

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor last travelled on the London underground in the course of his official duties. [3669]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor has not yet needed to travel on the London underground in the course of his official duties.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the appointment of justices of the peace. [2612]

  Original estimated cost

  Original completion date

  Actual cost (£)

  Actual completion date

  Contractors involved

  Consultants retained

  Comments

  Nexus Office Automation System

  £600,000

  April 1996

  660,666

  April 1996

  Seimens-Nixdorf Computacenter, Foxlan

  BACCHUS Case Management System

  £721,476

  July 1994

  808,931

  July 1994

  MIDAS Management Information and Accounting System

  £627,850

  January 1995

  641,301

  January 1995

  Oracle

  SOAP Office Automation System

  £754,700

  April 1996

  775,065

  April 1996

  Seimens-Nixdorf, Bull

  MIS (Management Information System)

  £14,356,000

  December 2001

  14,825,000

  Spring 2003

  Within the scope of the Department's existing PR contract with CSL Group Ltd.

  This project is still ongoing and therefore, the costs and dates shown are the latest estimates. The costs shown relate to the provision of the service over the life of the system and include physical rollout, training, and on-going service charges

  MANIFEST (Integrated Estate Management and Finance System)

  £4,868,000

  December 2000

  5,240,000

  February 2001

  Within the scope of the Department's existing PFI contract with CSL Group Ltd.

  The costs shown relate to the provision of the service over the life of the system and includes physical rollout, training, and on-going service charges

  LOCCS (Various court-based IT systems)

  £25,000,000

  October 1996

  107,000,000

  September 2003

  EDS

  Masons, Kermon, Charterhouse bank. Myriad

  Baseline costs are unchanged, the estimated costs to the end of the contract (£107 million) includes very significant additional services

  MASS Development

  £1,100,000

  March 1995

  2,700,000

  June 1997

  Admiral Computing Ltd.

  160W
  Mr. Wills
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is keen that the social composition of the magistracy reflects the community it serves, subject to all magistrates fulfilling the merit criteria for appointment. Advisory committees are required to ensure that benches reflect the community in terms of gender, ethnic origin, geographical spread, occupation and political affiliation. My noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster requires his advisory committees to do the same. Work is under way to develop a national strategy for the recruitment of lay magistrates and to find a viable alternative to the use of political affiliation as a measure of social balance.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the Information Technology contracts in excess of £500,000 let by his Department or its predecessor since April 1991, giving in each case the original estimated cost and original estimated completion date, the actual cost and actual completion date and the names of the contractors involved and consultants retained by his Department. [3503]

  Mr. Wills
  The following table lists the IT contracts that have been let by the Lord Chancellor's Department with a value of more than £500,000, since April 1991. Probity and value for money in contracting for IT projects is ensured through compliance with EC public procurement rules, UK Government domestic procurement policy and best practice guidance, Government accounting rules and National Audit Office requirements.
  161W

  Original estimated cost

  Original completion date

  Actual cost (£)

  Actual completion date

  Contractors involved

  Consultants retained

  Comments

  MASS Testing/Support

  £4,900,000

  March 1998

  3,400,000

  April 1997

  F1 Group Plc

  MASS Training Materials

  £1,000,000

  March 1996

  400,000

  December 1996

  Admiral Computing Lid.

  LIBRA

  £319,000,000

  July 2013

  n/a

  n/a

  ICI plc

  The Libra contract was originally let in December 1998, to run to 2009 with a value of £183 million. An option to extend was taken up and this extension is reported here

  SLD (Statute Law Database)

  £700,000

  August 1993

  700,000

  Summer 1995

  Syntegra Ltd. (previously Secure Information Systems Ltd.)

  The system was delivered in November 1993. However, it was not formally accepted until summer 1995

  CLAT (Criminal Legal Aid Expenditure Monitoring)

  £582,250

  March 2001

  604,591

  March 2001

  Within the scope of the Department's existing PFI contract with CSL Group Ltd.

  ARAMIS (Resource Accounting and Managemnet Information System)—individual services are shown as follows:

  £91,400,000

  n/a

  118,050,000

  n/a

  CSL Group Ltd.

  A PFI contract for the provision of accounting, financial, HR/payroll and management information services. It was awarded in December 1997 and runs until January 2007. The services have IT elements and are delivered using a corporate IT infrastructure provided through the contract. However, the IT elements of the contract are not separated out from the main business functions

  New Accounting Service

  n/a

  July 1998

  n/a

  July 1998

  New HR Service

  n/a

  March 1999

  n/a

  March 1999

  New Purchasing Service

  g Service

  n/a

  April 1999

  n/a

  October 1999

  Libra Project
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will place a list of the reasons for the increase in the value of the Libra project in the Library; if liquidated damages clauses are included in the contract for the Libra project; and if he will place a copy of the contract in the Library. [3818]

  Mr. Wills
  The increase in the cost of the Libra project is based on delivery of an additional four years of the full Libra service to all magistrates' courts and an earlier delivery of the first part of the Libra service—office automation. A liquidated damages clause is included in the contract. As the contract contains commercially confidential information, it would not be appropriate to make it available in the Library.

  Public Trust Office Annual Report
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she will publish the Public Trust Office's annual report and accounts for 2000–01. [5331]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Trust Office's annual report and accounts for 2000–01 have been published today and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Fund
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide details of the new Police Fund in Northern Ireland and indicate when he expects to appoint trustees to the Fund. [3415]

  Jane Kennedy
  The new Northern Ireland Police Fund, based on the recommendations in the Patten report, and the subsequent report carried out by Mr. John Steele, will provide assistance to police officers (who have been murdered or injured as a direct result of terrorism in Northern Ireland), their families and dependants. Indeed, lump sum payments of over £4 million have already been paid to a group of RUC widows widowed before 25 November 1982. Detailed work on the legal status of the fund, as well as on its funding, is continuing and the Government hope to announce the names of trustees shortly.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the Information Technology contracts in excess of £500,000 let by his Department or
  163W
  its predecessor since April 1991, giving in each case the original estimated cost and original estimated completion date, the actual cost and actual completion date and the

  Estimated cost

  Estimated completion

  Actual cost (£)

  Actual completion

  Contractor

  Consultant

  Oasis

  £5,000,000

  December 1996

  5,732,000

  November 1997

  Bull

  DPPNet

  £750,000

  February 1999

  748,000

  March 1999

  Bull

  Bloody Sunday Inquiry—Contract A

  £1,800,000

  June 1998

  2,500,000 (includes changes and additional input)

  June 1998

  Bull

  Bloody Sunday Inquiry—Contract B Hearings Installation

  £2,000,000

  March 2000

  2,000,000 (fixed price setup contract)

  March 2000

  ICL

  Deloitte and Touche

  Bloody Sunday Inquiry—Contract C Hearings Running Costs

  £5,000,000

  Not known

  Ongoing based on fixed cost of 225k per month

  Not known

  ICL

  Deloitte and Touche

  Oasis Refresh

  £1,900,000

  October 1999

  2,255,000

  December 1999

  Compaq

  Compass

  £1,200,000

  November 2002

  On budget

  On target

  Picaso

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time Reserve RUC officers there were at (i) 1 June 2001 and (ii) 22 May 1998. [3080]

  Jane Kennedy
  The table shows the number of full-time and part-time members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve at the specified dates:

  Date

  Full-Time Reserve

  Part-Time Reserve

  1 June 2001

  2,417

  1,063

  22 May 1998

  2,996

  1,280

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many regular RUC officers there were at(a) 7 June 2001 and (b) 22 May 1998. [3078]

  Jane Kennedy
  The table shows the number of regular members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary at the specified dates:

  Date

  Number

  7 June 2001

  7,341

  22 May 1998

  8,471

  Disturbances, (Ardoyne)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the cause of disturbances in Ardoyne, Belfast from 20 June; how many civilians and police were injured on each night of the disturbances; how many plastic bullets were fired; what tactics were employed by the police to defuse
  164W
  names of the contractors involved and consultants retained by his Department. [3504]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is set out in the table.

  tensions; what public statements were made by the RUC concerning the protection of children; how many arrests have been made and what the perceived community origin and ages were of those arrested; and how many (a) alleged rioters and (b) police officers were involved in the disturbances. [1171]

  Jane Kennedy
  The serious public disorder in the Ardoyne area of north Belfast arose from a series of sectarian incidents that were themselves the result of the continuing sectarian tensions in this part of the city.

  During the period 20–25 June 2001, 62 police officers and 11 civilians were injured. Eight plastic baton rounds were fired.

  The Royal Ulster Constabulary Chief Constable, the Assistant Chief Constable for Belfast, the local police commander and other officers made almost daily statements through the media with the emphasis being on the safety of the whole community including children. These sought to make absolutely clear the damage being done to the entire community, by a minority on each side, and to urge local leaders and people of influence to try to calm the disorder. Police spoke with political representatives and community activists on both sides of the community in an effort to defuse the situation and to encourage them to use whatever influence they had to resolve the differences. The Army was deployed at interface areas and the level of police patrolling was increased to (a) provide reassurance to both sections of the community and (b) to prevent clashes between both sections of the community.

  Seven persons, aged between 15 and 43 years, were arrested. Although the Royal Ulster Constabulary does not collate information on the religious or political beliefs of

  165W
  arrested persons, it is thought that five may be from the Protestant community and two from the Roman Catholic community.

  At the height of the rioting more than 250 police officers, along with substantial military support, were involved. It is estimated that 800 persons from both communities were involved in the rioting.

  John Stokes
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the findings of the coroner's inquest into the death of John Stokes while in police custody were; how many days elapsed between death and inquest; and what actions he has taken subsequently in respect of the incident. [1090]

  Jane Kennedy
  Mr. Stokes died on 3 November 1997. The Coroner's inquest has not yet been completed. The latest attempt on 7 June 2001 to complete the inquest was halted due to questions being raised concerning human rights considerations. When available, due consideration will be given to the findings of the Coroner's inquest.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she chaired the first meeting of Green Ministers during the current Session of Parliament; when subsequent meetings are planned to take place; and if she will make a statement. [4001]

  Mr. Meacher
  In this Parliament the Green Ministers Committee has been reconstituted as the Cabinet Sub-Committee of Green Ministers, ENV(G), under my chairmanship. Dates for meetings have not, as yet, been set.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average time is for compensation payments for those holdings that(a) lost stock, (b) lost fodder and (c) bore the costs of disinfecting their premises due to foot and mouth. [1672]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: I recognise that there have been delays in the payment of compensation to farmers whose animals have been compulsorily slaughtered because of foot and mouth disease, and that when the disease was at its peak during April and May these delays could be extensive. However, the time taken to pay compensation claims has been reduced and we are now in a position to pay claims within three weeks of receiving complete documentation.

  Information on average payment times for compensation for anything, including fodder, seized by the Department for the purpose of preventing the spread of foot and mouth disease, and payment times for the costs of cleansing and disinfecting affected farm premises where farmers have chosen to do this work themselves under the Department's supervision could be obtained only at disproportionate cost because of the number of payments involved and the fact that the records are not held centrally.
  166W
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many samples of deer have been taken for foot and mouth disease analysis; and how many have tested(a) positive and (b) negative. [3244]

  Mr. Morley
  As of 2 July more than 60 samples have been submitted to the Institute of Animal Health for testing from various parts of England and Scotland. All have tested negative for evidence of the foot and mouth virus, antigens or antibodies.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of the national(a) flock of sheep and (b) herd of cattle has been culled as a result of the slaughter eradication policy. [2554]

  Mr. Morley
  The numbers of sheep and cattle that have been compulsorily slaughtered as a result of the cull on premises affected by foot and mouth disease (FMD) in Great Britain are as follows:

  Sheep

  Cattle

  Number of animals slaughtered as a result of FMD as at 4 July 2001

  2,794,000

  547,000

  Number of animals in Great Britain as per June 2000 Agricultural Census

  39,520,000

  9,456,000

  Percentage of national flock/herd slaughtered

  7

  6

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many foot and mouth disease carcases are being stored pending rendering. [2756]

  Mr. Morley
  No carcases are stored pending rendering. Most carcases are rendered on the day that they are delivered to the plant. Sometimes for operational reasons carcases may be held overnight at plants before being rendered on the following day or held overnight at carcase collection centres before being delivered to rendering plants. However, most carcases will be rendered within 24 hours of delivery to the plant.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of(a) the tonnage of ash to he taken away from and (b) the number of locations of pyre sites in Cumbria. [2753]

  Mr. Morley
  Ash will only be removed from pyre sites in cases where it is not possible to bury it on site. We estimate that there are at least 45 pyre sites in Cumbria that fall into this category. Our initial estimate of the total amount of ash that will have to be removed from these sites is in the region of 10,000 tonnes.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what dates over the last 10 years, MAFF/DEFRA contingency plans for foot and mouth disease were submitted to the EU or DoE/DETR. [2761]

  Mr. Morley
  The Great Britain contingency plan for foot and mouth disease, as required by Article 5 of Council Directive 90/423, in line with the criteria set out in the Commission Decision 91/42/EEC, was submitted to the EU in 1991 and approved by Commission Decision 93/455/EEC.
  167W
  The first revision of the plan was in July 2000 and a copy was sent to the EU.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consideration the Government have given to varying compensatory valuations at different stages of the foot and mouth outbreak. [2546]

  Mr. Morley
  For compensation purposes, the Animal Health Act 1981 stipulates the value of an animal as being its value immediately before it became affected with foot and mouth disease or, if not so affected, its value immediately before it was slaughtered. Standard valuations were set out in regulations in order to speed up the slaughter process, but farmers retained the right to request an individual valuation of their stock.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her assessment is of when foot and mouth disease will be eradicated in the United Kingdom. [2551]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him on 10 July 2001,Official Report, column 492W.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what dates over the last 20 years divisions or regions of MAFF/DEFRA were tested or updated on the contingency plans for foot and mouth disease. [2800]

  Mr. Morley
  The 23 Animal Health Divisional Offices have been required to hold one contingency planning exercise each year and to update their plans accordingly.

  The 1999–2000, 25 such exercises were held and in 1998–99 there were 18 held. Prior to these dates, figures are not readily available.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the protocols and guidance notes for the disinfection of all buildings, including sheds with cobbled floor and slurry pits, following an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [2766]

  Mr. Morley
  Guidance for farmers and contractors on health and safety issues related to cleansing and disinfection are available on the DEFRA website at the following address: http://defraweb/footandmouth/farmers/during/safety. asp.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many animals were killed as part of the 3 km cull in Cumbria. [2548]

  Mr. Morley
  In Cumbria 504,160 animals were slaughtered in the 3 km cull.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of foot and mouth have been detected because of surveillance visits by vets from her Department. [3420]

  Mr. Morley
  As at 11 July, 239 infected premises in Great Britain were confirmed as a result of such surveillance visits.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) cattle and (b) sheep, on how many farms in (i) England and
  168W
  (ii) Cumbria, have been have been slaughtered because they were contiguous to infected premises; and how many of those tested negative for foot and mouth disease. [3445]

  Mr. Morley
  As of 11 July, the numbers of cattle and sheep slaughtered on Contiguous Premises (CPs) and numbers of CPs are shown in the table.

  England

  Cumbria

  Number of CPs

  2,597

  470

  Cattle slaughtered

  137,800

  22,225

  Sheep slaughtered

  689,342

  124,568

  The following table shows, of those figures above, the numbers of CPs which returned a negative laboratory test result, and the numbers of cattle and sheep slaughtered on those premises.

  England

  Cumbria

  Number of CPs

  175

  45

  Cattle slaughtered

  11,189

  2,798

  Sheep slaughtered

  75,644

  21,495

  A negative test result does not necessarily mean that the premises was free from disease. For instance, positive results may not be produced from tests on blood or tissue taken when the disease is in later stages or from newly infected animals where antibodies have not yet developed.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many complaints she has received from(a) organisations and (b) members of the public about the conduct of the military in assisting with the foot and mouth cull. [1487]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 July 2001]: Complaints about the conduct of the military are likely to have been addressed to a number of different points within DEFRA and also the Ministry of Defence. Although the exact number of complaints is not known, in either Department, it is not thought to be high. Indeed, the armed forces were the subject of much praise from farmers and members of the public for their extremely valuable contribution towards the fight against foot and mouth disease.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she takes to ensure consistency in the advice her Department is offering to farmers on biosecurity relating to foot and mouth disease with the advice it is offering to county councils about the re-opening of footpaths; and if she will make a statement. [1988]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's top priority has always been to eradicate the disease. Veterinary advice is that the main way the disease is being spread is by those working with or close to animals not taking appropriate biosecurity measures. At every opportunity we have emphasised the need for everyone consistently to take stringent precautions to avoid further spread.

  However for those who have had no contact with animals or affected premises for at least seven days, the risk is considerably lower. The advice to walkers is consistent with the biosecurity message and includes: observe closed signs; use disinfectant troughs where provided; keep your dog on a lead where there are

  169W
  livestock; and do not leave waste food around. Footpaths within a 3 km protection zone around infected premises should normally remain closed.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what has been the cost to date of the operation to eradicate foot and mouth in the Ribble Valley. [1077]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. For information relating to the cost of the outbreak as a whole to the Department, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him on 11 July 2001,Official Report, column 562W.

  Hedgerows
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the proposed timetable is for consultation on the revised draft Hedgerows Regulations; and if she will make a statement. [1116]

  Alun Michael
  We expect to consult on proposals to amend the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 later this year.

  Animal Welfare
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about the progress of her review of the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals; and for how long representations may be made to her. [3711]

  Mr. Morley
  Responsibility for the European Convention was passed from the Home Office to this Department on 8 June. I will be happy to receive representatives from the hon. Gentleman and others about this new element in our responsibilities for animal welfare.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the measures she is taking to improve animal welfare. [3867]

  Mr. Morley
  This Government are committed to high animal welfare standards, not only in the UK but also on an EU wide basis. High welfare standards are best achieved through effective Community-wide legislation and enforcement. We will continue to work towards the delivery of positive change through a range of UK, European Union and Council of Europe measures designed to improve welfare conditions for all animals, following the transfer of certain animal welfare responsibilities from the Home Office.

  Commission on the Future of Food and Farming
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) who will lead the commission to consider the future of food and farming; [3855]

  (2) what the intended timetable is for the commission to consider the future of food and farming. [3856]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: An announcement will be made soon on the membership and terms of reference of the commission.
  170W

  Wildlife Crime (Birds of Prey)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are in place to(a) stop wild birds of prey being illegally sold in the United Kingdom and (b) detect and prosecute those responsible for the illegal sale of wild birds of prey; and what further action is planned. [4167]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: Legislation is already in place prohibiting the sale of most birds of prey species, unless a licence has been issued by my Department or one of the devolved Administrations. People found guilty of sales offences could face an unlimited fine and/or a prison sentence of up to two years.

  Responsibility for enforcing the controls rests primarily with the police service. Most forces now have at least one part-time Wildlife Liaison Officer who would normally investigate these offences. The Department actively supports investigating officers, by providing information about the licences and permits it has issued, and from its bird registration system. It also manages a panel of Wildlife Inspectors, who check compliance with certain wildlife controls.

  The Department also co-chairs the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime, comprising all the main Government and voluntary organisations committed to combating crimes against wildlife. The Partnership is taking forward a range of initiatives to raise awareness of wildlife crime and to support the work of police officers. One of its main priorities is to take forward work to establish a dedicated unit to tackle wildlife crime at national level.

  Flood Defence Schemes (Robertsbridge)
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will instruct the Environment Agency to commence work immediately on the flood defence schemes for Northbridge street and Rutley close, Robertsbridge. [3858]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]The Department has policy responsibility for flood and coastal defence and provides grant aid for capital works that meet certain criteria. However operational responsibility, including decisions on which projects to promote and their timing, rests with local operating authorities, such as the Environment Agency. I understand that the Agency is building on the findings of the pre-feasibility study of flooding problems in Robertsbridge, by commissioning a feasibility study to develop the outline design for suitable flood defences. The study will include consideration of flood defences for Northbridge street and Rutley close. Depending on the results of the study, I understand that the Environment Agency plans to commence works at Robertsbridge in summer 2002.

  Flood Protection
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to amend the funding arrangements for flood protection measures; and if she will make a statement. [4136]
  171W
  Mr. Morley
  The funding arrangements for flood and coastal defence are currently being reviewed with a report due in September. I shall, of course, inform the House of the conclusions that are reached.

  Departmental Co-operation
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she met the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to discuss inter-departmental sharing of papers and joint decision-making; what is the intended timetable for future meetings to take place; and if she will make a statement; [4005]

  (2) when she met the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to discuss inter-departmental sharing of papers and joint decision-making; what is the intended timetable for future meetings to take place; and if she will make a statement. [4006]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]: It is vital that the Department works effectively with other Departments to deliver the Government's policy objectives. I regularly meet Ministerial colleagues from relevant parts of Government to discuss matters of shared interest. My officials also have frequent contacts with their counterparts in these areas.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has for future joint decision making in conjunction with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; and if she will make a statement. [4004]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]: It is vital that the Department works effectively with other Departments to deliver the Government's policy objectives. We work closely with all relevant parts of Government, including the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, on matters of shared interest.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has for future joint decision making in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry; and if she will make a statement. [4007]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]: It is vital that my Department works effectively with other Departments to deliver the Government's policy objectives. We work closely with all relevant parts of Government, including the Department of Trade and Industry, on matters of shared interest.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her timetable is for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy to reflect environmental concerns more closely; and if she will make a statement. [3987]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]: We expect the European Commission to table proposals to the Agriculture Council for discussion next summer. The timing of those negotiations will be the responsibility of
  172W
  the member states holding the presidency at the time, which will be Spain for the period up to June 2002 and then Denmark.

  We are committed to CAP reform and want to reduce the overall burden of the CAP, to secure a closer alignment between EU and world prices and to re-focus support on measures benefiting the rural economy and the environment.

  Biotechnology
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the consultation exercises that have been undertaken over the last five years on farm animal biotechnology and cloning; what decisions have been made following these exercises; and which issues are still under consideration. [2562]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government received advice on the implications of cloning for farm animals in a report by the Farm Animal Welfare Council (published December 1998). Since then, the Government have established the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC). Its remit includes providing strategic advice on the ethical and social aspects of developments in biotechnology, and on their public acceptability. An AEBC sub-group is currently exploring the subject of animals and biotechnology with the aim of providing a report to Government early next year. This may include consideration of the issue of the welfare of cloned animals. More generally, the Office of Science and Technology commissioned a consultation exercise on public attitudes to biotechnology in 1998–99, which included questions on the public perception of animal cloning.

  State Veterinary Service
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many vets were employed by the Government Veterinary Service on 1 May(a) 1995, (b) 1997, (c) 1999 and (d) 2001. [3467]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of veterinary surgeons (full-time equivalents) employed by the State Veterinary Service (SVS) since January 1995 are shown in the table (figures for May are not readily accessible, other than those for 2001 which are given). The Veterinary Investigation Service became part of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) on 1 October 1995 and is not included in these figures from that date. In 2000, there were 99 veterinarians employed by the VLA. Much of the information presented here previously appeared on 27 February 1997,Official Report, columns 323–24W.

  Of the 286 full-time equivalent veterinarians employed by the State Veterinary Service in 2001 as a whole, 220 veterinarians are employed as field veterinary officers. The work of these officers is supplemented by about 100 Temporary Veterinary Inspectors (TVIs) from the private sector in normal times.

  Year as at 1 January

  Number of vets

  1995

  394.5

  1997

  289.5

  1999

  283.0

  2001

  286.0

  173W
  As at 1 May 2001 the total number of vets working in the State Veterinary Service was 1,718. The permanent veterinary staff were supplemented by TVIs, foreign Government vets on loan to the SVS, vets from the MAFF agencies and those on loan from other Government Departments.

  Census
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the June farming census will be held; and what plans she has to alter the usual questions. [3437]

  Mr. Morley
  Following consultation with the industry my Department carried out the June Census on 1 June 2001 as originally planned. The decision to proceed was carefully considered. There is a need to be sensitive to the pressures the farming community is facing as a result of the Foot and Mouth outbreak, yet gather good information to help underpin policies for recovery.

  Regarding alteration of the questions, the need for continuity of the statistical series and our legal obligations to collect certain details meant there were no changes to the census form. Consideration is currently being given to the collection of supplementary information relating to the wider impact of the outbreak upon farmers and the short, medium and longer term effects.

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets she has set for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science for 2001–02. [5028]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have set the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science the following performance targets for 2001–02.

  Financial Control
  To recover from Government Departments and Agencies and external customers the full economic costs of the Agency's services.

  Efficiency
  To achieve savings and efficiency gains in a range of key functions.

  Quality and Service Delivery
  To give satisfaction to customers in the way that outputs are provided, as measured by the CEFAS Customer Satisfaction Survey.
  To make satisfactory progress with the Action Plan resulting from the 1999–2000 Science Audit.
  To manage the Agency in an effective manner including pursuit of commercial exploitation of research outputs.

  Forestry Commission (Expenditure)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals she has to amend the Forestry Commission Departmental Expenditure Limits for(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [5029]

  Mr. Morley
  The National Assembly for Wales has now taken over responsibility for funding the Forestry Commission's activities in Wales, in accordance with the devolution arrangements, and so £5,256,000 will be 174W
  transferred to the National Assembly from the Forestry Commission's Departmental Expenditure Limit in 2001–02 and in each of the following two years.

  In addition, in order to allow the Forestry Commission to smooth out the effects on net expenditure of the current difficulties in achieving planned levels of income, the Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2001–02 will be increased by bringing £1,000,000 forward from the Departmental Expenditure Limits for both 2002–03 and 2003–04 (giving a total increase in 2001–02 of £2,000,000).

  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Departmental Expenditure Limit will also be increased in 2001–02 by £1,000. This token Supplementary Estimate is required to bring the ambit of the Summary Request for Supply presented to Parliament into line with the Departmental Supply Estimate.

  The net effect of these changes is that the Forestry Commission's total budget over the last three years is increased by £1,000. However, following the transfer of responsibility for funding the Commission's activities in Wales, the Commission's Departmental Expenditure Limit for expenditure funded directly by Parliament will be reduced in 2001–02 by £3,255,000, from £70,592,000 to £67,337,000, and in each of the following two years by £6,256,000 from £75,052,000 to £68,796,000.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Replies
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 11 July 2001,Official Report, column 573W, on ministerial replies, if he will list by Department, the number of letters from members of the public not replied to since May 1997. [4734]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested. I will later this week be placing in the Libraries of the House information on the percentage of letters answered by the main Departments and agencies within their correspondence target.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the reservation taken by the UK to article 22 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. [3877]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991. The reservation in respect of article 22 in no way inhibits the discharge of our obligation; under the Convention. It is there to safeguard the right of the United Kingdom to determine its own immigration and nationality laws.
  175W

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what studies he has conducted into the timescale and evidence for material changes in capacity for working. [3088]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: Improvements in a person's work capability will vary from case to case according to their condition. This is not predictable and will also depend on the opportunities and support available. Research shows that around a third of disabled people not in work want to work. That is why we are committed to providing the right support for those who may be able to return to employment.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will publish the details of his planned changes to Incapacity Benefit before laying the regulations before the House. [4321]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the 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.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what is the average amount of time people currently claiming Incapacity Benefit have been in receipt of that benefit; [3226]

  Number of Incapacity Benefit recipients as at 28 February 2001

  Thousand

  Diagnoses group

  Number

  All diagnoses

  1,515.2

  Claimants without any diagnosis code on the system

  4.2

  Certain infectious and parasitic diseases (A00-B99)

  11.2

  Neoplasms (Coo-D48)

  23.7

  Diseases of the blood and blood forming organs and certain diseases involving the immune mechanism (D50-D89)

  2.3

  Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases (E00-E90)

  25.0

  Mental and behavioural disorders (F00-F99)

  392.0

  Diseases of the nervous system (G00-G99)

  83.7

  Diseases of the eye and adnexa (H00-H59)

  10.3

  Diseases of the ear and mastoid process (H60-H95)

  6.8

  Diseases of the circulatory system (I00-I99)

  155.4

  Diseases of the respiratory system (J00-J99)

  49.8

  Diseases of the digestive system (K00-K93)

  26.1

  Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous system (L00-L99)

  10.6

  Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue (M00-M99)

  400.8

  Diseases of the genitourinary system (Noo-N99)

  12.2

  Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium (O00-O99)

  1.3

  Certain conditions originating in the Perinatal period (P00-P96)

  —

  Congenital malformations, deformations and chromasomal abnormalities (Q00-Q99)

  1.4

  Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified (R00-R99)

  184.5

  Injury, poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes (S00-U22)

  97.1

  Factors influencing health status and contact with health services (Z00-Z99)

  16.8

  Notes:

  1. All diagnoses are coded using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition (ICD10), published by the World Health Organisation. The codes in brackets following each heading show the ICD10 codes in each group.

  2. The figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of the benefit computer system and will exclude a small number of clerically held cases. They are expressed in thousands, rounded to the nearest hundred. Those marked with "—" denote nil or negligible.

  3. If a person has more than one medical condition only the primary diagnosis is recorded.

  4. Figures exclude cases where a claimant receives National Insurance credits only.
  176W
  (2) what proportion of people receiving Incapacity Benefit for an indefinite period have had changed circumstances since the benefit was originally granted. [3225]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The average duration of claims to Incapacity Benefit current on 31 March 2000, the latest date for which the information is available, was 2,278 days. This figure is based on a 1 per cent. sample of claims and excludes cases where the person claiming was receiving National Insurance credits only.

  Information on the proportion of people receiving Incapacity Benefit who have had a change of circumstances is not available.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in receipt of Incapacity Benefit have been subjected to a new capability for work test as a result of(a) section 61 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 and (b) the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1999. [3183]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]Between the introduction of the Personal Capability Assessment in April 2000 and the end of May 2001 (the latest date for which figures are available), 825,017 assessments were carried out.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will provide a breakdown of recipients of Incapacity Benefit by type of incapacity; and if he will make a statement. [3658]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: The information is in the table.

  177W 8W

  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications for Incapacity Benefit were refused in(a) 2000 and (b) this year to date. [4367]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: The information is in the table.

  Total Incapacity Benefit claims disallowed on application

  Number

  1 January to 31 December 2000

  379,806

  1 January to 30 June 2001

  183,233

  Note:

  1. Figures are taken from a 100 per cent. count of the computer system and exclude a small number of cases held clerically

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what has been the cost of Incapacity Benefit in each year since 1995(a) in cash terms and (b) at current prices. [3065]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is available in statistical tables showing breakdowns of historical and forecast benefit expenditure which are in the Library. It is also available on the Department's internet site.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what evidence he has collated on the numbers of claimants of Incapacity Benefit who are capable of(a) full-time work on a sustained basis and (b) other kinds of work; [3177]

  (2) what studies he has carried out into the skills, qualifications and work experience of present claimants of Incapacity Benefit; and what the result was. [3097]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Incapacity Benefit is a benefit for people who are not working because of sickness and disability, but this does not mean that they will never be capable of work. We know about one third of Incapacity Benefit recipients want to work. We believe it right to help them to achieve these ambitions.

  A national survey has been carried out which gathered information on the skills and qualifications of people who were in receipt of incapacity-related benefits for 28 weeks or more, including Incapacity Benefit. We plan to publish detailed findings from the survey later this year. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people suffering from diabetes are in receipt of Incapacity Benefit. [3824]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is in the table.

  Recipients of Incapacity Benefit (IB) whose diagnosis is diabetes as at 28 February 2001

  Thousand

  Diagnosis

  IB recipients

  Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus

  10.4

  Non Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus

  10.3

  Unspecified Diabetes Mellitus

  20.3

  Total

  20.9

  1Figures based on a very few sample cases and are therefore subject to a high degree of sampling error and should be used as a guide to the current situation only

  178W
  Notes:

  1. Figures given do not include Credits Only cases

  2. Owing to the rounding method used the individual figures do not sum to the total

  3. The table shows the numbers of Incapacity Benefit recipients whose first or only diagnosis is shown to be diabetes. They exclude numbers claiming Incapacity Benefit where another diagnosis is the primary cause of incapacity

  4. The figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of the benefit computer system and will exclude a small number of clerically held cases

  5. They are expressed in thousands, rounded to the nearest hundred

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will set out the most recent figures for the review periods set for Incapacity Benefit, indicating how many recipients fall into each category(a) less than three months, (b) three to nine months, (c) nine to 18 months, (d) 18 months to 36 months, (e) three to five years, (f) more than five years and (g) indefinite. [4322]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to review the regulations which exclude term time only workers from claiming Jobseeker's Allowance during the school holidays. [4449]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are considering the terms of the House of Lords judgment of 28 June.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people(a) under and (b) over the age of 16 years and suffering from diabetes are in receipt of Disability Living Allowance, listed by the (i) lower, (ii) middle and (iii) higher rate. [3834]

  Maria Eagle
  Disability Living Allowance comprises a care component with three rates and a mobility component with two. Relevant information is in the table.

  People in receipt of Disability Living Allowance whose main disabling condition is diabetes mellitus1

  Age under 16

  Age 16 and over

  All recipients2

  13,200

  28,300

  Recipients of each rate

  Highest rate care

  2,800

  5,900

  Middle rate care

  9,400

  9,900

  Lowest rate care

  1,000

  6,400

  Higher rate mobility

  3100

  19,500

  Lower rate mobility

  1,500

  4,400

  1 Figures relate to 30 November 2000.

  2 Some recipients receive both care and mobility components.

  3 Figure is too small to be statistically reliable.

  Source:

  The Department for Work and Pensions: 5 per cent. data.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what reviews are under way within his Department to examine the eligibility criteria for Disability Living Allowance for those diagnosed as having an irreversible condition. [3823]
  179W
  Maria Eagle
  Entitlement to Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is based on care and mobility needs arising from a disability, not on particular medical conditions, and there are no specific reviews relating to irreversible conditions.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the information technology contracts in excess of £500,000 let by his Department or its predecessor since April 1991, giving in each case the original estimated cost and original estimated completion date, the actual cost and actual completion date and the names of the contractors involved and consultants retained by his Department. [3511]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Employment Service and the Department of Social Security, had both made their own contractual arrangements for information technology (IT) prior to merging to form the Department for Work and Pensions.

  Employment Service contracts
  The Employment Service awarded a contract to Siemens Business Service (SBS) to provide an electronic communications system. The service is called Escom and the contract start date was 1 March 1998 with an estimated value of £6 million over the life of the contract. This is a five-year contract due to end 28 February 2003.

  Up until August 1998 all other IT work was performed "in-house" by Employment Services' IT division. From 1 August 1998 ES outsourced its IT work in a partnership agreement with Electronic Data Systems (EDS). The original agreement ran until July 2008 with a value of £370 million. In October 2000 the agreement was revised to reflect major new investment in IT and telephony to improve services for jobless people and employers in the Modernising Employment Service (MES) project. The partnership agreement is on-going and retains the original end date of July 2008 with a revised value of £806.5 million.

  Department of Social Security contracts

  From 1 September 2000 the Department of Social Security outsourced all its IT provision via the award of the ACCORD Strategic Outsourcing Business Allocation. ACCORD is an overarching contract under which future IT services to the Department will be provided by three groups of IT suppliers. The lead supplier group is led by Electronic Data Systems (EDS). The other two supplier groups are headed by British Telecom (BT) and International Computer Ltd. (ICL).

  To date, four specific businesses allocations have been awarded under the ACCORD contract:
  The Strategic Outsourcing Business Allocation (SOBA) conferred lead supplier status on EDS and gave them responsibility for maintenance, development and operation of the Department's existing IT systems, together with a range of related IT services. The contract period is 1 September 2000 to 31 August 2010.
  The Child Support Reforms business allocation was awarded to EDS, to provide new IT systems in support of the Child Support Agency. The contract period is 1 September 2000 to 31 August 2010.
  180W
  The Networks and Office Services Provision (NOSP) business allocation was awarded to BT for the provision of networks and related communications services. The contract period is 30 April 2001 to 31 March 2006.
  A business allocation covering Focus 95 Lots B, C and D was awarded to BT for maintenance and support of office IT equipment. This novated contracts previously awarded to other suppliers in 1995. All three lots have a contract end date of 30 November 2001.

  The information requested regarding costs of business allocated under the ACCORD contract is not available as it is commercially confidential.

  Prior to September 2000 the Department was responsible for its own IT provision but also used a large number of private sector contracts. In 1995 the Department undertook a major rationalisation of its IT contracting approach resulting in the Focus 95 contracts under which responsibility for IT support and operations was outsourced.

  A list of IT contracts current at the time of that outsourcing (October 1995) has been placed in the Library. This list gives contractor names and contract periods but it is not possible to give contract values nor is it possible to provide details prior to 1995. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Basic Pension
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many single retirement pensioners receive(a) 100 per cent. of basic rate retirement pension, (b) 90 to 99 per cent. of basic rate retirement pension, (c) 80 to 89 per cent. basic rate retirement pension and (d) less than 80 per cent. of basic rate retirement pension. [4053]

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

  Retirement pensioners by proportion of basic state pension received: 30 September 2000

  Thousand

  All retirement pensioners

  All percentage rates

  10,933.9

  100 per cent.

  6,745.5

  90–99 per cent.

  286.4

  80–89 per cent.

  245.6

  Less than 80 per cent.

  3,655.5

  Notes:

  1. The figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Totals may not sum owing to rounding.

  3. Includes retirement pensioners resident in Great Britain and overseas.

  4. Excludes pensioners without entitlement to a basic state pension.

  Source:

  Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample taken from the Pension Strategy Computer System at 30 September 2000.

  State Second Pension
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the accrual rate implied by the state second pension in each £1,000 band of income up to £20,000 a year in the SSP in its(a) earnings related and (b) flat rate forms. [3699]
  181W
  Mr. McCartney
  The information is in the table:

  State second pension accrual rates1

  Annual earnings (£)

  Phase (A)(percentage)

  Phase 2(B)(percentage)

  4,000

  1,040

  1,040

  5,000

  212

  212

  6,000

  118

  118

  7,000

  82

  82

  8,000

  63

  63

  9,000

  51

  51

  10,000

  43

  43

  11,000

  38

  37

  12,000

  34

  32

  13,000

  32

  29

  14,000

  29

  26

  15,000

  28

  24

  16,000

  26

  22

  17,000

  25

  20

  18,000

  24

  19

  19,000

  23

  17

  20,000

  22

  16

  1The accrual rates shown are based on a 49-year working life, expressed in current terms. Unlike SERPS, which has an accrual rate of 20 per cent, the accrual rate for state second pension varies depending on income. State second pension concentrates the most help on the lowest paid. For example, a person earning £6,000 a year through their working life would get £59 a week from state second pension, £46 more than they would have received from SERPS.

TREASURY

  Devolved Government Referendums
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost to public funds was of the referendums on devolved government in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) London. [2600]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The total cost of the referendum on devolved government in Scotland is estimated at £4.35 million. The total cost of the referendum in Wales was £2.3 million, and in London £1.5 million.

  Housing Wardens
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans to extend VAT to services provided by housing managers or wardens; and what estimate he has made of the revenue that will be used. [4092]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are no plans to change the VAT treatment of services provided by housing managers or wardens.

  Asbestos Compensation
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that the financial services industry is adequately prepared for meeting future claims for compensation relating to the asbestos industry. [3514]

  Ruth Kelly
  As part of its normal supervisory role, the FSA considers all material risks which can have a serious adverse impact upon individual insurance companies. Due to the uncertainty of future asbestos-related claims costs,182W
  it monitors developments relating to the insurance of asbestos, paying attention to companies with significant liabilities in this area.

  Biodiesel
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his most recent estimate is of the cost per tonne of carbon saved in biodiesel production. [4016]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]: The cost of saving a tonne of carbon from the promotion of biodiesel varies considerably depending on the type of feedstock used for biodiesel production and its additional production cost relative to mineral diesel.

  DTLR estimates that the cost of saving a tonne of carbon from biodiesel could potentially range from about £900 to over £2,300.

  Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on what date a Green Minister was first appointed in his Department; when subsequent appointments were made: and if he will make a statement; [3967]

  (2) what the terms of reference are for the Green Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement. [3980]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to him by the Minister for the Environment on 13 July 2001, Official Report, column 690W.

  Drug Seizures
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the value was of illegal drug seizures at points of entry to the UK in each of the past five years; and what the observed effect was on the street prices of illegal drugs. [2370]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: It is not possible to provide data on the total street value of all drug types seized by HM Customs and Excise at points of entry to the UK over the last five years which could be directly compared with the data available on street prices. The most comprehensive available data are for heroin and cocaine. Information relating to seizures for 2000–01 is not yet available.

  The total value of heroin and cocaine seized by HM Customs and Excise in the four financial years from 1 April 1996 to 31 March 2000 is as follows:

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Heroin

  £66.9

  £156.8

  £66.7

  £96.7

  Cocaine

  £294.1

  £242.1

  £279.7

  £150.7

  Total

  £361.0

  £398.9

  £346.4

  £247.4

  Between 1996 and 2000 the UK average street price for cocaine varied between £65 and £77 per gram, while the average price for heroin varied between £65 and £74. There is no direct correlation between variations in street price and the value of seizures.
  183W
  Street prices can vary for a number of reasons. While law enforcement activity can have an impact, factors such as variances in the yield of drug crops, consumption trends, drug purity levels and stockpiling by distributors can also affect the price of drugs on the street.

  Manufacturing Growth
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his predictions are for manufacturing growth over the 2001–02 financial year. [4657]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government publish a forecast for manufacturing output twice a year, at Budget time and in the pre-Budget report. The most recent forecast was published in March 2001 in the Financial Statement and Budget Report (HC 279), and this forecast will next be updated in the pre-Budget report in the autumn.

  Community Investment Tax Credits
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce(a) pilot schemes for community investment tax credits, (b) independent monitoring of the effectiveness of community investment tax credits and (c) internal monitoring of the effectiveness of community investment tax credits; and if he will make a statement. [4137]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government intend to bring forward legislation on community investment tax credits in the Finance Bill 2002. We published a consultation document on the tax credits ("Enterprising Communities: a tax incentive for community investment") in March. The consultation period closed on July 2 and generated a largely positive response. The Government will announce decisions on the outcome of the consultation in due course. There will be robust processes for monitoring the effectiveness of any scheme.
  184W

  Revenue Losses
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to obtain a more accurate account of the revenue losses outlined in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General published on 9 February. [2995]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise Trust Statement for 1999–2000, which has been certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General, provided details of the estimated revenue losses due to excise diversion fraud of £668 million with further losses of £216 million involving goods diverted onto overseas markets where duty would have been due. Notes 9 and 10 to the Trust Statement, which is published with Customs Annual Report 1999–2000 (CM 5064), give further details.

  In his report, the Comptroller and Auditor General also undertook to produce a further report to Parliament on diversion frauds and on the action planned by Customs. He will be reporting to the Public Accounts Committee. The report of the independent investigation conducted by John Rogues, commissioned by the Paymaster General and the Chairman of Customs, will be published at the same time as the Comptroller and Auditor General's report is made available to the House.

  Roques Report
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Rogues report, referred to in section 5.3 of Comptroller and Auditor General's report published on 9 February, will be published. [3064]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Rogues report will be published at the same time as the Comptroller and Auditor General's further report on excise diversion is made available to the House (referred to in section 5.4 of his report published on 9 February).

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.

Lord Condon
Sir Paul Leslie Condon, Knight, having been created Baron Condon, of Langton Green in the County of Kent, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Janner of Braunstone and the Lord Sharman.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale
Robin Corbett, Esquire, having been created Baron Corbett of Castle Vale, of Erdington in the County of West Midlands, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Dubs and the Baroness Crawley, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Northern Ireland: RUC Funding
2.48 p.m.
Lord Glentoranasked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the £117 million shortfall faced by the police in Northern Ireland revealed in the final annual report of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, how they propose to maintain law and order in Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the £117 million shortfall referred to by the chief constable in his 2000–01 annual report covers a three-year period from 2001–02 to 2003–04. The possible funding deficit for the current financial year as highlighted by the chief constable is approximately £20 million. However, I must emphasise that the Government remain fully committed to ensuring that the RUC has all the resources necessary to continue to deliver a high quality policing service to the community.
Ministers are aware of the chief constable's views. Officials continue to discuss the issue with both the chief constable and the police authority.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister in part for that Answer. The chief constable in relation to this shortfall in his annual report said:
"Should appropriate additional funding not be made available, I have no doubt the required cuts would severely impact on our ability to maintain basic services over the three-year period".
Does the Minister accept that policing with inadequate resources leads to ineffective policing? That is well-proven in many parts of the world; the reverse being the
1372
case more recently in New York. Does the Minister also accept that the Patten report clearly states that its recommendations assume a peaceful and normal environment for policing? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that any further concessions to Sinn Fein over policing in Northern Ireland would make this small sum of money as a shortfall totally irrelevant?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, first, if there are inadequate resources for policing, policing suffers. The issue of the right level of resources is being discussed between the police authority, the chief constable and the Government. That is how it has always been and that is how it should continue to be. Secondly, the noble Lord asked about Patten. Yes, certain elements of Patten require normality, but as the chief constable has himself accepted, some of the elements can be implemented straight away. That process continues. Thirdly, the process of negotiation continues and it is hoped that the Good Friday agreement will be implemented in all its parts.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord satisfied that there is enough money fully to implement the Patten proposals?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the report to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred does not deal with the funding of Patten. Once Patten begins to be implemented in full it is important to ensure that there are adequate resources to do that. That is for discussion on other occasions.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, given that terrorist organisations, both republican and loyalist, remain armed to the teeth, does the noble and learned Lord share my concern over the current campaigns to reduce still further the numbers and the effectiveness of the Royal Ulster Constabulary?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, just as in relation to resources, the Government remain committed to ensuring that the police force and the security forces remain at levels to deal with the security threat in Northern Ireland. That has always been the Government's position and that will remain the Government's position.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the cost of the rioting in July alone was £5.5 million. that 483 experienced officers have already left and 800 are to go, that Sinn Fein is asking among many other things for retrospective inquiries into RUC behaviour and that meanwhile the cost of the Bloody Sunday inquiry is running at £50 million? I should be interested to have that final figure confirmed. In the light of all that, is this not an extraordinary moment to be allowing any doubt whatever to rest upon the ability of the RUC to do its job? I recognise that the noble and learned Lord has given us some assurances. I hope he will able to assure us that I am wrong in supposing that we would ever consider having a Bloody Sunday-type inquiry retrospectively into the activities of the RUC.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked about leavers. In year one of the voluntary scheme, 483 officers left between January and March 2001, which is the same figure as that given by the noble Baroness. Year two runs from April 2001 to March 2002. Eight hundred and twelve officers are expected to leave during that period. The chief constable is comfortable with that process. As I have always said, the level of policing must ensure proper security in Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness asked about the cost of the disturbances in July. I do not have the answer to her question and so I shall write to her. The noble Baroness asked about the cost of the Bloody Sunday inquiry. I do not know what the cost is and so I shall write to the noble Baroness on that as well. The noble Baroness asked about inquiries like the Bloody Sunday inquiry. Each case has to be looked at on its merits. There was merit in having a Bloody Sunday inquiry. I do not think that I should go any further than that.
Lord Blease: My Lords, have the Government had any information or approaches from the Northern Ireland Police Board? Has the police board issued any public statement about these matters?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have had approaches from the police authority in relation to the issue of funding. We are talking to the authority in the same way as we are talking to the chief constable. I am not aware that it has made any public statement in relation to these matters.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord be kind enough to answer my third question? Does he agree that any further concessions to Sinn Fein over policing in Northern Ireland would make this cash shortfall irrelevant?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I indicated that there had been talks at Weston Park when a whole range of matters were discussed. Those discussions included the Ulster Unionist Party. The talks were designed to ensure that the Good Friday agreement will be implemented in full. In relation to Patten, we believe that the Act implements it in full. But if people come forward with proposals saying that we are wrong, we shall listen to them.

Road Traffic Charging
2.55 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harryasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to move forward on proposals to tax cars on entering traffic-congested urban areas.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Transport Act 2000 provides enabling powers for local authorities in England and Wales to introduce a congestion charging scheme as part of a local transport
1374
plan to relieve traffic problems and fund improvements to public transport services. The Greater London Authority Act 1999 gives similar powers to the mayor of London. The mayor and a number of authorities outside London are considering using these powers to develop charging schemes.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. Will he tell us frankly whether he is in favour of the proposals put forward by Ken Livingstone over the past 24 hours and in the papers last night and today? Does he expect them to be repeated in other major cities? Does he think they will help? What effect will queues and delays have on cars entering the central zone, from Knightsbridge to St James's or Green Park, if they have to stop to pay £5 as they go through a checkpoint? Would it not be better to concentrate on the earlier plan of getting the utilities in London—electricity, gas, water and cable TV—to dig their holes in the main road at the same time rather than one after the other, seriatim, as they do at present?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am all in favour of the holes being dug at the same time to try to reduce delays. I do not think that the mayor's plan involves people stopping and paying £5. Cameras will take photographs and drivers can either pay in advance or pay afterwards. The Government have given local authorities and the GLA the power to bring forward proposals in relation to charging schemes. That is what the mayor of London has done. He is now consulting on those proposals. It will be for the Government to consider those proposals when he puts them to us. And he has not done that yet.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that if the congestion charging achieves a 15 per cent reduction in traffic congestion in central London and raises £200 million for public transport, that will be a prize well worth winning?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. One has to look at the scheme and see whether it aims to achieve that. We obviously think in principle that such schemes could achieve that; otherwise we would not have given powers to local authorities, the GLA and the mayor to produce such schemes.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, what consideration have the Government given to the impact of such a charge on the workings of the House of Commons and of this House? Have the Government thought about that? Have they any plans as to how it might be dealt with?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I understand the proposal made by the mayor, it will cost drivers £5 to come into central London. Should Members wish to come by car to the House of Commons or the House of Lords where there are car-parking arrangements, they might have to pay £5. I am

1375
not sure that that would necessarily impact adversely on the workings of this House—unless the noble Lord has some other view in relation to that.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the mayor of London has already caused a great deal of traffic congestion in central London by blocking up and making one-way streets in the middle of London so that it is almost impossible for a taxi to come from Euston, King's Cross or St Pancras down to Westminster?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it would be unwise for me to comment on the road schemes of the mayor. I have seen taxis arrive from Euston and King's Cross so the journey is not completely impossible. But I think that complaints about that should be taken up with the mayor rather than me.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, first I shall quickly declare an interest as chair of the Greater London Assembly. Does the Minister agree that this is a charge rather than a tax, and that the charge will be ring-fenced so that it is used to improve public transport? If that laudable aim is to be achieved, does he agree that, on reflection, government support for the companies likely to be running the Tube is correct, given that they will be conferred "equal priority"—to use his words—to improve stations as well as lines and trains? However, it must be a matter of common sense that what passengers need is for the trains to work and to be able to move swiftly through to their destinations.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I shall answer the first part of the question put by the noble Baroness, but not the second part. This Question does not concern the Tube; it is a Question about congestion charging. Yes, I agree that we are referring here to a charge and not to a tax.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh has just whispered in my ear, and I have received confirmation by a note, that the mayor and the GLA do not determine where one-way streets should be sited around Euston and King's Cross stations, it is the London Borough of Camden. Perhaps I may redirect the inquiries of the noble Baroness to that local authority.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, bearing in mind the fact that company car drivers will be able to reclaim their £5 a day, that commercial traffic will recoup the sum by charging higher prices, and that the rich will be affected hardly at all because they have got plenty of money anyway, is it not only the poor who will be disbarred from central London, and thereby be disadvantaged by the scheme?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my noble friend has made points which it may well be appropriate to submit to the consultation on the detail of the scheme. Once all the points have been
1376
considered in that consultation, it will then be for the mayor and the GLA to decide what they will do in relation to the scheme.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord will be able to give some comfort to those of us who are anxious that Ministers should not suffer any inconvenience or the burden of personal expenditure when they bring their cars to this place? We understand that the rest of your Lordships are not a matter of any importance to the Government.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I may echo what was said by my noble friend about holes in the road. They are caused and occupied by arrogant people who care not a curse for the convenience of the public. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that it is time that Ministers spoke to them fairly sharply?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, first, perhaps I may express my profound thanks to the noble Lord, who has sought to look after my interests in every single way over the past four years. I do not know what is the position in relation to Ministers, just as I do not know what is the position in relation to noble Lords. No doubt, if a group either of noble Lords or Members of the other place wishes to make representations to the mayor and the GLA on this issue, they will do so.
So far as concerns holes in the road, perhaps I may say how enthusiastically I endorse the proposal that holes in the road should be kept to a minimum and that such holes should be dealt with in a manner most efficient for the travelling public. That is a point on which I believe all noble Lords would agree.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister may not wish to respond to questions put to him as regards the Tube. However, does he agree that, were the Government's proposals as regards the Tube to be as unfortunate as everyone other than the Government expects, they would have an effect on the congestion charge which might be described as "knock-on" in more senses than one?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the congestion charge seeks to reduce congestion in central London. During the course of the consultation, it is for individuals and groups to decide whether they will do so or whether they will not. Having refused to respond to the question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as regards the Tube, it would be churlish of me to answer the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, during the passage of the Transport Bill 2000 the noble and learned. Lord's predecessor made much of the need to improve the public transport system before a congestion charge was introduced. Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House what improvements have been made to London's transport infrastructure now that the system for congestion charging is being introduced?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I accept entirely and support the proposition that before a

1377
congestion charge is introduced, improvements have to be made to public transport. That has always been a part of the Government's position. In their transport strategy, the mayor and the GLA accept the same approach. They have proposed improvements to various kinds of transport. No doubt, in the course of the consultation, that issue will be considered.

Peers' Register of Interests: Consent for Entries
3.5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Allowayasked the Leader of the House:
Whether the Register of Interests now to be prepared is to be made available for public comment; and whether entries relating to spouses, relatives or friends are to be made without written consent of those concerned.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the new register will be a public document, as is the current register. Written consent will not be a requirement for entries relating to spouses, relatives and friends, but I suggest that it would be a normal courtesy to inform any persons before entering details about them in the register.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in thanking the noble and learned Lord for that reply, may I ask how our courts will restrain unjustified comment or unauthorised entries into a register that will be available worldwide on the Internet and to the press? As probity is not in issue, perhaps I may also ask whether the mandatory disclosure of the interests of spouses, relatives and friends is not incompatible with the convention as a want of respect for private and family life? Why do we not implement the suggestion put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, and reach a joint decision as to registration which affects so many private rights?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is difficult for me to contemplate the notion of an unauthorised entry into the register because, plainly, only noble Lords will be entitled to place any entries on to it. I think that the registrar would be able to recognise any interloper.
As regards the courts, the noble Lord knows that the normal rules of defamation would apply. If defamatory material is disseminated, then any citizen has the right to institute proceedings in the libel courts.
With regard to Article 8 of the convention, which covers the right to private and family life, again, the noble Lord will know that a balancing is introduced in the second part of that article on—I shall paraphrase
1378
generally here—public interest grounds. I believe, and the House endorsed this, that these disclosures are in the public interest.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House what would happen if a friend refused permission?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, exactly the same as would happen at the moment. Noble Lords well know that the obligation has been in place since 1995. That followed the Griffiths report, which was accepted by the House. However, as I said in response to the noble Lord who put the Question, the permission of the friend is not required. It is the duty of your Lordships to make the declaration in exactly the same way as if I were a major shareholder in a large company. I would not have to seek the permission of that company to make the disclosure.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that Clause 12 requires us to declare the interests of our relatives, can I ask the noble and learned Lord to bear in mind that I have never dared to ask those two daughters of mine, who make good incomes, how much they earn and that I have no intention of doing so?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Section 12 does not require mandatory registration. It states in heavy bold type,
"relevant financial interests may also include (depending on their significance)"
Plainly the incomes of the noble Lord's daughters are of great significance, but it is unlikely to be of relevance to the way in which the noble Lord would speak or vote. Indeed, perhaps I may attach an adjective to this; namely, the point put by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth: if you do not know, you do not have to say.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could refer back to the guidance he gave on 2nd July to a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner? When he has taken a good look at it, perhaps he would arrange an early opportunity to come back to the House to explain to noble Lords what on earth it meant.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes and yes.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I believe that my noble and learned friend is aware that I have rather a large number of relations, some of whom are Members of this House. For example, like myself, both the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, have Cecil blood flooding through our veins. I apologise for mentioning their names in their absence. Is it incumbent on me to declare, for example, the relevant interests of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne? Do I have to learn them off by heart? What is the system?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are always fortunate that we can choose our friends and not our relatives. The interests of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne—modest as they are—would already have been declared by him.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, has the noble and learned Lord had an opportunity to reconsider what he said in the debate on 2nd July? He said that this code of practice was a "light touch"? Is it not in fact a blunt instrument?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords. It is intended to be, and is in fact, a light touch. A number of your Lordships said that they did not want an independent investigator such as they have at the other end of the Palace. We avoided that. Indeed, it will be recalled that the principle of mandatory declaration was the universal recommendation of the group which I had the honour to chair, on which sat two Conservative Peers nominated by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I repeat—not for the last time, I know—that the present situation obtains on the Griffiths recommendations in respect of declaration, which were put into effect in 1995. Those recommendations were endorsed by the House.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I have absolutely no intention of writing down anything about the money of my friends, relations or whoever it may be? If that happens, will I be hauled off to the Tower or called in front of the Committee for Privileges?
Several noble Lords: Yes!
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, all I hope is that I will be treated with as much comfort in the Tower as some people were in previous times. Having said that, what is the penalty concerning the requirement to fill in a piece of paper which—I am very sorry—I believe to be an extraordinarily stupid instruction?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Earl must come to his own conclusion. He asked whether he should go to the Tower of London or be complained of here. I entirely agree with him that punishment before trial is probably appropriate for him. One sanction, as was said, is that there would be a naming and shaming. Your Lordships have alternative sanctions. We have the sanction, very rarely used, that it is moved that a noble Lord be no longer heard.
However, I would observe that we had a very full debate and the House voted by a majority to support the code of conduct.
A noble Lord: By a majority of three.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: To paraphrase, a majority of one is sufficient. Three is ample.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Brisbane
3.13 p.m.
Lord Blakerasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they expect any change to be made at the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting to the core values and principles of the Commonwealth.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Commonwealth's fundamental principles are set out in the Singapore Declaration of 1971 and in the Harare Declaration of 1991. The Commonwealth High Level Group, of which the UK is a member, will present to the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Brisbane a report containing recommendations on the future direction of the Commonwealth, including its fundamental principles.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is she aware that the core values and principles of the Commonwealth include democracy, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, just and honest government, and fundamental human rights? Is not the reign of terror which has been conducted for the past two years in Zimbabwe a flagrant breach of those values and principles? If the situation in Zimbabwe is not resolved for the better before or at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, the Commonwealth will begin to fall into disrepute.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that democracy, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary all fall within the Harare Declaration. A number of my ministerial colleagues and I have made it absolutely clear that we want to see a stable Zimbabwe, with economic and political policies which will enable Zimbabwe to reach its potential. We have worked tirelessly with the Commonwealth, the United Nations and the European Union; we have shared with African leaders our concerns about some of what is happening in Zimbabwe. Indeed, the noble Lord may recall that the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group agreed that a group of Ministers should go to Zimbabwe to find out exactly what was happening in that country.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that since the last election in Zimbabwe there has been, by any standards, an uninterrupted record of barbarity and breaches of the law in that country? Ministers know perfectly well what is happening yet no sanctions whatever have been taken against a government who are behaving against every tenet of acceptable conduct.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, this question has been raised several times in relation to Zimbabwe and the Commonwealth. I believe that noble Lords

1381
understand the position in relation to the Commonwealth, but perhaps I need to repeat it. Action against a country which flouts the principles of the Harare Declaration can be taken only in certain narrowly defined circumstances—mainly, the unconstitutional overthrow of the legitimate government. This does not apply to Zimbabwe.
The limitation of the Commonwealth mandate to unconstitutional overthrow is, in our view, too restrictive. We have made that absolutely clear. That is why we have supported an expansion of CMAG's role to cover a wider range of situations. The High Level Group has been looking at this issue and is due to report at Brisbane in October.
Lord Richard: My Lords, do the Government intend to raise the issue of what is going on in Zimbabwe specifically at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting? I am bound to tell my noble friend that her previous answer gave the impression that they do not.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the issue of Zimbabwe was raised at the last CMAG meeting. There is a proposal that a small group representing CMAG should go to Zimbabwe. There is an alternative proposal, which has been made by Nigeria and South Africa, that a wider group of Commonwealth Ministers should come together to discuss Zimbabwe. We are watching these developments with interest. We have not yet been able to make a decision on what our own role in that should be. We are awaiting clarification in relation to that. We have been involved with the European Union in terms of the critical dialogue with Zimbabwe. It is important for us to take this issue stage by stage. There will, of course, be a report from CMAG to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and we shall see what arises from that.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords—
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister said that there will be a review of the—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps we should hear the noble Lord, Lord Howell.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is it not the position that the policy of critical dialogue and quiet discussion with Zimbabwe has failed? Has not President Mbeki of South Africa admitted that it has failed? Is it not now time for a much firmer policy? Given that all the principles outlined by my noble friend Lord Blaker are being flouted by President Mugabe, is it not time for the Commonwealth leaders to warn that if things have not improved by the time of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Zimbabwe will be asked to leave the Commonwealth?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I am not making myself absolutely clear. The Commonwealth
1382
works by consensus. Britain is a part of a much wider group. We have to ensure that we work with those in the Commonwealth and our other international partners who have expressed concern about this matter.

Business of the House: Standing Order 46
3.18 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages this day.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 9) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1.Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee: terms of reference
Before the dissolution of Parliament, and without a formal meeting, the Procedure Committee agreed revised terms of reference for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee (formerly the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee). Because there was no time before the dissolution to report these new terms of reference to the House, the Committee is doing so now. The Committee also recommends that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee should be subject to a 4-year rotation rule.
The revised terms of reference are:
to report whether the provisions of any bill inappropriately delegate legislative power, or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny; to report on documents laid before Parliament under section 3(3) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and on draft orders laid under section 1(4) of that Act;to report on documents laid before Parliament under section 1(1) of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 and on draft orders laid under section 6(1) of that Act; and to perform. in respect of such documents and orders, and of subordinate provisions laid under section 4 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, the functions performed instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.;
(the words in bold are new)
Additionally, the Committee recommends the following changes to standing orders necessitated by the Regulatory Reform Act 2001:
Standing Order 40(6) to read as follows (new words are in bold):
"Any motion relating to a report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on a draft order laid under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 or on a draft order laid under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 shall be entered before a motion to approve that draft order."
Standing Order 72(1) to read as follows (new words are in bold):
"No Motion for a resolution of the House to approve an Affirmative Instrument shall be moved until:
(a) except in the case of any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph I of Schedule I to the Northern Ireland Act 1974, or a draft order proposed to be made under section I of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, or a draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments;
(b) in the case of a draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, or a draft order proposed to he made under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; and
(c) in the case of a Hybrid Instrument, the proceedings under Private Business Standing Order 216 or 216A have been terminated."
2. The printing of explanatory notes to bills
Standing Order 50 provides that a public bill brought up from the Commons when this House is not sitting may be printed and circulated before first reading. The Committee recommends that the standing order should apply also to any Explanatory Notes accompanying such a bill and that the words "and any Explanatory Notes thereto" should be added at the end of Standing Order 50(1).
3. Human rights declarations and second readings of bills
The Committee recommends that the minister in charge of a government bill, who gives the statement required by s. 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 on whether the provisions of the bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, should under normal circumstances move the second reading of the bill. If that minister is unable to do so, another minister should do so on the basis that he or she is acting on behalf of the minister who has given the statement.
4. Appellations
The Committee recommends that Members of the House who hold or have held the office of Chief of the Defence Staff should be entitled to the appellation "noble and gallant".
5. Repeating the oath in Gaelic
Members of the House must take the oath of allegiance or make the solemn affirmation before they can sit and vote in the House. The oath or affirmation must be taken in English, but since 1982 any Member of the House who wishes to do so has been allowed to repeat it in Welsh. The Committee recommends that a Member of the House should be allowed to repeat the oath or affirmation in Gaelic.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
3.19 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived. Then, Standing Order No. 46 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of this day), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): 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 Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [ When title must be registered]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 8, leave out "seven" and insert "fourteen"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 11, 23, 33, 35, 40, 41, 42, 48 and 76. However, I should like to point out to the Committee that I propose to speak separately with regard to Amendments Nos. 35, 40 and 41. Therefore, although the amendments are grouped together and are connected, my introductory remarks will focus initially on all the amendments other than Amendments Nos. 35, 40 and 41. The amendments in this group are designed to reinstate the proposal in the consultative document that the length of lease that must be registered should be reduced from 21 years, as at present, to 14 years rather than the seven years stated in the Bill.
It is acknowledged in the report at paragraphs 1.17 and 3.14 that there was no consensus on consultation for an immediate reduction to seven years. The amendment would reduce the immediate change in the law and impose a smaller initial burden on the property industry, the conveyancing profession and the Land Registry's resources than the proposal in the Bill. If experience of that limited change suggests that a further reduction is desirable and will not overstretch the industry, the professions and the registry, it will then be possible after consultation under Clause 5(4) to make that reduction by order. We believe that that would be much more practical.
If, initially, only 14-year and longer leases are compulsorily registrable, and seven-year leases are only required to be registered as from a later date, for a while there will be unregistered leases of between seven and 14 years in existence that will have been granted before the further change is made. However, this will not delay the time when unregistered conveyancing becomes obsolete, because there will anyway, for 21 years after the date on which the legislation comes into force, be unregistered leases still in existence which were granted before that date for terms of up to 21 years.
The proposal to make all seven-year and longer leases compulsorily registrable is a major change in the law. It will cause equally major changes in practice, all of which are best introduced by stages thereby

1385
enabling the industry and the professions to become familiar with the new system without undue pressure, and also enabling any problems that may emerge to be tackled before they become widespread. Any leaseholders who wish to apply for voluntary registration of seven-year leases will be able to do so under Clause 3(3), if they believe that the benefits of registration are worth having. A number of organisations have been in contact with us, including the Country Landowners Association, which also feels quite passionately that the amendment should be accepted by the Government.
Amendments Nos. 35, 40 and 41 are specifically intended, first, to apply to leases of manors the principle suggested for leases generally—namely, that, in the first instance, compulsory registration should apply to leases of 14 years or more rather than seven years or more; and, secondly, to exclude altogether from registration leases of manors for five years or less, which are unlikely to be dealt with. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Perhaps I may begin by saying that we very much share the noble Baroness's concern in relation to the need to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and burdens on business. That, of course, is the thrust of much of what the noble Baroness said. However, although we share those aims, we agree that more leases should be registrable and share the benefits of registration. I note what the noble Baroness said in relation to the incremental change. However, during consultation not one voice was heard as to where the dividing line should be taken. We have given the matter a great deal of thought. It is clear from the Land Registry and other organisations that the period of 14 years is one which both the industry and the registry could manage. Therefore, we differ on the speed with which the benefits should be brought into force.
We have considered the matter. We believe that the Bill is more likely to achieve the intended aim without the amendment. Increasing the length of leases that will be subject to compulsory registration would, we think, limit the improvements in the market that the Bill will bring and impede progress towards the realisation of the Bill's overall objectives.
Using the registered system saves money for both domestic and commercial lease transactions. As was helpfully mentioned on Second Reading by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who I see is now in his place, agricultural leases will also benefit. As many have pointed out, there is, indeed, a cost to registration. People taking out a new lease would be put to the additional expense of preparing and making an application to the Land Registry. Those costs are not insignificant. We estimate that they may amount to a little over £100 an average transaction.
However, unregistered conveyancing transactions are significantly more complicated than those drawn up under the simpler, more certain law applying to registered transactions. The name and title of any existing or intermediate leaseholders, and the quality of their title, is easier to establish, as is the identity and quality of title of the freeholder. Even if the
1386
conveyancing transaction remains a paper one, it should be very much quicker. Therefore, although we understand the concern that has been expressed, when one looks at the market there appears to be overwhelming support for the reduction that we propose. Conservatively, we estimate that some two and a half hours could be saved on each transaction. It is a matter that we believe will inure to the benefit of the market and of all those who wish to take advantage of the new scheme outlined in the Bill. We invite the noble Baroness not to pursue the amendment at this stage.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: In responding to the Minister's reply, perhaps I may read out part of paragraph 1.17 of the document. It states:
"There is only one issue upon which we have diverged from the views of respondents and that concerns the length of registrable leases. Having regard to other compelling policy objectives, we did not follow the trend of responses".
It is important, therefore, to note that there was not overwhelming support for changing the term from 21 years to seven years. The idea that no respondent actually came up with a specific time—be it 15, seven or nine years—is not an argument for the reduction to seven years rather than to any other term that represented a "half-way house", which we believe would be much more practical in the circumstances.
Perhaps I may quote from briefing we received from the Country Landowners' Association:
"By making such leases compulsorily registrable landlords and tenants will be put to greater expense. The current consultation paper on business tenancies, rightly, seeks to remove some of the more cumbersome procedures regarding obtaining exclusions from the security of tenure provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II. Yet by reducing the qualifying term to 7 years, in the CLA's opinion an unnecessarily bureaucratic burden is going to be placed on both landlords and tenants and their advisers.
The introduction of such leases into the realms of compulsory registration would also impact upon many farm business tenancies which at present do not need to be concerned with registration since their term is rarely more than 21 years. Many of the CLA's members are parties to such tenancies and consequently, given the current state of the rural economy should not be subjected to any increase in the bureaucratic burden that will be brought to bear by this enactment".
I could say more on the subject. I have listened to the Minister's response. I am sorry that she is not prepared to move on the amendment. I shall consider the matter further; however, I suspect that we shall bring it back on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert ", unless at the time of such grant the person to whom it is made is the tenant of the whole of the land comprised therein for a term expiring on or after the date on which the estate granted will take effect in possession"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 and 52.
These amendments are designed to remove the need to register a lease which takes effect in possession more than three months after it is granted, if it is not otherwise required to be registered, in a situation in which it is a renewal of an existing lease to a tenant already in possession.
The reason for making such a reversionary lease registrable—set out in paragraph 3.32 of the consultative document Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century—is that, if it is not registered, a buyer of the landlord's interest may not be able to find out about it before the term actually begins because the tenant is not yet in possession. But that objection does not apply where the reversionary lease is a renewal to an existing tenant. In that situation, we suggest, there is no practical need for such a lease to be registered merely because it does not take effect immediately.
Under the Bill as it stands, a renewal for a year or even less granted at midsummer of a lease expiring at Michelmas would be registrable—and that is a trap. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I believe that there is some force in the amendment. I can see that the provision is a potential trap in the circumstances proposed. It does not seem necessary in order to serve the perfectly legitimate purpose that is served by requiring registration of leases to persons who are not currently in occupation under an existing lease.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The common theme of these three amendments is to seek to exclude reversionary leases from compulsory first registration (where the landlord's title is unregistered), or from registration as a registrable disposition (if the landlord title is registered). Those reversionary leases would otherwise be subject to the requirements for compulsory registration in Clause 4 or Clause 27, where that lease is a renewal and the tenant under the lease is also a tenant under an existing lease of the type set out in the amendment. The third amendment seeks to provide that such leases should be capable of being protected by actual occupation and so override registered dispositions.
The provisions in the Bill give effect to the recommendation in the Law Commission and Land Registry's joint consultative document, which was unanimously supported by all those who responded to it.
The difficulty with the amendments is that they would place an unreasonable burden on an intending buyer. He or she would have no way of knowing from the register that the reversionary lease existed and would have to inquire of an existing tenant in circumstances where he or she may not expect to do so—for example, where he or she has had produced to him or her by the seller the tenant's existing lease which makes no mention of, say, an option for a further grant. If the intending buyer is purchasing a portfolio of properties the problem could be magnified.
1388
With the advent of e-conveyancing the number of inquiries should be kept to a minimum so that a buyer can rely as much as possible on the entries in the register. So if such a reversionary lease is not on the register, then an intending buyer of, say, the freehold reversion will not know from the register of the existence of the lease. Furthermore, the fact that a new lease taking effect more than three months in the future has to be registered, enables a buyer to protect his position by registering an estate contract or by making a priority search under Clause 72.
The Bill seeks, so far as is practicable, to make the register as comprehensive as possible, particularly with the advent of electronic conveyancing. The proposed amendments would hinder this objective. It would also make the law more complicated by excluding from the category of reversionary leases in Clause 4(1)(d) or Clause 27(2)(b)(ii) certain leases by reference to the status of the tenant under that lease.
There is another, less serious, problem with Amendment No. 2. There is a possibility that the first lease dealt with under the subsection could in theory be also a reversionary lease of some sort. Where this was the case, the tenant would not be in occupation under either lease. This would only multiply the problems that a prospective buyer would face.
In the light of that explanation, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments. We have considered this difficulty and we understand why the amendments were put forward. However, looking at the matter in the round, greater transparency will be possible if a lease is registered as we propose.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his support with regard to our suggestion that under the Bill as drafted a renewal for a year or even less would be registrable and, therefore, the provision creates a trap. I should like to consider the Minister's remarks carefully before deciding whether to return to the matter on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 23, leave out "held"
The noble Baroness said: This is a brief, perhaps pernickety, point, but we consider that it is a worthwhile amendment. The amendment is simply for verbal clarification. As paragraph (b) of Clause 4(2) stands, and the expression "held for a term" is read as governing the word "land", which as a matter of language is the last antecedent, there is no minimum duration specified for the "leasehold estate", which is made a "qualifying estate" and therefore registrable. The result would be that any sublease would be registrable if it related to land which was subject to a registrable lease. If the word "held" is omitted, paragraph (b) refers unambiguously to a "legal estate … for a term" of the specified length. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for proposing the drafting amendment which I am most happy to accept.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 24, at end insert—
"( ) Where subsection (1)(c), (d) or (g) applies, the requirement of registration applies both to the qualifying estate and to the estate granted of it or the protected first legal mortgage on it.
The noble Lord said: This amendment arises in circumstances where a registrable interest such as a lease for a term of more than seven years as the Bill now stands, or a protected charge, is granted out of unregistered land. That is covered by subsection (1) of Clause 4 which states:
"The requirement of registration applies on the occurrence of any of the following events".
Subsection (1)(c) states that,
"the grant out of a qualifying estate of an estate in land—for a term of years absolute of more than seven years from the date of the grant".
Subsection (2) of Clause 4 states that,
"a qualifying estate is an unregistered legal estate which is—a freehold estate in land, or a leasehold estate in land … for a term whic… has more than seven years to run".
When I first considered that measure it was unclear to me whether the text of the Bill as it now stands requires the registration of both the existing unregistered interest and the newly-created interest, or only the latter. Paragraph 12.12 of the Law Commission report makes it clear that the requirement applies only to the newly-created interest. Therefore, the unregistered existing interest does not have to be registered at that point. The report also points out in the same paragraph that it is desirable that the newly-created lease should be registered with an absolute title rather than with a good leasehold title, the difference being, of course, that a good leasehold title gives no guarantee of the freeholder's title. Therefore, obviously, an absolute title which does that is much better.
The current practice is, as far as possible, that absolute title should be provided and, therefore, the contracts provide by a special condition which overrides Section 44 of the Law of Property Act 1925 that the grantor of the lease has to prove his or her title. To ensure that, the owner of the freehold will have to deduce his or her own title; that is, produce evidence which is sufficient to establish their own right to registration. It seems clearly desirable that the owner of a freehold should, therefore, be required to register the freehold title on, let us say, the grant of a 99-year lease, just as much as the freehold title would have to be registered in the event of an outright transfer of the freehold.
It certainly seems to me that in line with the spirit of the Law Commission's proposals it is desirable—it would certainly simplify conveyancing—that whenever a registrable lease or a protected charge is granted out of an unregistered estate at the same time
1390
the unregistered estate should also be required to be registered in exactly the same way as if there were on that occasion a transfer of the freehold title. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I should say straight away that we have great sympathy with the attractions of the noble Lord's amendment. But having said that, having gone down that road, we found unfortunately that the measure was not workable. I shall explain why that is in a moment. But before I do that, and before I discuss the substance of the amendment, it may assist the Committee if I touch briefly on the subject of rule-making powers in the Bill as they bear directly on some of the concerns which have been raised.
The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform recommended a greater degree of parliamentary scrutiny of land registration rules. Members of the Committee have tabled amendments to that effect. Although I am not sure that the Government can accept those amendments at this point for reasons we shall discuss in due course, I am happy to say that I undertake to bring forward government amendments on Report. I hope that that will assist our discussions.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, adds to the requirements for compulsory first registration. It is relevant to three situations listed in Clause 4: when a term of years is granted for seven years or more; when a term of years is granted of any length and takes effect more than three months into the future; and when a protected first legal mortgage is granted of a qualifying estate. The amendment would require not only the estate itself to be the subject of first registration, but also the estate out of which it is granted. As the overall aim of the Bill and, indeed, the Government's general policy, is to widen registration as far and as quickly as possible, I have, of course, listened to the noble Lord's comments with considerable sympathy and very much agree with his overall aim.
It will not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to know that that option was one which the Law Commission considered seriously when considering how to approach the topic. It was discussed in considerable detail with the Land Registry, but after much head scratching it was decided that it could not be made to work. It was therefore not included in the 1998 consultation document. I shall explain why that was the case.
The requirement to register the superior estate when specific leases are carved out of it would catch the superior title to a short lease. In some cases that lease could relate only to a very small area of the total landholding. That would be a disproportionate effect of a deal of that nature and the disproportion could only be increased by the shorter length of leases that give rise to first registration under the Bill. There would also no doubt be processing difficulties for large organisations which have portfolios of short leases that may come up for renewal all at the same time.

1391
That is the course which the Law Commission and the Land Registry recommend—in relation to a general extension of compulsory registration—despite their considerable enthusiasm for spreading the bounds of registration. I shall not tell tales out of school if I tell the noble Lord that when this matter was revisited the previously mentioned attractions were reconsidered. However, unfortunately, the same conclusion was reached. They discuss the case for introducing wider powers of compulsion to bring more land on to the register. They point to the very considerable advances in the attraction of registration which the Bill will bring. They suggest that compulsion should be avoided unless it is quite clearly required for the common good. They therefore recommend that the need for further action should be considered only five years after the Bill is brought into force. These are clearly attractive arguments which the Government will want to consider, not least in the light of the progress of the Bill. They will make an announcement on this when they issue a formal response to the commission's and registry's report. We shall look at the issue again but we think that the Bill needs to settle for a while.
We have come to the conclusion that to make compulsory now the registration of all land would not be right. First, it would be premature to do so. The Land Registration Act 1997 extended significantly the requirements for first registration and its provisions are broadly reproduced in the Bill. Those changes have started to have effect only recently. The present Bill will offer considerable additional benefits. A significant rise in voluntary first registration is expected as a result. Compulsion should not be employed until it is clear that it is needed.
Secondly, compulsory registration is at present triggered by dispositions of unregistered land. It is not at all easy to devise a system of compulsory registration of title other than one that operates on a disposition of the land in question—unlike the cases dealt with in the amendment. So the mechanism of compulsion in such situations is not self evident. There are dangers that any system could become too heavy handed. We would wish to avoid that. Any system of compulsion would obviously have to comply with the ECHR. The means would therefore have to be proportionate to the desired ends.
Thirdly, the Bill is likely to stretch the resources of both the conveyancing profession and the Land Registry for some years after its implementation. It would not be possible to accommodate a programme for the compulsory registration of all the remaining unregistered land at the same time. I can assure the noble Lord that we believe that the Bill goes some way towards the objective of the amendment. It already has the effect that a legal charge triggers first registration. The estate that has been charged must also be registered. This approach was introduced into the current system of the Land Registration Act 1997. I understand that it is working well at present. The land registration system caters for the situation where the superior title has not been seen by the Land
1392
Registry and enables the registry to grant good leasehold title until such time as the superior title is produced for registration.
There are incentives in the Bill to encourage voluntary first registration of titles—not least the provisions in relation to adverse possession. There is also a fee reduction to encourage registration. We need to encourage the orderly and gradual registration of these large landholdings at a pace that can be controlled by those organisations and the Land Registry enabling them to cope with those applications smoothly.
For those reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for having given such a full explanation of the reasons why she is unable to accept the amendment. Nevertheless, I remain somewhat unhappy.
I fully understand the Government's reasons for not proposing that all unregistered loans should be made the subject of immediate compulsory registration. Nevertheless, any transfer of a freehold requires compulsory registration, but it is still possible to create a 99 or 199-year lease out of an unregistered estate without registering the estate of the grantor. That seriously weakens the position of the lessee who, in a good leasehold title, has something that is significantly less valuable than an absolute title to the lease. Therefore, that should be phased out as soon as possible. If the noble Baroness is able to provide it, I should be interested to see more detailed analysis of why the Law Commission rejected the proposals; and why they are thought to be unworkable. I am not entirely persuaded that that is so.
I may well wish to bring the matter back on Report, possibly in a form which gives the Government power to introduce this step at a later stage when the initial flurry of registrations caused by the enactment of the Bill has quietened down. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Power to extend section 4]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 19, after "mortgagee" insert ", or the fide to a leasehold estate in land for a term which at the time of the relevant transfer, grant or creation has less than five years and one month to run,"
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is designed to prevent the rule-making power being used to introduce compulsory registration of five-year and shorter leases. Five-year leases are very common. They are usually occupational business, residential or farming leases and are not assigned as frequently as longer interests. Therefore we believe that there is no pressing practical need to register them, either to ensure that a purchaser of the superior interest finds out about them or to make it easier to buy and sell them.
If registration is ever to be extended to such interests, we believe that the change should be made by further primary legislation which can be considered in the light of experience of registration of leases for terms of less than 21 years and decide then whether the balance of practical advantages and disadvantages favours such an extension of registration. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am happy to agree with the noble Baroness that there is a length of lease below which it would be sensible not to require compulsory registration. However, in relation to the amendment I can go no further.
The Government are, of course, committed to removing unnecessary regulatory burdens. That is a significant factor in bringing forward the Bill. By accelerating the change from the cumbersome and old-fashioned system of unregistered conveyancing for leases, into the simpler, quicker and cheaper registered law, we believe that we will be significantly reducing the cost of conveyancing.
There is, however, a point at which the current law relating to the formation of contracts probably makes it unlikely that the balance of benefits in registration will remain positive. Under contract law, leases granted for a period of three years or less do not have to be in written form as a deed. The logical break-off point is three years. The five-year leases have to have a deed. Requiring registration of leases of less than three years would therefore be likely to introduce new inflexibilities into the current arrangements, and wholly new costs. It is very difficult indeed to envisage a Lord Chancellor contemplating the exercise of his powers to reduce the qualifying term of the leases to bring unwritten leases within the scope of registered conveyancing. Leases of more than three years are therefore likely to be the practical limit of the power.
However, there would be significant problems in tying a future Lord Chancellor's hands by preventing him or her from reducing the qualifying period below five years and one month. First, it would slow down the extension of the benefits of registered conveyancing throughout the leasehold market. It would therefore leave unregistered conveyancing with a significant role for the foreseeable future, leaving in place the difficulties that follow from attempting to run two essentially separate systems of land law alongside each other.
A parallel system would also work against the streamlining of current systems. For example, one large property holder has said that reducing the qualifying period to the point at which grants by deed are no longer necessary would have the considerable practical advantage of enabling him to rely on the dematerialised leases, which will form part of the register of title, so creating scope for significant storage savings, just as major lenders have saved money by relying on access to the register to prepare land certificates when needed, rather than having to keep paper copies at all times.
1394
It is true that at one time a reduction in the qualifying period would have created problems of additional work for the registry as well as the market. Although the Bill enables a staged approach to the reduction of the qualifying period, the problems that could be created by reducing the period can be significantly exaggerated. The process is already becoming automated for conveyancers and the registry and it will increasingly become more so. The registry's quinquennial reviewer thought that the additional work created by requiring registration of leases of more than three years and up to seven years in length could be ignored, so great were the benefits to both sides of the widest possible registration.
A particular factor for the reviewer was the importance of securing the greatest amount of accurate and neutral information on developments in the leasehold market. The fresher market information is, the greater its value. There would be a significant advantage to the whole property sector in having a complete picture of the number and length of leases, the financial terms of new leases of various lengths for particular types and sizes of property in particular areas, and the most recent leasehold transactions in the same area. All that information is important to the market. The market for short-term leases is particularly opaque and particularly sensitive to changes. The amendments would work very significantly against the introduction of transparency in that area. We want transparency and we feel that the Bill provides it.
The amendments would also work against the overall objectives of the Bill. They would greatly reduce the prospect of the register becoming as complete and accurate a reflection as possible of the state of the title to all land at any given time, so that title to land could be investigated online with the minimum of additional enquiries and inspections. I therefore hope that, having considered those arguments, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I listened with care to the noble Baroness, who has answered the point that I was going to ask her. However, surely we are talking about the power for the Lord Chancellor to reduce the qualifying period from seven years to three years. Why do the Government not bite the bullet now and go to three years straight away, taking away the power from the Lord Chancellor, which will cause a lot of anxiety?
While the noble Baroness considers her answer to that, will she also advise the Committee what sort of order the Lord Chancellor will be able to make under subsection (4)?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Of course we see the attraction of biting the bullet between seven years and three years. Three years is the cut-off point when we move from unwritten to written. However, we also have to take on board that the system will take a little time to adjust. The Lord Chancellor of the day will be

1395
able to consider what new rules on reduction need to be brought in once we have a proper assessment of how it would work.
The most important thing is for the Bill to work practically so that practitioners and the Land Registry can fulfil the expectations that will be on them. We need a smooth, transparent, clear transition from the current position to the quick, easy, transparent e-conveyancing of land that we all want.
We genuinely believe that the period of reduction to seven years will enable the registry and conveyancers to do that without any untoward difficulty. It will be possible, practical and smooth and can be delivered.
Confidence in the system is necessary. Once that confidence has been established, it will be possible for the Lord Chancellor of the day to look again at whether a Further reduction is merited, but that would be done at a time that was in line with what the market, the profession and the registry could tolerate with ease.
The Earl of Caithness: Will the noble Baroness comment on my second point? What type of order under subsection (4) will the Lord Chancellor introduce?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I cannot give the noble Earl a specific answer on that at the moment, but I shall write to him. It is important to know that the Lord Chancellor of the day will have to consider how the system has worked. As regards the rules that will be issued, I have already said that we are seriously considering the recommendations made by the standing committee. I shall come back to that later. I mentioned that in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, because there has been some interest—I shall not say concern—about how the rules will work. We are taking that on board and trying to construct a procedure to meet the needs and aspirations of many people who have expressed concerns.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her full response to the amendment. We entirely understand the Government's objective of having a register that is as complete and accurate as possible, but surely we must balance that primary concern against the regulatory burden. It is one thing to say that the system will be quick and easy, but it will also be an added cost and burden. Five-year leases are very common, particularly among small businesses and residential and fanning leases. There is no pressing practical need to register those leases, either to ensure that a purchaser of the superior interest finds out about them or to make it easier to buy and sell them.
We understand the objectives of the Bill, but we are concerned to protect the interests of those who will be burdened with more costs and regulation in meeting those objectives. We shall think carefully about what the Minister has said and decide whether to return to the point on Report. We also believe that such a fundamental issue should be subject to primary legislation.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I can respond to the noble Baroness on cost. We hope that the whole Bill
1396
will reduce costs. The noble Baroness will know that, at the moment, the preparation work for lawyers and others for unregistered land in particular can be very complicated and time-consuming. We know, for example, that, because of their complexity. deeds can take up an incredibly large amount of time. We hope that, by introducing the registration of those processes, the procedure will become simpler, quicker, easier and cheaper so that the burden on business and on those who wish to participate in such a transaction should, over time, be reduced. That is one of the main benefits that we consider the procedure will guarantee to those who operate within it.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for returning to that point. I believe that, for the time being, to some extent we must beg to differ, not least because the representations made to us from business and from the fanning industry in particular indicate that they also beg to differ. However, I shall consult them again and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Duty to apply for registration of title]:
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) An application under subsection (5) may be made either before or after the expiration of the period of 2 months mentioned in subsection (4). or any later date which the registrar has specified under subsection (5)."
The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the position so as to ensure that an application can be made after the period has expired. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Clause 6(5) allows the registrar to extend the period during which the application for first registration may be made. There is good reason for doing so. Unless such an order is made, the period for registration will expire after two months.
The noble Viscount's amendment would make it clear that such an order can be made both before and after the expiry of the two-month period and before or after the expiry of any extension of the period for registration granted by a registrar's order. It will, indeed, be desirable to give the registrar adequate flexibility to make the order when the parties need it, regardless of whether or not the original period for registration has passed.
I can reassure the noble Viscount that the clause as drafted does not contain a time limitation on the registrar's ability to make an order. It is implicit in the clause that the registrar can make the order at any time. That interpretation is endorsed by the next clause. Clause 7(3) clearly envisages that the order could be made after the two-month period or any extended period has expired. In those circumstances, the adverse effect of failing to register within the specified period is removed retrospectively by Clause 7(3) when an order is made.

1397
Therefore, it is also implicit that the application to the registrar can be made at any time. In practice, the extension order is usually sought after the period for registration has expired and when the matter comes to the attention of the applicant's advisers. Quite often, it is sought in conjunction with the application for first registration. There is no intention to change that practice. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that the amendment is not necessary.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am most grateful to the Minister for those full assurances, in the light of which I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Liability for making good void transfers etc]:
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 24, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of section 12A of the Stamp Act 1891 (c. 39), an instrument to which section 7(1) above applies shall be treated as having been accidentally spoiled."
The noble Viscount said: This is a probing amendment. It seeks to ensure that if an instrument is avoided by a failure to apply for registration, the stamp duty paid on it can be used on any replacement instrument executed to give effect to the original transaction. That may not be strictly necessary for instruments which replace outright transfers under Clause 4(1)(a) and (b) because, under Clause 7(2)(a), the transferor becomes bare trustee for the transferee, and there is no stamp duty on the transfer of a legal estate by a nominee to his principal. However, if a lease becomes void for non-registration under Clause 7(2)(b), it has effect as a contract to grant the intended lease. Therefore, the replacement lease may incur stamp duty. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that I shall be able to reassure the noble Viscount. Clause 6 imposes a duty to apply for first registration of title within a specified period. Clause 7(1) states the effect of failure to apply for registration in accordance with that duty. The consequence is severe. The instrument which disposes of an interest in the property is made void so that the legal title reverts to the previous owner.
Therefore, the registrar can make an order to extend the period for registration, which he will almost always do. That has the effect of removing the adverse consequence as if it had never happened. In the unlikely event that the registrar refuses to make an order, a further instrument must be prepared at the expense of the person who failed to apply. That would then operate to transfer the legal title back to where it should have been.
The proposed amendment serves the most sensible of purposes. It ensures that, in that unlikely situation, stamp duty would not be paid twice. It seeks to achieve
1398
that by treating the instrument as spoilt under Section 12A of the Stamp Act 1891. I hope that Members of the Committee will not mind my pointing out that the spoiling of instruments is covered by Section 12A of the Stamp Duties Management Act of the same year. That means that, so long as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are satisfied that the instrument is to be treated as though it had been spoiled, no duty will be charged on the replacement instrument.
The noble Viscount has raised a very helpful issue. I hope that he will not mind if I do not simply accept the amendment at this point. We shall hold further discussions. Talks that we have already held with the Inland Revenue have revealed that other ways may exist in which this desirable state of affairs could be achieved under the stamping Acts as they currently stand, some of which may turn out to be more convenient.
Therefore, I undertake to ensure that the matter is fully investigated and, on Report, I shall report back to the House on the results of those deliberations. I am grateful to Members of the Committee for raising this point. However, in the light of that undertaking, I hope that at this stage the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am most grateful for those reassurances. I look forward to further progress on Report, in the light of which I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Freehold estates]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 7, line 9, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
"(c) interests of any person in adverse possession, within the meaning of the Limitation Act 1980 (c. 58), of the land or any part of it."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 9, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 17, 59 and 105. Briefly, the reasons for Clauses 11(4)(c) and 12(4)(d) are given in paragraphs 3.46 and 3.47 of the Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century report. In effect, a first registered proprietor should be protected where he buys a paper title which a squatter has time-barred if the squatter is out of possession and the purchaser/proprietor has no notice of the defect in title. A squatter who was in possession for 12 years or more but who has vacated the property deserves no particular sympathy. However, if a squatter has been in residence for 12 years or more and is still in possession, anyone who buys the paper title is on notice of the position. We believe that the amendments are designed to give accurate effect to the intention. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: Amendments Nos. 17 and 59 stand in my name. They concern the same subject but have a somewhat different objective. Under the present law, adverse possession extinguishes the title of a previous

1399
owner after 12 years; that is, it extinguishes the title and the original owner therefore no longer has any title to the land. That is provided by Section 17 of the Limitation Act 1980. In the case of registered land, the same result is achieved through a different mechanism; namely, the title is not extinguished but the registered owner from the end of the 12-year period holds the land on a bare trust for the person who exercised the adverse possession. That person is therefore entitled at any time to claim the right to registration.
Under Section 70 of the Land Registration Act 1925, rights that are acquired or are in the course of being acquired under the Limitation Act are overriding instruments. The Bill will alter that. Under Clause 11(4)(c), adverse possession binds the estate on first registration only if the freehold proprietor, the person with the paper title or the person acquiring the title has notice. I am afraid that it is not altogether clear to me why notice for that purpose is relevant. Indeed, it will give rise to a somewhat difficult issue about whether the proprietor in fact has notice. Except to that very limited extent, those possessory interests do not override.
There is a new procedure, which appears in Part 9 and Schedule 6, for acquiring title by adverse possession. I have no problem whatever with the new system operating when adverse possession has lasted for less than 12 years at the date at which the Bill comes into force. That is in line with the long-established principle that limitation periods can be changed without being treated as a retrospective alteration of existing rights. When the 12-year period has already been completed the adverse possessor will have acquired an indefeasible title. There are several reasons, apart from the mere abandonment of the land, why the new proprietor might not have notice of that indefeasible title. It is wrong that in those circumstances an adverse possessor should be deprived of what, by the time the Act comes into force, will have already become an indefeasible title. The adverse possessor would at best have existing rights taken away and would be forced to apply to the registrar under the new procedure, which, in many cases, it might not be possible for him to do because he would no longer have a possessory title that he could register at that point.
That would give rise, among other things, to concerns about what is in effect the appropriation—the confiscation—of existing indefeasible rights and it raises the question of whether that is in accordance with Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Human Rights Act. I am concerned about the drafting that is used to defeat what would under existing law be an indefeasible title. I recognise that that is to a limited extent a complication because it means that someone who appears to have a paper title may find that that title is no good. Nevertheless, I am doubtful about the justification for changing existing law for those who have already acquired an indefeasible title.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The common theme of these amendments is the extent to which the interests of persons in adverse possession should override first
1400
registration and registered dispositions. I will deal first with Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 105, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and then turn to Amendments Nos. 17 and 59 of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Clause 11(4)(c), in respect of freehold land, and Clause 12(4)(g), in respect of leasehold land, are intended to cover the case in which a person has acquired title by adverse possession, has then left the land and the former owner has resumed possession. Within 12 years of doing so the former owner then sells as apparent owner. On the conveyance or assignment the buyer will not get title but will acquire only such rights as the seller had as squatter. However, provided that he does not have notice of the squatter's interest at the date of registration, the buyer will "take" free of it.
The effect of the amendment would be that a buyer will "take" subject to the interest of a squatter who is in adverse possession at the time of registration, such as in the example, even though the squatter is not in actual occupation and even if the buyer did not have notice and so could not reasonably have discovered the squatter's interest. However, the case of a squatter who has already acquired title and is in actual occupation falls within the terms of Clause 11(4)(b) or Clause 12(4)(d), so the proprietor "takes" subject to the squatter's rights.
Paragraphs 3.46 and 3.47 of the Law Commission's report, Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century—A Conveyancing Revolution, with which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will be very familiar, explains the reasons for those provisions and the way in which they work.
Amendment No. 105 relates to the transitional provisions in Schedule 12 in respect of rights already acquired by squatters over unregistered land under the existing law before the Bill comes into force. It is consequential to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10.
The effect of paragraph 7 is to create an additional but temporary category of overriding interest on first registration. Under the present law rights of squatters are overriding interests. Under the Bill a squatter's rights will override first registration only if the squatter is in actual occupation. Squatters who are no longer in actual occupation will therefore no longer fall within the protected category when the new law comes into force. That could involve some unfairness. Paragraph 7 therefore provides for the existing regime to continue for three years. That will allow sufficient time for squatters who have extinguished the title of the paper owner but who are no longer in actual occupation to make application for registration of title.
In our view the Bill strikes a fair balance between the squatter and an innocent buyer. To make no transitional provision would be unfair to those who have acquired rights by adverse possession but to preserve those rights in perpetuity would prevent the realisation of our aim that the register should be as complete a record as possible of the title. I hope that the noble Baroness therefore feels that it is appropriate to withdraw her amendment.

1401
I turn to Amendments Nos. 17 and 59, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to whom I listened carefully. As was made clear on Second Reading, the Bill's proposals set out to provide a careful balance between the rights of owners and the need to ensure that neglected property continues in useful life. In particular, I was happy to agree with the noble Lord's observation that the Bill would be unlikely significantly to damage the position of those who had taken over property to house themselves in the short term. Indeed, by clarifying the periods involved, it may positively help them. Nevertheless, we believe that it is important to ensure that the balance stays in the right place.
The amendments would shift two careful balances in the Bill. First, they would significantly reduce the protection that the Bill gives to the rights of registered owners. Secondly, under the transitional arrangements to be found in Schedule 12, the rights of all those who have acquired rights by possession of land under the general limitation Acts are fully protected for three years. This would include both those who have remained in continuous occupation of the land, and those who have acquired possessory rights, but whose occupation has been discontinuous.
The rights of the first group will form a permanent feature of the Bill. Anyone in actual occupation of the land will have rights which override both first registration and subsequent registered dispositions of the land under Schedules 1 and 3.
Despite what the noble Lord has said with his usual eloquence and erudition, I am far from being convinced that those who have once squatted on land but have subsequently left it should be protected in the same way.
That is only partly because of a wish to preserve the rights of registered owners. It is fundamental to the Bill that the register should give the clearest possible picture of the rights and obligations to which land is subject. Rights should have overriding status only when it is impracticable or impossible that they should be registered.
There are obvious problems for someone in actual occupation of land being required to register in order to retain those rights. The application for registration would be, at least for some, merely the prelude to steps by the owner to recover possession. Therefore, we understand those issues.
But the position of someone who has occupied land, but subsequently left it, is rather different. He has no ground to expect such immediate action by the owner. The provision in paragraph 7 of Schedule 12 will give three years grace in which it will be possible for someone who claims to have acquired a title which extinguishes that of the first registered proprietor to protect his rights by registration. We suggest that is not a particularly onerous price to pay for that protection.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of a limit on possession rights not being ECHR compliant. Adverse possessors are given those three years to register their
1402
rights. We believe that that is a proportionate remedy for their prospective loss which must be balanced against the interests of a prospective buyer.
But the permanent continuation of the transitional protection suggested by the amendment would create very significant practical problems for buyers. They would run the risk of finding themselves bound by the rights of squatters, where that squatter is no longer in actual occupation. The chances of ascertaining that someone had acquired a permanent right, hidden from the register, from past occupation would in many cases diminish to nothing.
I would therefore argue that the noble Lord's suggestion would in fact significantly damage the structure of the Bill. It would put prospective buyers in the future under a burden of risk that is unreasonable. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I cannot withdraw an amendment which I have not yet moved, but when we reach those amendments I shall not move them.
I am somewhat concerned. I am not sure that this is a major issue because I am not aware of many problems caused nowadays by squatters who have been in occupation for 12 years and then moved away. So I am not sure that we are talking about very much. But in the case where somebody has acquired an indefeasible title before this Act comes into force—it will be a transitional matter because there will be no new rights to do that—I am unhappy with the concept of that being removed after the end of the three year transitional period. So again, that is something to which we may wish to return on Report.
Baroness Buscombe: In responding to the Minister, I apologise to the Committee and, in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. To put it mildly, I am feeling under the weather and I suddenly panicked because I could not think what had happened to Amendments Nos. 17 and 15. I then suddenly realised that they belong to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Therefore, I apologise for the fact that my remarks did not necessarily bear any reflection on the intention behind those proposed amendments.
I listened to the Minister's reply on this complex point. I shall read Hansard with care and then decide whether or not to return to this matter on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Leasehold estates]:
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Unregistered interests which override first registration]:
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 45, line 10, leave out from "occupation" to end of line 11.
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 49 and 50. By tabling these amendments, we are seeking to offer the Government a choice of explanation.
I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 12 and 49 and then Amendments Nos. 13 and 50. The underlying intention behind these amendments is to seek clarity and consistency in relation to beneficiaries as they are defined in the Bill.
Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 and paragraph 2(1)(a) of Schedule 3 deprive a person in actual occupation of land of protection in relation to any beneficial interest of his under a settlement under the Settled Land Act 1925. By contrast, a person in actual occupation of land who possesses an interest under a trust of land will be entitled to protection in respect of that interest.
The only justification for the discriminatory treatment of the beneficiary under a strict settlement which is given is that interests under a strict settlement are "relatively uncommon" and since the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, no new strict settlements can be created. That may be true, but the fact that persons who are beneficially interested under strict settlements are in a minority is hardly a justification for withholding the protection of the law from them.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 50 pose an alternative option which we should like to put to the Government. These amendments are designed to enact the present position under the law as it stands at present which is established by judicial decision in the Flegg case that where a beneficiary, under a trust of land, is in actual occupation, his interest does not override that of a purchaser or, importantly, a chargee from the trustees if they make that disposition in exercise of their powers under the trust, or by the general law, to overreach the interests of beneficiaries. We believe that including a statement to that effect in the legislation is a useful confirmation and clarification of the law. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The general theme of the amendments is to what extent interests under a trust should be protected by reason of actual occupation so as to override a first registration or registered disposition.
As the noble Baroness outlined, Amendments Nos. 12 and 49 seek to provide protection for interests under the Settled Land Act 1925. Amendments Nos. 13 and 50 seek to ensure that the interests of those under a trust of land are overreached in certain circumstances. First, I shall address the settled land amendments.
We have considerable sympathy with the arguments advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for removing the exceptions for settled land in the Bill as it currently stands. So, too, did the Law Commission. In its 1998 consultation paper the commission originally suggested that the right of a beneficiary
1404
under the Settled Land Act 1925 shall cease to be, as now, simply a minor interest and become an overriding interest on first registration and in relation to registrable dispositions.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, comparatively few people are affected by this issue and. indeed, comparatively few responded on this point. However, most thought that these rights should not be overriding. Since 1996 it has been impossible to create new settlements under the 1925 Act as a result of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. This will therefore be an issue of rapidly diminishing importance.
Any settlements of registered land expressly created before 1997 should have been protected by the entry of the prescribed restrictions on the register. The Law Commission therefore thought it likely that little or no hardship would be caused by the abandonment of the recommendation. It therefore recommended the continuation of the present position under which a beneficiary under a settlement cannot protect his or her rights by virtue of his or her actual occupation of the settled land. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel comforted by some of the things I have said.
As regards trusts of land, the second point raised by the noble Baroness, I am certainly not unsympathetic to the intention of the amendments. However, we hope to be able to convince Members of the Committee that they are not necessary. Although we believe that both amendments are unnecessary, the reasons differ.
In the case of first registration, the issues are essentially those of the law relating to unregistered land. That is because overreaching will take place when the conveyance or other disposition is completed. The former beneficiaries will therefore have no interest in the land when registration takes place. Under Clauses 11(4) and 12(4) the unregistered interests under Schedule 1 must affect the estate being registered at the time of registration.
In the case of registered land, the noble Baroness is correct in that the position is covered by the common law as discussed in the case of City of London Building Society v. Flegg, to which the noble Baroness correctly alluded. As many noble Lords will know, that was a case in which it was held that the society was not subject to the beneficial interests of Mr and Mrs Flegg in respect of its registered charge, even though the Fleggs had beneficial interests in what was in those days a trust for sale and were in actual occupation of the registered land. That was because the mortgage advance had been paid to the two trustees of the trust, the registered proprietors, Mr and Mrs Maxwell-Brown—as many noble Lords will remember, Mrs Maxwell-Brown was the daughter of the Fleggs—so the overreaching took place. That is well settled law and will remain.
We note the comments of the noble Baroness about the worsening of the position of a small minority. However, the interests under a strict settlement have never been overriding. As was stated earlier, they are only a minor interest under the 1925 Act, so need registration. I hope that the explanation is one which

1405
finds favour with the noble Baroness and that she is satisfied that the Bill deals with the issue adequately and addresses the issues which concern her. I hope therefore that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response, which I shall read with care. I am not sure whether I understood her entirely. My underlying intention with the amendments is to ensure that neither class of beneficiary—either under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 or those under the Settled Land Act 1925—is mentioned or that both are mentioned. It seems that there should be a level playing field.
I agree with the Minister that few people are affected by this provision. However, it is probably right to say that the economics are enormous and will continue for some time. This is an important point. I shall carefully read her comments. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved. ]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 45, line 11. at end insert—
"( ) Where an interest of a person in actual occupation of any land is an overriding interest under sub-paragraph (1), the interest in that land of any other person under whom the person in actual occupation holds the land by virtue of any grant or licence."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 14 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 53. I apologise for the fact that there is a misprint on the Marshalled List in both amendments, which is my fault. It should refer to a "grant or licence" and not, as it does, to a "grant on licence".
Under Section 70 of the Land Registration Act, interests are overriding interests if they are the interests of a person in actual occupation of land or in receipt of the rents and profits of land. Under the Bill, the only interests which are overriding are those of persons in actual occupation, and receipt of rent and profits is not enough. However, actual occupation is defined so as to include occupation by employee or an agent.
Let us assume, however, that a freeholder has granted a contractual licence, which is a form of interest, to A to occupy land and that in turn A has granted a sub-licence to B at some rent or contractual payment. The purchaser inspects the land and meets B. B tells the purchaser that he, B, is there as a licensee of A. In that situation, under the present law the interests of both A and B would be overriding. Under the law as is proposed by the Bill, the interests of B will be overriding but not the interests of A who is in receipt of the rent and profits but not in occupation.
This seems to me to give rise to a peculiar position. I am conscious of the fact that I could be wrong because it is undoubtedly a complicated position. There is plainly no transfer to the purchaser of A's contractual rights under the original licence granted to
1406
A by the previous freeholder. Therefore, if B, who has the protected right to remain there, pays for the benefit of the licence, that payment is presumably still payable to A. If the licence under the contract is terminable by A, it remains terminable by A and not by the purchaser because there is no transfer of the right to terminate the licence.
However, if A's licence from the earlier freehold requires contractual payments to be made, it is not clear how the purchaser can claim any right in that payment because he is not a party to the licence and there can be no transfer of the rights under the licence. So, A could say, "Thanks. I'd like to go on simply getting my income from B. I recognise that when B leaves I will have no further right to the property but I prefer that to having to agree a new licence and paying you something for it."
The Bill recognises the fact that occupation by an employee or agent is occupation by an employer or principal, but occupation under any other form of contractual relationship should be treated as giving an overriding interest not only to the actual occupier but to the other party to the contract under which the occupier holds it. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord will know how much it will pain me to disagree with him, but I fear that on this occasion I must. He will also know that in relation to person B the licensee would not have a property right; he does not have it now and will not have it in the future. That is the short answer in relation to his proposition, but I want to explore the point because the noble Lord has, with his usual cogency, put it well.
The fundamental objective of the Bill is to achieve a situation in which, under the system of electronic dealing with land that it seeks to create, the register should be as complete and as accurate a reflection of the state of the title to the land at any given time as is practicable—that point has been made several times but it bears repeating—so that it is possible to investigate title to land on-line with the absolute minimum of additional inquiries and inspections.
One of the main functions of the Bill is therefore to cut back on overriding interests as far as that can be achieved. Any interest which can bind subsequent buyers without being clear from the register adds to the difficulties of the transaction. If the interest is capable of being protected in other ways, it should not be an overriding interest.
Accepting the amendment would add a further overriding interest to those which already exist. It would require a buyer to make inquiries not only of the person in actual occupation, but also of any person from whom he or she holds the land by way of lease or licence. That is a significant extra burden for anyone and it would significantly undermine the objective of being able to do so on line.
That is why the Law Commission consulted on this issue with a provisional recommendation that the rights of those entitled to rents or profits should cease to have an overriding interest. Its recommendation was strongly supported by those who responded.

1407
It may be worth noting that the first registration of a leasehold estate—in circumstances where the superior titles are not themselves registered and were not deduced to the register on that first registration will be reflected in the class of title which the registrar gives to that leasehold estate. Usually, the lease will be registered with good leasehold title. That means that in any subsequent dealings with that leasehold estate any disponee will necessarily be alerted to the fact that one or more superior titles are not registered.
It is possible that this explanation might not entirely satisfy the noble Lord and he may believe that some difficulties remain. However, I hope that he will agree that it is of fundamental importance to the main objectives of the Bill that overriding interests should be reduced, in so far as that is possible, that his amendment would have the effect of adding an undesirable and not, perhaps I may respectfully say, an entirely necessary interest to what should be a very select category indeed.
Even though, as always, I find it interesting to listen to the noble Lord, I hope that in the light of that explanation he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister. I recognise that a licence is not technically an interest in property, but it is a kind of interest which in certain circumstances can be binding on the owner of the property.
I recognise and agree with the principles behind the desire of the Law Commission to restrict the number of overriding interests. However, I believe that from time to time the fact that we have removed any rights from the person, as against the owner, who is in receipt of rents payable by the occupier may lead to an untidy situation. If and when problems arise, they may have to be sorted out by the courts and in the circumstances I shall read what the Minister said. It is possible that I shall not want to take the matter further, but I shall not give an undertaking to that effect now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 15 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 16 because of pre-emption.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 45, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
The noble Baroness said: In rising to speak to Amendment No. 15, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 16, 54 and 55. These amendments are designed to elucidate further the meaning of "actual occupation" by ensuring that an occupier's protection is not jeopardised by a temporary and fortuitous absence at the relevant moment. Its continuing connection with the land remains apparent on inspection.
The meaning of "actual occupation" and of the definition in terms of physical presence is discussed in paragraph 8.22 of the report. It appears that an occupier's physical presence is intended to include presence by "his or her user" of the premises.
The case law on "actual occupation" under the present legislation indicates that occupation can include "making use" of the premises. However, the new legislation—this Bill—amends the law fundamentally in many respects. It is a new land registration code rather than a consolidation and on this point it uses the expression "physically present", which is not in the existing Act. It is therefore not at all certain that the case law on "actual occupation" will be applied to the new wording.
Occupiers' interests are a significant part of the system, particularly in connection with mortgages of residential property. It is therefore important to clarify their scope as fully as possible rather than to leave the matter to be litigated by people of modest means.
The wording of the amendments may not be ideal and I hope that the Minister will appreciate the fact that they were prepared under some pressure of time. They may not include the case where, for example, someone may be using the land but inspection alone does not show whether the disponer, the registered proprietor or someone else is doing so. We believe that it is important to explore the point and further the principle of including additional elucidation in the Bill. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Although I am unable to accept these amendments, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness that it is important to explore these matters. We have listened very carefully to the points that she raises and shall consider them fully. However, for the reasons that I shall give, we do not believe that these amendments help to resolve the matter. With the leave of the Committee, I shall give a fairly full response to the issue at this stage because if we are to look at the matter together that may be of assistance.
This group of amendments concerns the issue of "actual occupation". There is another group of amendments concerned with easements which touches upon a similar theme and some of the ground covered now will be revisited then. The interests of persons in actual occupation override both first registration and registered dispositions. There are more exceptions to this category in the case of registered dispositions, but both provisions (in paragraph 2(2) of Schedules 1 and 3 respectively) state that a person is to be regarded as being in actual occupation of land only if he, his agent or employee is physically present there.
These amendments, in the alternative, seek to provide a partial definition of the term "physically present" or remove all references to physically present" from these provisions by leaving out paragraph 2(2) of each schedule. It may help to allay the concerns that the noble Baroness has raised if I explain the approach that has been taken. The existing

1409
statutory provision is to be found in Section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925. That provides that the rights of those in actual occupation are an overriding interest. The provision refers to,
"The rights of every person in actual occupation of the land or in receipt of the rents and profits thereof, save where enquiry is made of such person and the rights are not disclosed".
As many Members of the Committee will be aware, the meaning of those words has been found to be not wholly clear. The phrase "actual occupation" was considered in Williams & Glyn's Bank Ltd v Boland. That case has tested many lawyers for some time. In his speech in that case the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, made it clear that the addition of the word "actual" to "occupation",
"merely emphasises that what is required is physical presence, not some entitlement in law".
The Bill will give statutory effect to that point. If that was not done, there could be a danger that "actual occupation" would be interpreted more widely so as to embrace entitlement to occupation.
An example of where a term has been widened in its interpretation by the courts is "possession" in the context of the right to sue for the recovery of land. It had been thought by many that to sue for recovery the claimant had to be in possession of the land. Many Members of the Committee will be aware, however, that in Manchester Airport Plc v Dutton the majority of the Court of Appeal held that a mere legal entitlement to possession was sufficient. Therefore, the words "physically present" in these sub-paragraphs do not refer to the degree of continuity or permanence that is required to constitute actual occupation. Two of the amendments seek to do that by referring to,
"had not permanently given up all connection with the land".
In our view, that is not necessary because of the meaning of physical presence and case law concerning actual occupation. The distinction that the subparagraphs seek to draw is simply that only a person in actual occupation of land, and with an interest in land, can have an interest that overrides first registration. A mere entitlement to occupy is not sufficient.
The case law on the definition of actual occupation makes it clear that physical presence is required. "Physically present" is not a legal term and so can bear its dictionary meaning. The temptation to try to give some kind of guidance as to how the phrase is to be interpreted is, we confess, considerable. Despite the persuasive arguments that the noble Baroness puts forward, we believe that it is wiser to resist them and not attempt to provide a partial statutory definition of the term "physically present". What constitutes physical presence will depend, as under the present law, upon the nature and state of the property. That is clear from the judgment of Lord Justice Nicholls in Lloyds Bank Plc v Rosset. In that case the majority of the Court of Appeal was of the view that a person could be in actual occupation through his or her agent or employees. The Bill will give statutory effect to that
1410
view. If as proposed in two of the amendments paragraph 2(2) was omitted from both schedules the statutory effect would not be achieved.
We have not included in the provisions the rights of those in receipt of rents and profits which are within the equivalent provision in Section 70(1)(g) of the 1925 Act, although that is a topic on which there is a further amendment before the Committee. The first amendment in this group seeks to apply the test of physical presence at the time of an event that triggers first registration. First, under Clause 11(4) or Clause 12(4) it is the rights affecting the estate at that time to which the first proprietor is subject. With first registration, the purpose is to establish a baseline for the statutory title, so the registrar looks at the position at the time of the application.
However, the question whether or not the first registered proprietor is bound by an interest that can be an overriding one on first registration will have been determined prior to that date, for example at the time of the event which triggers first registration. Unlike the position where the land is already registered, there is no "registration gap" because the triggering disposition vests the legal estate. In the case of, for example, a legal charge over registered land, the chargee does not have a legal estate until the legal charge is completed by registration, hence there is a gap between the two events.
Secondly, the proposed test could not apply to voluntary first registrations as there is no triggering event. It is hoped that there will be a large number of voluntary registrations once the Bill comes into force. Where first registration is voluntary, the overriding interest may have arisen, or been created, after the first registered proprietor acquired the land but before he or she applied for the registration of the title.
I hope I have explained why we consider that these provisions do not require to be amended as proposed or to be left out of the Bill. However, I have noted the concerns that have been raised this evening. The provisions certainly deal with very complex issues. I undertake to consider the amendments further, in particular in relation to the use of the term "physically present". It may be possible to improve the Bill in the light of the debate; if so, the Government will return to the matter at Report stage. We shall of course be very happy to receive any contributions before that stage to help clarify this matter.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for taking away the point. There is potential for confusion and further litigation in due course. The noble Baroness said that my noble friend's amendment was a partial interpretation. I am sure that with the help of her officials the Minister can provide a full interpretation.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response and also for the support of my noble friend the Earl of Caithness. I appreciate the Minister's reassurance that she will take away and consider the

1411
points that I have made. Further, I am grateful to the Minister's very helpful offer of more consultation between the stages of the Bill.
The point was raised at Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Kingsland and I repeat it now, not least because a number of extremely experienced and able members of the Chancery Bar have already questioned the meaning and definition of the term "physically present". If we are unable to clarify this term prior to the passing of the Bill we are in danger of seeing more litigation than is really necessary. That would be unfortunate. Therefore, I shall return to those who are supporting us. The Minister said that she will consult with others. Let us see if we can come up with some solution to the point. On that basis I have pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Appurtenant rights and charges]:
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 8, line 13, after second "estate" insert "or interest"
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 18 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 19. These are technical amendments. The purpose of the clause is to facilitate the registration of the benefit of, among other matters, appurtenant easements. I refer noble Lords to Note 68 on page 473 of the report.
Section 1(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 describes the fee simple and the lease as estates. Section 1(2) describes easements and so on as "interests" and as held "for an interest equivalent to" a fee simple or a lease. It is therefore not strictly correct to use the word "estate" to include easements and other matters within Sections 1(1) and (2) of the Law of Property Act 1925. For the avoidance of doubt, the appropriate course is to extend the provision to refer to registration of "interests" which are appurtenant to, or burdens on, a registered estate. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As the noble Viscount has said, Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 tabled by the noble Baroness both make amendments to Clause 13. As such, I shall take them together.
The clause relates to the scope of rules which may be made to ensure that a register contains information not only about the registered estate but also unregistered estates which subsist for its benefit.
The amendments have been tabled to ensure that the rules can provide that the register contains information not only about unregistered legal estates but also about unregistered legal interests. That is highly desirable in view of the underlying objective of the Bill to ensure that the register contains as much of the information about the property as possible.
I hope, however, that I can reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that the clause as originally drafted achieves this aim. The definition of legal estate contained in Clause 129(1) of the Bill refers to the definition in the Law of Property Act 1925.
1412
Section 1(4) of that Act defines "legal estates" to be the estates, interests and charges which are authorised to subsist or to be conveyed or created at law.
I am pleased to say that the clause as drafted already ensures that the rules have their wider scope. Therefore, I invite the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendments.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am most grateful to the Minister for that guidance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 15 [Right to lodge]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 8. line 32, leave out "Subject to subsection (3),"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 20, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 and 108. These amendments are designed to retain permanently the ability of the holder of a registrable interest to enter a caution against first registration. Paragraph 3.58 of the report justifies the removal of this possibility on the basis that such a caution should not be,
"a substitute for first registration",
and registerable estates should be registered. However, the discussion at paragraphs 2.9 and 2.13 of the report accepts that compulsory registration is triggered by the making of a disposition. That is likely to continue to be the case because it is—as the report says—"not easy" to devise an alternative system.
Pending a further review of mechanisms for ensuring comprehensive registration, as recommended in paragraph 2.13 of the report, the right course is to allow an owner who has not made a disposition triggering registration to enter a caution, so that he is told of any application for registration made by anyone else and affecting his land. Forcing an owner to apply for voluntary registration in order to avoid the risk of trouble arising from a mistake by someone else is a "heavy-handed" and "disproportionate" measure, such as paragraph 2.11 of the report deprecates.
We have received very strong support for the amendment from the Charities' Property Association. It is deeply concerned to highlight the possible impact on endowed charities of the abolition of cautions against first registration. It states:
"It is possible that the Law Commission will recommend compulsory registration of all land. Currently, there is only encouragement of voluntary registration of land which means that there will continue to be unregistered land for the foreseeable future".
However, for many endowed charities, such as members of the Charities' Property Association, this could have a negative impact, particularly because

1413
cautions against first registration are to be abolished. In effect, the Bill will not provide them with the same level of protection against squatters for their unregistered land in contrast to the extra protection for registered land being conferred by Part 9 of the Bill.
In some cases the land that endowed charities own is unregistered because it has been owned for hundreds of years and full legal documentation does not exist. It would therefore, we suggest, be extremely expensive and very complicated for endowed charities to register it.
Currently, endowed charities with unregistered land can register a caution against first registration, as can others, by lodging a plan with the Land Registry and a statutory declaration for a fee of £40. The cautioner would then be notified of any application by a third party—such as, for example, a squatter—to register the land. Clause 15 and Schedule 12 remove that right.
This is a very important and fundamental point with regard to the Bill. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I rise to support the noble Baroness because my name is attached to some of the amendments in the group. I originally was inclined to the view that the Law Commission proposals on this matter were correct. But, having read the letter from the Charities' Property Association, a copy of which I also received, I was very impressed by its argument. Therefore, I support retaining the right of a landowner to register a caution against first registration over his own land.
I shall not add to the noble Baroness's comments except to say that, as between Amendments Nos. 107 and 108, I prefer Amendment No. 108 because paragraph 16 of Schedule 12 will still be necessary even if the other provisions which Amendments Nos. 20, 22 and 108 seek to delete are removed.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Amendments Nos. 20, 21, 107 and 108 deal with the rights of an owner, or anyone else prescribed by rules, to lodge a caution against first registration. I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, says in relation to how that will impact, particularly on charities.
Amendment No. 20 tabled by the noble Baroness would remove the qualification of the right of a person to lodge a caution against first registration set out in subsection (3). I shall therefore consider at the same time Amendment No. 22, which would delete subsection (3). That qualification stops the owner of a freehold estate or a leasehold estate with a term of more than seven years from lodging a caution as a substitute for applying for registration itself.
One of the fundamental aims of the Bill is to extend registration as far and as soon as possible. One of the ways in which it does that is to clarify and extend the benefits which come from registration and to ensure the sharpest possible distinction between registered and unregistered land. Those benefits form a package, and the way for the owners of land to achieve them is to have their land registered. Registration, however,
1414
not only provides benefits to the individual owner but also provides collective benefits. For example, problems can and do arise with the boundaries between registered and unregistered land, and the proprietors of unregistered land who continue in that state can be creating difficulties for their neighbours. The opening of the information contained on the register has provided much valuable material to the general public.
The Bill therefore seeks to maximise the advantages to the owner of registration. The amendment would do something to reduce the effectiveness of those measures. It would, in effect, enable a measure which is needed to provide a necessary safeguard for the interests of third parties to be used, as a side wind, to avoid some of the need for registration. That is undesirable. The overall aim should be that the person with an unregistered legal estate which is registrable should register it rather than using other means to protect his or her interests.
I would seek to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that the new prohibition will not apply immediately. Under the transitional arrangements in paragraph 13 of Schedule 12, the new provision will have effect two years after the rest of the clause is brought into force. That will give landowners time to arrange to register their estates in land in the relatively rare circumstances where they feel that protection by a caution against first registration is warranted.
I hear what the noble Baroness says about it not being fair to require registration, particularly in relation to charities. But requiring registration in order to get the benefits is not being heavy handed, given the considerable benefits that we genuinely believe will accrue to those who register their interests. All owners have the opportunity to benefit from this system, which will make the dealings in their property quicker, surer and cheaper. Registration is not expensive and cautions have been useable for this purpose only since 1998.
Although we understand the concern, we genuinely believe that the reality will not be either as onerous or as burdensome as many fear. For the reasons I have already given, cautions against first registration under Clause 15 must not be used as an alternative to substantive legislation. To allow otherwise would be fatally to compromise our ambition of a complete register. However, we do intend to modify the application of the new rules in the early days of the new system so as to allow landowners the chance to make a protective entry in relation to their own land. That concession in paragraph 14 will run for a period of two years. The amendment would remove it. Similar considerations apply in relation to the Crown to paragraph 15.
As to paragraph 16, nothing in the repeals made by the Bill affects the validity of any caution against dealings against first registration lodged under Section 53 of the Land Registration Act 1925 or any enactment replaced, directly or indirectly, by that Act. The paragraph ensures that cautions against first registration under the 1925 Act are treated in a similar

1415
manner to cautions under the Bill. We believe that they will assist the general move towards the desirable goal of total registration of title. We think that the first instinct of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to be supportive of the Law Commissioners was the right one. We regret that he has been tempted away from our shores but we hope to entreat him back.
The Earl of Caithness: Following on from what the Minister said, perhaps I may refer to a charity that does not make any dispositions on the land. What is the advantage to it of having to register the land within the two year period?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The benefit is to have clarity of interest. The noble Earl knows that one of the most difficult things for many is to identify precisely who owns land, who has an interest in land and who has an overriding interest. For many years, such points have beleaguered all those who have dealt in land. The advantage proposed by the Bill is one of transparency so that those who have the benefit of the interest will be able to register that interest and anyone coming to the register will be privy to the rights and responsibilities that they will be subject to and take on by virtue of that disposition. That transparency must, of itself, be a real benefit.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. I appreciate the transitional period of two years to support those such as charities who will have to comply with the provisions of the Bill. I cannot agree with the noble Baroness that the benefits outweigh the burdens. We are talking here about exceptional properties and exceptional owners. Charities and others will be forced to spend an enormous amount of money on carrying out searches on these properties to ensure that they are then able to be registered. I cannot believe that the ambition for a complete register is a benefit that outweighs that burden. While the ambition is in principle a good one, it is too inflexible in this instance. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents. 115.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Colwyn, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Attlee, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Dundee, E.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Elton, L.

Buscombe, B.

Ferrers, E.

Byford.B.

Flather, B.

Caithness, E.

Fookes, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Fowler, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

1416

Geddes, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Glentoran, L.

Onslow, E.

Hanham, B.

Palmer, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Henley,L.[Teller]

Parkinson, L.

Hogg,B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Howe, E.

Plumb, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rawlings, B.

Jopling, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Kimball, L.

Renton, L.

St.John of Bletso,L.

Knight of Collingtree,B.

Seccombe, B.

Laird, L.

Selborne, E.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Lindsay, E.

Selsdon, L.

Luke, L.

Sharples, B.

Lyell,L.

Shaw of Northstead, L

McColl of Dulwich,L.

Skidelsky, L.

Mar,C.

Strathclyde,L.

Marlesford, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Tenby, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Vinson, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Vivian, L.

Montrose, D.

Waddington, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wade of Chorlton,L.

Northbrook, L.

Weatherill,L.

Northesk, E.

Wilcox, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Amos,B.

Grocott, L.

Andrews, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Harrison, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Haskel, L.

Barnett,L.

Hayman, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Berkeley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Billingham, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Blease. L.

Hoyle, L.

Borrie, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brennan, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brookman, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.(Lord Chancellor)

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Burlison, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Jay of Paddington, B.

Clark Of Windermere, L.

Jeger, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Crawley, B.

Levy, L.

David, B.

Lipsey, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

McCarthy, L.

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Dixon, L.

Donoughue, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

MacKenzieof Culkein, L.

Dubs,L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Elder, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Morgan, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Nicol, B.

Filkin, L.

Parekh, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gale, B.

Paul, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Pendry, L.

Gilbert, L.

Peston, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

1417

Rea, L.

Thornton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Rooker, L.

Turnberg, L.

Sawyer, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Uddin, B.

Sheldon, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Simon, V.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Slim,V.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Whitaker, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Whitty, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Wilberforce,L.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.(Lord Privy Seal)

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.38 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 9, line 2, leave out "in gross"
The noble Viscount said: The amendment is designed to enable the holder of a profit appurtenant—that is, a right of pasture, fishing and so on attached to his land—to caution against first registration of the land over which his right exists. The report does not explain why the ability to caution is restricted to profits in gross—that is, not annexed to any land. The holder of each type of profit has an equal interest in ensuring that his right is recorded on registration of the land over which it is exercisable. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As the noble Viscount rightly said, Clause 15 defines the circumstances in which a caution against first registration can be lodged. A caution can only be lodged if it relates to a qualifying estate. Subsection (2) defines what is a qualifying estate for this purpose.
It may be helpful if I explain that a profit which exists in gross is one which is capable of an independent existence from land, such as the right to hunt, shoot game or harvest crops. One of the important changes made by the Bill is to make these valuable rights capable of registration in their own right.
The amendment tabled by the noble Viscount would remove the words "in gross" from the definition of profit à prendre in the list of qualifying estates. The effect would be to enable a caution against registration to be lodged in respect of any profit, including those which are only appurtenant to the land. These profits, however, are not capable of being registered with their own titles.
It therefore follows that any caution against first registration in relation to such a profit would have to be lodged against the registration of the title to the estate which the profit affects. But an unregistered legal estate in land is already a qualifying estate in land for the purposes of the clause. The owner of the profit would therefore be able to lodge a caution against the registration of the title to the estate because he or she is entitled to an interest affecting a qualified estate.
1418
The change to the Bill, if I may respectfully say so, is not necessary. In the light of this explanation, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I quite understand that, when there is a question mark of this kind, it is important to clarify the matter openly in debate in order that there can be no misunderstanding.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, in the light of which I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Cancellation]:
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 10, line 2, after "period" insert "(not being less than twenty-eight days)"
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 26, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 64 and 67.
Amendment No. 26 and the related amendments specify a minimum period which must be allowed to the recipient of a notification for him to respond and protect his rights. Such provisions can in effect have substantive results as such a person may lose his rights if the period is too short for an effective response. It is therefore appropriate to restrict the rule-making power to ensure that adequate notice is always given. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Amendments Nos. 26, 64 and 67 deal with a common issue. That issue is whether a minimum length of time should be specified in rule-making powers in the Bill which allow notice periods to be prescribed. I shall therefore consider these amendments together.
I shall turn first to Amendment No. 26. As we have already seen, Clause 18 deals with the mechanics of applications to cancel cautions against first registration. When an application is received for cancellation, the registrar will serve the notice on the cautioner. The cautioner will in many cases object to the withdrawal of the caution, and if agreement cannot be reached the matter will be referred to the adjudicator for resolution.
Subsection (4) provides that if the cautioner does not respond within the period which is specified in the rules, the registrar must cancel the caution. This is because the obligation lies with the cautioner to substantiate his claim. The amendment moved by the noble Viscount seeks to impose a minimum period of notice below which the rules cannot go.
It may be helpful at this point if I explain how the notices work under the present system—when one sees that, one better understands—and by that I mean how

1419
the notice is served on the cautioner when a first registration application is received. This is the nearest situation to an application to cancel a caution against first registration that exists under the present law.
In that situation, the cautioner is given 14 days to respond. This period is set out in the rules. The rules also provide that the registrar can shorten the period stipulated in the notice, but not to less than seven days. There is another factor in the equation. The rules contain deemed delivery provisions which say that a notice is deemed to be received seven days after posting, not including the day of posting. This means that the cautioner can in reality have as much as 22 days' notice.
Our first thoughts were that these provisions are broadly right, and there is no intention to change the deeming provisions or the periods of notice in the foreseeable future. The Committee may be interested to know that, far from concerns being raised that notice periods are too short, the Land Registry has in fact received complaints that third parties are in fact given too long to respond.
It may be helpful to remember that, generally, challenges to the registration of a caution will come when a property is about to be sold and investigations at the registry reveal its existence. That is the time when it becomes critical. There is a balance to be struck between the period of time given to the cautioner to respond to a notice and the inevitable delay that will result in the sale of the property while the matter is investigated.
While we appreciate the concerns raised by the noble Viscount, I hope it will be of some assurance to him that the rules which will stipulate the period of notice, although not subject to detailed parliamentary scrutiny, are subject to the scrutiny of the Land Registration Rule Committee. Members of the Committee will know how zealous the rule committee is in dealing with these matters appropriately. It will be well placed to balance the various interests and to take a rounded view on what the appropriate period should be. It is of some importance that the committee should be free to set whatever limit or limits are appropriate to the variety of circumstances with which the rules will have to deal. That will develop over time.
I turn now to Amendment No. 64. Clause 36 deals with the mechanics of applications to cancel unilateral notices. It is very similar to the procedures for applications for the cancellation of cautions against first registration. When an application is received for cancellation, the registrar will serve notice on the person with the benefit of the notice. That person will in many cases object to the withdrawal of the notice and, if agreement cannot be reached, the matter will be referred to the adjudicator for resolution.
Subsection (3) provides that if the person with the benefit of the notice does not respond within the period specified in the rules, the registrar must cancel the notice. As with applications for cautions against first registration, the obligation lies with the person who has placed the entry on the register to substantiate his claim. It is clear that a reasonable period of notice
1420
is needed, if the rights are to be a reality. As I have mentioned, the rules are subject to the scrutiny of the Land Registration Rule Committee. The committee should be free to ensure that the rules prescribe an appropriate period or periods in the variety of circumstances with which they will have to deal. This level of detail is perhaps inappropriate for Parliament, and it is certainly one that might inhibit the development of the rules over time.
As with cautions against first registration, challenges to the registration of a notice will come when the property is about to be sold and investigations at the registry reveal its existence. There is a balance to be struck between the period of time given to the person who has lodged the unilateral notice to respond to a notice from the registrar and the inevitable delay that will result in the sale of the property while the matter is investigated. We have attempted to get that balance right. It is not always as easy as one would like.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 67. Clause 45 deals with the mechanics of serving notice of applications to register a voluntary restriction. When an application is received for the entry of a restriction, the registrar will serve notice on the registered proprietor. The registered proprietor may in some cases object to the registration of the restriction and, if agreement cannot be reached, the matter will be referred, as in other cases, to the adjudicator for resolution.
Subsection (2) provides that the registrar must not determine the application if the registered proprietor has not responded until the notice period specified in the rules has expired. The amendment seeks to impose a minimum period of notice below which the rules cannot go. As with the other rules that I have mentioned, rules concerning notice periods under Clause 45 are subject to the scrutiny of the Land Registration Rule Committee. This committee is best placed to decide what the appropriate period should be, and its decisions should not be fettered by an arbitrary period specified in the clause. We know that the periods will vary, particularly if we get to the stage of having e-conveyancing which will make matters a lot quicker. The rule committee may then he in a position to shorten or lengthen a period, or to adjust the rules, so as best to meet the needs of any given situation. Situations will vary; whereas to set these matters in stone in the Bill will make the process rather cumbersome and heavy.
The notice period that is settled upon must fit in with the land registration scheme for notices generally. The scheme may well change over time, and we have catered for that. Twenty-eight days may be far too long in the situation with which we shall he faced, I hope relatively quickly, when e-conveyancing is introduced and this is done on-line. It may he possible to do it much more quickly, efficiently and effectively without causing any risk or difficulty in relation to those who are attempting to apply it.

1421
We believe that our approach strikes a balance between the period of time given to the registered proprietor to respond to a notice and the delay and inconvenience caused to the applicant for the entry of a restriction while the matter is investigated.
Taking all those factors into account, the Bill should not artificially restrict the power of the Lord Chancellor, with the assistance of the rule committee which advises him, to make the right decision for the circumstances that exist from time to time. I hope that my response has covered the concerns raised by the noble Viscount.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the Minister for her most helpful reply, which addresses our concerns. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Owner's powers]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 11, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) Owner's powers to charge a registered estate or a registered charge may be exercised by a document expressed to create a charge by way of legal mortgage, whether or not that document is a deed."
The noble Lord said: The amendment picks up a point that is made in paragraph 7.6 of the Law Commission's report. The Law Commission proposed in its consultative document that a deed should not be necessary in order to create a registered charge giving a chargee powers under Section 101 of the Law of Property Act. According to a subsequent report, that proposal was accepted by most respondents. However, the Law Commission changed its mind simply on the ground that this particular provision would not be necessary when electronic conveyancing was introduced, and the commission expected that only a relatively short time would elapse before its introduction.
I am slightly more pessimistic about this matter than the Law Commission. It seems to me that there is a possibility that e-conveyancing could be, not a matter of months, but several years off. Therefore, I cannot see any objection to removing as an interim stage the requirement that a charge should be by deed. The provision does not seem to serve any useful purpose. The Law Commission appears to be happy in principle that that obligation should be removed, so why not allow its removal? The aim of this amendment, and of Amendment No 28 which is grouped with it, is that this should be possible. I beg to move.
Viscount Bridgeman: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 28. This amendment is designed to ensure that if anyone tries to create a charge or sub-charge in a way which the new system prohibits—for example, by using an old printed form which creates a mortgage by demise—the instrument operates as a legal charge under Clause 23(1) and Clause 51, rather than being absolutely void as a purported disposition which the
1422
proprietor has no power to make or operating as an equitable charge arising from a contract for a mortgage in which case it might be ineffective if there was no document signed as a contract under Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.
The insertion of a provision governing the consequences of a disposition in a form forbidden by the legislation, and validating it as a transaction of the type permitted, is the same technique as was adopted in Sections 85(2) and 86(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 when mortgages by assignment were abolished. The first paragraph of the proposed new subsection preserves, out of caution, provision for what will happen if someone tries to create a mortgage by assignment. This is technically needed, because paragraph 2(6) and (7) of Schedule 11 effectively repeal the equivalent provisions of the Law of Property Act 1925 in relation to registered land. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Perhaps I may begin by dealing with one of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. When speaking to his amendment, he said that he reasonably anticipated that charges were a long way away from being handled electronically. I must disabuse him of that: charges will be one of the earlier parts of e-conveyancing to be implemented. We realistically expect that this may be available next year. Therefore, I caution the noble Lord to prepare himself.
This amendment has been grouped for discussion with Amendment No. 28. The amendments relate to the manner in which an owner can exercise his power to charge his property. Clause 23 sets out the powers of an estate owner to deal with that estate. It includes an unlimited power to do anything that is possible under the general law, with one exception. At the moment, it is possible to create a legal mortgage by demise or sub-demise over registered land. These methods will be abolished by the Bill, as they are no longer used. Instead, the owner will be able to create a legal mortgage in two ways: by either a charge expressed to be by way of legal mortgage; or a charge to secure the payment of money.
The form of charge is short and simple, and it is made by way of a deed. Amendment No. 27 gives an owner an additional power to create a charge by a document which is expressed to be by way of legal mortgage, but one which is not necessarily a deed. If I may respectfully say so, this idea is not entirely new. It was floated in the joint Law Commission/Land Registry consultative document. The arguments for this option were said to be that the rights of the parties are determined by registration of the document not the method by which the document is executed by the parties. This suggestion has not been taken forward in the Bill. The reason for that is a very practical one.
The Bill is setting the framework for electronic documentation and conveyancing. As I said earlier, the first of those electronic documents is likely to be an

1423
electronic charge. This is likely to be taken forward in the near future. Again, I tempt the noble Lord as regards the possible date. The precise form of written instrument used to create a charge will therefore cease to be relevant very quickly.
As I said, the current methods are simple to use. No-one will be prejudiced by the failure to introduce this change in the run-up to electronic charges. There is little point in permitting this additional method for a short space of time, when there are so many other longer-term adjustments that will need to be made. Amendment No. 28 also amends Clause 23. It adds two further ways of charging a property. The first restores the mortgage by demise or sub-demise. Again, the Law Commission comes to our assistance because its consultation document specifically asked whether those methods of making a charge were now used, given the easier method of using a form of charge. The clear consensus was that they are not. Therefore, it seems unnecessary—and indeed undesirable—to clutter up the statute book with a provision that has fallen out of use when there is an alternative method that achieves all that the earlier option achieved, and one that is considerably simpler for all concerned.
The second way enables a legal mortgage or sub-mortgage to be used to have the same effect as a charge. We suggest that this is also an undesirable step. We are moving to the electronic world. The first documents that are likely to become electronic are charges. They will be easy to draft, simple and electronic. It is not desirable to allow a less convenient method to be introduced as an alternative way to deal with the mortgaging of registered land. The move for electronic conveyancing must be towards rather than away from standardisation. We believe that that will make the completion of such work much simpler. The use of a charge document is not onerous. However, its use is beneficial to the conveyancing community at large. I therefore invite the noble Lord and the noble Viscount not to press their amendments in this regard.
I should also stress that one of the delights that I have in proposing these issues to the Committee derives from the fact that the Law Commission has done so much of the work for us; and there is consensus. We have tried to be utterly practical with this Bill, so that people will know how to apply the legislation and be able to do so with ease. We shall also have the benefit of the professions advising us as to how to do this more easily. If we felt that there was a lacuna in this respect, I can certainly reassure noble Lords that we should be very happy to address it. However, there does not appear to be a need for that at present.
Lord Goodhart: I hope that the Minister's prediction of the time within which electronic conveyancing of charges will be brought in is accurate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Right to exercise owner's powers]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 11, line 25, at beginning insert "The manner of exercise of"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 29, I should like also, with the leave of the Minister, to include Amendment No. 30 in my remarks. I believe that it makes sense to deal with the two amendments as a group.
Both amendments are intended to restrict the rule-making power by confining it to prescribing how owners' powers are to be exercised and the form of registrable dispositions, and to eliminate any possibility of rules imposing substantive restrictions on the powers that can be exercised—who can exercise them, or what provisions parties to dispositions can validly agree and include: for example, in a lease, as to alienation; or in a charge, as to the circumstances in which repayment can be demanded. Such restrictions would probably never be deliberately imposed by land registration rules. But if it should happen that such rules are made in terms in which their effect in a particular situation is open to argument, any possible interpretation of them as imposing substantive restrictions will, we suggest, be untenable if it is ultra vires the rule-maker to do so. I beg to move
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clause 24 identifies the persons who can exercise an owner's powers of dealing with the registered estate. This includes not only the person who is actually registered as the owner of the registered estate, but also any person who is entitled to be entered as proprietor.
Subsection (2) makes the exercise of the rights of those who are entitled to be registered subject to rules. The intention is that rules will prescribe how the powers are to be exercised. This is done under the current land registration system by prescribing that the forms of disposition that they should use are the same as if they had already been registered; and that, before registration is completed, they must show to the registrar's satisfaction that they are entitled to be registered as the proprietor of the land.
Amendment No. 29 helpfully makes it clearer that the rule-making power is limited to the manner in which the rights to deal with the land are exercised, and does not seek to restrict the actual powers of disposition. That is our intention, as set out in the provision. We are grateful to the noble Baroness for suggesting the amendment. In our view, this issue merits further investigation, as well as clarification of the intended use of this rule-making power.
There are a variety of rule-making powers located in the Bill, both in the specific clauses dealing with particular areas and, more generally, in Schedule 10. It may be that on further consideration the powers needed are already contained in other provisions within the Bill. We undertake to report back on this issue at Report stage and give careful consideration to the helpful points which have been raised. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment while we carry out that urgent investigation.

1425
I turn to Amendment No. 30. Clause 25 relates to the way in which an owner can exercise his power to deal with a registered estate or charge. A registrable disposition will only have effect if it complies with detailed rules. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness seeks to limit the rule-making power to the form, but not the content, of the registrable disposition.
This clause is a very important provision when we look forward towards electronic conveyancing, which has been much discussed today. The form of the disposition may in fact become the completion of fields on a computer screen with the necessary details of specific terms which have been agreed. The content of such electronic documents will therefore be all important.
I appreciate that there will be concern about the prescriptive nature of the rules made under this provision, especially as the provision is somewhat wider in scope than the provision which exists under the current law. I can, however, reassure the noble Baroness that there is no intention to curb the owner's powers to deal with the registered estate beyond what is required to make the system work in an effective manner for all concerned. The rules made under this provision will be subject to the scrutiny of the Land Registration Rule Committee, which is well placed to decide how far these details need to be set down and to vary them as circumstances change. That committee would be able to review the details which the registry requires with the details which conveyancers are able to provide. This will be difficult to predict in advance and will need adaptation as methods of dealing with the registry change.
As the Committee will appreciate, this provision will be an essential part of the development of the electronic conveyancing process. I hope that in the light of those comments the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I hope that she is satisfied with my earlier assurances on Amendment No. 29.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response to the grouping without notice, if I may put it that way. I thank the Minister for the reassurance he gave in relation to Clause 24 and Amendment No. 29. We believe that that is an important amendment and we are grateful that the Minister responded so positively. We look forward to discussing it again on Report. I shall consider with care what the Minister said on Amendment No. 30. We are still concerned that Clause 25 offers the possibility of incorrect interpretation. However, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Mode of exercise]:
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 26 [Protection of disponees]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 11, line 37, after "this" insert "or any other"
The noble Baroness said: Without having given notice, I should be grateful if I could group Amendment No. 31 with Amendment No. 32. I do so in response to a rather rushed exercise on our part given the time frame within which we have had to respond to the document, Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century.
I shall be brief. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response because the amendments raise an important point. They would ensure that where local authorities or other statutory corporations are so constituted that they can only perform acts which the relevant statute authorises, and purported actions not so authorised are absolutely void, such ultra vires acts are not validated or partly validated because, or in so far as, they happen to affect registered land. It is also important to ensure that anyone dealing with such an entity is not caught out by statutory limitations on its powers. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I fully understand what the noble Baroness says in relation to Amendment No. 31. However, I am afraid that it would undermine the structure of the Bill as regards the powers of a registered proprietor and the protection of buyers from those owners.
If a registered proprietor is subject to statutory limitations on his powers, he should enter a restriction. I am afraid that we do not see why the risk of a proprietor breaching such a statutory limitation should be placed upon the buyer. That very much accords with the policy of the Bill that a person should be able to rely upon the register and restrictions on a registered proprietor's powers should be apparent from the register. An example of the effect of the amendment would be that it would not be necessary to enter a restriction to reflect the limitation on the powers of a tenant for life under the Settled Land Act 1925. We envisage that there would be real problems with the measure. I hope that the noble Baroness will see the force of those arguments and perhaps be minded to withdraw the amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 32. As the noble Baroness said, this amendment adds, in effect, a further subsection to Clause 26. Clause 26 reflects one of the major principles behind the Bill. That principle is that a person dealing with a registered proprietor can assume that his powers of disposition are unlimited unless there is an entry on the register to the contrary. That is one of the fundamental points that we hope the Bill will deliver.
The amendment imposes a duty on the Lord Chancellor to make rules to ensure that when the powers of a body corporate to deal with its land are limited, for whatever reason, that fact is recorded on the register by the entry of a restriction. The idea is to prevent a void transfer operating to pass the legal title in such cases under Clause 26.

1427
I absolutely appreciate the concerns behind this amendment. It is highly desirable to avoid such situations arising. I am pleased therefore to be able to reassure the noble Baroness that the registration of compulsory restrictions in these circumstances is frequently undertaken by the registry at present. A few examples of such restrictions show how this works—restrictions are entered when a company is in liquidation, when a charity owns land and needs consent to disposal from the Charity Commission and when a public sector landlord must meet certain conditions when selling property. Usually they need the consent of the Housing Corporation. I could go on. There are many situations which are thus covered.
I reassure the noble Baroness that there is no intention to alter that approach. There is no intention to change the types or number of such restrictions following the coming into force of the Bill. The need for such restrictions is monitored quite closely by the registry and amended to reflect new and altered powers of disposal set out in new primary legislation.
The registrar is given specific power under subsection (1) of Clause 42 to enter restrictions to prevent invalidity or unlawfulness in relation to dispositions of a Registered estate or charge. The decision to enter a restriction depends on the circumstances of a particular case. As the Committee will know, some corporations have different powers of disposal for different parts of their asset base. For example, insurance companies have limited powers to deal with the funds representing their long-term business assets. The power for the registrar to enter such restriction needs to be very general, as set out in Clause 42.
I can reassure the Committee that the registrar must be able to exercise that judgment on a case-by-case basis. Greater detail of what that means in practice appears in a number of internal practice manuals and in the leading text book on land registration. I shall not reiterate them now. I invite the noble Baroness to look at them. They are helpful; she might find assistance. We believe that it is not appropriate or practical to deal with such dynamic issues in rules.
There will be change. We have to be able to respond quickly to those changes. The registrar has the necessary discretion to deal with them appropriately. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her robust response to Amendment No. 31. I accept entirely what she said in regard to that amendment. I appreciate the reassurances that the noble Baroness has been able to give in relation to Amendment No. 32 by express reference to Clause 42(1) and the specific powers of the registrar. I shall read with care what she said. I am somewhat satisfied that her response has met our concern. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Dispositions required to be registered]:
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 36 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 12, line 26, at end insert "or one which is appurtenant to a term of years absolute which is not registered or required to be registered"
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 36, 38 and 43 were grouped together. Subsequently we decided to move Amendment No. 37 and speak to Amendments Nos. 39 and 44 because we think that they are preferable. I do so now.
These amendments are intended to ensure that easements and rights of entry for short terms of years do not have to be registered or noted on the title to the servient land. Such easements or rights will almost always be appurtenant to or exercisable over short leases and a requirement to register them where the lease is not itself registrable is a trap and unnecessary. Anyone dealing with the servient land will be expected to inspect it and will see that there are rights of way, light and so on. But as the Bill stands, easements appurtenant to a short lease will be registrable under Clause 27(2)(d) (and equivalent rights of entry under paragraph (e)) and under Clause 27(1) they will not operate at law unless registered against the servient title—paragraph 7(2)(a) of Schedule 2. Therefore on a subsequent dealing with the servient title they will not be overriding interests under paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 3 because that applies only to legal easements. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendments Nos. 37 and 39 deal with the same policy issue. They relate to the scope of compulsory registration of property rights. Amendment No. 44 is consequential on them both. I shall therefore consider all three together.
Amendment No. 37 amends the scope of the category of registrable interest set out in subsection 2(d) of Clause 27. That category relates to interests falling within subsection (1)(2)(a) of the Law of Property Act 1925—namely easements, rights and privileges. As originally drafted, there is only excepted from the requirement to register such of those interests as can be registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965. A buyer can readily search against the commons register. This approach accords with the main objective of the Bill—to get as much information about the land on to the register of title for those interested to discover easily and online.
Amendment No. 37 widens the exception. It excludes from the effect of registration any easements rights or privileges which are attached to an unregistered lease, which does not have to be registered. This goes against the deliberate policy of requiring appurtenant rights to be protected on the register even if they are appurtenant to an estate that is not registered and is not required to be registered. The reason for the policy is to protect buyers. I-low are they to know that the land is subject to an easement that has been expressly granted or reserved in favour of a lease of 10 years if it is not in fact recorded on the register? The effect is to increase the enquiries that a buyer

1429
needs to make. Those to whom easements are granted should protect them on the register. They should not put others to the expense and trouble of discovering their rights.
Amendment No. 39 deals with the same policy issue. It amends the scope of the categories of registrable interest set out in subsections 2(e) of Clause 27. That category relates to interests falling within subsections (1)(2)(b) and (e) of the Law of Property Act 1925. Subsection (b) relates to rentcharges issuing out of or charged on land. Subsection (e) relates to rights of entry exercisable over or in respect of a legal term of years of a rentcharge. The amendment introduces exceptions to both these categories. It excludes from the effect of registration any rentcharges under subsection (b) or rights of entry under subsection (e) which are attached to an unregistered lease which is not required to be registered. This also goes against the deliberate policy of requiring appurtenant rights to be protected on the register even if they are appurtenant to an estate that is not registered and is not required to be registered. The effect is to increase the enquiries that a buyer needs to make. Those to whom such rights are granted should protect them on the register. They should not put others to the expense and trouble of discovering their rights.
Amendment No. 44 is a consequential amendment to Schedule 2. The schedule sets out the registration requirements for each category of interest which is required to be registered to have effect. The point is that until those registration requirements are met, the document has no effect. This amendment amends paragraph 7 of the schedule to reduce the scope of dispositions to which the paragraph applies to correspond with Amendments Nos. 37 and 39.
Having heard those detailed points, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: Having heard that response, I wonder whether the Government should not think again. Where one has a short and non-registrable lease, for example for a period of three years, that lease may well contain easements over, for instance, common parts of a block of flats, or something of that kind. Does the Minister suggest that those have to be registered?
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who has put the point better than I did. I was trying to think of an agricultural situation in which there was a three-year lease and any easement created under it would cease at the end of that short lease. What interest would there be to declare in such a case?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, says about short, non-registrable leases for less than three years. He knows well that they do not have to be produced in writing.
1430
However, noble Lords will know that the purpose of the Bill is to make as many rights as possible registrable so that those who wish to take title will know precisely what they are getting.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has a point and we shall certainly consider it further, but the driving force of the Bill is to make the system as complete as possible.
The Earl of Caithness: None of us in the Committee is against what the Government are trying to do. We are all aiming for the same solution. The problem comes when we look at the nitty-gritty and suddenly see some anomalies that could be enormously expensive to try to operate and would not be practical. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for promising to have another look at the issue.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response and am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his support for our request that the Minister consider those points with care. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Caithness for his intervention.
As I said earlier, while we support the principle of having the most comprehensive registration possible, we have to be practical and regard must also be given to cost. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, gave a perfect example of easements over common areas in a block of flats. That helps to show how the burden could outweigh the benefit.
We would very much appreciate it if the Minister could reconsider those points. We shall consider them as well and probably return to them on Report. On that basis, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Registrable dispositions: registration requirements]:
[Amendments Nos. 40 to 44 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Effect of registered dispositions: estates]:
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Effect of registered dispositions: charges]:
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 13, line 35, leave out "in any case,"
The noble Viscount said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 47. As always, we are attempting to be helpful. We contend that Clause 30(2)(b) is unnecessary and therefore possibly misleading. The point is a technical one, but I shall try to put it briefly. The grant of a charge of a lease is a disposition of the lease, so the result of Clause 29(2)(b) is that the charge itself takes effect subject to the burden of any interest incident to the lease. If the chargee then deals with the

1431
charge, all that he can dispose of under the general law, and therefore under Clause 23(2)(a), is what he has and no more—namely, an interest in the lease for better and worse.
Clause 30(2)(b) is therefore otiose and its presence in the legislation risks giving rise to a misconceived argument that it must mean something. The meaning of Clause 29(2) has to be restricted to leave room for Clause 30(2)(b) to operate. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am always delighted to accept any assistance that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, wishes to give me. I also accept that this is clearly a complex and technical area. Perhaps we can scout it together.
Clause 30(1) provides that a registered disposition for value of a registered charge has effect to postpone any interest affecting the charge at the time of the disposition if the priority of the interest is not protected at the time of registration.
Clause 30(2) lists the conditions that have to be met in order for the priority of an interest to be protected. Paragraph (a) lists three conditions that apply in any case. Paragraph (b) specifies a condition that must be met in the specific case of a disposition of a charge over leasehold land. Taken together, the amendments would remove paragraph (b). I hope to convince the noble Viscount that it serves a purpose.
The point is perhaps best made by way of an example. Let us say that X has a charge over a leasehold interest. That lease contains a restrictive covenant in favour of the landlord; X then transfers his charge to Y for value. Under Clause 30(1), the registration of the transfer of the charge has effect to postpone to the interest under the transfer any interest affecting the charge at the time of the transfer whose priority is not protected at the time of registration.
The restrictive covenant was an interest affecting the charge at the time of the transfer, so the question is whether, for the purpose of Clause 30(1), the priority of the restrictive covenant is protected at the time of the registration. The priority of the interest is protected if it falls with Clause 30(2).
In principle, the transfer of the charge should not affect the priority of the restrictive covenant in the lease. However, a restrictive covenant in a lease cannot be the subject of a notice in the register, as outlined in Clause 33(c), so Clause 30(2)(a)(i) cannot apply. The correct result is achieved by subsection (2)(b). The charge transferred relates to a leasehold estate. The burden of the restrictive covenant is incident to that estate.
I said at the beginning that this was a complex and technical area. I hope that the noble Viscount will feel that my explanation has shed some light on how it is envisaged that the clause will work overall. It has a purpose. One has to track it through, but we respectfully believe that it works and is necessary. I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am most grateful to the Minister for the lucidity with which she has explained this abstruse subject. I shall read Hansard carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved. ]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Unregistered interests which override registered dispositions]:
[Amendments Nos. 48 to 50 not moved.]
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 48, line 24, leave out "obvious" and insert "apparent"
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 51, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 57. These amendments are designed to strengthen the protection of occupiers' rights and patent easements, which, in principle, are intended to be protected under the Bill, on dispositions of the land affected. If a purchaser is supposed to inspect land carefully and to be bound by what he finds, he should take subject to everything which is apparent on such an inspection and should not take free from something merely because it may not be "obvious" if, nevertheless, a careful inspection would show it.
Paragraphs 8.61 and 8.62 of the report, Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century: A Conveyancing Revolution, appear to use the words "obvious" and "apparent" as though they mean much the same thing. But that is not necessarily correct. In ordinary language, something is likely to be "obvious" if it will be seen even by someone who does not set out to look for it; whereas something which may have to be looked for, and will be found if looked for, will ordinarily be described as "apparent" on inspection. That is the best way to formulate the test which the report proposes. According to the last sentence of paragraph 8.62, consultation produced support for the proposal that,
"actual occupation should be apparent".
I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The common thread of the first and third amendments in this group—Amendments Nos. 51 and 57—is the test to be applied in deciding whether something is patent or apparent on a reasonably careful inspection. In the first amendment, the test is in relation to whether a person's occupation is obvious and, in the third, it is in relation to legal easements and profits à prendre.
We have of course canvassed some of this ground already. Members of the Committee will recall that we considered the application of a test in connection with the rights of those who are in actual occupation or "physically present". These amendments again raise the question of how far the Bill needs to go in setting out how the tests are met.
The second amendment in the group—Amendment No. 56—would remove the need for a test because all unregistered legal easements and profits would

1433
override registered disposition, irrespective of the knowledge of the person to whom the disposition was made. Perhaps I may deal with this amendment first.
The existence of overriding interests is an unsatisfactory, but nevertheless necessary, feature of the land registration system. One aim of the Bill has been to review all the categories of interest which have this overriding status and to assess whether and to what extent those interests should retain that privileged status. The overall aim is to reduce such interests as far as practicable—I believe that we said that earlier this evening when dealing with some of the previous amendments—and to ensure that they are restricted to interests which it would be impracticable or impossible to register.
By replacing paragraph 3 of Schedule 3, the amendment proposes that all legal easements and profits à prendre should have that status. Underlying the amendment is a justified concern that it should not be possible to avoid the burden of legal easements and profits à prendre that have effect at law. We absolutely understand the motivation behind that. However, I can reassure the Committee that that was never the intention of paragraph 3.
Perhaps I may explain in some detail to the Committee the restrictions contained in the paragraph as drafted and the reasons for them. I hope that in so doing I shall be able to reassure Members of the Committee that there is no reason to have concerns about the limitations that have been imposed.
Before doing so, perhaps it would be convenient for me to set out yet again some of the principal aims of the Bill. The intention is that as much as possible of what is known about a property should be readily available on the register and, ultimately, online. The register should become as complete a record as possible of the matters affecting a property so that a buyer is not bound by something of which he had no knowledge. That is the thrust behind all the rules.
The first point is that paragraph 3 limits the category of overriding easements to those of a legal nature. That is narrower than the current law and is unaffected by the amendment.
The second point is that if the disponee, or buyer, knows of the legal easement or profit because it is patent, or obvious, then he will be bound by it. Such easements will be discovered from a reasonably careful inspection of the property, and the seller will not be under a duty to disclose them.
The third point indicates the other side of the coin. Any legal easement or profit which is not known to the buyer and which is latent should not bind the buyer. That protects buyers from undiscoverable easements and profits—a point of some importance as it is virtually impossible to dispose of an easement or profit once it has been established. However, there is an exception to this last principle. Many Members of the Committee will know that any easement which has been used within one year before the disposition will bind a disponee even though it may not be obvious to
1434
the disponee on an inspection and the landowner is not aware of it. That protects easements which are in regular use, such as easements of drainage.
The combined effect of those elements of paragraph 3 is to prevent a buyer being bound by a right of which he was unaware, which he could not have found out by inspection and which was not shown to have been exercised within the previous 12 months.
Perhaps I may say that this is a sensible point at which to strike the balance between the rights of the landowner and the person who has the benefit of the easement. We have tried to strike that balance throughout the Bill but at this point we say that it is of equal importance. After all, the person with the right over the property can always apply to note that right on the landowner's title for all to see so that no disponee is unaware of its existence. Even in relation to unregistered land, a person can apply for a caution against first registration so that the right is taken into account when the legal estate is registered for the first time.
The purpose behind the limitations is to encourage the creation of a straightforward form of standard inquiries before contract. That will prompt sellers to disclose the easements and profits of which they can reasonably be expected to know while at the same time protecting easements and profits which are not known to the landowner but which are in regular use.
Therefore, the paragraph as drafted represents a major element in the aim to make the register the determinant of title and of the rights and obligations to which the land is subject. If the amendment were accepted, it would blur greatly the careful distinctions that we seek to draw between the increasingly divergent systems of registered and unregistered conveyancing. We genuinely believe that it would work against the overall objectives of the Bill. We are confident that that is not the intention of noble Lords who tabled the amendment, although it may be the consequence.
I turn to the first and third amendments in the group. I regret that I do not see any reason for changing the word "obvious" to "apparent" in either paragraphs 2(1)(c)(i) or 3(1)(b) of Schedule 3. The issue is whether the occupier's occupation is patent. In determining whether something is patent, the courts have asked whether it is obvious, as in the case of Ashburner v. Sewell. The cases do not use the word "apparent". We are trying to use terminology that is already well known and well understood because we know of the difficulties that arise when diverging from terminology that is in use and accepted.
That suggests recourse to The Oxford English Dictionary. That defines the main modern usage of "obvious" as:
"Plain and open to the eye or mind, clearly perceptible, perfectly evident or manifest; palpable".
That is clear and contains no ambiguity. I do not think that the same can be said of "apparent". Although there is indeed a long-attested and very similar usage

1435
of the word, whose definitions match very closely those of "obvious", the commonest sense now is said to be:
"Appearing to the senses or mind, as distinct from (though not necessarily opposed to) what really is; seeming. Contrasted to real".
We know that in common parlance among people under the age of 20 the word "real" has a very different meaning to that which we attach to the word—and their use of the word is usually accompanied by the word "man"!
That introduces a set of connotations that do not—I say this with the greatest respect—help the definition for land lawyers and others who will struggle with this matter in due course. In view of the fact that the amendment would not improve the drafting—I say this respectfully and gently—I urge the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Bridgeman: We very much appreciate the balance that the Minister seeks to draw between the purchaser and the owner. With the strength of The Oxford English Dictionary behind her, we shall have to consider her reply very carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 57 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 49, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), an easement or profit shall be taken to be apparent on a reasonably careful inspection it such an inspection would reveal that acts had been done on the land, or advantages had been enjoyed over it, which were in fact done or enjoyed in the exercise of the easement or profit, whether or not such an inspection would have revealed or led to the discovery of the particular right under which those acts were done or advantages enjoyed."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is designed to ensure that an easement is protected if the facts connected with its enjoyment are discoverable by inspection. Inspection without more will not show whether, for example, an access way or light to a window is enjoyed as of right or merely by prescription. If facts that are consistent with the existence of an easement show up on a buyer's inspection the onus should, we suggest, be on him to go on to ask about the legal position.
That distinction is not discussed in paragraphs 8.65 to 8.72 of the report Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century. The result produced by the amendment would be equivalent to the position adopted for "actual occupation". Paragraph 8.62(1) points out that it,
"is not the interest that has to be apparent…but the occupation of the person having the interest".
I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I confess that we had some difficulty understanding precisely what was intended by the amendment. We considered the matter on the basis that the amendment sought to spell
1436
out that if it was obvious or—to use the word in the amendment—"apparent" from an inspection that there has been activity on the land or advantage enjoyed over the land, the disponee under the registered disposition will take subject to the easement or profit even if the fact that the activity or advantage has been exercised under that interest cannot be discovered by inspection and thus the existence of the easement or profit is not discoverable or known.
We have already discussed the matter in relation to the previous group of amendments. I explained to the Committee the background to and basis of paragraph 3 of Schedule 3. In so doing I mentioned that if the disponee knows of the legal easement or profit because it is patent he would be bound by it. Such easements will be discovered from a reasonably careful inspection of the property and the seller will not be under a duty to disclose them.
It is considered that the test of what is "obvious" on a reasonably careful inspection is to be interpreted in the same light as the case law relating to the question of a patent defect in title; that is, one that does not have to be disclosed to a buyer of land prior to contract under the principles that were set out in Yandle & Sons v. Sutton. As many noble Lords may know, the learned judge in that case said: "I think he"—that is, the purchaser—
"is only liable to take property subject to those defects which are patent to the eye, including those defects which are a necessary consequence of something which is patent to the eye".
If it was patent to the eye that, for example a private right of way existed the buyer would be bound even if he did not know the particular right under which the way was used or who all the users were. That being so, paragraph 3(1)(b) already appears to cover the concerns that were outlined by the noble Baroness and I therefore hope that she will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her full response. I shall look again at the Bill to ensure that I am content that this important point is already covered. I shall read with care what she said in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 3 shall be agreed to?
Viscount Colville of Culross: It may be patent, apparent or obvious that I have not understood the schedule but on page 49 in line 6, should not the third word be "or" rather than "of"? Will the Minister comment on that?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Viscount. I had not noticed that; I do not know whether any other noble Lords had done. That demonstrates the invaluable benefit of having Cross-Benchers actively engaged in our debate. I wholeheartedly thank the noble Viscount.
Baroness Buscombe: I support the Minister's comments. We are grateful to the noble Viscount for that intervention.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Entry on application]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 14, line 40, leave out "Subject to rules."
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 61 and 62.
The amendments taken together would ensure that an agreed notice could be entered only if the registered proprietor or someone entitled to be registered made or consented to the application. Any other application would have to be for a unilateral notice so that the proprietor would be told of it under Clause 35(1) and would have an opportunity to apply under Clause 36(1) for it to be cancelled.
Paragraph 6.22 to 6.31 of the Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century report describes the system in the Bill and indicates that it is intended not only to allow the entry of so-called agreed notices, which are not in fact consensual, to which reference is made in paragraph 6.24, but to go further and prescribe by rules that certain interests can be protected only by agreed notices without any procedure for cancellation on the proprietor's application. That is paragraph 6.25. It gives matrimonial home rights as an example.
It seems wrong in principle to allow entries to be made without the proprietor's consent and, possibly, even without his knowledge and without allowing him to use the procedure in Clauses 35 and 36 to resolve the applicant's claim where it is disputed.
Clause 32(3) provides that a notice does not validate an interest but does protect its priorities if it is valid. A so-called agreed notice in respect of a claim which is, in fact, disputed will be a serious interference with the registered proprietor's ability to deal with his land. Indeed, any prospective purchaser will insist on having the entry cleared off, which may be a protracted process if it arises out of a dispute between the proprietor and the applicant.
We believe that no justification is shown for depriving the proprietor of the protections described in paragraphs 6.29 and 6.30 of the report. Moreover, the cases in which that can happen are to be prescribed by rules which will not receive further parliamentary scrutiny. We feel strongly that that is a disproportionate interference with the proprietor's rights. On that basis, I beg to move the amendment.
7 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the amendment so fully. Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 are grouped together because they are linked. The link is that Amendment No. 61 is unnecessary without Amendment No. 60. The effect of Amendment No. 60 on Clause 34(2) is to remove the Lord Chancellor's power to make applications for unilateral or agreed notice subject to rules. I can understand the concern behind this amendment; namely, that the right to apply may be curtailed by the detailed rules that are made.
1438
However, I hope that I shall be able to reassure the noble Baroness that the purpose of the provision is to give the Lord Chancellor power, for example, to prescribe that certain types of application will always be registrable as agreed notices. That is very similar to certain situations which arise under the present law, and the noble Baroness touched on that; for example, whereby notice can be entered of a wife's matrimonial home rights notwithstanding that the proprietor objects. If that power is to be exercised, the right to apply to the registry must be made expressly subject to rules as originally drafted. That need for such a wide rule-making power does not exist under the current law because the methods of protecting third party interests are rather different. As the law stands now, there is only a consensual form of notice, and unilateral action is taken by lodging a caution against dealings.
Even with those different methods, the position is not straightforward. For example, rights under the Family Law Act 1996 are registered as notices even though they are not in fact consensual in the normal sense. Under the new arrangements, the registry can set out in rules a comprehensive statement of the interests which can be protected by a consensual notice and which can be protected by a unilateral notice. The difference between the two is significant. The registered proprietor may challenge the unilateral notice and seek its removal.
The advantage of setting out the detail in rules is that it will remain flexible and can be more readily updated in the future. I have already mentioned the Family Law Act 1996. It is apparent from that that the treatment of these different applications by the registry can depend on legislation outside of the sphere of land registration. There must be an ability to respond to those. That makes it more important that these details are left to rules because we cannot prescribe what future legislation may need to provide in relation to its operation and how that may impact upon the Land Registry's discharge of its duties.
Having heard the reasons that I have given for the width of the rule-making power under this clause, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. I remind her of the role that will be played by the rule committee in that regard, which should give greater assurance.
Amendment No. 61 also amends the rule-making power in subsection (2). It makes it clear that rules can cover the form of the application that has to be made and also the information to be contained in it. However, this amendment is not necessary if the rule-making power under subsection (2) is left as originally drafted. The subsection already begins with a much more general statement that the right to make an application to register an agreed or unilateral notice is subject to rules. I therefore invite the noble Baroness not to press that amendment.
I now turn to Amendment No. 62. Subsection 34(3) sets out the three different circumstances in which the registrar may approve an application for an agreed notice. The first two cases are ones where the registered

1439
proprietor consents to the entry of the notice. The ability of the registrar to approve such applications has not been questioned. Therefore, we expect that that will be relatively straightforward.
However, the third situation in which the registrar may approve an application for an agreed notice will arise where the registered proprietor does not consent to the entry of a notice. It is that option which the amendment removes.
I should like to clarify the circumstances in which it is envisaged that the registrar would approve such an application. The subsection states that the registrar is able to enter an agreed notice where he is satisfied as to the validity of the applicant's claim. An example would be where the applicant could establish to the registrar's satisfaction that the registered proprietor had granted him an easement.
A more detailed example of how the amendment would work in practice might assist. When dealing with these issues, it is always difficult to think how they may apply in concrete terms. Perhaps I may pose one example. What if the registered proprietor granted an option in writing to X? X applied to have it protected by an agreed notice. The registered proprietor refuses to agree to that. X would be forced to enter a unilateral notice even though the registrar had seen the grant of the option and was quite satisfied that it was valid. At present the registrar is entitled and does enter a notice if an interest has been validly created even if the proprietor objects. It is a power which he exercises regularly and it should not be taken away from him because of its practical use. From what I have said, I hope that I have demonstrated why that third basis of approval of an application for registration of an agreed notice is necessary. It enables the practical way in which that matter has operated in the past to be carried forward and provides an appropriate level of flexibility and transparency. Therefore, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I am not happy with the explanation given by the noble Baroness for the rejection of Amendment No. 62. It seems to me that there is a problem. We have here a claim which the registered proprietor is not entitled to dispute. The registrar may think that the validity of the claim has been proved to his satisfaction. However, surely that is not a decision which should be taken without the possibility of a hearing.
The situation is now entirely new. There is a possibility for unilateral notices as well as agreed notices. A unilateral notice is as good as an agreed notice subject only to the possibility that it might be cancelled as a result of the proprietor making a case against it. If it is as clear as that, the proprietor will not make a case. It is only where there is a dispute that the proprietor is likely to challenge a unilateral notice.
It seems to me that there is a much stronger case for the acceptance of Amendment No. 62 than was made by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the anxiety ex pressed by the noble Lord in relation to
1440
Amendment No. 62. However, I am not able to say that I agree with him. First, I have indicated on a number of occasions that parliamentary scrutiny in relation to the rules and how they operate will increase. That will be a powerful safeguard.
Secondly, Members of the Committee will know that if the agreed notice is wrong, the proprietor can seek rectification of the register. Therefore, there is an available remedy. We are not depriving the proprietor of that remedy by virtue of these rules. The rules will give the flexibility that we need. The registrar is already discharging duties in that regard. We think that the system will work well.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her full response to each of the three amendments. I should like the opportunity to read Hansard and consider carefully her comments. Perhaps I may comment briefly in support of the response given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to Amendment No. 62, about which there is concern. One of the reasons why we feel strongly about this point is that it has to be considered in the light of the fact that the cases to which we refer will be prescribed by rules which will not receive further parliamentary scrutiny. That is a matter of concern. We believe that it makes for disproportionate interference with the proprietor's rights.
In any event, I shall think carefully about the Minister's comments. I suspect that we shall want to return to these points on Report. However, meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 61 and 62 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Unilateral notices]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 15,1ine 13, at end insert ", and of the effect of sections 32(3) and 36(1),"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 63 is designed to ensure that the proprietor knows not only that an application has been made but also what its consequences may be so that he can take an informed decision as to what, if anything, to do about it. The effect is similar to that of the protection given to an applicant by Clause 36(2). I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Clause 35(1) sets out the requirement for notice to be served on the registered proprietor, and any other person named in the rules, of the entry of a unilateral notice on to the register, as mentioned by the noble Baroness. However, the proposed amendment seeks to lay down in the Bill detailed issues which need to be addressed in the notice.
Briefly, the two pieces of information referred to are, first, that the entry of a notice does not guarantee the validity of the interest to which it relates and, secondly, there is a right to apply for the cancellation of the notice at any time.

1441
I fully understand why the amendment has been proposed and why these issues should be addressed and the notice served on the proprietor and other interested parties. I see the force in that. But this level of detail is included in notices under the current system and will continue to be set out in the new notices drafted in support of the Bill. There is no indication that this level of detail has to date caused any difficulty or confusion. It is a replication of what is currently good practice.
However, there is a more fundamental issue to be considered. The framework of this legislation, unlike the 1925 Act, strikes a clear balance between the legal principles that overarch the land registration system, which should be contained in primary legislation, and the more detailed supportive provisions which are more appropriately left to secondary legislation where they can be updated more readily. We have touched on that aspect on a number of occasions tonight.
The general rule-making provision which addresses the detail of the form, content and service of notices is set out in paragraph (5) of Schedule 10. The rules made using those powers will be subject to the scrutiny of the Land Registration Rule Committee. It is in that forum that the exact details of what should be said to make the recipient of the notice understand what is at issue should be decided.
There is one further issue. The primary legislation will be used by the Land Registry and the rule committee as the guiding force behind the rule-drafting exercise. It is perhaps wrong to signal to them that these two issues are of particular significance. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that there are other issues of equal weight that should also appear on the face of the notice and which perhaps may differ from the circumstances in which the application for cancellation is made.
As drafted, the clause signals to the rules draftsmen that it is for them to consider what is needed in all the circumstances and for that to be agreed with the members of the rules committee. As I have said before, we totally accept that the rules committee will have an important role. We are mindful of the need for enhanced scrutiny. As I said at the beginning of the debate, we shall table amendments on Report which will address some of those concerns. We understand the basis of such concerns.
In the light of those comments, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. We should like to consider her comments. I am reassured to learn that amendments will be tabled on Report regarding the rules. We are also reassured to hear that the Government appreciate our concern that detailed provisions will be subject to secondary legislation which is by negative resolution. That is a continuing concern. We look forward to discussing related points on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Cancellation of unilateral notices]:
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Effect]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 16, line 34, after "may" insert ", for the purpose of giving effect to the rights of the persons affected thereby,"
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is designed to make clear that the registrar's powers are to be exercised in such a way as to give effect to the parties' rights under the general law. I respectfully refer the Minister to paragraph 6.37 of the report. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I regret to say that I must resist the amendment. Clause 41 deals with the effect of a restriction, which is to prevent an entry being made in respect of a disposition covered by the restriction without the terms of the restriction being complied with.
Restrictions come in many forms and may affect only a very specific type of disposition such as the need for the first chargees' consent to the entry of a second charge. It can also be very wide and catch any dispositions at all made by the proprietor of the land.
The amendment seeks to limit the circumstances in which the registrar can make an order disapplying or modifying the restriction to cases where this will give effect to the rights of the persons affected thereby. A restriction is of relevance only to an application for registration of a disposition if the disposition is caught by it, thereby requiring certain conditions to be fulfilled. An application is made to the registrar for an order disapplying the restriction or modifying its effect if for some reason those conditions cannot or should not be fulfilled. A common example is where the consent of a limited company is required and that company has been dissolved.
The provision is intended to deal with the obstacle of completing a specific application without changing the restriction on the register or its effect for the future. In reality, therefore, a request for an order under this subsection will be made only of the person requesting it is affected at the time by the restriction in some way. This is endorsed by subsection (3) which limits the identity of the persons who can request an order to those who have a sufficient interest in the restriction.
The provision is necessary for the proper operation of the register and in the circumstances I have described the additional words suggested by the amendment are not needed. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. I am sorry that she was unable to respond more positively, although I take on board and understand the points she made. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Obligatory restrictions]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 18, line 5, after "restrictions" insert ", if any,"
The noble Baroness said: Again I shall be brief. The amendment is designed to preserve the present position under which no restriction need be entered where it is not required as a matter of substantive law if joint proprietors have unrestricted powers of disposition and are beneficial joint tenants so that the survivor will be absolutely entitled. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Clause 44 addresses the very important issue of the registrar's duty to enter restrictions in particular situations without an application by the parties. There are quite a few examples of these in practice and they are used when the power of disposal is limited in some way; for example. when certain public corporations, charities, public sector landlords and other similar bodies need consent of perhaps the Charity Commission or the Secretary of State to a disposal of land.
Subsection (1), to which the amendment relates, is in fact limited to the situation where more than one person is registered as proprietor and the registrar needs specifically to ensure that any underlying beneficial interests are overreached. The amendment suggests that rules do not have to be made at all to impose a duty on the registrar to enter a restriction in these circumstances.
I would like to tell Members of the Committee what happens under the current system in the simplest case when just two people own the land. It may help to elucidate why we believe that the rules as currently expressed are favourable. First, the register of the title records only the legal title and will show them as joint owners. They are in fact trustees for themselves. Under the general principles of property law, the underlying beneficial interest in land can be held by them either as tenants in common or joint tenants. If held by them as joint tenants, it means that when one of them dies the other acquires the whole of the property automatically.
The survivor therefore has full powers to dispose of the property and no restriction is needed. That is not the case with tenants in common. The effect of the provisions of the Law of Property Act is to transfer the beneficiaries' interests from the land to the proceeds of sale only if two trustees give a receipt for the moneys. The moneys can also be paid to a trust corporation. In this situation, a restriction is entered on the register stating that unless there is an order from the registrar or the court, no disposition by only one trustee will be registered. This restriction ensures that a second trustee is appointed to receive the moneys, or either the court or the registrar investigates the position as to why on the facts that step in not necessary. Members of the Committee will know that that is a common position.
1444
Rules under the Bill will replicate the current arrangements. I therefore hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. Perhaps I may reiterate that our interest in tabling the amendment relates specifically to the position applying to joint tenants, not that of tenants in common. That said, I shall read what she had to say with care and decide whether to return to the matter on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Notifiable applications]:
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Clause 45 agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as consideration in Committee of the Land Registration Bill is complete for today, this evening's Unstarred Question 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 time available to my noble friends Lord Harrison and Lady Blackstone but it increases the maximum time available to other speakers from four to seven minutes. However, if noble Lords have already prepared four-minute speeches I am sure that the House will not object if they so restrain themselves.

Tourism
7.30 p.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to promote tourism in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as one leaves the Palace this evening the first British industry that one stumbles across is tourism. I do not mind being tripped by Japanese tourists, flattened by French flâneurs, pushed by promenading Prussians or yanked off the pavement by towering Texans if it means that London and Britain's tourist industry is alive and kicking. But these are harder times, and foot and mouth disease has caused even London's hotels, theatres and restaurants to fall and stumble. We should support the tourist industry not simply through the bad times, as now, but the good times. We have not always done that.
We have not always taken the tourist industry seriously. Why? For us, taking a holiday is what we do when we cease to be politicians. We do not know how to take fun seriously. Tourism is a successful industry. As politicians, we are programmed to deal with industries in crisis rather than those which flourish. For us, tourism is a disparate industry, not a desperate one, to be found in every nook and cranny of the British way of life, not concentrated like the automobile industry in a car plant. Tourism has no Longbridge or Dagenham to concentrate politicians' minds.
For us, tourism is an industry of big attractions and small businesses, with no single voice to speak on its behalf. It has no NFU to beat its drum, yet tourism is many times bigger than farming both in jobs and wealth creation and is more poorly regarded and supported. Farmers have received £1 billion to help recover from foot and mouth disease; tourism has received a fraction of that. For us, farmers grow food, but the tourism industry only serves it, but it also serves those who stand and "waiter"—until now and FMD. The silver lining of that dreadful disease has been to throw into sharp relief not only the interdependence of tourism and farming but also the overarching importance of the former.
What should the British Government do to help tourism back onto the road of relentless progress? I am grateful to the Prime Minister for receiving American and other foreign tour operators at No. 10 recently to help dispel the image of a Britain closed to business and pleasure. I am also grateful to the Government for the £14.2 million grant under the BTA's March FMD recovery plan. But can my noble friend say whether the remaining £8 million to finance the global image campaign will be released soon?
En passant, I extol the sterling work of the BTA, ETC and regional tourist boards in helping to respond to the depredations of foot and mouth disease. I am grateful that the Government have extended the 100 per cent hardship relief on business rates to rural hospitality businesses whose rateable value approaches £50,000. I am also grateful to the Government for the minimum wage, which is a fillip to all who work in the tourist industry, but much more needs to be done. For example, will the Government respond to the National Trust's recent call to switch payments for food production to land management projects? By uprating old buildings and rejuvenating heritage attractions rural tourism can be strengthened.
Will the Government review their excellent 1999 policy document Tomorrow's Tourism to take account of the new devolved political landscape of RDAs and national assemblies? Will they contemplate a new development of tourism Bill to build on the Labour government's ground-breaking Act of 1969? Would such a Bill restore the English Tourism Council's right to promote itself within the United Kingdom, which is a licence that is granted to all other national boards?
1446
After all, tourism begins at home. A sound domestic industry is the sure footing to attract overseas visitors to Britain. English tourism lacks that step up.
In addition, the ETC should have a national co-ordinating role to ensure consistency of approach by the regional tourist boards. Chester brands itself as the gateway to Wales, but in general there is little co-ordination of that kind among national and regional tourist boards. Like the butterfly, tourism does not recognise political boundaries. Why is it that the RTBs which shoulder these promotional and marketing responsibilities are expected to obtain funds from their commercial members? Is there not an unassailable case for government grants to complement the private sector's current contributions? Such sprats from the public purse can catch mackerels of private investment in a real private-public partnership which should warm the cockles of the Prime Minister's heart.
Will my noble friend tell the Treasury to abolish the iniquitous air passenger duty—that poll tax on wings—which is so counter-productive and inhibits foreign tourists from coming to Britain? Will the Treasury boost the competitiveness of the British hospitality industry by realigning VAT rates in hotels and restaurants to those of our EU rivals and partners? Our thinking on that matter is one starter short of a set menu. When will the Treasury wake from its torpor and provide detailed facts and advice on the impact of the euro on the competitiveness of Britain's tourist industry? Tourists, London and Britain will be awash with euro notes and coins in five months' time, but the Chancellor's five economic tests will mean nothing to the London taxi driver or Chester hotelier who needs to provide change to the American and continental visitor who offers payment in euros. High fives to the Treasury if it can respond to this imminent change.
Will my noble friend, who is a recent distinguished graduand from the field of higher education, consider the establishment of a university of tourism whose purpose is to promote quality in the tourism product and careers for young people from the New Deal to university graduates? Does my noble friend also recognise that the tourist industry still lags woefully behind in the adoption of information and communications technology? The Harrison family has just experienced horrendous difficulties in organising its twin-centre summer holiday in Cambridge and Suffolk. Despite my wife's fluent Internet skills, in trying to secure accommodation the family was offered a stamped-addressed envelope service which would have done Thomas Cook proud in the 19th century.
Will my noble friend encourage the new Minister for Tourism, Dr Kim Howells, to continue to speak out of turn on the often exorbitant prices and poor quality service offered by hotels and restaurants? Will my noble friend consider the inclusion of tourism in the title of the DCMS? This Government support tourism, so why not proclaim it proudly? Further, does my noble friend accept that tourism is more appropriately located in the DTI, where the interests of the tourist industry and those of the consumer are instantly

1447
allied? I remind the Minister that Dr Howells comes hotfoot from the consumers' brief in the DTI and surely that is no accident.
As to the question of tourism and public policy, will my noble friend spell out the precise mechanism whereby the needs of the industry can be factored into all aspects of government policy-making? By its diverse nature this industry requires someone to lay the towel of tourism across all the deckchairs of government departments if it is not to suffer policy sunburn by benign neglect.
I conclude not only by anticipating the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, a noble warrior in the cause of all things touristic, but also in making a prediction: tourism is an industry whose time has come. Next year it will be the industry to convince our fellow citizens of the worth of the single currency, as British tourists bring it home from abroad and the British tourism industry deals with it via inbound tourists.
Once the turbulence affecting the tourism industry in the wake of FMD has been overcome, we must remember to support this powerful industry, not just in the times and the years of famine but also, and paradoxically, in the ensuing years of plenty.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, on his initiative in introducing the debate, I declare an involvement, indeed a huge interest, in tourism through my directorships in British Airways and Thistle Hotels.
The debate attempts to elicit help from the Government for an industry that accounts for 4 per cent of GDP. It has a turnover of some £64 billion and employs some 3.2 million people, directly and indirectly, which is 10 per cent of total employment.
Tourism is not by any means a cottage industry but is hugely important to employment and wealth creation throughout the country, not just in London where we see the tourists. It is particularly important in rural areas. It is sad that it took the catastrophic disaster of foot and mouth disease to heighten awareness of the tourist industry and the central part that it plays in our now largely service-based economy.
We have already heard, and doubtless we shall hear again this evening, of the great generosity of the Government towards the tourist industry. Certainly, the £14.2 million additional promotional funds given as a result of the foot and mouth disaster have been as much welcomed as they have been trumpeted around. But, not wishing to sound ungracious, it is somewhat in the category of "sticking plaster to cure a major cancer" problem.
There needs to be a fundamental reassessment of the Government's role in promoting tourism and encouraging better standards and higher quality throughout the industry. Short-term measures such as the additional promotional expenditure grant are hugely helpful in the current crisis. I do not use the word "crisis" lightly. However, the importance of the industry to the economy as a whole demands that a
1448
strategic view is taken of what should be done to ensure that our successful tourist industry becomes stronger and fitter and more able, in effect, to compete for the ever-increasing growth throughout the world.
The Secretary of State who is ultimately responsible for tourism, the right honourable Tessa Jowell MP, on 8th July wrote in the Observer that,
"the truth is there is more wrong with British tourism than the cold it caught in March".
Despite the fact that I think the word "cold" is somewhat understated—pneumonia would be more likely—I am glad that such an admission, or recognition, of a fundamental problem exists. What would like to know is what do the Government intend doing about it?
Since 1997 the Government have, first, scrapped the English Tourist Board and replaced it with the English Tourism Council which has no marketing function. I ask the Minister, "Why?". Do not the Government believe in marketing tourism? They seem to believe passionately in marketing themselves.
Secondly, the Government have increased the regulatory burden, including the regulations conditional upon this country adopting the Social Chapter. On this subject the UK brewing and pub industry which, with one or two exceptions, covers the hospitality sector, has had an additional 79 pieces of legislation imposed upon it since May 1997. If the Minister wishes, I can give her the list because I have it here. The list includes one regulation which stipulates that GM ingredients must be listed on menus. Is that really necessary? Who wants it? Does anyone do it? How many people are employed in enforcing it?
Thirdly, the Government have forced the BTA to close a number of its overseas offices, while other "tourism economies" are investing more and more in attempting to woo customers to their shores. None of this suggests that the Government really believe that,
"there is more wrong with British tourism than the cold it caught in March".
Now is an opportunity to make some strategic decisions about where Government support for this very important industry should be focused. We need to think about the longer term as well as dealing with the immediate aftermath of the crisis in the industry following the FMD disaster. Would it be too optimistic to hope that the Government might look outside the box of usual suspects and, on a non-political basis, try and engage the best brains in the industry in a forward looking strategic analysis of what should, could and is capable of being done?
Time does not permit an in-depth analysis of what I think should, could and is capable of being done, but I would just mention one area. Bearing in mind the Government's avowed intention to raise skills levels, perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that she takes a look at the relativities between the funding for modern apprenticeships in the hospitality industry versus that for hairdressers and forklift truck drivers.
There is a devastating skills shortage and skills gap problem in this sector of the tourist industry. Colleges are shutting down whole hospitality and catering

1449
departments or withdrawing practical facilities because of the lack of funding—Hereford College, Sutton Coldfield College and Evesham College to name but three. Work-based learning providers are threatening to pull out of the hospitality sector because delivery under the current funding regime is so expensive. The Minister is very aware of this problem, as it was one that she dealt with in her previous government role in the department then known as DfEE. It is one that will not go away.
Too often we hear of complaints by tourists about the quality of our catering industry. I fear we cannot be surprised as there are, I am reliably informed, some 50,000 chef shortages at the moment. It is in such areas that if action were taken now the future of the tourist industry would be much brighter. It would be promotional support of lasting value. I hope that the Government will respond favourably. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for tabling this Unstarred Question.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for initiating this short debate. I should like to focus on one aspect of the tourist industry. That is the industry in general in upland areas in this country. They have been particularly badly affected by foot and mouth disease. I particularly focus on the Lake District in Cumbria which is not only the major tourist centre for upland pursuits—mountaineering or simply sitting in one's car looking at the mountains and everything in between—but the main area of foot and mouth disease. It had some 40 per cent of the cases nationally.
According to a Written Answer I received before the last Recess, tourism in Cumbria is three times as important as agriculture in terms of its economic value. I have not been able to ferret out the figures within the Lake District National Park but my guess is that it must be at least ten times as important as agriculture. Yet most of the focus has, for obvious reasons, been on the farmers who have been stricken by foot and mouth disease.
During the election campaign I stood in the middle of Carlisle talking to people. I met a couple called Myra and Bill Pearson from Keswick. They run a guest house called the Fawsley Guest House. Their experiences are a microcosm of what has happened to the tourist industry in that area. Their guest house is in Keswick, one of the towns of the Lake District. It has not been quite as badly hit as some of the very rural areas. Since foot and mouth started their trade has been down 50 per cent. In March it was down 75 per cent; in April it was down 40 per cent; and in June it was down 60 per cent. This month it has recovered because of the Keswick convention. However, their bookings for August are zero. They fear that many businesses in Cumbria will go under unless the fells are opened quite soon, perhaps in September or October.
1450
According to a Written Answer I had from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, yesterday, only 31 per cent of the fells in the Lake District are open, despite the fact that people have been told that half are open for walkers. In that area the situation is still dire.
There is an organisation based in Keswick called the Cumbria Crisis Alliance. It is a drop-in centre that is run by 20 or so volunteers. Every day many people go there, not just from the northern Lake District but from the whole area. They are mainly people in tourist businesses who are at the end of their tether and who do not know what they are going to do. But a whole series of other kinds of business is also suffering knock-on effects. For example, in January a business on the west coast bought a large quantity of quad bikes. They are machines with which your Lordships will be familiar. The company bought them from Japan. It has not sold a single one and is having to cover the cost of the machines. It is not easy. The business would expect to have sold them all by now. The Barclays Bank commercial manager in Keswick is quoted as telling the Cumbria Crisis Alliance:
"We have been instructed to start drawing on people in August".
I am told that a café at Seatoller at the top of Borrowdale went into liquidation this week. The people at the Cumbria Crisis Alliance believe that unless direct aid can be provided before the end of the summer such a future faces a large number of small businesses catering for Lake District tourists of all kinds.
I am aware that the Isle of Man Government have allocated £36 million of direct compensation to businesses suffering from a loss of income due to the cancellation of the TT races. A fortnight ago Kim Howells was in Cumbria and met the Cumbria Crisis Alliance and many other local people. He also went on local radio and television. He said then that EU state aid rules prevented the Government from helping out businesses in Cumbria. He said that it was not possible to give the kind of aid that was being given in the Isle of Man. I have been in touch with my local Member of the European Parliament, Chris Davies, for whom I used to work. He said that he had spoken to European Commission officials and learnt that they were unlikely to have any objection to payments being made to businesses suffering as a result of the foot and mouth crisis so long as they are payments made to tide them over the temporary crisis rather than long-term subsidies. In view of the extenuating circumstances, should not the Government make an application to the Commission to waive the rules so that they can give direct financial support to businesses hit by foot and mouth disease?
I should have liked to talk at length about the effect of the foot and mouth crisis on businesses concerned with outdoor pursuits and outdoor education in the upland areas. I do not have time to do so today but I put down a marker for a future occasion. Those businesses are in desperate straits because they depend directly on people having access to the upland areas for mountaineering, climbing, hill walking and other leisure pursuits. That is not possible in many places. Those businesses are being destroyed by factors over which they have no control.

1451
The long-term future is a matter for debate. But I would say that the future must lie in co-operation between all the interests in the upland areas—the farming industry, the tourist industry, local industries and the people who come to these beautiful areas to use the facilities. When we were discussing the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill there was a good deal of tension inside the House between what were perceived to be opposing interests—the interests of the landowners and the farmers on the one hand, and the interests of recreational users on the other. What the calamity of foot and mouth disease has shown us is that the interests of farmers, landowners, tourism and the people who go to these areas to use the facilities are basically the same and that the future lies with them working together.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Pendry: My Lords, I am delighted to be making my maiden speech in your Lordships' House and in doing so to be following the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Before making my own contribution, I wish to thank the very many Members of the House who have made me so warmly welcome over the past few days. In addition, I should like to thank the officers and staff of the House for their courtesy and for the kind efficient services that they have afforded me.
I welcome the opportunity that my noble friend Lord Harrison has presented me in this short debate. It is an opportunity to place on record my affinity with those who work in this important industry, an interest I have had ever since I was given Front Bench responsibility for tourism by the late John Smith in another place back in 1992. It was given to me in conjunction with the sports portfolio. I think it is fair to say that, for an industry that employs some 2 million people, tourism has had far too low a profile over the years. In my view, the industry itself should have presented a more powerful and unified voice, demanding an insider status with government as other industries have done. Governments of all complexions, until possibly now, have been too slow to recognise tourism's potential to be one of the real economic and employment driving forces with our country.
I can say that governments are at last beginning to recognise tourism's importance because many more parliamentarians and policymakers are taking a real interest in it. I say that also because for the past four years I have been privileged to have been chairman of the All-Party Tourism Group. In that group we have many active and spirited participants. Fortunately, recent political changes have not deprived us of many of our key members. Both the chairman, myself, and its secretary, Lord Fearn, have crossed over from green to red and Viscount Thurso has changed his red shirt for a green one—a quite rare achievement, as I am sure noble Lords will agree. I can assure the House that all three of us will do our best in whatever capacity to fight tourism's corner.
1452
I recognise that I am also fortunate to join so many eminent noble Lords who over the years have raised important issues with Government Front Benches, as did the noble Lord, Lord Montagu with the Minister a few days ago. I recall that my noble friend Lord Harrison, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and many others have played an important role for tourism in your Lordships' House, which I know is appreciated by those who work in tourism.
Last night I hosted a parliamentary reception on behalf of the All-Party Tourism Group for the British Incoming Tour Operators. Those who attended were heartened by what the new Secretary of State said in her speech, recognising the need for a closer relationship between government and tourism in the future. I know that the All-Party Group on Tourism will be taking up the challenge presented to both the industry and government by playing its part in bringing that closer unity to reality.
I conclude by stating that my greatest wish is for tourism and sport and leisure to become a department of state in its own right. Sport and tourism to my mind are natural bedfellows. Both are vibrant and growing sectors of the leisure economy. Britain's sporting infrastructure offers huge tourism potential. There will be the perfect test next year when Manchester hosts the Commonwealth Games. This promises to be a marvellous sporting festival and a chance for Manchester and the North West to receive many visitors and to put themselves on the world map.
I would commend my noble friend Lady Blackstone to look closely at what is taking place already between sporting bodies and tourism organisations. I refer in particular to the Sports Tourism Forum and the British Tourist Authority. The BTA, the Minister will know, has established a joint marketing initiative with the FA Premier League. That will provide the BTA with the chance to reach a massive TV audience never previously attempted by the BTA. By using the FA Premier League agreement, the BTA will reach some one billion viewers in 160 countries in the 10 BTA markets where the image of Britain has been most affected by the outbreak of foot and mouth.
My noble friend Lord Harrison has given us the opportunity to discuss this important industry—but there is much more to discuss. However, that will have to wait because my time is up. It must suffice that I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harrison and express the hope that, through this debate, he will have initiated many more debates—of longer duration, it is hoped—in the months and years ahead.
8 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, it is both an honour and a privilege to find that I am to speak immediately following the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pendry. He brings with him a formidable reputation, not least 31 years as a Member of another place but also, as he mentioned, as the Opposition Front Bench Spokesman on sport and tourism for 1992–97.
However, what noble Lords may not be aware of is that the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, has another claim to fame. I am sure that he has many, but the one I have

1453
in mind is that he was the Middleweight Colonial Boxing Champion while undertaking his national service in the Royal Air Force in Hong Kong in 1957. What the noble Lord does not know is that by coincidence I, too, was undertaking my national service in Hong Kong in 1957. I am extremely glad to tell noble Lords that I was in the Royal Navy and thus never came across the noble Lord. Believe me, I am heartily relieved. We all welcome the noble Lord most sincerely to the House and hope that he will speak often in our debates. He brings with him an enormous expertise in this and I am sure many other subjects.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison—whom I almost called "my noble friend", but that is at the bridge table—that he is to be congratulated on bringing forward this short debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, pointed out, I hope that it will serve as a precursor for a much bigger debate to be held in the autumn. Tourism is an all-embracing subject, but it covers such a multitude of industries and reflects so many facets of our national life that in a sense the word "tourism" defeats its own objective. May I say personally to the noble Lord that if he has any problems with accommodation in Suffolk, as a native of that county, perhaps he could see me after the debate and I shall try to help him.
While fully supportive of the £12 million grant to the British Tourist Authority to promote overseas tourism in England, I understand that the English Tourism Council received only £3.8 million in special grant for foot and mouth disease recovery. I am advised that that money was used successfully over Easter and the May bank holiday. The problem is that, in that context, no money remains to promote English tourism in relation to the problems generated by foot and mouth disease, despite the fact that £4 out of every £5 spent on tourism in England is spent by British people. I must confess to the House that until recently I did not know that statistic. I am further advised that only £1 in every £5 of grant to tourism is given directly to the promotion of tourism within England. I see an extremely unpleasant reciprocal there. Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to comment on that in her reply.
As my noble friend Lady O'Cathain and the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, have already pointed out, tourism is a vast industry, the fifth largest in England. It embraces 125,000 businesses, it has a turnover of £52 billion and it employs almost 2 million people. Furthermore, those figures exclude what is known as the multiplying factor; namely, that an extra £50 is generated for every £100 spent directly on tourism. It is the add-on factor. We are discussing big business and do not let us forget that.
More specifically, perhaps I may say to the Minister that there is an urgent need for a nationally compatible data management system within the industry. As I have said, of the 125,000 businesses in the industry, some 85 per cent of them employ fewer than 10 people. It is a huge, but hugely fragmented industry. I understand that the Government allocated just under £1 million from the capital modernisation fund.
1454
That is enormously welcome. However, if no further general moneys can be allocated from government—I hope that I am wrong about that—please could I ask the Minister at least to fund ITC in full now because then, in this hugely fragmented industry, those who are trying to co-ordinate and boost it will know where they stand and what they can do. That, almost more than anything else, is desperately important.
I shall finish with a truism that is nevertheless true: the only enduring relief for the tourism business is more tourists. Any means which we and the Government can find to promote further visits by tourists must be good for the industry.
8.6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, perhaps I, too, may thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for his wonderfully broad sweep of this subject and for giving us an opportunity to contribute. Much of my diocese makes up the old county of Somerset. Noble Lords will have guessed that it depends on tourism as its main business. I have to declare an interest on behalf of almost 600 churches which are visited and form a precious treasure in the county. We have a cathedral without equal—he dares to say—a wondrous abbey and, here I declare a special interest because I am a transient lodger in it, a bishop's palace which is open to visitors. We hope that not only will those visitors have an opportunity to share in the spirit and history of that beautiful and unique place, but also that they will help to make it begin to pay for itself and thus save it for the future. We are only one of the many small businesses forming the tourism industry in the South West.
As we have heard from other speakers, the impact of foot and mouth disease has been totally devastating in the South West, as it has been in Cumbria. However, Devon has been the most fiercely affected. The recent reopening of paths and woodlands will help in the recovery, but many areas such as Exmoor—which is also upland, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, pointed out—have had little business all season. Hotels, pubs, restaurants, cafés, camping and caravan sites as well as other attractions have been seriously affected. Tourism is 33 per cent down in Somerset and 2,500 people have been made redundant. Some 14,000 are laid off. Businesses employing fewer than 10 people have been the worst affected by the crisis. For example, the reduction in turnover for the two months to the end of April was £760 million in Somerset and the South West alone.
The South West Regional Development Agency has found that around 19,800 businesses are facing bankruptcy. That is an enormous figure, and it is one that has been carefully researched. Recently I chaired a large meeting of business people. Many expressed complete despair. Usually these are independent, entrepreneurial people who make a huge contribution to the South West. They are not asking for ongoing subsidies; they would not like such subsidies. What they need is transitional help. The Government have provided £11.5 million for the South West. However, not only has that money taken a long time to percolate

1455
through the RDA and Business Link—almost too late for many people. It can at best help only between 5 and 10 per cent of the businesses involved. The bankruptcies will themselves cost the state a great deal. People do not always recognise that the cost of not doing something can be just as great as the cost of doing something. They will create a long-term loss for the whole region.
A massive marketing campaign is needed. The Government have provided 25p per head for the marketing of tourism, whereas in Wales and Scotland, perhaps as a benefit of devolution, £5 per head has been provided.
It is difficult to express the desolate feelings which are being experienced. Close to my home—where I live rather than lodge—the two nearest hotels were bought just before Christmas as a great venture for two families. Since they opened, one has had no business and the other very little business. We do not know how long they will survive, having invested so much.
The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, mentioned the steps that the Government have taken, and there is real gratitude for that. But, as I am sure they know, there is much more to be done.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, I should declare an interest as the leader of Wigan council and as a director of Manchester Airport, which has an interest in tourism, and the Midland Hotel in Manchester. I, too, thank and congratulate my noble friend Lord Harrison on introducing this topic and raising again the importance of tourism in terms of creating wealth and jobs. In my region, the north-west, it is an industry which is worth £1.5 billion and provides more than 200,000 jobs. It is a very large industry.
The industry is spreading beyond the traditional areas that have been referred to by noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate. Even my own town, Wigan, now boasts its own tourism industry. It is worth some £30 million pounds through Wigan pier, and, fortunately, the Americans have not been put off coming to the international jazz festival which is taking place at the moment. I am missing a very good event today.
We need to grasp new opportunities. Tourism changes; we cannot stick to the same old events and the same old buildings and so on. When opportunities come along, we need as a country to be able to take advantage of them. Perhaps I may plead a particular case. In my area, private developers want to build an indoor snow centre of huge proportions. The centre—called "Xanadu" in its planning stage—will create real snow indoors. It will not be artificial snow; it will be real snow which will come down from the roof. The technology is proven and this British company has built such projects in the Far East.
However, when it comes to building one in the UK, the developers have run up against those intransigent objects, the UK planning laws. The project has been going through the planning stages now for almost two years. It will cost £150 million; it is expected to attract
1456
some 4 million visitors, many of them day visitors; and it will create somewhere in the region of 2,000 jobs. In a former coalfield area, that is an important addition. I hope that we can forget this "large project syndrome" in the UK and begin to develop projects as they seem to able to do in France.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Pendry on his maiden speech—I say "my noble friend" not in its normal honorary sense; I have been a friend of his for some time—and on making sure that we do not forget the links between tourism and sport. He referred to the Commonwealth Games: We should not call them the "Manchester Commonwealth Games"; they are England's Commonwealth Games. They will bring a huge number of visitors—athletes, officials, the media and so on—and, more importantly, they will be shown on world television. An audience of 1 billion people around the world is expected to watch the events of the Commonwealth Games. We need to ensure that they work well for England.
I congratulate the Government on their recent decision in that regard. I think the games are now properly funded and on a firm footing. We must promote not only the games but the fact that they can be used for so many more things.
The sport I am most familiar with is not football, as is the case with my noble friend Lord Pendry, but rugby league. When the rugby league cup final was moved to Murrayfield in Edinburgh because of all the messing about at Wembley, it was the third biggest tourist event in Edinburgh. After the festival and the millennium weekend, rugby league tourism brought more people into Edinburgh than anything else—and I am sure that they were all well behaved.
The issue we are really debating today is what should be the respective roles of the Government and the industry in developing tourism and maximising its benefits across the country. In preparing for the debate, I received a copy of this agenda for tourism—other noble Lords may have seen it—which is published by England's regional tourist boards. Many of the ideas that have been mentioned by noble Lords in the debate are things that should happen in the tourist industry, but we should begin to question the extent to which they should be reliant on the Government and government funding and to what extent the tourist industry should look after itself.
If we have learnt anything from farming, it is that when an industry becomes too dependent on the Government—when it cannot move without wanting a subsidy or support here, there and everywhere—it is not good for the industry in the longer term. I hope that in the tourist industry we can develop a more mature approach. Of course it will need government support, but not always financial support; it will need encouragement and help with getting people together and so on. We should begin to think that there are other ways forward than simply looking to the Government. Lots of ideas have been mentioned. The tourist industry should take responsibility for itself.
There are two other issues I wish to refer to. The first is the developing regional agenda. The role of tourism is a very important part of that and, as my noble friend

1457
Lord Harrison said, the RDAs need to recognise that fact. At regional level, the fact that tourism has an impact not only jobs but on the transport system, the environment and so on should be looked at in the round.
Many noble Lords have mentioned the impact of foot and mouth, particularly in Cumbria. I managed to resign my position last week as leader of the North-West Regional Assembly, but in the brief period that I held that post, because it was so important to the north-west region as a whole,.we managed to go across to Brussels to visit both Commissioner Liikanen, who has responsibility for tourism, and Commissioner Barnier, who holds the purse strings in terms of structural funds.
Commissioner Barnier has extended the uplands programme by putting £3 million more money towards the problems mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and others. Commissioner Liikanen has promised to visit Cumbria and look for himself at the problems there. He will address a conference to help relaunch the industry, and I am sure that the DCMS will be welcome to send a Minister to attend that conference.
The second issue is to make sure that there is an adequate and fair playing field in terms of funding for tourism across the whole of Britain, a point referred to by the right reverend Prelate. It is not fair that in England the figure is 24p per person, whereas in Scotland it is £3.78 and in Wales £5.24.
I begin to question the role of the English Tourist Council. I suggest that we do not need an English Tourist Council. Its responsibilities can be devolved downwards to the regional tourist boards, which have the ability to work in partnership with other bodies, and upwards to the BTB, which should play the role of foreign marketing for all parts of the United Kingdom.
I suggest that the tourist industry should not become an industry waiting solely for government help. If it looks to help itself, I am sure that the Government will also help.
8.18 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for giving us the opportunity for the debate today. It comes at an important time.
British tourism is worth some £12 billion and provides some 380,000 jobs in rural Britain. My first question to the Minister is: how many people in tourism have been made redundant? Secondly, how many have been put on part-time employment while the foot and mouth crisis continues?
While the outbreak of foot and mouth continues to cripple certain areas of the United Kingdom, other regions have escaped the disease or have been less directly affected. But even in those areas the tourism industry is suffering acutely. Despite the low number of confirmed cases of foot and mouth, the east of England economy—and the tourism sector in Particular—has been affected immensely. A recent report compiled for the regional task force estimated
1458
that overall some £450 million of tourist expenditure will be lost in the east of England in 2001, with a further estimated loss of £45 million in 2002.
Tourism there contributes more than £4 billion to the regional economy and employs 135,000 people. The east of England has the second largest tourist industry in terms of nights and spend. Over the past five years, tourism related employment has grown by some 20 per cent in East Anglia. Overseas visitors account for one-third of the income from tourism in the east of England, 16 per cent coming from America, 15 per cent from Germany and 12 per cent from France.
Over the past five months we have taken many Statements in this Chamber on the foot and mouth outbreak. We have recorded our concern and expressed our sympathy to the farmers who have been directly affected. We have paid tribute to both the professional and the voluntary workers who have helped to relieve the pressures of suffering animals and who have supported families devastated by the effects of the disease.
I also extended my concern to others whose livelihoods were affected and in some cases have come to a standstill: market towns and livestock markets; hoteliers, bed-and- breakfast businesses; outdoor pursuits, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves; zoos and wildlife parks; farm visitor centres; and equestrian centres. Suppliers to all of these businesses have felt the chill.
One cause of so many cancellations has been the confused messages put out by the Government. MAFF implied that all areas were closed, while the DETR maintained that they were all open. The lesson to be learnt is surely that an accurate information centre is essential.
Sub-post offices in Leicestershire and Rutland are currently taking part in an important six-month trial. They will be able to provide on-line access which will help both residents and visitors to gain up-to-date information. How does the Minister see this project in relation to the information that is carried by libraries and by tourist information centres? Is she confident that joined-up thinking will be established and that there will be sufficient funding for all of them?
I should like briefly to touch on the role played by the agricultural and county show programme in the yearly life of rural England. This year, it has almost been eradicated—although I should add that I am to travel to Lancashire to support its county show in two weeks' time. Lancashire has taken the decision to go ahead, without cloven livestock classes, and is accentuating the importance of rural trades and countryside businesses. For other shows scheduled earlier in the spring and summer a decision to go ahead was not viable. The organisers had to decide whether to take the risk in the event of the disease being controlled quickly; unfortunately, events proved that not to be the case. For those who exhibit their animals in livestock classes, cancellation of the shows this season has been disappointing. But more importantly, for those retailers who take trade stands, cancellation

1459
means the loss of a large proportion of their total income. Such trade cannot easily be replaced. The traders move from show to show, promoting their specialist goods. Equally, if those traders are not selling, the wholesalers who supply them also have cancelled orders. The loss of jobs is often reflected in the market towns and those areas of the countryside that the Government are trying to assist.
The shows might not be directly thought of as tourism businesses, but they are just that. They have an impact on rural trade; they also attract many thousands of visitors to the area. The cancellation, for example, of the Royal Cornwall Show had a direct effect on local hotels, as I saw for myself when we stayed there for a weekend. They would have been fully booked during that week and the next, but that was not the case.
I understand that many shows cannot obtain insurance cover for future cancellations due to outbreaks of foot and mouth or other disease. Have the Government considered this point? What will they do in the face of such failure to obtain insurance?
It is clear from this debate that the effects of foot and mouth have not been restricted merely to farmers and farms alone. The Government failed to react quickly enough to the outbreak. Even now, there are new outbreaks. The spread of the disease to new areas continues to cause concern. Visitors both from the United Kingdom and from overseas come to experience and enjoy our countryside. They come for holidays, for business visits or to visit friends and family. They take day trips; they visit towns, the seaside and the countryside; they use our accommodation; they eat out; they shop; they travel; they use our services and enjoy the entertainment that is provided.
I have given a number of examples to indicate the inextricable link between farming and tourism. They depend on each other, as the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, said. If the Government value the contribution that tourism makes, they must understand that truth.
8.25 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, this debate has been refreshing. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for providing the opportunity to discuss tourism again. I say "again" because I have taken part in a number of debates on the subject over the past two or three years, acting as number two to my "ex" noble friend, Viscount Thurso. I congratulate him on his success in being elected to the other place and I miss him enormously, not merely for his expertise on tourism. I admit that when I took over from him I was reluctant to continue, and I looked on my Benches for someone who could undertake this spokesmanship.
I was interested in the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pendry. It was excellent in both style and content. The noble Lord suggested that although the tourism business was so big, its profile was piteously low, and that it took the tragedy of the foot and mouth outbreak for us to be able to concentrate our mind
1460
sand blow away some of the complacency. There has been a wind of change blowing in this House and probably in the country at large. We are coming to understand that all is not well with tourism. The noble Lord expressed his belief that tourism warranted a department together with sport. I strongly agree with him. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, suggested that tourism should be separated from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and that it should perhaps come under the DTI. That is another possibility; however, I marginally prefer the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Pendry.
In previous debates I have made frequent comparisons with what happens in other European countries—France in particular. I was interested to see that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, was going down the dangerous road of praising anything French. I can tell the noble Lord that if he wants a flea in his ear in this House, one of the quickest ways to get one is to compare anything with France. But the noble Lord is quite right: France is the country of grand projects, not only in tourism but in other fields as well. We do not have that culture in this country; it would be difficult to become involved in projects such as the gigantic snowstorm that the noble Lord so graphically described.
I hope that when the Minister comes to reply she will not continue in the vein of her response to a supplementary question that I put to her; namely, telling us how marvellous tourism is. She rather followed on from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who often told us that tourism in this country was something of which we needed to be proud rather than critical. Tourism is a huge business. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, reminded us that it has a turnover of £64 billion and employs 2 million people. One would not connect the attitudes that one hears from those involved and those connected to tourism with a business of that size. There needs to be a new attitude. The role of government is to see that that happens as quickly as possible.
We can do nothing about the infrastructure in this country which badly hampers tourism. Sir Alastair Morton tells us that we cannot have a first-class railway system for 15 years. We can do nothing about that. Our railways will be far inferior to those in France for that period of time at least. The same goes for our roads.
However, there are certain things that we can improve. We should be playing on our strengths; for example, we have a great variety of attractions in this country. But, again, as other noble Lords have said, our targeting has been too narrow. There are too many tourists visiting too few attractions. I shudder every time that I look at the steps of Westminster Cathedral. Indeed, all the people visiting the cathedral are wearing out the steps. I should like to see fewer people visiting both the cathedral and the abbey and more people going to other cathedral cities to visit other attractions, such as the palace of the right reverend Prelate.

1461
I should also like to see much more collaboration between various organisations, like the National Trust and the Church. Indeed, as I have mentioned before, I should like to see more collaboration with the racing authorities. There are 59 racecourses in this country, many of which are situated in places of extraordinary beauty. In some places, not even the people in the local town know that a race meeting is taking place in the area. Such meetings could attract many tourists from abroad.
The problems associated with the tourism industry are manifold. The standards of service in this country are deplorable overall. I travelled up the Al to Scotland this weekend, my destination being Edinburgh. I must say that I was enormously surprised by the transformation that has taken place in that city over just a few years. It is extraordinary: the city was full of foreign tourists, and I was extremely pleased with what I saw. I noticed many signs in foreign languages. We need to use foreign languages much more for tourist guides and on websites.
The standard of food available in this country is extremely uneven. One takes pot luck. I dread any foreign family travelling up the Al and stopping at a service station to use the washrooms and lavatories. That is a dismal experience, but something that we could easily put right. We should compel motorway service stations to adopt and maintain a high standard of washroom facilities. What is available at present is inexcusable to us, let alone to tourists. All those issues need to be addressed.
I have only just been able to sketch a few of the problems in the tourism industry in the time available to me this evening. As the noble Lord said, tourism begins at home. Our seaside resorts are in a deplorable state. Whether we can get the regional involvement, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, is a matter that I hope the noble Baroness will be able to address.
As noble Lords have recognised, the situation is not good. That is a wonderful change in attitude. I hope that the Minister will follow in that vein. We recognise what is wrong; we recognise the potential; and we must do something about it. When we return in October, I trust that we shall have many debates on the subject through which we shall push the Government as much as we can, so that we can get this business recognised, and, ultimately, derive the profits from it that we deserve.
8.33 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I add my congratulations to those expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, on his maiden speech. I look forward to hearing him continue to fight his corner for tourism. However, after hearing from my noble friend Lord Geddes about his previous prowess in the boxing ring, I think that I might perhaps keep out of his way on the odd occasion. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for giving us the opportunity to debate tourism tonight.
1462
Tourism is an industry that does not whinge: it gets on with its job. That job is being a powerful locomotive for the economy in the United Kingdom in many sectors. As noble Lords have pointed out, this year tourism has experienced the worst crisis since the Gulf War. However, it is making a fight back; it is planning for long-term recovery, but it has a long way to go yet. It is still losing £150 million a week, which, according to the ETC, could rise to £250 million during the peak season that is shortly to come upon us.
Like my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, I was astonished to see Tessa Jowell's article in the Observer on 8th July in which she referred to the fact that,
"there is more wrong with British tourism than the cold it caught in March".
As my noble friend said, some cold! With diagnostic skills like that, I must say that I am rather relieved that the Secretary of State is not my GP.
Visitor numbers slumped when pictures of funeral pyres hit the television screens and appeared in newspapers around the world. As my noble friend Lady Byford said, when the Government gave confused and confusing advice to people about the countryside being closed, the number of tourists visiting the UK simply died away.
When the Government announced additional funding for the British Tourist Authority and the ETC so that they could give clear information to all visitors, perhaps all was not quite as it seemed from the Government's press releases and their Statements to this House. We were told then that an additional £14.2 million had been given to the BTA and an additional £3.8 million—it is the word "additional" that I question—to the ETC. Yes, that is true in one sense; but I understand that the organisations have had to pay VAT at 17.5 per cent on those sums, which has gone straight back to the Treasury. Therefore, if the Government want transparency in pricing from the tourism industry, is it not reasonable to ask that they, too, should be transparent in their press releases?
Can the Minister put on the record tonight the legal basis on which VAT is charged on such grants? I appreciate that that may be a requirement of long standing and one that is absolutely proper in its charge. However, are the rules of our own making or are they subject to EU direction? Indeed, is there any way that we could change them at some stage? Are payments to the RDAs also subject to VAT in like circumstances? As these are questions of a technical nature, I have given the department advance notice of them. Can the Minister say what contingency plans the DCMS took to ensure that both the BTA and the ETC have been able to get hold of 100 per cent of that money in order to promote tourism in the UK?
My noble friend Lord Geddes referred to the effectiveness of the ETC in co-ordinating its campaign of information and delivering a clear message to the public that the countryside was open, ready and waiting to welcome them. However, its work was cut short prematurely when the funds ran out at the end of

1463
May. On 12th June the inquiry hot-line had to be closed down. Can the Minister say what further help the Government plan to give to those two bodies, and others, for the marketing of tourism to UK visitors? For example, will the Government be providing additional funding for the London Tourist Board to maximise London's gateway role during the recovery period?
Much mention has been made of the sterling work being carried out by the regional tourist boards. They are, indeed, doing their best and are accomplishing some very innovative work, especially in Cumbria and the south west. However, they are doing so with very limited resources and in competition with each other for the same pool of tourists.
My noble friend Lord Geddes made valuable points about the need for the management of information via the use of information technology. I wonder whether the Government might now reconsider the request that I made in my Unstarred Question last September; namely, that they should support the development of a "Visit England" portal under the aegis of the English Tourism Council.
As regards the regions and the work of the ETC, will the Government recognise that none of the needs of tourism in England can properly be met from an exclusively regional structure? Is the Minister aware of the concern in the industry that the regeneration programmes distributed through the RDAs can be patchy: they tend to prioritise objectives that have nothing to do with tourism needs? Indeed, for something to happen to help the local tourism industry, it often depends on whether or not the agency has a member like the noble Lord with really good experience of tourism. The Minister may have read the article in NEW START of 6th July which pointed out that in order to get money tourist boards are having to design applications to lit the programmes that the RDA runs rather than the needs of the sector.
There is now a window of opportunity for the new team of Ministers to review the role of the English Tourism Council and of the regional tourist boards. I hope that they will consider restoring to the ETC its marketing role. I trust that they will grasp that opportunity. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain very properly pointed out that this new team has the wider, golden opportunity now to reconsider the Government's strategic analysis of tourism policy. There is always a time for challenging the tourism industry to do better and for challenging its preconceptions; and there is a time for encouraging the industry. Now is the time for encouragement.
8.39 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I should begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Pendry on what was an excellent maiden speech. We very much look forward to hearing a great deal more from him over the months and years ahead.
1464
I also thank all the speakers in this short debate for the contributions they have made this evening. Tourism is always an important subject but never more so than in the light of the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease. I am
particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Harrison for introducing the debate as it gives me an opportunity to pay tribute—as he did—to all the tourism businesses, trade bodies and national tourist boards which have contributed and continue to contribute to the recovery effort following the outbreak of foot and mouth. Clearly, there is still a great deal more work to be done, as many speakers have pointed out and as I was told just last week when I visited Chester, which is the home town of my noble friend. I saw some of the interesting facilities there.
The only point on which I take issue with my noble friend is his suggestion—if I understood him aright—that we do not know how to take fun seriously. I certainly know how to take fun seriously and I think that I can speak for my colleagues in the department when I say that. My noble friend Lord Harrison referred to a recent press article by my honourable friend the Minister for Tourism. I agree with the comments of my honourable friend. Foot and mouth disease has been a terrible body blow. However, we shall regain our markets by competitive pricing and with a well motivated workforce which delivers further improvements in quality of the kind that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned. I refer to the comments of David Harris, the news editor of Caterer and Hotelkeeper. Much of what Dr Howells said rings true. I assure my noble friend that my honourable friend will continue to speak out, as he always does.
This Government are conscious of the importance of the tourism industry and we are anxious to support and foster it by offering strategic leadership. Our aim is to increase international competitiveness, champion the consumer, of course, and encourage investment in skills, products and facilities which are both sustainable and accessible. I accept what my noble friends Lord Pendry and Lord Smith of Leigh and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, have said; namely, that the industry makes a significant contribution to GDP. I also accept what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said about its importance to the rural economy. That point was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. It is particularly important in areas such as Cumbria. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is also right to say that what we must see is co-operation between all the different interests in these areas. That is terribly important if we are to reestablish the industry where it has had particular problems.
I believe that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is the right department to deal with tourism even though tourism is not included in its title. That, of course, is a matter for the Prime Minister but we have to be careful not to become too long-winded in the titles we give to government departments. Through the DCMS tourism has strong links with all the sectors that attract visitors to this country: the arts, museums, galleries, the historic environment and historic buildings such as the one where the right reverend

1465
Prelate is in temporary residence. I refer also to the Commonwealth Games, to which the Government have just pledged £105 million worth of support for next year, and racing, which the noble Viscount mentioned.
Tourism in Britain is a major success story. I shall continue in the tradition of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey in arguing that, although I have already accepted that much more can be done to improve the services we offer. I ought to remind the House that Britain is fifth in the world in terms of earnings from visitors after the US, France, Italy and Spain. We should not be too dismissive about the French. I thought that the noble Viscount was a little unfair in taking my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh to task about mentioning France. In the UK in the year 2000 overseas visitors made 25.2 million visits and spent £12.8 billion. The latest estimate is that £3.2 billion was spent on inbound travel with British carriers. Tourism, therefore, is very important to our economy and expenditure by overseas visitors last year was one of the highest on record.
Some of that has undoubtedly been put at risk by the foot and mouth outbreak. The number of visits to the UK 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. While we are in no way over-optimistic about what is happening to inbound tourism, the trends at present appear to be not quite as bad as the figures for April, when a downturn in the region of 10 to 20 per cent was forecast. Of course, any fall is disappointing. Other factors such as the poor weather conditions that we have experienced in many areas, and are experiencing this evening, may also have contributed to that downturn. However, we planned to address a loss of this nature when awarding the BTA an extra £14.2 million this year to stimulate a recovery, as many speakers have conceded. I am confident that the benefits of that initiative will soon begin to emerge, although I accept that in some parts of the country the picture, such as the one painted by the right reverend Prelate, is pretty grim.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about additional money for London. London, like other parts of the country, will benefit from the extra £14 million. There is no plan to provide particular additional money for London as against any other part of the country. My noble friend Lord Harrison asked whether we plan to give yet further resources to the BTA. We need to wait to see how it deploys the extra £14 million before we decide to add any more.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned how English tourism is marketed to British customers. It has been pointed out that visitors to rural areas in particular are often from other parts of Britain. It has also been said that the devolved administrations spend more per head of population on promoting tourism than we do in England. There is no doubt that bed and breakfast accommodation, hotels and tourist attractions need to be marketed and advertised primarily to the UK visitors who make up the greater part of their customers. What is at issue here is the
1466
most effective way of doing that and whether the Government should pay for it. Most English newspapers are read by English people but the Government do not pay for advertising such facilities to their customers. I hope that I can take the House with me in saying that by far the greatest part of the marketing and promotion of English tourism services is the responsibility of the companies selling those services. That point was made clearly and forcefully by my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh. I agree with him.
Our policy since 1999 has been to confine government intervention to strategic guidance and leadership through the English Tourism Council. That work has started well. I do not entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh who wondered whether we needed that body at all. It has risen to the exceptional challenge of the collapse in demand at the beginning of the year by organising and executing effective tactical marketing to get the British customer thinking again about holidays and short breaks in England.
As the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned, the ETC was given £3.8 million in April to counter the effects of foot and mouth. As I am sure they are aware, £2 million of that sum was distributed to the English regional tourist boards which are also extremely important.
However, the action required in a time of great uncertainty is not necessarily right for a long-term plan. We need to look afresh at how the considerable funds spent on private advertising and public sector regional promotion can be better co-ordinated. That point has been made by a number of speakers. I entirely accept it. To that end my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked the industry to work with us to prepare a programme of action which will include the co-ordination of marketing. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that we are working already with the best brains in the industry. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made that very clear in one of her first speeches in her new job. This is where the joined-up thinking, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred, is needed.
Comparisons have also been made about the generosity with which public money is dispensed to the industry in different parts of the UK. But those differences have been with us for many years. I should like to assure noble Lords that, despite those differences, it appears that the tourism business in England has grown the fastest. That is something that we should remember. A large number of specific questions were put to me. I have the answers to many of them. Sadly, I am running out of time. I shall write to noble Lords and try to respond to the points they have made.
Britain has a great deal to offer its visitors from overseas and domestic holiday makers. There is enormous diversity which ranges from heritage and tradition to a vibrant youth culture. We must, of course, always think about young people. We have everything from museums and galleries, built heritage,

1467
stunning landscapes through to good restaurants (as well as some bad ones) and exciting shopping possibilities. I assure noble Lords that the Government are playing their part in promoting tourism by their commitment to cutting unnecessary red tape, ensuring that regulation provides proper
1468
protection, driving up quality and working to improve career possibilities as well as training for those who work in this important industry.
House adjourned at seven minutes before nine o'clock.

  Immigration Detainees: Religious Needs
  Immigration Detainees: Religious Needs
  Highdown Prison: Late Arrival of Prisoners at Court
  Highdown Prison: Late Arrival of Prisoners at Court
  Trafficking for Sexual Exploitation: Redress
  Trafficking for Sexual Exploitation: Redress
  Prison Service: Environmental Performance
  Prison Service: Environmental Performance
  Prison Estate: Women and Immigration Detainees
  Prison Estate: Women and Immigration Detainees
  Foreign Nationals: Application for Leave to Remain
  Foreign Nationals: Application for Leave to Remain
  Public Trust Office
  Public Trust Office
  Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon
  Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon
  Libya: Goods Subject to Export Controls
  Libya: Goods Subject to Export Controls
  Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill: Human Rights Statement
  Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill: Human Rights Statement
  Ilisu Dam
  Ilisu Dam
  Nuclear Weapons: Safety
  Nuclear Weapons: Safety
  French and German Teaching
  French and German Teaching
  Language Teaching
  Language Teaching
  Education Reform White Paper
  Education Reform White Paper
  Remploy
  Remploy
  Warrington: Pensioners
  Warrington: Pensioners
  Appeal Tribunals: President's Report
  Appeal Tribunals: President's Report
  Nursing Home Care
  Nursing Home Care
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act: Annual Report
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act: Annual Report
  Children Act
  Children Act
  Flood Risk and Planning Permission
  Flood Risk and Planning Permission
  Palace of Westminster: Stone Restoration
  Palace of Westminster: Stone Restoration