Sitting of 18 July 2001

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

    CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That the promoters of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill which originated in this House in the last Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the bill in the present session of Parliament; and the petition for the bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
    That the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office no later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;
    That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the last Parliament;
    That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House;
    That in the present session of Parliament the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it had passed in the last Parliament, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
    That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed on Wednesday 17 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Terrorism
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What progress has been made on the dismantling of the structures of terrorism in Northern Ireland since April 1998. [2872]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): The Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda have had a number of significant successes against terrorists recently. Through the work of the agencies that come together in the organised crime taskforce, we have also seen considerable disruption to criminal activity.
    Putting paramilitaries' arms beyond use was one of the outstanding issues discussed at the Weston Park talks last week. As the concluding statement, a copy of which is in
    272
    the Library of the House, explains, progress was made. It is now for the two Governments to draw together a final package covering all the outstanding issues.
    Dr. Lewis: I realise that the security forces are still fighting against the structures of terrorism, as the Secretary of State says. Does he recall that during the referendum campaign on the Belfast agreement in May 1998, the Prime Minister repeatedly said in speeches and wrote in articles that it would not be enough merely to decommission weapons, but that the paramilitary structures of terrorism must progressively be dismantled? We know that, sadly, the former has not been achieved. Has any progress been made with the latter objective?
    Dr. Reid: That is our ultimate objective. We have made sure that everyone is aware of their responsibilities under the Good Friday agreement. That requires a rejection of not only the use of force but the threat of force. That point was made during the discussions at Weston Park, and it is one of the outstanding issues with which we have to deal. We will continue to do everything that we can to disrupt those elements of the paramilitaries that are involved in organised crime, and to make sure that progress is made in putting beyond use weapons that are illegally held on either side.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the guns are not silent in Northern Ireland, that beatings are on the increase, that paramilitaries continue to train, recruit and gather intelligence, that the IRA has imported £2 million worth of weapons from America recently and that in the past 18 months it has killed eight people for alleged criminal offences—offences that the IRA itself is committing? In those circumstances, should not everyone be part of a pan-decommissioning front calling for an end to the availability and use of weapons and for progress to be made in the peace process?
    Dr. Reid: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's last statement. It is an essential part of the peace process that we continue to make progress in putting illegal arms beyond use. It is opportune to pay tribute to the courage and professionalism of those who have been involved in combating some of the illegal activity, particularly members of the RUC. They, along with their partners south of the border in the Garda, have been involved in thwarting dissident activity. Recent successes have included the seizure of a significant quantity of explosives, firearms and ammunition. Charges have been brought against alleged dissidents. An example of the illegal activity is the fact that in the past financial year more than 51.5 million cigarettes were seized by Customs in Northern Ireland. In the midst of all the change, we should recognise the marvellous work that is being done by police forces north and south of the border.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless agree that, with the prevailing uncertainty in the security situation, this would be no time to reduce the number of the security forces posted in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Reid: As the hon. Gentleman knows, his having had some experience of such matters as a former Armed

    273
    Forces Minister, I will take due cognisance of and place great emphasis on the advice that I get from the Chief Constable, the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland and other security advisers. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I would not take any steps without their advice.
    Mr. David Trimble: Following on from the remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), will the Secretary of State welcome President Bush's comments on decommissioning, thus demonstrating that there is broad support among all democrats for the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons? President Bush's statement shows that Sinn Fein and its handful of supporters are now completely isolated on this issue.
    Specifically on dismantling paramilitary structures, the Secretary of State referred to racketeering. Will he confirm that all the paramilitary organisations, including those that claim to be on ceasefire, are deeply involved in racketeering, and that the finance therefrom provides the main resource of those paramilitary organisations and the political parties linked to them? Surely more could be done to draw into the public domain the extent to which certain political parties are involved in and financed by racketeering.
    Dr. Reid: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, we deeply appreciate President Bush's support, as we always do, for the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. I know that the whole House will welcome his generous comments on the efforts made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. As both Prime Ministers said at Weston Park last week, if we are to implement the Good Friday agreement we need to move forward on all the issues, which obviously include paramilitary weapons.
    On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, I am sure that he will appreciate that we have paid considerable attention to paramilitary involvement in racketeering and criminality. That is one reason why in the past year we established the organised crime taskforce. The taskforce is still in its early days, but I can assure him that we will ensure that it has the motivation and resources to tackle the questions that he raised.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: We all want decommissioning to occur and arms to be put out of use as soon as possible, but does my right hon. Friend agree that, whenever people start to impose deadlines and demand that others jump through hoops, they create a deterrent to those with the arms, who do not want to be seen to be controlled by ultimatums imposed by parties with which they disagree?
    Dr. Reid: In terms of moving forward, the two Governments have made it plain through the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach that the agreement can succeed only if all parts of it are implemented together. As a Government, we will discharge our responsibilities to set that context, but I hope that all the others who are involved will reflect carefully on their responsibilities and do likewise.
    On deadlines, my hon. Friend will appreciate that neither myself nor any other individual set a deadline at the end of June, although last May, which is now more
    274
    than 12 months ago, both Governments expressed the hope and belief that considerable progress would be made on all the elements of the Good Friday agreement by the end of June. That remains our aim.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the Secretary of State make it abundantly clear to the House that there is only one reason for the present deadlock: the fact that decommissioning has not taken place? All other aspects of the Belfast agreement are moving forward, yet not one gun or ounce of Semtex explosive has been handed in by the paramilitaries who signed it, whether they are republicans or so-called loyalists.
    Dr. Reid: As the right hon. Gentleman and the House will appreciate, there has been some progress on the question of arms, in the sense that the arms dumps have been opened up for inspection, but he is absolutely right to say that we need more. We need arms to be put beyond use. Of course, there are other matters that we discussed last week and will continue to discuss—the two Governments will address them in the package of measures that we are currently considering—but, yes, there needs to be more progress on the issue that he raised.
    I should take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Taoiseach, to Brian Cowen, the Foreign Affairs Minister of the Government of Ireland, and to other colleagues in that Government. I believe that the co-operation between our two Governments has been the bedrock of the Good Friday agreement. I am happy to say that the relationship between us has never been stronger or closer. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we share an assessment of the way forward, which will form the basis of the package. In that context, one of the elements on which progress must be made is putting illegal weapons beyond use.
    Mr. MacKay: The House will be grateful for the fact that the Secretary of State clearly wants to put pressure on the paramilitaries to decommission, but will he assure us that, in doing so, he will not jeopardise the security of the Province through further changes to policing arrangements or by reducing the armed presence or security operations?
    Dr. Reid: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall take no steps other than through consultation and with the agreement and advice of my security advisers.

    Violence (Victims)
    Brian White: What support his Department gives to victims of violence. [2873]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): Like the rest of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has a criminal injuries compensation scheme, which, in the last financial year, we funded to the tune of £47 million.
    In addition, the Government provided overdue acknowledgement of the human cost of the troubles when my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) instituted for the first time a programme of support for victims of the troubles.

    275
    More than £18.25 million has been allocated to support victims of the troubles in Northern Ireland. The support includes the establishment of a family trauma centre, the Northern Ireland memorial fund and funding for groups that provide support to victims. Support for victims who live in Great Britain was announced earlier this month, and further initiatives will be announced in the coming months.
    Brian White: In paying tribute to groups that have helped victims of the troubles, may I draw my hon. Friend's attention to several individuals who have not been able to access support from them? What are the Government doing to help individuals?
    Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend makes an especially valid point. Isolation and lack of awareness of what is available are especially acute among the victims of the troubles. Consequently, the service that the family trauma centre provides is designed for individuals; those individuals whose education was disrupted by the troubles have received grants and bursaries of approximately £300,000, and the Northern Ireland memorial fund has devised schemes for individuals.
    Lady Hermon: I understand that an eminent Queen's Counsel has backed the civil action being taken by the victims of the Omagh bombing. In those circumstances, are the Government prepared to give public support to, and encourage businesses to provide financial backing for, the legal fund for the Omagh victims?
    Mr. Browne: The hon. Lady knows that a specific initiative was taken in conjunction with the local health organisation to respond to the trauma of the Omagh victims. Research has revealed the need for significant support, which has been put in place.
    The Government cannot adopt a position on civil litigation, but we understand entirely the feelings that lie behind such an action.

    Marches
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What factors the Parades Commission takes into account when deciding whether to ban or re-route a march. [2874]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): As my hon. Friend may know, the Parades Commission has no statutory power to ban a parade. The factors to which the commission has regard in deciding whether to impose conditions on a procession are set out in the Public Processions Act 1998 and in the commission's statutory guidelines. It may, for example, take into account the likelihood of public disorder or damage to property, the potential impact on community relations and whether a parade is a traditional parade. In reaching a decision, the commission also takes into account the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998.
    Mr. Prentice: I understand that only 151 out of 3,400 parades have been re-routed. A tiny number of parades cause problems, yet the same parades cause them year in, year out. Should not parades that habitually cause offence
    276
    and disorder and offend community relations be re-routed as a matter of course? The Drumcrees would not then happen year after year.
    Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend exaggerates slightly. As always with Northern Ireland, it is important to keep matters in perspective. Last year, the Parades Commission found it necessary to restrict routes on only 130 of the 3,440 parades of which it was notified. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have consistently stated that our preferred outcome is the resolution of disputes through local agreements that reflect mutual respect for people's rights, traditions and sensitivities, thus rendering determination by the commission unnecessary.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Minister join me in condemning those who took part in a republican-orchestrated attack on the RUC while it was carrying out its lawful duty of upholding a decision by the Parades Commission? In upholding that decision, the RUC made limited use of plastic bullets. Does the Minister agree that the do-gooder, naive comment by Professor Brice Dickson that the use of plastic bullets should be ended should be put to him face to face and that he should be asked to withdraw such a ridiculous statement?
    Mr. David Trimble: And he should resign.
    Mr. Beggs: And he should resign.
    Jane Kennedy: May I first place firmly on record our appreciation of the work, courage and endurance displayed by the RUC in the situation that it faces? It is important to recognise that it was serving both sides of the community in implementing the decisions of the Parades Commission.
    On the hon. Gentleman's point about baton rounds, everyone agrees that we would like to find an alternative. We are following the recommendation of the Patten report by urgently researching alternatives, but until they can be found we cannot take from police officers the ability to defend themselves from blast bombs, petrol bombs, acid bombs and live fire.
    Mr. Peter Mandelson: I welcome my hon. Friend's strong expression of support for the police service in Northern Ireland. It is not responsible for creating the divisions, the sectarianism or the ensuing disorder that still blights Northern Ireland's society. Does my hon. Friend agree that, for the police to do their job in Northern Ireland, they need adequate manpower resources, in terms of the number of officers available to go on to the streets during times of disorder, and financial resources to cope with the disorder and violence and to see through the reforms resulting from the Patten legislation? Will she reassure the House that those manpower and financial resources will continue to be made available to the police in the coming years?
    Jane Kennedy: I am happy to give the House those assurances. As my right hon. Friend says, policing in Northern Ireland will require additional funds during 2001–02 and in subsequent years. That is due to the specific pressures caused by sectarian tensions and

    277
    parades. We are well aware of the concerns expressed about funding, and we have given assurances—I do so again today—that the RUC will have the resources necessary to continue to deliver a high-quality policing service.
    Lembit Öpik: As we have already heard, the RUC is primarily responsible for enforcing the determinations on marches. I hear what the Minister says about adequate resources. Is she saying, therefore, that she will make good the £117 million shortfall in resources that the RUC estimates it will require adequately to do the job that we all agree it must do? Will she confirm that specific figure?
    Jane Kennedy: I will not confirm any specific figure today. My officials are continuing discussions with the Police Authority for Northern Ireland and with the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, and it is likely that we shall consider carefully the proposals that they make.

    Good Friday Agreement
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: If he will make a statement on progress in implementing the Good Friday agreement. [2875]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): At the conclusion of the Weston Park talks, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach issued a paper setting out the progress made so far in implementing the Good Friday agreement; a copy is in the Library.
    More remains to be done in a number of key areas, but, as the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach made clear, it is now for the two Governments to draw together a final package to secure the full implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday agreement.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: My constituents, a large number of whom are either Irish or direct descendants of Irish people, will be grateful for those words because they fully understand that the Good Friday agreement has brought great prosperity and the alleviation of many of the troubles of Ireland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only the full implementation of that policy will bring to the Irish people the rewards that they deserve?
    Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Full implementation of the Belfast agreement is the only basis for lasting peace and stability in Northern Ireland, and the agreement can succeed only if all its parts are implemented together. We as a Government will discharge our responsibilities and I hope that all others will do likewise. My hon. Friend will recognise that, as a Government, we are working hard in the midst of conflicting pressures and sensitivities to ensure that all the parties implement all parts of the agreement.
    Mr. Nigel Dodds: Is it not the case that the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary said last week that the IRA orchestrated and organised violence in Ardoyne in my constituency? In view of that breach of the ceasefire and the revelations that the IRA at the highest level was involved in importing arms, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he continues to negotiate the future of Northern Ireland with IRA-Sinn Fein, which
    278
    are in clear breach of their ceasefire, and exclude representatives of the Democratic Unionist party, which has more votes and more seats in the House'? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the House to come to order.
    Dr. Reid: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can assure him that I will, as I have over recent weeks, act on any information given to me by my security advisers, including the Chief Constable. The hon. Gentleman referred to a specific case, but information has not been put to me on it. If it is, I will consider it.
    The hon. Gentleman's second point—his feeling that we are not meeting his own party—is of course incorrect. The Prime Minister met representatives of his party recently, including the hon. Gentleman himself. Indeed, only yesterday I wrote again to his party leader to accept two invites—one to his constituency and one to have a further meeting. The hon. Gentleman was not at the Weston Park talks for a simple reason: the talks brought together those who signed the Good Friday agreement and those who have acted in support of it. Of course, he and his colleagues are neither.
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, since the signing of the Good Friday agreement, there have been significant troop reductions in Northern Ireland, the closure of more than 40 security installations and the highest economic growth in the UK? Is not that a powerful argument for persisting with the peace process and encouraging all parties to press ahead with the full implementation of the agreement?
    Dr. Reid: I can confirm the figures referred to by my hon. Friend. Troop levels in Northern Ireland are at their lowest for 31 years: at about 13,500, they are half what they were—26,000—at their height and 34 military establishments and nine joint establishments have been closed. I emphasise to him that the number of troops deployed to Northern Ireland is commensurate with the threat, and I shall continue to take advice on that from the Chief Constable and others.
    That makes the point solidly: we have to move forward on all aspects of the agreement, including putting illegal paramilitary weapons beyond use. In that context, a signal that the threat has been further reduced may enable us to take further measures. However, we must keep in step with the politics and the security situation and move hand in hand on those and all other aspects of the agreement.
    Mr. John Taylor: I think that I heard the Minister correctly earlier, but will the Secretary of State confirm on the record that all necessary resources continue to be available to the RUC in protecting the law-abiding from the lawless, including, if necessary, the use of plastic baton rounds at the discretion of the Chief Constable?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, of course I will discuss the problem with the Chief Constable, and ensure that he has the financial and personnel resources to match the task.

    279
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point, all of us in Northern Ireland want to see a situation in which the police do not have to have recourse to plastic baton rounds, but the police have recently been faced night after night with petrol bombs, acid bombs and live firing. Two hundred and forty eight police officers were injured between 1 June and 14 July, and in the two days after that an additional 38 were injured, 28 of them seriously. Every Member will understand why it is necessary to have the means between a baton and a bullet to allow the police to protect themselves. As long as that is necessary, the police will have such weapons at their disposal.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. John Wilkinson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I met Shimon Peres, the Israeli Foreign Minister, and I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does the Prime Minister believe that, following the sacking of Mr. Bob Kiley, the chairman of London Transport, by the Transport Secretary yesterday, there is strong evidence that the sacking of distinguished chairmen who have the temerity to utter unpalatable truths to the Government is becoming something of a habit? Should not we have a debate on the future of the London underground, which is of grave concern to the travelling public? At least we might then have the chance of reinstating the chairman.
    The Prime Minister: No, because what is important is that money and investment go into the tube as quickly as possible. If we had suspended the negotiations on the public-private partnership, there would have been a delay of about two years. That is why every other member of the board was going to resign unless Mr. Kiley withdrew his threat.
    Laura Moffatt: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the charity Cancer BACUP that pain has no place with someone living with cancer or dying from cancer? Does he agree that it is important to ensure that all the professions in the health and voluntary sectors believe that it should be eliminated? Would he sign the freedom from pain charter to give it the importance that it deserves?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with the principle set out in the charter. The additional £600 million going into the treatment of cancer in the next few years will result not just in patients being seen and treated more quickly, but in about 1,000 extra cancer
    280
    specialists. Together with the extra radiographers and nurses, that will result in a substantial advance in the treatment of cancer in this country.
    Mr. William Hague: Is it still the Prime Minister's view that the Government's annual report is a major innovation to be repeated every year?
    The Prime Minister: Before I answer the right hon. Gentleman's question, as this is his last Prime Minister's Question Time I want to say that Members on both sides of the House wish him well and good luck for the future. We shall all miss his wit and humour—although I may not, as I was the object of most of it. Anyway, we wish him well in the future.
    In respect of annual reports, it is important that we set out the Government's achievements and lack of achievements in whichever year we are in power.
    Mr. Hague: I thank the Prime Minister for his remarks about me. Debating with him at the Dispatch Box has been exciting, fascinating, fun, an enormous challenge and, from my point of view, wholly unproductive in every sense. I am told that in my time at the Dispatch Box I have asked the Prime Minister 1,118 direct questions, but no one has counted the direct answers—it may not take long.
    Four years ago, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "The Annual Report is a major innovation. People are entitled to know how we are shaping up … This Report is part of that process. We will repeat it each year."
    The first annual report was called "So what do you think?" and the second was called "So what are we doing?" This year's seems to be called "So where is it?" How does the Prime Minister feel about not even keeping his promise to publish a report about keeping his promises?
    The Prime Minister: I confess that I never thought the right hon. Gentleman was that keen on our annual reports when we did publish them—but what we do, of course, is publish all the results of the things we have done during the year, and the things we have not done, as well. Those are the things about which the right hon. Gentleman has asked me in the more than 1,000 questions that he has asked from the Dispatch Box.
    Hon. Members: Where is it?
    Mr. Hague: "Where is it?" is indeed the question. As the Prime Minister has abandoned the annual report as a way of holding the Government to account, what about the traditional way of holding the Government to account? What about Ministers—[Interruption.] Labour Members must understand that Governments must be held to account between elections as well as at elections.
    What about Ministers taking responsibility? The Government's introduction of AS-levels has made schoolchildren's lives a misery, added to the burden on teachers and led to the extraordinary circumstances in which the Government cannot even guarantee that the results will be published on time. Which Minister will take responsibility for that?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we take responsibility—all of us collectively, as a Government—

    281
    for both the publication of results and the AS-levels. The AS-levels were introduced to ensure that children were tested properly throughout their schooling; that is in common with the system in many other countries. Of course, after their introduction it is important for us to look at the way that has been done and there may well be lessons that we can learn, but I think it would be a big mistake for us to end up saying that it was not important to test children throughout their schooling and to publish the results.
    Mr. Hague: In other words, no Minister will take responsibility. AS-level students are told that if they
    "do not offer an adequate attempt to answer the question or complete the task"
    they will be ungraded. It is a good job that the Prime Minister is not doing AS-levels.
    No annual report, and no Minister willing to take responsibility—let us try another form of accountability. The Prime Minister has said that he accepts the need for a proper inquiry into the foot and mouth disaster. Does he agree that a proper inquiry must be a public inquiry?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree that it must be a public tribunal inquiry, for the reasons given by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which said that it was sensible to have a different type of inquiry in order to produce an inquiry more quickly. We will have that inquiry, and we will publish the results. But we have also said, again in line with what the royal college has said, that it is better to have the inquiry after we have eradicated the disease, which must remain our No. 1 priority.
    Incidentally, in respect of the AS-levels, I did not say that no one would take responsibility; I said that we all, as a Government, take responsibility.
    Mr. Hague: Well, for the whole Government to resign immediately would be a rather extreme step to take over AS-levels. [Interruption.]It might be a welcome step, however.
    So, there is no annual report, no Minister will take responsibility for a fiasco, and no public inquiry will be held into foot and mouth despite all past precedent. Perhaps the Prime Minister will at least agree to accountability to the House after this week's vote in the House. Will he now listen to Members in all parts of the House, and adopt the proposal that Select Committee members should not be appointed by the Whips or by any party managers?
    The Prime Minister: I gather that the Modernisation Committee decided this morning to look into the matter. It will publish a report and we will consider it carefully.
    I simply point out that it is funny that in the 18 years of Conservative government, when the right hon. Gentleman was in office, all these great designs to reform Parliament never saw the light of day.
    Mr. Hague: My 1,123rd and final question is on the same theme of accountability. May I ask the Prime Minister about what he and I know to be the case—that allowing one Prime Minister's Question Time a week is not an adequate way of holding the Prime Minister of our country to account? Members of all parties should have
    282
    an opportunity to question the Prime Minister of the day more frequently, and on a more sustained basis. Would that not be in the best interests of the Government, Parliament and public engagement in our political life?
    The Prime Minister: In respect of holding the Government to account, let me point out that over the four years that I have been Prime Minister I have answered questions in the House for longer than either of my two predecessors, and made more statements.
    In respect of accountability, of course we as a Government are held to account. We are held to account in the House, where, for example, the number of ministerial statements has, I think, been far in excess of the number under the previous Government, and we are held to account by the British people. We were held to account by them on 7 June. We were returned with this majority as a result of that general election.
    We will indeed miss the right hon. Gentleman's wit and humour. I hope that he is not retiring to the Back Benches as they are getting rather overcrowded at the moment. I would have thought that there was every role for him, for example as shadow Foreign Secretary. If the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) were to win, he could come here and tell us about the virtues of the single currency and the rapid reaction force. Alternatively, if the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) were elected, he could come here and tell us what a dreadful idea it was and how the country would have none of it. In any event, whatever the right hon. Gentleman does, we wish him well.
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: During Dover's difficulties with asylum issues, does my right hon. Friend remember telling my local newspaper
    "I also accept Dover has suffered an unfair burden"?
    Taking account of local sensitivities and our recent history, does he agree that yesterday's decision, taken without any consultation or prior notification, that my local young offenders institution should be converted into a detention centre for asylum seekers was a bad decision, badly handled?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern and I will make sure that the relevant Minister sees him today. I understand the deep concern that there is over the issue in Dover. Therefore, it is entirely right that it be discussed with him properly.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I first associate the Liberal Democrats—
    Mr. Tony McNulty: Who cares?
    Mr. Kennedy: I think that public empathy out there probably cares. We associate ourselves with the good wishes that have been properly expressed by the Prime Minister to the outgoing leader of the Conservative party. We wish him well and commiserate with his successor, whoever it will be.
    Returning to the earlier question about the sacking of Bob Kiley and his role as chair of London Regional Transport, will the Prime Minister explain why it was that

    283
    only 10 weeks ago he agreed with Bob Kiley's being appointed to that job, and only 10 weeks later he is in favour of sacking him?
    The Prime Minister: I will explain exactly why. Mr. Kiley was appointed chairman of London Transport in order to negotiate what he wanted, within the outlines of the public-private partnership, and he came back a couple of weeks ago and said that he was unable to do so. The dispute with Mr. Kiley, and, indeed, with Ken Livingstone, is not about the running of the tube as such; it is about the financing of it. We are putting billions of pounds of investment from the general British taxpayer into the underground, the largest ever investment that has been made, and we need to make sure that there is value for money and that taxpayers' money is properly used. I understand entirely why Mr. Kiley and Mr. Livingstone want to take the money and spend it as they wish, but we have a duty on behalf of the taxpayer to get value for money and that is what we will do.
    Mr. Kennedy: Is not the real lesson of the episode that the Prime Minister fails to understand in his second term that power devolved is not power retained? Would it not make more sense to allow the elected representatives, of whom Ken Livingstone is obviously a primary example, to make decisions, whether they be on the London underground, the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, Bob Kiley, or for that matter the Select Committees of the House of Commons? To let go once in a while would be a very good reflection for the Prime Minister over the forthcoming summer recess.
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Devolving the running and management of the underground is of course precisely what the devolution to the Mayor is all about, but the financing of it coming from the general British taxpayer is billions of pounds. We know that the real problem on the tube is financing the construction, the track and tunnelling. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he is simply wrong. That is the problem that the tube has. We need investment in the capacity of the tube, and it is extraordinary that the Liberal Democrats do not want any private sector involvement in the financing of the system when that plainly offers the best value for money. We are doing this because although the running and management of the tube will, of course, be for the Mayor and Transport for London, when it involves general British taxpayers' money—not just from London but across the rest of country—the Treasury has a duty to ensure that it is properly spent, and we will discharge that duty on behalf of the taxpayer.
    Kali Mountford: I know that the House will join me in my heartfelt concern for Peter Falconio's family while he is missing in the Northern Territory of Australia. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the Australian police, the Aborigine trackers and the people of Australia who are helping in the search for Peter? Will he also join me in asking anyone who has any evidence of where Peter might be—possibly people coming home from their holiday in the Northern
    284
    Territory—to tell Scotland Yard or their local police force and help to find Peter so that this nightmare can end for the Falconio family?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. We extend our sympathy and concern to Peter's family, who must be desperately worried. We have been in touch with the Australian high commission. As my hon. Friend said, the Australian police are doing everything they can to assist, and of course I join her in asking anyone with any information to come forward and speak to the proper authorities.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Why do the Prime Minister and the Government persist in forcing local councils to build up to 165 new waste incinerators at the expense of far more environmentally sustainable recycling plants? For example, my constituents will be the victims of pollution from such a plant in Wrexham, which is just across the border from my constituency. Under the Prime Minister's devolution arrangements, my constituents have no powers of representation for objection at local level, and it is causing great anger.
    The Prime Minister: Incineration has been used by Governments for many years. In fact, it is the last method that we wish to use. First, we want to reduce waste and, secondly, we want to improve recycling. That is why we are putting substantial additional investment—from memory, about £160 million—into improving recycling. Thirdly, there will be situations in which we have to incinerate. Although we regret that and wish to avoid it where we can, it is not realistic to think that we can deal with all the waste we have in any other way.
    Glenda Jackson: In his meetings with the President of the United States, will the Prime Minister make it clear to him that his presidential pronouncements about his commitment to cleaning up the environment and making the world safe for democracy have done nothing but strike fear into the hearts of my constituents? Will he make it abundantly clear that they value the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States but would wish for rather more understandable commitment on the part of the President to those two issues?
    The Prime Minister: We remain committed to the Kyoto protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have achieved reductions of about 14 per cent. on the 1990 levels, and we will carry on doing a great deal more to meet the targets set out. We have a disagreement with the United States over this, as we have said on many occasions. We are in a position to ratify the Kyoto protocol but America does not agree with that. It is important, however, that the United States Administration have agreed that the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is important and right, and we are now debating the means of achieving that. I hope that we can continue the dialogue with them so that we can bridge the gap and make the discussions on this important issue succeed.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Sir Michael Spicer.
    Hon. Members: More ballots.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Not now.
    How will the Prime Minister square the TUC, or for that matter the Labour party, to his plans for involving the private sector in the public services? Is not such involvement antithetical to socialism?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is giving me a lesson in party management. May I say how much we welcome his contribution, as the person responsible for the Conservative leadership election, to our political debate? Of course there will be an interesting and lively debate on public service reform, but that is what politics is about, and I am confident that we shall win that debate.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon): Could my right hon. Friend find time to visit the Metropolitan police training centre in my constituency to meet some of the excellent new recruits with which the training centre is now bursting at the seams? Will he also give my constituents an assurance that when those police officers leave the training school, my constituents will see a real increase in police numbers on the streets of Hendon?
    The Prime Minister: There is, I think, a record increase—certainly the best increase for many years—in the number of recruits entering training in the Metropolitan police. The numbers are increasing again, after 10 years of declining, and we shall in the next few years hit our target of having the largest number of police officers that this country has seen. I pay tribute not only to those who have been recently recruited but to serving officers in the Metropolitan police area who do such an excellent job protecting our citizens.
    Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam): Is the Prime Minister aware that the annual general meeting of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is being picketed today by multiple sclerosis sufferers who are angry at a two-year delay in obtaining a decision on drugs that can make a difference to their lives? Does he accept that the institute's foot dragging has cost hundreds of MS sufferers their health and condemned them to irreversible disability?
    The Prime Minister: I accept entirely the frustration that people have at the delay. However, I also tell the hon. Gentleman that in a decision of this nature, which affects thousands of people suffering from MS, it is important that all the information is tested and got right. The national institute will make known its deliberations when it can; that is up to it. It is an extremely important decision to get right and has huge consequences not only for MS sufferers but for the whole of the national health service.
    Mr. John Hume: May I place on record—I know that I am speaking for the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland—our deep gratitude to the Prime Minister for the enormous energy, commitment and work that he is putting into resolving our current crisis? In so doing, he has revealed that he sees that problem as the
    286
    greatest human problem facing this House—although one might not believe that, listening to some hon. Members in today's Northern Ireland Question Time. We await with great hope the package that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will be producing. Let us all hope that it will lead to the full and absolute implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday agreement and create lasting peace and stability on our streets.
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for those kind comments. I do not begrudge any of the time that we spend on this peace process, first, because it is so important and, secondly, because I believe that there is a chance of resolving the issues and implementing the Good Friday agreement in full, which is what everyone wishes to see. The two Governments are in agreement that it is the right package and that it covers all the outstanding issues. We believe that the package will be a fair and reasonable one that should recommend itself to all political parties. We need only look at the middle east peace process to see what happens when we stop moving forward in such processes. I believe that the package offers us the chance to overcome the remaining obstacles and give people in Northern Ireland the future that they deserve.
    Mr. John Greenway: Why are the Government so reluctant to award a long-term franchise for the east coast main line to GNER, which is generally thought to have done a good job? Is it not clear that short-term franchise extensions will stifle rather than encourage much-needed investment? It is not only Bob Kiley who is out of favour: what was the point of asking a rail expert such as Sir Alastair Morton how to improve the railway only to ignore his advice?
    The Prime Minister: I think that being lectured by a Conservative on railway privatisation is a little bit much. It is important that we have different ways of dealing with the franchises. Some franchises may be short, while others may be longer. That is sensible, because it gives us the flexibility that we require. As for GNER and the east coast main line, that decision will be taken shortly.
    Ian Lucas (Wrexham): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), who referred to Wrexham in his question. I would like to point out to him and to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that Wrexham council has recently appointed a recycling officer. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that is fully in accordance with his policy, the Labour policy, which is to re-use and to recycle?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, it is indeed in line with Government policy. As I explained a moment or two ago, we are increasing the funding available for recycling. That will significantly increase the amount of recycling that takes place, giving us a considerably better record than the Conservative party.
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: When there is an inquiry into foot and mouth disease—be it public or private—could the Prime Minister ensure that one of its terms of reference is to look at the effect of the disease on non-farming businesses? My constituency has probably lost out more than most, in

    287
    particular because of the cancellation of the Cheltenham racing festival, when millions and millions of pounds were lost by small businesses that could least afford it.
    The Prime Minister: The impact on the non-farming industry is extremely important too. That is why it is necessary to take all possible measures to try to stamp out the disease, as we have done. It remains extremely important that all parts of the farming community take the relevant biosecurity measures in terms of disinfection. The way in which the disease is still being spread is essentially through farm-to-farm movements or agricultural trade vehicles. We have given every assistance we can so that people know the measures they have to take, but the only way to make sure that we use these summer months to eradicate the disease is if the biosecurity measures are in place and followed.
    Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend assure council tenants in Birmingham that if they do not wish to change their landlord, the Government will honour their commitments to bring their homes up to a decent standard by 2010? Will he ensure also that necessary resources will be made available as, under current financial predictions, the necessary resources are not being made available?
    The Prime Minister: First, people have the right to vote on the system they wish. Secondly, we are substantially increasing investment in housing: over the next three years or so, it will rise to somewhere in the region of £4 billion. I am aware that there are always greater demands for money, but we must put money into the health service, schools, the police and other things. We are doing what we can on housing in my hon. Friend's area and others. In respect of the proposals, it is for her constituents and others to vote upon them.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the success of his personnel policies? He sacked his Foreign Secretary, who is now a runaway success as Leader of the House. He sacked the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and now they have been restored and are held even higher in the public esteem. Yesterday, he sacked Mr. Bob Kiley who—obviously, at this rate—will stop the privatisation of the tube. Can the Prime Minister deny that he is power mad,
    288
    as some people believe, and say that he is actually engaged in a very subtle demonstration of the limits of prime ministerial power and arrogance?
    The Prime Minister: Since the hon. Gentleman has congratulated me on my personnel changes, perhaps I can congratulate him on his; not least in respect of himself. I gather he said that he wished to have nothing whatever to do with the Westminster Parliament, since it was inconsistent with Scottish nationalism; yet, lo and behold, here he is, popping up and asking me questions—but then, that type of double standard is nothing new from the Scottish National party.
    Jane Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the plight in India of Ian Stillman—formerly of Reading—a charity worker who is disabled, who has been sentenced to 10 years in prison because he was in a taxi in which cannabis was later discovered? What representations can Ministers make to the Government of India to help secure the release of Ian Stillman?
    The Prime Minister: We are indeed aware of Mr. Stillman's case. We are making representations and are in touch with the Indian authorities. I assure my hon. Friend that we will keep this case closely under review and that we will be in close consultation throughout with the appropriate authorities.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Does the Prime Minister believe that there will be a downturn in the British economy over the next two to three years? If so, how will the Government fund their promises on education, health and the police?
    The Prime Minister: We are confident that we can fund those programmes as the money for them has been set aside. The hon. Gentleman will know that, as a result of the successful management of the economy by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, our public finances are in a very healthy state. Therefore, unlike the Conservatives, who want to cut investment we can put money into schools, hospitals, transport and the police.
    The other reason that we have managed to run the economy successfully is that we have avoided the age-old Conservative problem of—[HON. MEMBERS: "Boom and Bust."] No doubt, Mr. Speaker, you will call time shortly, so, as the two Ronnies would say, "It's goodbye from Mr. Boom, and goodbye from Mr. Bust."

Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Bristol Royal infirmary inquiry.
The report of the inquiry into the care and management of children receiving complex heart treatment between 1984 and 1995 is being published today. It is now available in the Vote Office. I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your agreement that the parents and their representatives should also have advance access to copies of the report.
The inquiry was established in 1998 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I want to express my thanks to Professor Ian Kennedy and his panel members, Professor Sir Brian Jarman, Mrs. Rebecca Howard and Mrs. Mavis Maclean, for doing a quite outstanding job in delivering a well considered and far-reaching report.
Words in a report can never be enough for those families whose children died or were damaged. When I met representatives of some of the parents earlier this week I think that I was speaking for the whole House when I expressed my profound sorrow for the pain and loss the families have endured. I hope that the report at least provides an explanation, and that those families are able to take some small comfort from it.
The report and its annexes run to some 12,000 pages. We will study the findings and the 198 recommendations with care. Today, I can outline the thrust of the inquiry's findings and some of the Government's initial responses. Our substantive response will be made in the autumn. It is right that this House and the public should have the opportunity to study the report in detail. It will be available from this afternoon on both the inquiry's website and through the Department of Health's website. I would welcome views from the public and those working in the NHS to inform our full response.
In examining events at the Bristol Royal infirmary between 1984 and 1995, the report recognises that a great deal has changed since then. It also, quite rightly, commends NHS staff in Bristol and throughout the country for their dedication and commitment in providing care and treatment to hundreds of thousands of patients every day.
I hope that today, above all other days, all of us—across the House, in the media and among the public—remember one simple truth: the NHS is full of good doctors, not bad ones, and of good people who are doing their best for patients, sometimes in difficult circumstances. The report rightly reminds its readers that between 1984 and 1995 staff at Bristol carried out heart surgery on 1.827 children. The great majority of those children are alive today because of the efforts of those NHS staff. As the report puts it:
"Many patients, children and adults benefited; too many children did not. Too many children died."
In discovering what happened at Bristol, the report describes
"a tragedy born of high hopes and ambitions".
The senior NHS staff concerned got things wrong, not least because they assumed that in time they were bound to come right. As we now know, they never did. Between
290
1991 and 1995, the report makes it clear that between 30 and 35 more children aged under one year died after open-heart surgery in Bristol than was typical of similar heart units elsewhere in England. The report says that that was not due to differences in the severity of the cases. While mortality rates fell throughout the rest of the country as time went on, this did not happen in Bristol.
The report paints a picture of a hospital short of resources and short of specialist staff. Cardiac care was split between two sites; children's services played second fiddle to adult services. Power was concentrated in too few hands. The hospital was a closed world. The report describes a "club culture" in which problems were neither identified nor resolved. Paternalism towards patients sat side by side with rivalries between professions.
Concerns about paediatric open-heart surgery at Bristol were first raised as early as 1986—first inside the hospital, then outside, then with the Department of Health and Social Security, as it was at the time. Concerns continued to be raised but no one acted effectively to protect the welfare of the children who were patients there.
There was a tragic combination of key clinicians failing to reflect on their own performance, senior management failing to grasp the seriousness of what was going wrong, and people in various official capacities—including in the Department of Health—failing to act. Uncertainty about who was responsible for sorting out problems meant that they were never sorted out. In the meantime children were dying who should not have died. It was left to a whistleblower, an anaesthetist in the hospital, Dr. Stephen Bolsin, to trigger the chain of events which led eventually, in 1995, to the suspension of children's heart surgery. As the report says, Dr. Bolsin is owed a debt of gratitude for what he did.
The report is directly critical of certain individuals, including the senior doctors concerned. As the House is aware, Dr. Roylance, Mr. Wisheart and Mr. Dhasmana have already been the subject of action by the General Medical Council, but the inquiry panel made clear its determination to avoid simply pointing the finger of blame at a few individuals. I commend this approach, because, the Bristol tragedy was born of deeper causes than the actions of a handful of senior clinicians and managers, wrong though they were to act as they did. The children who died and who were damaged were failed by a few people in senior positions in the hospital but, even more so, they were failed by the very system that was supposed to make them well and keep them from harm.
If the NHS is to learn from when things go wrong, it must move beyond a culture of blame. The tenor of the Bristol inquiry report is, in my view, a significant step towards a more open and honest health service. Medicine is not a perfect science. Even the best people can make the worst mistakes. Putting right what can sometimes go wrong relies on the NHS being able to acknowledge error and having systems in place to minimise error. The absence of such an approach at Bristol, and in the wider NHS at the time, contributed directly to the tragedy that cost dozens of children their lives.
Bristol was designated a specialist regional centre for children's heart surgery. It probably never should have been. It never performed sufficient operations to ensure safe outcomes for patients. Monitoring was virtually

291
non-existent. Accountability was confused. There were no national standards in place. The inquiry report puts the position starkly:
"we cannot say that the external system for assuring and monitoring the quality of care was inadequate. There was, in truth, no such system."
That was the norm for the NHS then. The events at Bristol have been a major catalyst for change since. As the report repeatedly acknowledges, since those years the NHS has moved on. Earlier this year the new Bristol Royal Children's hospital opened. The United Bristol Healthcare trust has a new, strong management team with extra cardiac staff.
As elsewhere in the NHS, problems remain—of course they do—but it is worth noting that today's survival rates for children's heart surgery at Bristol are among the best in the country. The energy and commitment that the staff, the managers and the trust board have shown in turning the service around deserve recognition and praise. I hope that the whole House will join me in doing so today.
The NHS today is a very different health service, too. As the report acknowledges, the under-resourcing that was such a feature of the NHS then is beginning to be addressed now. The events at Bristol have spurred the Government and the medical profession to work together to put in place new standards and structures to improve quality in care. As the Kennedy report says,
"Recent developments give cause for optimism. These include statutory responsibility for the quality of health care, the development of clinical guidelines through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and the monitoring of performance through the Commission for Health Improvement."
The report welcomes the establishment of the National Patient Safety Agency to run a single reporting system for all adverse health events. The report welcomes annual appraisal and revalidation for doctors; it recognises that a new contract for hospital consultants is being negotiated and that joint training for health professionals is being introduced. The clinical negligence system, which the report rightly criticises, will be the subject of a White Paper to be published early next year. Many of these changes, and other reforms contained in the NHS plan, are welcomed or endorsed by the report.
As the report highlights, however, further action still is needed if we are to prevent another tragedy on the scale of Bristol's. Between now and the autumn, the Government will give the report's recommendations careful consideration. Today I can tell the House that I am taking the following steps immediately in response to the Bristol report.
First, the report laments the lack of priority given to children's services in the NHS. It calls for the appointment of a national director of children's health care services. I have therefore appointed Professor A1 Aynsley-Green, Nuffield professor of child health at Great Ormond Street hospital, to take up the post with immediate effect. His priority will be to spearhead the faster development of the first ever national standards for children's health services. Standards for children in hospital, including children with congenital heart disease, will be ready next year.
Secondly, the report calls for patients and parents to have a greater say in the NHS and in their own care. Informed consent must be a cornerstone of a modern health service. Today we are publishing information for
292
patients and specifically for parents about the questions that they should ask before consenting to treatment for themselves or their children. Next month we will invite views on our proposals for increased public involvement in the NHS. By April next year, every trust will have a specialist patient advocacy and liaison service in place to help patients who are experiencing problems with treatment, as part of a wider programme to inform and empower patients within the NHS.
Thirdly, the report identifies a failure to act on concerns about services, not through a lack of data, because Bristol was awash with data. There was however, no single point where data were brought together for analysis, evaluation, dissemination, and, most important, follow-up action. For data on surgical outcomes to be published, of course, they need to be robust, rigorous and risk-adjusted. That will inevitably take time. The report does, however, recommend publication to give both NHS staff and the public accurate information. It recommends the establishment of a new independent office for information on health care performance within the Commission for Health Improvement to co-ordinate the collection and publication of data. We will action those two recommendations. In so doing, we will ensure that the new office works in tandem with the medical organisations that have been pioneering improvements on data collection about clinical outcomes.
Fourthly, the report criticises confusion in regulation and accountability in the NHS. It recommends the establishment of an overarching body—the council for the regulation of health care professions—to ensure that the individual professional regulatory bodies act in a more consistent manner. That is in line with a similar commitment that we made last year in the NHS plan. We will action that recommendation, following consultation, alongside our proposals to reform the General Medical Council in the NHS reform and decentralisation Bill later this year.
Fifthly, the concern is expressed in the report that NHS managers should also have responsibility for maintaining standards and protecting patients. It recommends the establishment of a new regulatory body for NHS managers. We will consider that proposal, but in the meantime, we will seek to develop a new code of professional conduct for NHS managers in conjunction with their professional associations. I will announce the further steps that we will take to strengthen safeguards for patients when we publish our full response in the autumn.
Professor Kennedy and his panel have provided us with a report that builds on what is now being achieved, but the ambition is bigger still: to build a new culture of trust, not blame, in the NHS—an NHS where there is greater partnership between patients and professionals; where lines of accountability are clear; where there is openness about mistakes; where services are designed from the patients' point of view; and where safety for patients always comes first.
None of that can ever make good the loss experienced by the Bristol parents. Throughout the inquiry, they have acted with great dignity and purpose. Their determination has been, as ours must now be, to see some good come out of the events at the Bristol Royal infirmary. As one parent put it to me earlier this week, "There are no winners from Bristol. We are all losers. I just hope that future generations can be the winners." I hope that through this report the families will gain at least some

293
consolation from the knowledge that, over time, the lessons learned from what went wrong for their children will help us to prevent it from happening again to any other children.
In framing its recommendations, the inquiry panel said that its aim was
"to build a bridge between the lessons of the past and the NHS of the future [so] Bristol will be remembered not merely as a synonym for tragedy but also as a turning point for the NHS".
It is for us—all of us—to ensure that is indeed the case. I commend the report to the House.
Dr. Liam Fox: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and for making a copy of it available to the Opposition in advance. I also thank the inquiry team for making the report available to us in advance and for all its hard work in producing such an excellent report. It would be verging on insulting its great effort to try to make any pretence of a definitive response this afternoon, yet very major issues are involved, and parents and professionals will rightly want them to be fully explored in Parliament. So I begin by asking the Secretary of State whether he will give an undertaking now that, having had time to reflect on those issues during the summer, the Government will make time available soon after the recess to debate them fully in the House in Government time.
The report says that learning from error, rather than seeking someone to blame, must be the priority to improve safety and quality. That is a much easier concept for hon. Members to accept than it is for many of the parents who have lost their children so tragically; but however understandable a part of human nature wanting to attach blame may be, it is our job to ensure that we minimise the risk of such events being repeated elsewhere. We need to determine which errors came from individuals, which came from specific systems and conditions in Bristol and which were endemic in the culture of the NHS. Of course, it very easy for us to do that with the benefit of hindsight.
The report says:
"At the time while the paediatric cardiac service was less than adequate, it would have taken a different mindset from the one that prevailed on the part of the clinicians at the centre of the service and senior management to come to that view. It would have required abandoning the principles which then prevailed, of optimism, of 'learning curves' and of gradual improvements over time. It would have required them to adopt a more cautious approach rather than muddling through. That this did not occur to them is one of the tragedies of Bristol."
We must not be too hasty in our judgment of them, or judge them by the massive advances in medical culture that have occurred in the past decade.
Clearly, however, some problems could and should have been recognised. Effective teamwork did not always exist at the BRI. The report says:
"All the professionals involved in the PCS service were responsible for this shortcoming.
Those in positions of clinical leadership must bear the responsibility for this failure."
We also had the problem of the split site, which meant that cardiologists, as opposed to cardiac surgeons, could not be effectively involved in intensive care. It is worth
294
pointing out to the House that the cardiologists in Bristol were extremely well regarded by their fellow professionals and by parents throughout the south-west.
As the Secretary of State pointed out, it was not simply the outcomes in Bristol which should have raised the alarm, but the growing gap between Bristol and other centres. Between 1988 and 1994 the mortality rate at Bristol was roughly double that elsewhere in the UK for five out of seven years. That mortality rate failed to follow the downward trend in other centres. The Secretary of State mentioned statistics relating to children under one; the excess death rate was even higher for children under 30 days. It is clear from the evidence that there was no excuse for that on a case-mix basis. Around 35 more children died than might have been expected, and each individual was a tragic and irredeemable loss.
We will reflect on the responses that the Secretary of State has made today. Will he publish the job specification for the national director of children's health care services, so that we can all see exactly what is expected of him?
Will the Secretary of State think again about his proposals on consent and information, and go further? The report says that
"the sense is gained that informing patients and gaining their consent was regarded as something of a chore by surgeons."
I believe that that has changed dramatically in recent years, but surely in an ever more protocol-driven medical world, there is a strong case for introducing standardised consent forms at least for non-emergency procedures so that all patients and their parents will know in advance what to expect from surgery, what to expect after the operation, what the complications may be and what the likely outcomes are. As individual users of the health service, surely we have a right to know what to expect of it.
Will the Secretary of State consider going even further with his plans for a health care performance office? This country requires a truly independent academic institute able to develop a standardised methodology of determining outcome. If we cannot properly measure outcomes, we cannot make rational choices in health care in this country as in any other western country.
We will need more time to consider some of the more contentious recommendations: the abolition of clinical negligence litigation and the common terms of employment for doctors, nurses and managers, to name but two. It is worth the House bearing in mind the fact that, in the words of the report,
"The story of the paediatric cardiac surgical service in Bristol is not an account of bad people. Nor is it an account of people who did not care, nor of people who wilfully harmed patients.
It is an account of people who cared greatly about human suffering, and were dedicated and well-motivated. Sadly, some lacked insight and their behaviour was flawed. Many failed to communicate with each other, and to work together effectively for the interests of their patients."
Finally, in paying tribute to the courage and steadfastness of the parents of those patients—some in my constituency and many nearby—the greatest service that we can do them is to take Professor Kennedy's report away and reflect on it not in anger, but with the determination to make sure that those precious and irredeemable losses are not repeated elsewhere.
Mr. Milburn: I thank the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) for the content and tone of his

295
response. He is correct to say that the report is large. As he knows, the body of the report runs to some 500 pages and the annexes are much longer still. There are 198 recommendations. Some are small recommendations; some are fundamental and far reaching. They require proper scrutiny, and time is needed to enable us to study them as we should.
On the possibility of a debate, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments. I have no objection, but it is a matter for the business managers. If we can arrange a debate, clearly we should.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about looking back with the benefit of hindsight. Professor Kennedy and his panel reflect much on that in their report. With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that the norms and behaviour that were accepted then are at variance with the current position. It is also true that mistakes were made even within the norms prevailing then. As we discuss these issues, it is important to recognise how far things have moved on in just a short time. I welcome the attitude of individual doctors and the medical profession, and the recognition that the culture of the past can no longer pertain in the NHS of today.
With regard to cardiologists, the situation was even worse than the hon. Gentleman describes. At the time, no single paediatric cardiac surgeon specialising in that discipline was available. That may explain some of the difficulties that many of the parents subsequently encountered.
On the job specification for the national director, I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know the details. On consent forms, we have already developed a model consent form which has been out for consultation. By 1 October this year we expect to have a finalised version in place. That is needed not just in some hospitals in the NHS, but across the entire NHS.
Mr. Frank Dobson: I join my right hon. Friend and the shadow Secretary of State in expressing my sorrow about what happened to the children, my concern for the parents, and my admiration for the steadfastness of the parents who struggled long and hard for the inquiry. I hope that they will find the outcome in some way satisfactory.
As both previous speakers have said, what happened was not the product of bad people. It involved good and caring people. That is a measure of just how awful the arrangements in the NHS were at the time for setting and monitoring standards of performance. There was no setting of standards nationally, locally, managerially or professionally, nor was there any monitoring of standards. That is largely why those events occurred. My right hon. Friend is no doubt as pleased as I am that the report states that there is cause for optimism because of changes that have subsequently been made to start establishing and monitoring standards.
My right hon. Friend rightly gave great prominence to the problem of the blame culture. The report makes it clear that if improvements are to be made, all the professionals and managers must be open and willing to report when things go disastrously wrong or when near-misses occur. They must accept that they may have been at fault, and they must apologise for what has happened and publish outcomes. All that will be
296
necessary, but I am convinced, as the inquiry was clearly convinced, that it will not happen while the possibility of litigation for clinical negligence continues to exist.
I hope that when the Government have completed their consideration of the report, they will agree with the inquiry recommendations and rid the national health service of the threat of clinical negligence litigation, which does much harm and encourages the blame culture.
Mr. Milburn: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for his contribution. I should like to place on record my thanks, as well as those of the whole House and people in Bristol, to him for his courage in establishing the public inquiry. Let us remember that the decision was extremely controversial when it was made, but it has proved, with the benefit of hindsight, to be absolutely right.
My right hon. Friend was right about the setting of standards. In the report, Kennedy was extremely critical of a hands-off approach in the national health service. In fact, there were two lines of accountability in the NHS—clinical and managerial. As my right hon. Friend knows, because the two lines never met, problems relating to clinical outcomes and surgical mistakes were never gripped as one hopes that they would be nowadays.
My right hon. Friend was right about publishing outcomes, but he knows as well as I do that the science of ensuring that the data that we publish are rigorous is pretty rudimentary. There is an awfully long way to go to ensure that they command confidence not only in the professions, but—in a sense, this is more important—among patients. It is pointless to publish information that is inaccurate and gives a misleading impression.
Only yesterday, I had the pleasure of meeting the cardiac surgeons committee. I spoke to Mr. Ash Pawade from Bristol, who, as my right hon. Friend knows, is a surgeon who specialises in children's heart surgery and has a reputation that is not only national but international. Like the committee, I am convinced that great progress is being made in respect of the ability to publish rigorous data that will properly inform patients and professionals, and in which we can all have confidence.
On my right hon. Friend's final point, it now seems right to review the issue of clinical negligence and its operation. I have some sympathy with his comments. I am sympathetic to the position of ordinary doctors and of surgeons in particular. Day in, day out, while we talk so easily about getting rid of the blame culture, they face the threat of being dragged through the courts as part of a clinical negligence claim. In the end, it seems difficult to reconcile the idea of openness in the national health service with the threat of legal action. We must consider the matter and keep it under review. Indeed, I have asked the chief medical officer to chair a committee of experts to examine it. We will introduce a White Paper in the new year that will, I hope, make recommendations for radical reform.
Dr. Evan Harris: I want to place on record my sympathy with the situation of the families from Bristol, and pay tribute to them and their action group for their persistence in setting up the inquiry and in continually contributing to it, thereby enhancing its status. I join the Secretary of State in commending his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Holborn and

297
St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), for his foresight in setting up an inquiry which was not narrow but which had a very wide remit. I want also to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) for his assiduous work in asking questions both locally and in this place.
I thank the Secretary of State and the inquiry for their courtesy not only in allowing me the opportunity to be shut in a room with the Conservative spokesman for an hour to read and digest a 500-page report with 11,000 pages of annexes, but for the extensive nature of the report and the wide-ranging recommendations that it makes.
We believe that credit is due to the Government for already having implemented some quality control mechanisms—and the Commission for Health Improvement and clinical governance. We welcome the steps that they have taken so far. However, my fear, which is reflected in the view of the inquiry team, is that the case is not isolated and that similar circumstances are arising elsewhere. As the Secretary of State so rightly said, it is a system problem. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the figures suggesting that while 30 to 35 babies died unnecessarily in Bristol, as many as 25,000 avoidable deaths nationwide may have been caused by errors in medical care? Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore accept that a culture change is needed to tackle the macho style of medicine, which is based on individualism rather than team work? Does he also accept that protection for the whistleblower remains inadequate in a system where, for example, junior doctors rely on the patronage of senior doctors to get promotion?
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State's response to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, but will he go further? The report is clear about the impact of the recommendations on the tort system of medical negligence. It states:
"Clinical negligence litigation, as a barrier to openness, should be abolished."
It stresses that the NHS
"must promote openness and preparedness to acknowledge errors and learn lessons."
It also states that
"clinical negligence is part of the culture of blame. It should be abolished."
It recommends the introduction of
"an alternative administrative system of compensating those who suffer harm arising from medical care."
That is no-fault compensation. I hope that the Secretary of State will clarify that the expert panel's scope will include the ability to implement the recommendation for a switch to no-fault compensation for which my hon. Friends have previously called.
Does the Secretary of State accept the need for not only patient bodies but the public to
"be embedded in the structures of the NHS and for that culture to permeate all aspects of healthcare"?
Will he assure us that he will be able to deliver that after the abolition of community health councils and health authorities?
Providing misleading performance data in the absence of clarification is unhelpful. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the role of referring clinicians and
298
commissioners, who failed in the case that we are discussing to deal with patients' questions and check outcomes? How does he expect those roles to be tackled when local public health advisory functions are dissolved?
Does the Secretary of State accept the inquiry team's emphasis on public service ethos? Does he welcome the report's recommendation that continued extra funding is required because quality costs, especially consultant expansion? If that is understood, the children will not have died in vain.
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. On his last point, the report rightly acknowledges the contrast between previous under-resourcing and current investment. Professor Kennedy rightly calls for the investment to be sustained. That is music to my ears. I agree that it is the right thing to do, and I hope that we can achieve it.
Let me consider some of the hon. Gentleman's other substantive points. He mentioned a macho style and the merits of whistleblowing. Dr. Bolsin did people an enormous favour. However, the need for whistleblowers is a sign not of success but of failure. We want a national health service that can blow its own whistle if necessary, and be honest with people.
We, too, should be honest. It is easy for Members of Parliament to criticise. Professor Kennedy makes the important point when he reminds the report's readers that these heart operations are incredibly complex. When a baby's heart is operated on, it is the size of a walnut. Such an operation requires dexterity, expertise and skills at which most of us can only wonder. We must therefore be cautious when apportioning blame, although we must acknowledge that mistakes were made and that big cultural changes must be effected in the NHS. I hope and pray for a time when we do not need whistleblowers in the NHS because it publishes validated, rigorous information that commands confidence with the public and professionals. The report goes some way towards achieving that.
The chief medical officer's committee will consider the merits and disbenefits of no-fault compensation, which is not as straightforward as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Professor Kennedy is right about embedding the patient's and, indeed, the public's voice in the NHS. He explicitly makes the point that if patients are to be better informed, their voices need to be heard inside the NHS, not outside it.
Valerie Davey: I thank my right hon. Friend for his important statement and welcome the report's in-depth study of complex circumstances. However, before we look to the future, I ask the House to join me and all hon. Members whose constituents have suffered in the tragedy in extending sympathy to the parents and families of those who died or were seriously disabled.
I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that, as he continues with the Department to improve the NHS further, the experience of those families is never forgotten.
Mr. Milburn: I join my hon. Friend in extending the sympathy of the Government—indeed, of the whole House—to the families concerned. I also thank her for all

299
her work, which has been widely taken into consideration during the past few years in dealing with some of these issues. Yes, it is important that we do not lose sight of the families' expertise. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. It would have been easy for them simply to pursue a case against the national health service in court but, instead, they have quite legitimately raised concerns about the operation of the NHS.
When I met representatives of the families earlier this week, I was powerfully struck by the fact that, in the end, they wanted some fairly simple things: an understanding and an explanation of what had happened to their families and, most important of all, an assurance that it would not happen to other families. That selflessness is something that we can only commend.
Mr. Graham Brady: Does the Secretary of State agree that, in reducing mortality rates for children's cardiac surgery, it is essential to have not only the best possible performance in the United Kingdom but the best performance that can be achieved? Will he tell the House how this country compares to other developed countries, whether we are near the top of the league, and whether there is anything that we can learn from overseas?
Mr. Milburn: There are, as always, lessons to be learned from elsewhere in the world. As I said earlier, we have some of the most world-renowned paediatric cardiac surgeons in this country. That is something that we should trumpet loud and clear. In many ways, we provide children's heart surgery that is up there with the best, and we must make sure that it continues to be so. That is why we must keep providing new investment, and ensuring that we take advantage of the way in which technology and treatments are moving forward. As I have said many times in the House, one of my personal top priorities is to ensure that heart disease services for children and adults improve. That requires not only more investment but certain changes to the way in which health care is being delivered, and we will continue relentlessly to pursue that in the years to come.
Jean Corston: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the prompt way in which he has responded to some of the recommendations made by Professor Kennedy and his inquiry team. I also reiterate the thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for setting up the inquiry and, most of all, for making it a public inquiry, because that did so much to restore the confidence in the process that we were putting in place of the parents whose children so tragically died. I would also like to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for confirming that the events surrounding this tragedy were entirely atypical of what goes on in the NHS in Bristol every day of the year.
Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to the role of the chief executive of a health care trust, and confirm that the chief executive should be the court of last resort for members of staff who want to raise concerns? They should be able to raise those concerns in an atmosphere free of stigma, and the final result should not end up involving shooting the messenger, as it did, sadly, in Bristol.
Mr. Milburn: I agree with my hon. Friend about the public inquiry. Public inquiries are not easy, as Professor
300
Kennedy and his panel found, but they have conducted this one with great aplomb. They have written a report that is not only an easy read but extremely well considered, and I pay tribute to them once again.
It is absolutely right that the chief executive should be the court of last appeal, and the chief executive of the trust in Bristol, Mr. Hugh Ross, has introduced a new system for the reporting of concerns. There is a whistleblowing system in place, and a means of raising concerns at various levels in the managerial hierarchy. However, Mr. Ross has quite rightly retained the prerogative for individual members of staff who are concerned about raising an issue with their direct line manager to raise it with him personally. That is a good idea, and it speaks for the real progress that has been made in Bristol over the past few years.
Nick Harvey: I commend the Secretary of State on his statement and the steps that he announced in it and echo the appreciation of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who set up the inquiry. As one of those who campaigned for and gave evidence to it, I welcome its report, which I believe is of sufficiently broad scope to help those parents who feel that light needs to be shed on events at Bristol to enable them to understand and come to terms with what happened.
The Secretary of State drew a distinction between clinical and management accountability. He said, "The children were failed by the very system that was supposed to make them well," and that accountability was confused. On management accountability, will the right hon. Gentleman give further thought to how management at all levels of the NHS can be persuaded to understand that it must be open and accountable? When Members of Parliament such as the hon. Members for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) and for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey), myself and others started to ask questions on the affair, the shutters were pulled down and we were given misleading answers. Perversely, that caused me to take a far greater interest than I would otherwise have taken.
All areas of the NHS must be open for legitimate scrutiny from Members of Parliament, the media and elsewhere, or mistakes will turn into tragedies and tragedies will turn into scandals.
Mr. Milburn: I agree with some of those sentiments and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his role in handling the consequences of the Bristol tragedy.
The hon. Gentleman is in many ways right about the way that managers behave. They have a pretty difficult job. They have to be accountable to me and, therefore, accountable to the House. That must be right in a public service. They are also accountable to their local communities and to representatives of local communities. That must be right too.
This is a two-way street. We sometimes talk pretty glibly about partnerships between patients and professionals and so on and so forth, as if rights and responsibilities flow only one way. They do not. If patients and professionals are to work more in partnership, that places a greater onus and a greater responsibility on the patient. If informed consent has been given, the patient has signed a contract with the professional. That changes some of the relationships. That is true, too, in terms of

301
the relationship between Members of Parliament, public representatives and the NHS, but, in broad measure, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman had to say.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Like other Members, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on instituting the public inquiry. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on making his statement to the House and responding so positively and quickly on crucial points.
My interest arose out of a tragedy that struck two families in my constituency and, listening to what has been said, I was reminded of the replies that I got from the trust, which amounted to saying, "Things are very difficult and great skills are involved, but, fundamentally, there are no problems." We know from the report that there were serious problems in Bristol.
I appreciate what has been said about paediatric services, but from my own experience and from what other Members have told me, I think that there is still a wider problem in the health service with accepting that there must be an entirely new approach to those problems. I hope that my right hon. Friend will undertake to bring together health service clinicians and those who are involved with these matters to talk through what is needed and ensure that such tragedies cannot occur—not just in paediatric and cardiac services, but right across the health service.
Mr. Milburn: I agree with my hon. Friend's comments, but he should not underestimate the extent to which there has been movement over the past few years. I met the Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons yesterday and it is about to publish its latest outcome data, which are retrieved from its member surgeons. The society told me about a survey of its members on whether they support the open publication of outcome data so that those data are seen not just by the profession but by patients. Eighty per cent. of the cardiac surgeons surveyed supported open publication. That is a huge movement from where we were just four or five years ago. It expresses a recognition in the medical profession and among individual doctors that the closed world that epitomised Bristol during those tragic years will not do nowadays. Things have moved on. The important thing to realise is that it is not just the Government who have moved it on, but the profession.
Andrew George (St. Ives): I echo the appreciation of right hon. and hon. Members for the inquiry and the manner in which it was undertaken. I agree that the primary emphasis should now be on looking forward, learning lessons and taking action. I seek the Secretary of State's advice about the relevant cases that fall outside the reference period of the inquiry, such as that of Mr. and Mrs. Barnes in my constituency, whose son William died in 1983 following an operation by Mr. Wisheart. Like many others, they are anxious to find out more about what happened before the reference period. They seek the support of the Secretary of State and his officials to find out what happened outside that period. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would advise on that.
Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If it is helpful, I will contact the inquiry secretariat
302
to see what information they have gathered during the inquiry, which has been going on for three years, and whether it is relevant to his constituents. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know, and if he is unhappy with that, we can think about how best to raise the matter.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: Are there not some important parallels between what happened in Bristol and the clinical problems that have occurred elsewhere? I am thinking in particular of the case of the surgeon Christopher Ingolby in my area. I know that my right hon. Friend is familiar with the case. Clinicians and managers were aware of serious problems for some time, but they were not made public. Patients and their families were kept in the dark. The Secretary of State has rightly mentioned key reforms, which have overtaken events and will markedly improve things, but one piece of the jigsaw is perhaps missing. Public involvement in and scrutiny of the health service could pick up some of the concerns that are known among professions, nursing staff and managers, but never see the light of day elsewhere. Could my right hon. Friend say a little more about public involvement?
Mr. Milburn: I agree with my hon. Friend. There are common factors in many of these horrendous cases, not just in Bristol but elsewhere. Usually, the common factor is that people in the hospital and the NHS environment around the hospital have known that there has been a problem, but the patients and their families have not known. We must change that.
I have heard people say that the problem in Bristol was that there were no data, so no one knew what was going on and there were no measures to assess how well a surgeon was doing against the national average. That is not true. Data were available, and had been developed by surgeons themselves. We must publish information more openly, so that the public, local GPs and the primary care trusts, as well as the doctors in the hospitals, know what is going on.
Two years ago, we published for the first time clinical indicators of death rates following surgery. The data are raw and rudimentary, but none the less are a significant step in the right direction and will make patients more aware of what is going on in their local health service. We must do more of that in the future, but we can only do so in conjunction with the medical profession.
On the issue of public scrutiny, Kennedy is pretty clear and explicit that that is where we must make changes. We must not just open up the national health service to make information more available, but get the public in at the heart of the service.
Kennedy comments on the existing structure of community health councils and on our proposals in the last Parliament for patient forums. We shall return to that shortly, but I think there is an important lesson to be learned from all this: if we are genuinely to have a national health service that is focused on the needs of patients, we must have more power for patients.
Ms Gisela Stuart: My right hon. Friend rightly points out that we need to learn for the future from inquiries such as this, so that such mistakes are not made again. He also draws attention to the availability of data, and the way in which they were analysed.

303
I understand that the report reaches strong conclusions about the number of operations that have been performed in a safe environment. Before too long my right hon. Friend will have to make a decision about the future of heart transplant centres, and part of those data will no doubt influence it. May I urge him not just to look at the number of individual operations performed by an individual surgeon, but to pay due attention to the needs of the team work involved and the collective activity that provides the necessary expertise? Will he treat the data holistically, rather than in a mechanistic way?
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend has raised an extremely important point, which I know is of great concern to her constituents and those of many other Members—not just in Birmingham but, as she will know, in Sheffield and Manchester.
Real dilemmas are involved. There is, for instance, the dilemma of having to choose between maintaining a local service—to which Kennedy refers explicitly—and ensuring that patient safety comes first. My accountability to the House means that I must ultimately be accountable for patient safety, and patient safety must come first in the reaching of these difficult decisions.
My hon. Friend is aware of the state of play. I assure her and others that no final decisions have been made, and that before any are made there will be open and full consultation.
Dr. Howard Stoate: My right hon. Friend has pointed out that it was not so much a lack of data as a lack of monitoring that led to the tragic events in Bristol. That extends well beyond surgical outcomes. Dr. Harold Shipman managed to kill many of his patients; data must have been available, but no one had monitored the fact that many more patients were dying in his surgery than in any other surgery in the land, because it is extremely rare for a patient to die in a doctor's surgery.
Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to how monitoring might be extended well beyond surgical outcomes, across the whole range of primary care services? Has he given any thought to what sort of data might be published and how they could be made accountable and meaningful, so that patients could judge the whole range of NHS services rather than just surgical outcomes?
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. There is a huge amount of data around; the problem is that those data are often pretty rudimentary, and are not integrated.
The hospital episode statistics data that we collect identify deaths in hospital, particularly deaths following surgery. What we do not have in the NHS is a means of collecting data relating to deaths outside hospital, so we
304
give a rather false impression when we publish some of the statistics. However, some of the information is available through the Office for National Statistics, and we are engaged in a project to establish how we can best integrate ONS and HES data to give a rather more rounded picture of mortality rates.
I support the Kennedy recommendation for all the responsibility to be put "offshore" from the Department of Health and, in a sense, from the medical profession, but for work to be done in conjunction with the profession through the new office in the Commission for Health Improvement. That will co-ordinate collection and publication of information.
Julie Morgan: I welcome the report and the recommendations, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that the responsibilities of the new national director of children's health services cover England alone? If that is so, can he ensure that the director liaises with the National Assembly for Wales? I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that children in Wales who need heart surgery must travel to centres in England—in many cases, to the one in Bristol—whereas the cardiological investigation will take place in Wales. It is important that there be no loophole. Can my right hon. Friend ensure that the new national director liaises closely with the National Assembly for Wales?
Mr. Milburn: I can certainly give that undertaking. My hon. Friend is right that the new national director applies to the NHS in England. There are other arrangements for Wales but given the flow of patients from Wales to England it is important that there be contact between the two organisations.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement on this sad affair. Given that the report by the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group predates the findings of the inquiry by quite a considerable time, will he give an assurance that he will not make any decision on the findings of the NSCAG report until the full implications of the inquiry have been properly considered? Will he make the NSCAG and inquiry reports available to hon. Members, so that we can consider the findings in tandem before crucial consultations and decisions are arrived at?
Mr. Milburn: On NSCAG, I have nothing much to add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart): clearly, we will need to ensure that the implications of Kennedy are understood before we make any decision. That must be right. All I can say is that final decisions on the matter are some way off.
On the report from NSCAG, I will write to my hon. Friend.

Points of Order
4.32 pm
Mr. John Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister's questions, I asked about the Government's intentions with regard to the east coast main line franchise. The Prime Minister appeared not to know, but I subsequently discovered that at 3.30 this afternoon the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions issued a press release extending GNER's east coast main line franchise for only two years. That is a significant departure from the recommendation that I understand he received from the Strategic Rail Authority, which apparently recommended that GNER be given a new 20-year franchise.
Surely the matter is of such importance to hon. Members, and we are so near the summer recess, that the Secretary of State should have come here to make a statement, so that we could ask him why the Government have done that. They have shunted the upgrade of that important strategic route into the sidings for at least two more years, and thrown into complete uncertainty not only passenger use of the line but the whole future of the east coast railway.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Statements are, of course, the responsibility of the Minister concerned, but I am sure that hon. Members are aware that Mr. Speaker has made it plain that he likes important statements to be made in the Chamber.
Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to bring mobile phones into the Chamber? In the middle of the important and serious statement by the Secretary of State for Health, the mobile phone of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) went off—I am afraid that he has now left the Chamber. Given that there is a place for him to hang his sword, could not a place be provided for him to hang his mobile phone before he comes into the Chamber—and if not, could instructions be given for the tunes that we hear in the middle of such serious statements to be less annoying?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The ruling on the use of mobile phones is clear: if they are in the Chamber they must be switched off.

BILLS PRESENTED
  MARINE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
  Mr. John Randall, supported by Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Andrew Bennett, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Colin Breed, Mrs. Helen Brinton, Mr. John Gummer, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Anthony Steen and Dr. Richard Taylor presented a Bill to amend the law relating to nature conservation and the protection of wildlife in respect of the marine environment; to provide enforcement powers for marine wildlife conservation purposes to competent marine authorities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October, and to be printed [Bill 8].
  PATENTS ACT 1977 (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger, supported by Mr. Keith Simpson, Mr. Oliver Letwin, Hugh Robertson, Mr. Michael Jack, Mr. Mark Prisk, Mr. David Heath, Mr. Jonathan Djanogly, Dr. Andrew Murrison, Mr. Paul Goodman, Mr. Hugo Swire and Mr. Andrew Turner presented a Bill to amend the Patents Act 1977 to enable a court to award exemplary damages in an action for infringement of a patent: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 November, and to be printed [Bill 9].
  AGE EQUALITY COMMISSION
  Ms Candy Atherton, supported by Jim Knight, Andrew George, Linda Perham, Roger Berry, Linda Gilroy and Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger presented a Bill to make provision for the establishment of an Age Equality Commission to advise the Government on discrimination issues in relation to older people: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 November, and to be printed [Bill 10].
  HOME ENERGY CONSERVATION
  Dr. Desmond Turner, supported by Mr. Don Foster, Sir Sydney Chapman, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. David Drew, Mr. David Chaytor, Matthew Taylor, Joan Ruddock, Mr. David Lepper, Mr. Martin Salter and Llew Smith presented a Bill to make further provision about energy conservation in relation to residential housing; to make further provision about the eradication of fuel poverty; to provide for the establishment of registration and licensing schemes for houses in multiple occupation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 November, and to be printed [Bill 11].
  PENSION ANNUITIES (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. David Curry presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the purchase of annuities in respect of private and personal pensions, defined contribution and additional voluntary contribution pension schemes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 January 2002, and to be printed [Bill 12].
  EMPLOYEE SHARE SCHEMES
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz, supported by Mr. John McFall, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Linda Gilroy, Ms Meg Munn. Mr. Mark Hendrick, Jim Dobbin, Mr. Ian Davidson, Mr. David Miliband, Mr. Tony Lloyd, John Barrett and Mr. Andrew Love presented a Bill to make provision relating to employee share schemes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2002, and to be printed [Bill 13].

  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas, supported by Andy Love, Mike Gapes, Doug Naysmith, Gillian Merron, Ken Purchase, Phil Hope, Andy Reed, John McFall, Ian Davidson, Paul Goggins and David Taylor presented a Bill to enable the law relating to societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 to be amended so as to bring it into conformity with certain aspects of the law relating to companies; to amend the procedure whereby such a society may convert itself into, or amalgamate with or

  307
  transfer its engagements to, a company; to permit a registered society whose business is conducted for the benefit of the community to provide that its assets are dedicated permanently for that purpose; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2002, and to be printed [Bill 14].

  FOOD LABELLING
  Mr. Eric Pickles, supported by Mr. David Drew, Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Mr. David Curry, Mr. Bill Rammell, Mr. Charles Hendry, Mr. Ian Davidson, Alistair Burt, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. John Hayes and Mr. Owen Paterson presented a Bill to make further provision for relevant information about food, including information about the country of origin and standards of production of that food, to be made available to consumers, by labelling, marking or in other ways; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 November, and to be printed [Bill 15].
  LEGALISATION OF CANNABIS
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones, supported by Ms Diane Abbott, John Austin, Tony Banks, Jeremy Corbyn, Paul Flynn, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. Mike Hancock, Dr. Brian Iddon, Lynne Jones, Austin Mitchell and Dr. Jenny Tonge presented a Bill to legalise and regulate the sale, supply and use of cannabis for recreational and therapeutic purposes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October, and to be printed [Bill 16].
  COPYRIGHT, ETC. AND TRADE MARKS (OFFENCES AND ENFORCEMENT)
  Dr. Vincent Cable, supported by Richard Burden, Bill Cash, Brian Cotter, Ed Davey, Ian Liddell-Grainger, Paul Marsden, Andrew Miller, Austin Mitchell, Lembit Öpik and Nicholas Winterton presented a Bill to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in respect of criminal offences, search warrants, powers of seizure and orders for forfeiture; to amend the Trade Marks Act 1994 in respect of search warrants and powers of seizure; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 November, and to be printed [Bill 17].
  HOUSING (WALES)
  Mr. Simon Thomas, supported by Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Adam Price and Hywel Williams presented a Bill to enable the National Assembly for Wales to make provision about registration and licensing schemes for houses in multiple occupation, about planning regulations, registration schemes and rates of council tax applicable to second homes, about building regulations in relation to older dwellings, and about the exercise by tenants of their right to buy; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 November, and to be printed [Bill 18].

  CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES (PLAY AREAS)
  Mr. Adrian Sanders, supported by Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Robert Syms, Paul Flynn, Nick Harvey, Richard Younger-Ross, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Nigel Jones and Mr. Colin Pickthall presented a Bill to require local authorities to provide facilities suitable for use by children
  308
  with disabilities when they upgrade play areas or construct new play areas: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 January 2002, and to be printed [Bill 19].

  PUBLIC RIGHT OF PLANNING APPEAL
  Mr. Nigel Evans, supported by Mr. Laurence Robertson, Lembit Öpik, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mr. Desmond Swayne, Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews, Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. John Bercow, Mr. Bill Wiggin, Mr. Robert Syms, Mr. David Borrow and Mr. Mark Hendrick presented a Bill to introduce a right of appeal against the grant of consent for planning applications for certain persons and in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2002, and to be printed [Bill 20].
  FOOTBALL SPECTATORS
  Mr. Roger Godsiff presented a Bill to amend the law on the licensing of premises for the admission of spectators to football matches; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 November, and to be printed [Bill 21].
  ANIMAL SANCTUARIES (LICENSING)
  Mr. Ian Cawsey, supported by Mr. David Amess, Norman Baker, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Tim Loughton, Mr. Eric Martlew, Shona McIsaac, Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Martin Salter and Mr. Gerry Steinberg presented a Bill to make provision for the licensing and control of animal sanctuaries: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 January 2002, and to be printed [Bill 22].
  COPYRIGHT (VISUALLY IMPAIRED PERSONS)
  Rachel Squire presented a Bill to permit, without infringement of copyright, the transfer of copyright works to formats accessible to visually impaired persons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March 2002, and to be printed [Bill 23].
  TOBACCO DISCLOSURE
  Mr. Frank Dobson, supported by Mr. Kevin Barron, David Taylor, John Robertson, Miss Anne Begg and Dr. Phyllis Starkey presented a Bill to require the disclosure by companies selling tobacco products in the United Kingdom of full details of all scientific and market research carried out by or for them or associated companies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2002, and to be printed [Bill 24].
  COMMONWEALTH
  Mr. David Willetts presented a Bill to amend the law with respect to the Commonwealth Institute; to make provision in connection with the admission of Cameroon and Mozambique to the Commonwealth; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2002, and to be printed [Bill 25].
  FIREARMS (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Jonathan R. Shaw, supported by Mr. Vernon Coaker, Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Mike Hancock, Norman Baker and Mr. David Hinchliffe presented a Bill to make provision for the regulation of the purchase of air weapons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 November, and to be printed [Bill 27].
Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 17 July].
  [SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
    New Clause 4

      POLITICAL PARTIES AT EUROPEAN LEVEL (No. 1)
      `Her Majesty's Government should lay before Parliament an annual report setting out the funds received by political parties at European level of which political parties represented in UK Parliament are members, pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 19 of the Treaty of Nice.'.—[Mr. Spring.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.39 pm
      Mr. Richard Spring: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed clause, in line 1, leave out "should" and insert "shall".
      New clause 5—Political parties at European level (No. 2)—
      `Regulations governing political parties at European level and rules regarding their funding adopted under Article 191 of the Treaty establishing the European Community as amended by Article 2 paragraph 19 of the Treaty of Nice, shall not have legal effect in the United Kingdom unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      Mr. Spring: New clauses 4 and 5 relate to an issue of fundamental importance to the House and to the future development of the European Union—the funding and regulation of pan-European political parties. The treaty of Nice allows the Council of Ministers to lay down regulations governing political parties at a European level and, in particular, rules on their funding. I am aware that Ministers may point to the statement in declaration 11 claiming that there is no transfer of competence to the European Community. Currently, however, article 191 makes no mention whatever of the funding or regulation of parties.
      The treaty of Nice amends article 191 on political parties. It adds:
      "The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251"—
      which deals with co-decision making—
      "shall lay down the regulations governing political parties at European level and in particular the rules regarding their funding."
      The existence of a treaty base under article 308 for the proposed draft party statute is by no means universally accepted. Indeed, the House's European Scrutiny Committee declined to clear the document for precisely that reason.
      Therefore, Ministers signed up at Nice to placing in the treaties for the first time the power to regulate and fund political parties. They then went a step further and agreed

      311
      that relevant measures would be decided by qualified majority voting. The Opposition believe that those decisions were wrong and that they merit a serious discussion in Committee and a detailed explanation from the Minister for Europe.
      Our new clause 5 provides that specific parliamentary approval is needed before party political regulations can take effect in British law. New clause 4 provides for openness concerning the amount that different parties are receiving. If Labour Members intend to vote against our new clauses, the Committee should be told why they regard the proposals as unacceptable.
      The Committee may be aware of the background to the developments. Currently, groups in the European Parliament receive funding from the Parliament. The Court of Auditors, however, has criticised the so-called leakage of those funds, which are intended for Members of the European Parliament but go instead into the hands of the European political parties themselves. Of course, we all support calls for more transparency in funding, but we believe that it is possible to achieve that objective by ensuring that such leakage stops.
      All too typically, the European Union institutions intend to tackle the problem by becoming involved in an entirely new sphere. The idea is not only that groups in the European Parliament would receive funding, but that pan-European parties themselves would be funded directly by the EU taxpayer, and that with that funding would come the power for the EU to regulate. We believe that that is totally unacceptable.
      First, it is wrong in principle for the EU to regulate political parties such as the European People's party, the party of European Socialists and the European Liberals, Democrats and Reformers.
      Secondly, it is wrong for the EU taxpayer to be told that he or she has to pay for those political parties. To reiterate, we are talking not about contributing to the cost of the parties' work in the European Parliament, which is provided for separately, but about subsidising the parties themselves.
      Thirdly, those provisions have the potential to discriminate systematically against non-integrationist political parties both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
      Fourthly, the ability to decide the regulations and funding not by unanimity but by QMV further increases the chances of the measures being used in a harmful and negative manner.
      We are concerned about the draft statute for pan-European parties, which is proposed under current treaty bases and has been subject to lengthy discussion. Initially, 7 million euros are to be made available for party funding, divided between the five existing European political parties. It may be said that that is not a huge sum, but 7 million euros is 7 million too many in our view. There is potential for the amount to rise in future—that may even be inevitable—and its distribution may be discriminatory.
      In advancing its proposal earlier this year, the Commission said:
      "holding political views favourable to European integration is not a precondition to obtaining the status of a European political party, nor for receiving Community financing."
      312
      I am sure that we are grateful for that. However, our concern is that giving the money to pan-European political parties means that, in Britain and elsewhere, the effect is exactly the same in practice.
      4.45 pm
      Unlike Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative party is not a member of a pan-European political party. That is the distinction. Prior to the Nice Council, the former Foreign Secretary seemed to think, when he appeared in front of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, that we were members of the European People's party. We are not. Conservative MEPs are allied to the European People's party-European Democrats group in the European Parliament, but that is not a political party. Our party is not a member of the EPP itself, which is such a transnational party. We are not the UK branch of the EPP in the way that the Labour party is the UK branch of the party of European Socialists or the Liberal Democrat party is of the ELDR.
      It is true that declaration 11 states that funding provisions shall apply on the same basis to all the political forces represented in the European Parliament. But if the second-largest national force in the European Parliament—namely the United Kingdom Conservative party—is not a member of any of the organisations receiving the funding, how can that principle be honoured?
      It is also true that the draft party statute states that a union of European political parties may register a statute of a European political party for these purposes. The Conservative party is a member of the European Democrat Union, which is a centre-right grouping, encompassing a range of parties across the European continent. But as far as I understand it, the EDU wishes to remain as a union, and does not intend to register as a political party. And why should it?
      Angus Robertson (Moray): Why is the hon. Gentleman asking a Government Minister of another party for guidance on how the Conservative party should find friends in Europe, just because no one is prepared to serve in the same group with it?
      Mr. Spring: If the hon. Gentleman believes that that is the basis of our relationship with the EPP, he is classically misinformed.
      As matters stand, even under the existing proposal and before the new treaty base is introduced, there may be discrimination in funding against organisations of which the main Opposition party in the UK is a member.
      We are not alone. In France, the Gaullist RPR is not currently a member of a transnational party. Thus, the main centre-right parties in two of the four larger member states of the EU would lose out under these proposals. That may be an indication to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) that we are not alone. This is not a coincidental effect. It is obviously more likely that a party that favours much greater European integration will want to sign itself up as part of a pan-European party.
      Indeed, Labour politicians were reported in January as welcoming the fact that the Conservative party would be disadvantaged as a result of our non-integrationist political views. It serves us right, was the gist of what

      313
      they said. Yet we are talking about taxpayers' money, paid by people with a wide range of views on European integration.
      Any regulations introduced under the new part of article 191 will be agreed against the backdrop of the provisions of article 191 that already exist. They state that political parties at a European level are important because they are a
      "factor for integration within the Union"
      and
      "contribute to forming a European awareness."
      Does the Minister really believe that the powers now being introduced to regulate and fund European parties under that article will not be used systematically to further those aims? That is the explicit intention on the face of the treaty. How can it be right to use taxpayers' money in that way? That is the simple question that needs to be answered.
      Declaration 11 makes it clear that national parties will not be funded under this article. However, the pan-European parties—and the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties are full members of that group—would be so funded. That will boost those parties' ability to promote their case, and it may also mean that the national parties benefit from having to pay lower subscriptions.
      It is possible that the wording of the existing draft statute will be clarified during the course of the discussions to ensure that the EDU and other organisations will qualify.
      Mr. John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree with the verdict reached in the 19th century by the great philosopher John Stuart Mill, that peoples who lack fellow feeling and who speak and read different languages cannot achieve the common public opinion necessary for representative government?
      Mr. Spring: As always, my hon. Friend brings a welcome sense of erudition and historical perspective to our debate.
      Who is to say that future measures introduced under the Nice treaty will not reintroduce such discrimination? Who is to say that regulations on matters other than funding will not be introduced that disadvantage pan-European parties with non-integrationist views, or that start making reference to some of the more controversial aspects of the charter of fundamental rights—such as the right to strike—as a condition for recognition? Safeguards on the non-funding aspects of regulations are not covered at all by declaration 11.
      Future Governments, in the UK or elsewhere, may not be able to block such measures. Does that not illustrate the sheer folly of abandoning unanimity in this area?
      That brings me to the most fundamental point of all. Even if there were no chance at all of discrimination against non-integrationist parties, we would still not support this article. It is a matter of principle. The EU institutions simply should not be getting involved in this area; it should not be their business.
      It seemed for a long time that the Labour party agreed with us, at least on the changes proposed at Nice. Prior to Nice, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon
      314
      (Mr. Maples) put the following point to the then Foreign Secretary, who is now the Leader of the House. At the sitting of the Foreign Affairs Committee of 21 November 2000, my hon. Friend said:
      "Article 191. It is proposed it deals with political parties, which it says are a good thing, and it goes on that the amendment is that the Council acting by QMV should lay down regulations governing political parties in Europe and in particular rules regarding their funding."
      The right hon. Gentleman replied:
      "You will be intrigued to hear that it is missing from the Foreign Office list, by which I take it that we are not wildly enthusiastic about it … I personally am not aware of having given a view whether or not it should be QMV."
      I hope that the Minister will explain what happened at Nice to ensure that the Government signed up to a measure about which they were not enthusiastic. The familiar pattern of build-up, muddle, contradiction and lack of direction is evident again in relation to this matter.
      It was also reported in January that both UK Commissioners opposed the draft plans for a party statute. In The Times of 25 January, Neil Kinnock reportedly objected for
      "reasons of democracy and political common sense."
      In fact, there seem to be so many arguments against this new treaty provision that, on the face of it, it is difficult to see why it should be proposed. However, a further look at what the Commission has been saying makes its longer-term intentions clear.
      In its report entitled "Adapting the Institutions to Make a Success of Enlargement", published in January 2000, the Commission stated:
      "The Union would greatly benefit from having a number of members of the European Parliament elected on European lists, presented to all European voters throughout the Union."
      The report goes on:
      "Organising the European elections in this way would encourage the development of Europe-wide political parties and produce members who could claim to represent a European constituency rather than a purely national one."
      By endorsing the measures in the Nice treaty, the Government are encouraging further steps to be taken down that path that, frankly, most people in this country would find unacceptable.
      The two new clauses would not even stop article 2.19 of Nice being incorporated into United Kingdom law—that has already been voted on as part of amendment No. 1. They would simply provide for certain safeguards. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members listening objectively to what I say will understand the need for such safeguards.
      New clause 5 would provide a chance for scrutiny by the House of any regulations adopted under this paragraph. That would stop the issue being swept under the carpet. If the measures are as harmless as the Government claim, they have nothing to fear from new clause 5. They would have even less to fear from new clause 4, which would merely provide for openness about the amount that the different parties receive. There would be an annual report from the Government, and what could be more open, transparent or fair than that?
      Following the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the House has provided for new levels of openness and scrutiny in the funding and regulation of

      315
      UK political parties, including public disclosure of contributions. There was substantial debate on the measures contained in that report.
      It is vital that the measures on EU-wide political parties should not be allowed to slip through without similar scrutiny. I believe that it is owed to the House of Commons and the people of Britain that those standards are upheld and maintained on this basis. The Commission and others want this to be an area of growing activity in years to come. If it is, it will have a growing impact on the work of the political parties represented in the House. I therefore look forward to cross-party support for the important safeguards contained in the new clauses. They have everything to do with parliamentary accountability and the role of national Parliaments, and we intend to press the matter to a vote in due course.
      Mr. Mark Hendrick (Preston): I am not surprised by the comments of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). The debate on the treaty has been going on for a few days now, and it is clear that Conservative Members are opposed to any form of co-operation or integration with our European partners, even where political parties in their own part of the political spectrum are concerned.
      I wish to deal with a few of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. Political parties in Europe already receive funding through the European Parliament to promote activities on behalf of their political groups—not their national parties—which share interests across national boundaries. That is legitimate activity, and as the hon. Gentleman said, it includes parties such as the PPE, the PES and the ELDR. I believe that the Conservatives were fairly close to the PPE at one time but, given that they have moved further to the right, they might not be accepted into it, even if they wished to be.
      More than 100 political parties sit in the European Parliament. If decisions are to be made and groups are to work cohesively, they need resources and funding, and unless they are made available, we will see a sclerosis in the European Parliament that will bring the whole place to a halt. That is why funding has been made available in the past and needs to be made available in the future.
      5 pm
      There was talk about non-integrationist parties. That means perhaps parties that do not want to join one of the political groups. They are perfectly free to hold that position; they can receive funding to support their views even though they do not wish to integrate with other parties in the European Parliament. So that point needs clearing up. Just because the Conservative party does not wish to join the PPE does not mean to say that it is not eligible for funds.
      Mr. Bercow: How does the hon. Gentleman square the observation that he has just made with the contents of the Schleicher report and specifically its emphasis on the importance of European political parties being instrumental in securing public support for the European integration project?
      Mr. Hendrick: I am sure that the report has been passed since I left the European Parliament in 1999. I know Mrs. Schleicher well; I was friendly with her. Given the preponderance of right-wing parties in the European
      316
      Parliament, her view is not necessarily held by parties such as mine. To answer the question directly, the hon. Gentleman supposes that any funding received centrally, albeit out of taxpayers' money, would necessarily be unpopular among the general population. A poll has never been taken to see whether that is the case. It is merely the assertion of the Conservative party.
      Any non-integrationist party, as the Conservative party would presumably call itself, would be eligible for funding. If it chose not to receive it—to my knowledge, the Conservative party has not done so in the past—it would be perfectly entitled to do so.
      Let us look at the figures. The hon. Member for West Suffolk mentioned 7 million euros. Given that we are looking at a Community of more than 350 million people, and that that could rise to 500 million people, 7 million euros—roughly £5 million—is chickenfeed. To make out that the cost will be a major burden on the European taxpayer and that the money that is being provided is immoral is a travesty.
      Let us look at the facts about the Conservative party in Europe. It is not a member of the PPE—
      Mr. Bercow: EPP.
      Mr. Hendrick: In French, it is PPE. I am happy to correct the hon. Gentleman. Conservative Members often mention the European Democratic Union. There are some very right-wing organisations in that group. We have seen associations between the Conservatives and the Alleanza Nazionale in Italy and Forza Europa. It is clear which way the Conservative party is moving, and it is not towards mainstream European political activity.
      If the Conservative party is not integrationist, I find that strange for a party that supposedly wants to stay in the EU. A union, by its very name, means that one wants to come together to co-operate and integrate. It is strange that the Conservatives are not coming clean with the electorate, as they should have done before the general election. All the sham about renegotiating treaties is just a front for withdrawal. Conservative Members want to withdraw from the EU.
      Mr. William Cash (Stone): This is an interesting point. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has heard about amendments to the intergovernmental conferences that take place from time to time. The very Bill that we are debating is the product of renegotiation. If we are renegotiating the treaty of Amsterdam to turn it into the treaty of Nice, is that calling for withdrawal?
      Mr. Hendrick: Of course it is not. The hon. Gentleman knows well that that is not the case, because the Government are approaching the negotiation positively. We know that the Opposition oppose not only the Nice treaty, but the Amsterdam and Maastricht treaties. They want to unravel decades of European development and our agreements with European member states, which have kept the peace for many years in Europe. They want to wreck the treaties, stretching back to the first treaty at Messina.
      Mr. Bercow: I am exceptionally grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because he is over-reaching himself. He is in danger—I put it no stronger than that

      317
      because it is a matter for you, Mrs. Heal—of straying from the confines of new clause 4 in the broad historical sweep in which he has just engaged. Does he seriously contend that opposition to the proposals on the funding of pan-European political parties is somehow a byword for withdrawal? That is an absurd proposition, even by his standards.
      Mr. Hendrick: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his usual entertaining intervention, but it does not get away from the fact that the proposal on pan-European political parties is just one of many that, as we have seen during the past few days, the Conservative party want to introduce to wreck the Nice treaty.
      The hon. Member for West Suffolk made the point that the RPR is not a member of—I say it again—the PPE. Of course, it is not, but the UDF—another centre-right party in France—is a member, so the presumption that, because there is an exception, Conservative or right-wing parties do not necessarily have to be members of the PPE and, therefore, that they are not integrationist is not the majority view. The majority of Conservative and Christian Democrat parties are members of the PPE, and it says more about the Conservative party in this country than it does about its sister parties in Europe that it opposes such measures. Let us be honest: the Conservative party is not interested in the European Parliament or the European Commission; it is not interested in a European Union.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: That was a partisan contribution to our deliberations—perhaps a little more partisan than some that we heard earlier in the Committee's consideration of such matters, and I shall try, so far as I can, to be a little more objective.
      Of course, it is worth reminding ourselves that, under article 190(5), there is a move towards qualified majority voting on the general conditions and regulations that govern the performance and duties of Members of the European Parliament, but that taxation remains the subject of unanimity. I understand that that was one of Her Majesty's Government's stipulations that was accepted as part of the discussions in Nice. It is also worth saying that the EU Court of Auditors has consistently called for a statute to regulate European political parties and to ensure transparency in funding, and I shall return to that in a moment.
      From what I have said so far, the House may have deduced that I support the changes made in articles 190 and 191, but notwithstanding that fact, I have considerable sympathy with new clause 4, and if it is pressed to a Division, my hon. Friends and I will most certainly support the official Opposition in the Lobby. Whatever one's analysis—we heard one from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and another from the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick)—I do not understand how one could possibly resist the suggestion that there should be openness and transparency in scrutinising the use of taxpayers' funds to enable democratic politics to be undertaken at European level.
      I should be interested to hear what compelling arguments the Government have on new clause 4, because I should have thought it precisely consistent with those
      318
      principles of openness that have become much more readily part of our political system. Those principles may require further development, but we are being open about financial contributions to political parties and their sources, and there is absolutely no difference in principle in being similarly open about precisely what sums have gone to the political parties represented in this Parliament under the proposed arrangements for political parties in the EU.
      Angus Robertson: Following that logic, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman support the proposition that Members of the Scottish Parliament should be able to scrutinise the dissemination of moneys to political parties represented in this House?
      Mr. Campbell: What lies behind that intervention is an attempt to make the Scottish Parliament the equivalent of the Westminster Parliament. We understand that that is the raison d'être of the Scottish National party, but it is the United Kingdom that is a member of the European Union, and it is the United Kingdom Parliament that has the responsibility for ensuring that Britain's relationships with the EU are proper and that the necessary supervision is carried out. I do not agree that those matters should become the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. They might do some day, if the hon. Gentleman's prayer is answered and Scotland becomes independent, but that day is a long way off, and for the moment I see no reason why the Scottish Parliament should be invited to intervene in an issue that is essentially one for the Westminster legislature.
      My party has long called for a statute to regulate the affairs of MEPs. It seems that 25 years after the European Parliament was first directly elected, the current system of expenses, including travel expenses, and reimbursements remains, to say the least, complex, opaque and, in many respects, indefensible. It is fair to say that British MEPs have, on various occasions, sought to argue the case for a system much more akin to that in this Parliament, and MEPs of all parties are to be supported and congratulated on having done that. However, that view has not prevailed.
      It seems to me, echoing the theme of openness once again, that if we are concerned in our domestic politics to be open and subject to scrutiny, not only should the Government accept the notion of a report of the kind identified and embraced in new clause 4, but the European Union should make a clear statement of the terms and conditions for all Members and their salary, travel and office expenses. We are all concerned about the connection between the electorate and Parliament, and in particular between the British electorate and the European Parliament, and a statute of the kind that I am suggesting would make a substantial contribution to that. There is no doubt that the European Parliament ought to have more power to hold other EU institutions to account, but with an extension of such power must come responsibility, and with an extension of responsibility must come more transparency.
      I shall conclude with an observation about the European Parliament which I suspect will get some support from most quarters of the House. It is increasingly difficult to justify the ludicrous state of affairs whereby the Parliament is required to decamp from Brussels to Strasbourg for a week every month. There are those who

      319
      have estimated that the savings made by ending that procedure would be some £100 million a year. I simply cannot see the justification for continuing it. I do not for a moment minimise the difficulty of persuading the French to give up what they see almost as an inalienable right, but if we are serious about reforming the European Union, that seems to me to be one of the more obvious reforms, and one that would make instantaneous financial savings.
      The changes in articles 190 and 191 are perfectly reasonable, and they should be supported. New clause 4, which would introduce the transparency and scrutiny to which I referred, is similarly worthy of support and I repeat that if the matter is pressed to a Division, I will invite and advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.
      Roger Casale: I shall make a short contribution to this important debate about article 191 of the treaty of Nice, which creates the legal base for the Council to introduce a statute to regulate European political parties. I emphasise the word "regulate", because anyone listening to the debate might think that as a result of the measures that we will pass this evening, we are creating some new beast in the European jungle, in the form of transnational parties, that will threaten our country's well-being and independence.
      5.15 pm
      Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) pointed out, transnational parties have existed in Europe for some time. There are a number of such groupings in the European Parliament representing the Christian Democrats, the Liberal Democrats, the Social Democrats, the Greens and the Communists. The fact that the Conservative party has decided not to participate in such transnational groupings does not mean that they do not already exist. Let us remind ourselves of the important function that they perform.
      In a world increasingly conditioned by international flows of money, international movements of labour, and regulations and directives passed in co-operation with other European countries in an international context, it is right that there should be a parallel process of the formation of democratic will across civic society. That is one of the important functions that political parties in our country and transnational European political parties can perform.
      Transnational parties can help the people of Europe to think about the policies that they want for Europe, to the extent that those policies will be decided at a transnational level in the future. Transnational parties provide a valuable tool for putting forward such policies and finding out the common ground across European peoples and societies, parallel to the way in which political parties do that in our own society.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has helpfully confirmed a suspicion that has been fuelled in my mind for some time. Will he put it on the record so that it is clear beyond peradventure that he accepts that the flow of funds to European political parties as currently proposed will necessarily and
      320
      inexorably increase the pressure for more supranational legislative activity? If that is what he wants, it is not dishonourable, but I think it is wrong.
      Roger Casale: I do not accept that that will give rise to inexorable pressure. The hon. Gentleman's comment is a further example of a knee-jerk reaction to any proposal in the name of European co-operation. As regards funding, we need to know about the flow of funds into European political parties and the source of those funds. That needs to be properly regulated by statute at a pan-European level, which is exactly what article 191 of the treaty of Nice seeks to achieve.
      Mr. Spring: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is inadvertently supporting the cause of the Opposition. He says that he wants transparency. The place to air such issues in relation to British political parties is in the House of Commons.
      Roger Casale: I shall deal with the detail of the new clauses later. The point of article 191 is to provide a legal foundation for the Council to introduce a statute to allow for the regulation of European political parties. Opposition Members seem to be suggesting that the treaty of Nice will allow the development of such parties. One can see why some of them think that a bad thing. They do not like Europe or the idea of Governments-let alone political parties-getting together. They think that they have found a hint of conspiracy and have removed themselves from any co-operation or participation in transnational groups of the centre right. It is clear why they would be against such political formulations, but it is also clear that article 191 does not establish them, as they already exist. I am in favour of the article because it provides a basis for the regulation of European parties.
      I am proud to be a member not only of the Labour party, but of the party of European Socialists. I think that we have much more in common than we realise with some of the members of our sister parties in the European Union. It is a common feature of debate in this House that hon. Members berate the European Union or attack various member states. As soon as the summer holidays arrive, however, many of them set off to Europe. When they do so, perhaps they should try to meet some of their colleagues in other European parties. If they talk to those people, they might discover that one can have a lot in common with colleagues in national Parliaments abroad.
      The point of European political parties is to allow and promote such exchanges, so that as we build a European institutional architecture, we can discover that what we do together is based on a common set of values and, to some extent, on common aspirations. The process should be advanced through the European Parliament and political parties, and the existence of European political parties assists its progress. My strong recommendation to Opposition Members is that, although their party will not participate as a European political party, they should meet their colleagues from other European countries individually. They might find that they like such meetings and learn something from them.
      Mr. Peter Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman accept our simple point, which is that although we are delighted that he feels so at home

      321
      with his socialist friends in Europe, we do not believe that the British taxpayer should be required to pay for that interaction?
      Roger Casale: That has been a common theme at every stage of our debate. Opposition Members are sometimes good enough to recognise that Britain's membership of the European Union has benefits, but they want to have them at no price. I am afraid that that view, which has been repeatedly expressed during our deliberations, is unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman must decide whether he is against the existence of European political parties in principle, as his party seems to be, or whether he merely does not want to pay for them.
      I can understand why the Opposition do not like the measure, as they are clear about what they do not like. They like neither the European Union nor the idea of political parties within it. That is why they refuse to join the European People's party. It parallels their reluctance to be involved in Europe. The article provides the opportunity for the Council to introduce measures that will regulate the purpose and funding of European political parties. It will introduce more democracy, accountability and transparency to the funding of political parties. Since the European political parties will receive funds, it will also make clear the criteria for recognising them.
      Mr. Spring: The difficulty of examining such issues in the clear light of day in the House of Commons is not clear to me. We talk about the disconnection between the people of Europe, their Parliaments and European institutions and the funding for them. We now have an opportunity to give uncontentious support to enhancing the House's scrutiny procedures. If the hon. Gentleman were impartial, he could not object to that.
      Roger Casale: If the hon. Gentleman believes that political parties can reconnect people with the political process, he should support the concept of European political parties. He claims that he objects to it.
      The amendments deal with the role of the House of Commons in scrutinising European Union measures. Time and again, Conservative Members have tabled amendments to provide for further debate in the House on any new initiatives from the European Union. Yet we already have a good and effective scrutiny mechanism for European legislation: the European Scrutiny Committee.
      At a meeting of that Committee this morning, we held a debate about the statute to regulate European political parties. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) referred to the work of the European Scrutiny Committee at an earlier stage in our deliberations, when article 191 was discussed. The Committee scrutinised it and we discussed it again this morning. We decided that we were happy to lift the scrutiny reserve on the draft statute. It is therefore wrong to claim that, without the amendments, no scrutiny of any statute to regulate the work of the European Parliament will occur.
      Mr. Cash: I regret that I was unable to be present at the meeting this morning. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously
      322
      suggesting that the Committee believes that the article does not require debate? Did we refer it for debate in Standing Committee or on the Floor of the House?
      Roger Casale: We decided that we would not refer it for debate because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that would handicap the Government in progressing with negotiations on the statute.
      Mr. Bercow: How inconvenient.
      Roger Casale: If the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) had been present at this morning's meeting, he could have made his point. However, we discussed the matter and, as he knows, the Committee does not refer for debate every item that comes before it.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are straying wide of the new clause. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now confine his remarks to it.
      Roger Casale: I am grateful for your advice, Mrs. Heal. We debated the matter in the European Scrutiny Committee this morning.
      5.30 pm
      In conclusion, what lies behind the new clause is the usual cocktail of great fear and anxiety about the European Union, and an unwillingness fully to participate in any aspect of European integration, including the formation of transnational parties. That fear is not justified. There is a need for proper regulation of political parties, and that is provided for in the statute that will be created following the ratification of the treaty. There is also a need for proper scrutiny, and that is effectively carried out by the European Scrutiny Committee. For those reasons, I will not support the new clause.
      Mr. Cash: We have just been treated to a pretty astonishing series of admissions. We have been told by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) that the European Scrutiny Committee did a good job this morning in ensuring that there would not be a debate on the regulation to which we are supposed to be referring. If that is scrutiny, I should like to know what is not.
      This regulation creates serious problems.
      Mr. Wayne David: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Cash: No, he will not. Not a chance. I have not even started yet.
      The regulation is extremely important in relation to the manner in which political parties and groups are differentiated in the European Parliament and, therefore, the European Union. It is disappointing that so few people are attending these debates. One could understand the reason for that yesterday, with all the euphoria and depression colliding in various parts of the Palace of Westminster, but there is no excuse for such a poor attendance today.
      I am standing here opposite the distinguished Minister for Europe, a member of another political party. I strongly approve of the fact that we have a party political system

      323
      in this country, but the rainbow arrangements—the totally chaotic alliances—that are created in the European Parliament have no clear philosophy underpinning them to enable anyone to know what they are voting for. This debate is about an increase in the functions of a so-called Parliament and a so-called European Union based on an extremely uncertain course of navigation.
      The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): I assure the hon. Gentleman that the reason why there are relatively few Members on the Government Benches is that there is still a great deal of euphoria among Labour Members at the result of the election yesterday.
      Mr. Cash: I have no idea how all that will pan out in due course. All I can say is that I am confident that my Learned Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is going to do extremely well and, in my opinion, win. Then, Labour will discover some serious opposition to the sort of proposals coming from its Front Bench. I am just doing my best, at the moment, to supplement some of the arguments that I have been developing over a long period. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) has done a marvellously urbane job in speaking to the amendments and I pay tribute to him as a dear friend and colleague. Sometimes, however, I think that we could go a little bit further in some of the decisions that we take when voting on these matters.
      That is one of the reasons why I tabled my amendment (a) to new clause 4. I say this with great respect to the shadow Foreign Secretary, whose name heads the list of those tabling the new clause: I entirely agree with most of it, but I believe it would provide us only with an annual report, as opposed to the serious opposition that is required, for the reasons that I shall give. It says:
      "Her Majesty's Government should lay before Parliament an annual report".
      I shall be kind and assume that that is supposed to mean something a little more emphatic, although I very gently tabled a little amendment to leave out "should" and insert "shall". I do not want to make a great issue of that, but with respect to new clause 5, the business of the regulations is much more serious. I do not want to draw nice distinctions between new clause 5 and my amendment, but the new clause says that the regulations
      "shall not have legal effect in the United Kingdom unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
      I suggest that we leave out "have legal effect in" and insert
      "be incorporated in the domestic law".
      There is a nice distinction there, but I do not want to press it too much, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk and his colleagues took the right approach—or at any rate had the right intention. There is a bigger problem. When the treaty goes through by way of incorporation in domestic law, it follows—[Interruption.] Although my dear and hon. Friend has to speak to the usual channels in the usual way, would he be kind enough to pay a tiny bit of attention to the point I am about to make?
      If a treaty is to be incorporated in the domestic law of this country by way of an Act of Parliament, regulations must subsequently be made that deal with, in this
      324
      example, political parties. However, there is a problem with new clause 5, which would not allow regulations through unless they were
      "approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
      The little problem is section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, which invokes the Court of Justice and, indeed, the implementation of laws followed by their absorption in our own legal bloodstream. Once that has happened, it will unfortunately not be possible for us then to pass a resolution disapproving those regulations.
      I very much agree with the sentiment behind the new clause and I am glad to say that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk has, perhaps peradventure, raised a serious point. Indeed, many Opposition Members have wanted to raise it emphatically for a long time: the House of Commons will not be dictated to by legislation that comes from another source in the EU. We say that there is a residual sovereignty in the House as a result of which it is incumbent on us—let alone the fact that we want to do so—to ensure that in respect of matters as fundamental as what a political party is, we in this House should not be overridden.
      You and I, Mrs. Heal, and all other Members are voted for in our constituencies in relation to political parties which would not be recognised under the regulations. I hope that Members of the House, though few are here today, appreciate how invasive the provisions are. That goes not only to the mechanics of political parties or groups, but to what people believe in and what they vote for. As I have said over and over again in several debates in the past few weeks, this is their Parliament—the Parliament of the people. The political parties represent different points of view that are reflected in the people's choice, which is the essence of democracy and the freedom that goes with it.
      If the regulations are introduced and passed, we shall be unable to reverse them. The Court of Justice would rule any such resolution of the House invalid and we would find ourselves roly-poly absorbed in the new arrangements being prescribed by the EU.
      Mr. David: Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to give us an explanation of this roly-poly process?
      Mr. Cash: It is called roly-poly pudding, and it means that we will get rolled up somewhere in the attic, like Samuel Whiskers in Beatrix Potter, and left there for a long time unless we are lucky and someone comes along to save us. Someone must save the Conservative party and the country from these arrangements. That is the problem. Believe it or not, the Labour party is also caught up in this, but it has not twigged yet. It will not be able to differentiate itself from the Conservative party under the principles that will be laid down in the regulations. Sooner or later it will wake up.
      I want to pay tribute to a good friend and colleague of mine, Roger Helmer MEP. He wrote an important article called "The Brave New World of European Political Parties" in The European Journal published by the European Foundation, of which I happen to be the chairman. It was published in June, so it is pretty well up to date. I shall send it to the Minister, because I am sure that he will be extremely interested to read it.

      325
      The article says that the launch of new pan-European political parties has been on the agenda since at least 1996 when the Tsatsos report was prepared by the European Parliament's Committee on Institutional Affairs—in fact, it was going on some time before that. It is essential to distinguish political parties from political groups in the European Parliament. Most national political parties represented in the European Parliament form part of a parliamentary group. For example, Labour MEPs sit with the PSE, which is the party of European socialists, and the Tories are associate but not full members of the EPP/ED, which is known as the European People's party and the European Democrats group.
      As Roger Helmer cogently explains,
      "European political parties, on the other hand, exist outside the parliament. Clearly, where both a group in the EP and a corresponding political party exist, there will be close links between the two, as is the case in the UK between Westminster parties and national parties, but they are plainly not the same thing. European funding already exists for both MEPs and political groups in the EP. The proposals now on the table, and especially those outlined in the report prepared by … Ursula Schleicher, MEP"—
      who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—
      "which is currently before the EP, are for European political parties, not for groups in the EP."
      Roger Helmer goes on to say:
      "The definition of a European party is clearly set out."
      That is where the difference is and where the real problem lies. He gives the definition.
      "Such a party must have representation in the European parliament, or in national or regional parliaments, in at least five member states, or have achieved at least 5 per cent. of the vote in at least five member states at the last European elections."
      Surprise, surprise—the Conservative party does not qualify! Isn't that a funny thing? This is quite dangerous, and I am interested to know how the Minister will reply. Apart from anything else, this is a serious attack on democracy in the United Kingdom. I would love to know what my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk thinks about all this. Back Benchers are speaking in complete unison on such matters. I hope that I have not missed anything my hon. Friend said, but I also hope that he, like me, thinks that this represents a dangerous invasion and annihilation of the funding arrangements for the Conservative party. That is a fairly dramatic thing to have to say.
      5.45 pm
      We must ask what is behind all this. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham quoted John Stuart Mill, and others have expressed similar sentiments. This is, in fact, about the whole idea of European democracy: it is about why, under these arrangements, which are much more important than they seem at first sight, European democracy is a non-starter and European political parties unnecessary.
      As if we did not already know, as a result of all these debates, that we are moving towards full-blown political union, let me ask the Minister a specific question: does he really appreciate that that is what is going on? I see his advisers scribbling away; I hope that they can rush something to him. I trust that they recognise that this
      326
      question will, or ought to, concern a good many Conservative Members, because we are in the middle of a leadership election.
      Some years ago, a former contender for the Conservative party leadership rang me to ask whether I would vote for him. I said no. He asked why not. I said "What is the point of being Prime Minister of nothing?" He said "You cannot say that to me." I said "Yes I can. Et tu, Brute," and put the phone down.
      Mr. Peter Duncan: We can't work it out, Bill. Tell us who it was.
      Mr. Cash: I shall have to tell the hon. Gentleman later. It will all emerge in due course.
      The plain fact is that we already have a European flag, passport and anthem, and we now have the brave new world represented by the call for European political parties. As if all that were not enough, a proposed amendment to the Schleicher report requires assent to the so-called charter of fundamental rights as a criterion for funding.
      No doubt the Minister knows all this. He has not been in his job for long, but there are some real crackers here, and I am sure he has caught up with them by now.
      To obtain consent for funding under the proposals, including those in the Schleicher report, it would be necessary to express agreement with the charter of fundamental rights—which, as we all know, we are not even allowed to debate. That is a very unfair arrangement: we are not allowed to stipulate the basis on which we would be prevented, under the proposals in the report, from receiving funding that would enable us to exist as a political party. That would rule out the Tory party at a stroke.
      The report contains some superficial reassurance in regard to whether a Euro-realist party could exist in the European Parliament. It says:
      "Parties need not necessarily"—
      I think this is wonderful—
      "be advocates of European integration; Euro-sceptical parties may also be supported if their policies focus on issues of European integration"—
      at which we all say "Hurrah! Isn't this wonderful! We are allowed to focus on issues of European integration." As the Minister and others may know, I have been focusing on those questions for the best part of 16 years, and I have no intention of giving up.
      Mr. Bercow: I always applaud my hon. Friend's careful study of the minutiae of these matters, but does he not agree, on a broader level, that the very notion of pan-European political parties is transparently absurd, given that they have no demos to represent'? Does he not agree that they would only cease to be absurd and become meaningful if there were among the peoples of Europe a common identity, a common purpose and a common willingness to make equal sacrifices to achieve that purpose? As none of those conditions exists, what is the point of such parties?
      Mr. Cash: Excepting one or two minor matters that have arisen recently, which I am glad to say we have now put behind us, I always agree with my hon. Friend,

      327
      particularly on the issues that are before us. Three cheers for the fact that he is here fighting with us on this particular issue! That goes to prove that we really are a political party—and we will remain one, by the way.
      Hurrah, hurrah that we are allowed to focus on issues of European integration! As I have said, however, the reassurance is very thin. The report goes on,
      "They"—
      that is, the Euro parties—
      "are seen as instrumental in securing public support for the European integration project."
      As Mr. Helmer points out,
      "So that's all right then. And remember it will be either federalist `wise men' or the federalist EP—
      European Parliament—
      "which will decide on eligibility."
      A curious thing went on in the European Parliament. It just goes to show what can go on when serious arguments are brought up in that strange body. As Mr. Helmer pointed out,
      "We decided to fight back. The Schleicher report was the subject of an extraordinary procedural ambush in the Strasbourg plenary on 16 May 2001, planned and executed by a group of committed Euro-realist Tory MEPs".
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is wandering rather wide of the new clause.
      Mr. Cash: I will only say that the Tory MEPs managed to ambush the project, but the triumph did not last long: it was all over the next day following a procedural motion.
      The proposal raises some important questions. As I have said, the British Conservative party clearly does not qualify under the arrangements proposed in the regulations. [Interruption.] Would the Minister be kind enough to intervene? Perhaps he will be able to help me as I come to my peroration. He does not want to. He wants to deal with the point during his winding-up speech.
      Mr. Mark Francois: The Minister has his notes.
      Mr. Cash: Indeed. I saw a lot of frantic scribbling going on over there. I trust it is accurate but we will find out later.
      I have to confess that I had something of a tiff with—is he Lord Patten, Sir Christopher Patten or Mr. Christopher Patten? I cannot remember. At the time, I had a few words of disagreement with him upstairs over the question of the European People's party and our application to join it—it lasted about an hour and a half.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I fail to see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's argument to the new clause.
      Mr. Cash: It is absolutely relevant and I say that with great respect, Mrs. Heal. The European People's party is in fact a group in the European Parliament. It is absolutely relevant to the question of where the money will go. I think that that is a fair point. It is bang slap wallop within the arrangements that are stipulated by the regulations.
      328
      That was some time ago. We have heard from the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman that we are rather loosely connected with that strange body, the EPP. It would be strange if we were fully connected with it. After all it is exclusively federal. I am glad to get that reassurance from my hon. Friend.
      This is a matter of considerable importance to the Conservative party for many reasons. If we ask the question in Conservative party terms, "What is a political party?" we go back to the great dictum of Edmund Burke, the greatest exponent of the philosophy of the Conservative party and a person of whom we should all be inordinately proud. He said that a political party is a body of men—of course now he would say men and women—who are joined together in the national interest and on a particular principle on which they are all agreed.
      That raises an important question. There is no doubt that the present proposal is not in the national interest. It is in the European interest. That is the big difference. The definition of a political party is a body of men and women who are all agreed on a particular principle. That raises a fundamental question about who governs. There are big issues here.
      It was Disraeli, one of our greatest Prime Ministers, who said that the Tory party is a national party or it is nothing. He did not say nationalistic and his remarks referred to the democratic nation state. I wish that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) were here. I would like him to hear some of the debate because I know that he is in favour of the Nice treaty; he is in favour of all these arrangements.
      Against that background, I would like the Minister to answer the questions that I have posed, and some of my colleagues to do likewise.
      Mr. David: May I correct a misapprehension that was suggested earlier with regard to the sitting of the European Scrutiny Committee this morning? The reason why the Committee decided not to discuss this subject was that we knew full well that this debate was taking place this afternoon; it was as simple as that.
      Every hon. Member would surely agree that in the European Union there is a huge democratic deficit. There are many ways in which we can reduce that deficit, and one of the key ways is by ensuring that far more scrutiny and attention are given to European issues—and, indeed, to the House. We also need to think about how all the European Union institutions function and relate to each other. A debate is about to begin on governance in the European Union and how we define subsidiarity in determining where power can and should lie in the EU.
      It is important that we consider how the European Parliament develops as an institution. One of the positive things about the Nice treaty is that it gives extra, albeit modest, powers to the European Parliament. We need to ensure that the European Parliament, along with the member states, can monitor the European Commission effectively and hold it to account.
      That could incrementally reduce the democratic deficit in the EU, but it is important to recognise that there is another way to do that: ensuring that there is sufficient debate, discussion and policy formulation among political parties at European level. That is vital. Only when we encourage debate at European level will we have proper

      329
      control over European Union institutions. They cannot exist in a political vacuum. That is why, gradually over time, political parties have developed.
      Hon. Members have referred to a number of political parties. I am proud to be a member of the party of European Socialists as well as of the Labour party. The pan-European parties have come together naturally, voluntarily and out of choice. People have decided that it is necessary for them to come together to advance a political perspective.
      It is up to the Conservative party whether it wants to be part of that process, but it should not try to impede the democracy and development of others simply because it does not want to be part of it. That is its choice. Equally, it is our choice. It is undemocratic of people to try to undermine what they do not agree with.
      6 pm
      As I said, the process has already begun. It is evident not only at a European level, but at other levels of administration and governance. There is also a parallel with events inside the United Kingdom, such as devolution to Scotland and to Wales. It is significant that in my own country of Wales, for example, with the advent of devolution, a Welsh Labour party and a Welsh Conservative party have developed. Although not many people vote for the latter party, it is there. That is a recognition that there is a tier of governance in Wales. The same type of development is occurring at European level, and that development is perfectly natural and sensible.
      Amended article 191 will not simply reduce the democratic deficit and recognise the new political reality: it will achieve greater transparency and greater financial probity. I say that as one who was a Member of the European Parliament for 10 years. In that time, I saw—this is not a party political point—that the pan-European parties were being indirectly funded by the seepage of European Parliament resources. The Court of Auditors pointed out that reality, and the Labour party has strongly supported the Court's observations and recommendations. Article 191 has been amended because we want to ensure that everything is done properly, above board and with the utmost transparency and probity.
      In view of the rhetoric of Conservative Members, who always tell us that they want to reduce any suggestion of maladministration or lack of probity in the European Union, I should have thought that they would support the Bill. It is a step forward in ensuring greater accountability and transparency, which is a very sound argument for supporting it. The democratic argument and arguments for greater probity support the Nice treaty.
      We have heard much today about Edmund Burke and his definitions of democracy. I remind Conservative Members that we should not forget other great political thinkers, such as Thomas Paine, who said very clearly in the 1790s that we should never forget that, ultimately, democracy rests with the people.
      Mr. Cash: We are well versed in Tom Paine. All I can say is, was he not extremely lucky to get away without being guillotined? Was he not a lucky man?
      Mr. David: Yes indeed, he was very lucky. It is lucky for us, too, that he was not guillotined, because we can
      330
      all learn a great deal not only from his thesis on democracy but from his internationalism. However, I do not want to stray from the point.
      Mr. Francois: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman, a Labour Member, has chosen to quote a republican political philosopher.
      Mr. David: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Labour party is a broad church.
      We should recognise that ultimately, in any civilised civil society, sovereignty rests with the people. Ultimately, it is a matter of choice whether people wish to associate across national boundaries in political entities and political parties. In a mature democracy, sufficient resources should be found for that other sort of democracy to flourish. We want a European Union that will once again express the genuine aspirations of the people of Europe.
      Angus Robertson: I shall not take up much of the Committee's time, but I want to touch on two very specific points: the funding of transnational political parties, and the level of democracy at which scrutiny should be exercised over such an enterprise.
      It is rather curious that most of the time taken up by the official Opposition at Westminster in considering the Bill has focused on the Conservative party's funding arrangements and its interrelationship with, or semi-detachment from, its colleagues on the centre right. Every political party has to make choices about who its friends are at a European level. My party, the Scottish National party, had to make that choice and is part of the fourth largest group in the European Parliament, the Greens/European Free Alliance. However, although we all have to make choices about who our friends are, it is absolutely mind-boggling that it is beyond the wit of the Conservative party to find like-minded colleagues.
      It is regrettable that that should be the most substantive and time-consuming matter for Conservative Members in considering the Bill. I listened very closely to the speeches by the hon. Members for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), and they seemed to spend most of their time on it. However, their argument did not hold water. Although the hon. Member for Stone raised more serious issues that should perhaps be addressed, the problem of finding colleagues at a European level does not constitute a substantial objection to the proposals.
      The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) seemed to be opposed to the funding of political parties by taxpayers, but I suspect that that was probably because he prefers the support of big business. Again, I do not think that that is a substantive argument.
      It is unfortunate that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) has left the Chamber. I should have thought that he—as a man of note in the Scottish legal profession—and the Liberal Democrat party would support the notion that, at least in Scotland's case, the people, not Parliament, are sovereign. That is a very established tradition. It is strange that the Liberal Democrats chose not to support the idea that scrutiny—if indeed we need more scrutiny—should be exercised in the Scottish Parliament, not in this House.
      The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) often talks about subsidiarity and proportionality. I believe that democracy should be scrutinised at the level closest to the

      331
      people, which is why I shall not support new clause 4. The devolved level is the right place for such matters to be decided.
      Peter Hain: I assure the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that his persistent arguments do indeed lead to a great deal of scribbling by Foreign Office officials. The legendary "JB"—the foreign Office official who was outed yesterday morning on the "Today" programme— nothing but scribble, because of the formidable points made by the hon. Gentleman. I am told that JB may even have to cancel his annual holiday to respond to the detailed submissions, which we await with enthusiasm, that the hon. Gentleman promised me last week.
      The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) very courteously told us that he would have to leave the Chamber briefly, but I can tell him that I am very sorry that we lost his general support for the Government's position on the treaty and the Bill. He has advanced some extremely compelling arguments.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me what the compelling arguments against new clause 4 were. The first argument, in reply to one of his points, is that the statute for Members of the European Parliament is different from the statute on the European political parties. For two and a half years we have been negotiating a statute for MEPs' terms and conditions under article 190(5) of the treaty, but we cannot reach agreement with the European Parliament. There is also no chance of ending the division between the European Parliament's sites. Sometimes, the Parliament meets for plenary sessions in Strasbourg and for committees in Brussels, whereas the secretariat meets in Luxembourg. The French will not agree to a sensible resolution of the sites issue. That whole question depends on achieving the very unanimity that Conservative Members always invite us to endorse, and sometimes that stops sensible progress of this kind.
      New clause 4 is not necessary. Parliament has a highly effective scrutiny system—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) pointed out—in the European Scrutiny Committee, of which the hon. Member for Stone is a distinguished member. I wrote to the scrutiny Committees yesterday with details of the proposals from the Belgian presidency on the dossier, which were discussed in the presidency working group last Friday.
      The letter covered presidency proposals—not final regulations, as I must explain to counter some of the hot air from the hon. Member for Stone and his colleagues—covering registration, verification, legal personality, expenses, financing and control. The last will be of interest to the Committee. Money must be accounted for in accordance with the rules applicable to the general budget of the EU and the financial regulation on the basis of an annual certificate by an external and independent auditor to be transmitted to the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors. In other words, the proposals contain rigorous procedures for accountability and transparency.
      Mr. Cash: I have been familiar with these procedures for some time. On what date is it intended that this matter will be put through? Is it a matter of urgency?
      Peter Hain: It is a presidency proposal, which will be put to the forthcoming General Affairs Council.
      Mr. Cash: When?
      Peter Hain: In October, I think. We will continue to keep the Committees and the House informed on the issue.
      In response to the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, it is worth remembering that the arrangements to be negotiated for EC funding will require a public statement of accounts by each European political party. All the necessary information will be available publicly, and that is why the new clause is not necessary.
      New clause 5 requires Parliament to approve the EC regulation before it comes into effect. This is not acceptable; the statute, once agreed, will have immediate legal effect in the UK, under the terms of the European Communities Act 1972. But Parliament has a highly effective system for scrutinising European Community documents, and scrutiny Committees can request a debate on the draft statute before its adoption.
      I enjoy sparring with the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). For a Conservative, he is a pretty straight and decent guy. But his speech was full of puffed-up and contrived anger on a series of specious points that were not relevant to the issue. I am not sure whether the kind of speech that he made will be good for his career if the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) becomes leader of the Conservative party. As someone who is concerned about his career and wants to see him do well, I urge him to show caution and prudence on this point.
      Nice provides a new legal basis for a measure to regulate European political parties, and in particular, their funding arrangements. It is important to dwell on the facts for a moment. Parties such as the PES and the EPP are not new; indeed, they were first recognised by the Maastricht treaty, which was signed by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who is the boss of the hon. Member for West Suffolk. His boss signed the treaty that set up the system, and the hon. Gentleman is now having a go at it; that is very ill-disciplined.
      It is right that people should be able to form parties at European as well as national level, if they want to. Several British national parties are affiliated to European political parties, as my hon. Friends the Members for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and for Wimbledon pointed out. Those parties are not inherently evil, as some Conservative Members seem to suggest. It is revealing that when my hon. Friend the Member for Preston said that if the political groups within the European Parliament did not have funding provided as it is here, it would gum up the workings of the European Parliament, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and some of his colleagues said, "Good," as if their objective was to create chaos in the European Parliament. That was a revealing reaction.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Bercow: I was rather perturbed by the Minister's unsubtle attempt at censorship of the views of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr Spring). In the context of the funding and operation of political parties,

      333
      may I put it on record for the House that in the event of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) becoming leader of my party, I for one intend to express my views about European political parties as forcefully in the future as I have in the past?
      Peter Hain: And a jolly good thing too. I do not imagine that the hon. Gentleman will be doing so from the Front Bench.
      Mr. Bercow: No.
      Peter Hain: Exactly. I am anxious to see the hon. Member for West Suffolk—a very able Front Bencher—continue to sit on the Opposition Front Bench for as long as possible; I am concerned about his career.
      There is a problem with the situation as it has developed over the years. The political groups within the European Parliament receive money from that Parliament's budget for their day-to-day organisation, and that can leak through to the European political parties. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, who knows what he is talking about because he has been in the European Parliament.
      To put it in simple terms—as is often necessary for Conservative Members—it is as if some of the so-called Short money in the House of Commons leaked from the parliamentary Labour party to the Labour party, or from the parliamentary Conservative party to the Conservative party. We do not allow that, and with the new procedures, we want to build in exactly the same bars in the European Parliament as we have here.
      We must regulate to ensure that the funding of European political parties is fully transparent and properly audited, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly argued so convincingly. That is why the regulations recommended by the European Court of Auditors will combat financial mismanagement. I would have thought that we would have the wholehearted support of Conservative Members in that. That is why the principle of such regulation is supported by the PES and the ELDR, to which the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats respectively belong. It is also supported by the EPP, to which the Conservative party is allied—and to which, if the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe becomes leader, it will become affiliated. That is why member states are negotiating suitable regulation that will stop financial abuse. They are doing so under the provisions in article 308 of the EC treaty. We support that, and we want action as soon as possible to clean up such funding.
      Mr. Cash: Will the Minister come to the question of the definition and the criteria that enable people to qualify for those arrangements? The key question is what one stands for; if one stands for something outside European integration, one is clearly at risk.
      The Minister shakes his head, but that is the burden of the Schleicher report.
      Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is erecting false phantoms. A report is a report; in the end, this is a matter for negotiation between Governments. The Nice treaty, by means of amended article 191 of the EC treaty,
      334
      provides a specific new treaty base for such measures. Qualified majority voting will ensure that the provisions governing European political parties' funding are agreed, or, as necessary, updated speedily. No single member state will be able to block much needed reforms. That is important.
      The Opposition have made various charges, and I shall demolish them one by one.
      Mr. Francois: Does the Minister agree that it is possible to summarise the way in which parties would qualify for the money by saying that although it is not necessary to be fully in favour of European integration, it certainly helps?
      Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is new, so I shall be charitable to him—but the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Stone applies to his question, too.
      The Opposition claimed that the measure would finance national parties. It will not. We secured at Nice, in explicit language, the condition that no European Community money going to European political parties would be transferred, directly or indirectly, to national political parties. Not a penny will go to the Labour party or to any other domestic British political party.
      The hon. Members for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and for Stone implied that the measure amounted to "funds for federalism". It does not. There will be no discrimination against parties on the grounds of their attitude to European Union integration. European political parties that oppose the EU, or its further integration, will be just as eligible as those that think the opposite. In the Nice treaty negotiations, the Government secured explicit language covering that matter too. We protected the interests of Opposition Members, and we ought to get a bit of credit for that for a change.
      The Nice treaty and the proposed regulation will not, as was suggested, give the EU the power to ban political parties. That is a ridiculous suggestion. It will not transfer power to the Community. The declaration that we agreed at Nice states:
      "The conference recalls that the provisions of Article 191 do not imply any transfer of powers to the European Community and do not affect the application of the relevant national constitutional rules".
      Opposition Members have claimed that the treaty would discriminate against the Conservative party. It will not. The measure is to do with funding European political parties, not national ones. I am sorry that the Conservatives have not found a European political party that shares their agenda on Europe. That may change after the leadership election. The French Gaullists' decision to join will leave the Tories as the only major right wing party outside the group of the European People's party. That is their choice, and we do not quarrel with it. They can choose to join a European political party, or to form a new one that meets the objective criteria which will be laid down in the measures to be agreed. It is up to them. They can form their own party and qualify in exactly the same way that other parties do. There is no discrimination in that.
      The measure will improve financial accountability and rigour, and end abuses in the financing of European political parties. That is something that we would have expected the Opposition to welcome. The proposal to

      335
      regulate European political parties is another plank in our European Union reform strategy. That is why we support it, and reject the amendments.

      DEFERRED DIVISIONS
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I have now to announce the result of the Divisions deferred from a previous day.
      On the motion on section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Ayes were 318, the Noes were 179, so the motion was agreed to.
      On the motion on Social Security, the Ayes were 324, the Noes were 178, so the motion was agreed to.
      [The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

      European Communities (Amendment) Bill
      Further considered.
      Mr. Spring: First, I thank the Minister of State for his kind words about my political future. He is a shining and living example of life after death as a Foreign Office Minister, and I congratulate him on his ability to survive.
      The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) spoke about the funding of political parties. In practice and by definition, the prejudice will be against a national political party that does not wish to subscribe to an integrationist agenda and which thus escapes being cemented to a political grouping. The Minister understands that perfectly well.
      I can tell the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) that we accept that there has been leakage. The idea that article 191 must be extended to deal with that leakage is absurd overreaction. There are very simple ways of dealing with leakage, and we would support them entirely. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we encourage debate among all political groupings in the EU.
      Sadly, the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) is not here, but he made some interesting contributions to the debate. He said that 7 million euros was a piffling amount of money, yet what is at stake is not the amount of money but the principle. In any case, the amount of money can be increased.
      I can tell the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) that we have no objection to the formation of political groupings. People have a democratic right to form such groupings. We are anxious to ensure that there is proper parliamentary scrutiny of this important matter, which has been such a flashpoint in the EU. I am happy to pay tribute to the European Scrutiny Committee and all its members, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong to think that the Committee will be adequate when it comes to studying the measure. There should be total transparency with regard to finances, and nothing should be opaque.
      On scrutiny, I believe that, given the difficulties in the EU and the controversial aspects of the proposal, the debate about the measure should take place on the Floor of the House of Commons. I remind the House that new clause 4 states:
      "Her Majesty's Government should lay before Parliament an annual report setting out the funds received by political parties at European level of which political parties represented in UK Parliament are members, pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 19 of the Treaty of Nice."
      The House exists to debate exactly such matters. Hon. Members should debate the difficulties that exist with regard to the public's attitude to the financing of political parties, and to the money associated with Members of Parliament and with Members of the European Parliament. The House is the place for that debate, and I am dismayed that the Minister has not supported such a non-controversial proposal.
      The new clause would strengthen the clarity of the EU. It would abolish the opacity that to a large extent causes the disconnection between the peoples of Europe and the institutions of the EU.

      337
      I shall unhesitatingly press the new clause to a Division.
      Mr. Cash: I just want to say, by way of conclusion, that the matter is as serious as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) said. The Minister has tended to underestimate its seriousness.
      We shall pursue the matter, both here and in the European Parliament. The measure is a direct attack on free speech, and an attempt to ensure that the Conservative party is put at a disadvantage, both in this House and in the European Parliament. We will continue to fight it.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 194, Noes 360.

      Division No. 32]

      [6.28 pm

      Ayes

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Doughty, Sue

      Allan, Richard

      Duncan, Alan

      Amess, David

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Duncan, Peter

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Evans, Nigel

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fallon, Michael

      Bacon, Richard

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Baker, Norman

      Flight, Howard

      Baldry, Tony

      Flook, Adrian

      Barker, Greg

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Baron, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Barrett, John

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Beggs, Roy

      Francois, Mark

      Berth, Rt Hon A J

      Gale, Roger

      Bercow, John

      Garnier, Edward

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Boswell, Tim

      Gibb, Nick

      Brady, Graham

      Gidley, Sandra

      Brazier, Julian

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Breed, Colin

      Goodman, Paul

      Brooke, Annette

      Gray, James

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Grayling, Chris

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Burns, Simon

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Burstow, Paul

      Greenway, John

      Butt, Alistair

      Grieve, Dominic

      Butterfill, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Cameron, David

      Hammond, Philip

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Hancock, Mike

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Harvey, Nick

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Hayes, John

      Cash, William

      Heald, Oliver

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Heath, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Chidgey, David

      Hendry, Charles

      Chope, Christopher

      Hoban, Mark

      Clappison, James

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Holmes, Paul

      Collins, Tim

      Horam, John

      Conway, Derek

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Cotter, Brian

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cran, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M

      Keetch, Paul

      338

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

      Sanders, Adrian

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lamb, Norman

      Selous, Andrew

      Lansley, Andrew

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Laws, David

      Simmonds, Mark

      Leigh, Edward

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Letwin, Oliver

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

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lidington, David

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Loughton, Tim

      Spink, Dr Robert

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Spring, Richard

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Steen, Anthony

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Streeter, Gary

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stunell, Andrew

      Maples, John

      Swayne, Desmond

      Mates, Michael

      Swire, Hugo

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Syms, Robert

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Moore, Michael

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Moss, Malcolm

      Thurso, John

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Norman, Archie

      Tredinnick, David

      Oaten, Mark

      Trend, Michael

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Tyler, Paul

      Osbome, George (Tatton)

      Tyire, Andrew

      Ottaway, Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Page, Richard

      Walter, Robert

      Waterson, Nigel

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Webb, Steve

      Paterson, Owen

      Whittingdale, John

      Pickles, Eric

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Wiggin, Bill

      Prisk, Mark

      Willetts, David

      Pugh, Dr John

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Willis, Phil

      Rendel, David

      Wilshire, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Yeo, Tim

      Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rufftey, David

      Mr. Peter Luff and

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      >Mr. John Randall.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Benton, Joe

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Berry, Roger

      Ainger, Nick

      Best, Harold

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Betts, Clive

      Alexander, Douglas

      Blackman, Liz

      Allen, Graham

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Borrow, David

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Brennan, Kevin

      Austin, John

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Bailey, Adrian

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Baird, Vera

      Browne, Desmond

      Banks, Tony

      Bryant, Chris

      Barnes, Harry

      Burgon, Colin

      Barron, Kevin

      Burnham, Andy

      Battle, John

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Bayley, Hugh

      Caims, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Bell, Stuart

      Caplin, Ivor

      Bennett, Andrew

      Casale, Roger

      339

      Caton, Martin

      Goggins, Paul

      Cawsey, Ian

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Challen, Colin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Chaytor, David

      Grogan, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Hain, Peter

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hanson, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Havard, Dai

      Clelland, David

      Healey, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hendrick, Mark

      Coleman, Iain

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Colman, Tony

      Heppell, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Heyes, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hill, Keith

      Corston, Jean

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cranston, Ross

      Hood, Jimmy

      Crausby, David

      Hope, Phil

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cummings, John

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hurst, Alan

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hutton, John

      David, Wayne

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davidson, Ian

      Illsley, Eric

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jamieson, David

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dowd, Jim

      Joyce, Eric

      Drew, David

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Edwards, Huw

      Khabra, Piara S

      Efford, Clive

      Kidney, David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ennis, Jeff

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Etherington, Bill

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Farrelly, Paul

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Lammy, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Laxton, Bob

      Flint, Caroline

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Flynn, Paul

      Lepper, David

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Levitt, Tom

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Linton, Martin

      Gapes, Mike

      Lloyd, Tony

      Gardiner, Barry

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Love, Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lucas, Ian

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Luke, Iain

      Gilroy, Linda

      Lyons, John

      Godsiff, Roger

      McAvoy, Thomas

      340

      McCabe, Stephen

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      MacDonald, Calum

      McDonnell, John

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      MacDougall, John

      Rooney, Terry

      McFall, John

      Ross, Emie

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Roy, Frank

      McIsaac, Shona

      Ruane, Chris

      McKechin, Ann

      Ruddock, Joan

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Ryan, Joan

      McNamara, Kevin

      Salmond, Alex

      McNulty, Tony

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sawford, Phil

      McWalter, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mallaber, Judy

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Simon, Siôn

      Mann, John

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Marris, Rob

      Singh, Marsha

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Miliband, David

      Soley, Clive

      Miller, Andrew

      Southworth, Helen

      Moffatt, Laura

      Spellar, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Squire, Rachel

      Moran, Margaret

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Morgan, Julie

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mountford, Kali

      Stevenson, George

      Mudie, George

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mullin, Chris

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Norris, Dan

      Tami, Mark

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Olner, Bill

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Organ, Diana

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Owen, Albert

      Timms, Stephen

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pearson, Ian

      Todd, Mark

      Perham, Linda

      Touhig, Don

      Picking, Anne

      Trickett, Jon

      Pickthall, Colin

      Truswell, Paul

      Pike, Peter

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Plaskitt, James

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pond, Chris

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pope, Greg

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      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

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Watts, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Weir, Michael

      Purchase, Ken

      White, Brian

      Purnell, James

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Rammell, Bill

      Rapson, Syd

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      341

      Wills, Michael

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Winnick, David

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Wishart, Pete

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wood, Mike

      Woolas, Phil

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Worthington, Tony

      Mr. Graham Stringer and

      Wray, James

      Jim Fitzpatrick.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 6

      REPORT ON OPERATION OF ARTICLE 137 TEC, AS REVISED
      'Her Majesty's Government shall make a half-yearly report to Parliament on the implementation of Article 2, paragraph 9 of the Treaty of Nice, setting out the United Kingdom legislative and employment implications of Article 137 TEC, as revised.'.—[Mr. Spring.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Spring: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      It is now four years since the Government abandoned the opt-out from the social chapter. It is time for an assessment of its impact. New clause 6 would provide for just such an assessment on a regular basis.
      The treaty of Nice further extends the social chapter in article 137 TEC by adding two new fields to the list of those in which the Community
      "shall support and complement the activities of Member States".
      The
      "modernisation of social protection systems"
      is a new item. It is already reflected to an extent in the existing provision on "social protection of workers". However, crucially, that is decided unanimously. The new provision is different because it will be decided by QMV.
      The Government point out of course that QMV under the new provisions is limited to co-operation between the member states, and that harmonisation of their laws and regulations is explicitly excluded. Yet this will encourage the EU to put pressure on Governments to conform to so-called best practice when social protection systems are not considered "modern" enough.
      New clause 6 would not prevent the new provision from being implemented. It would, however, provide for a regular report on the evolution of the social chapter as a whole. If the Government are as sanguine as they claim about the social agenda in the EU, they presumably support the new clause. It would, after all, provide them with another opportunity to set out all the beneficial, deregulating measures that they claim that Europe is introducing. We wait for that with bated breath.
      A brief look at how the social chapter has developed over the last four years highlights why Opposition Members have serious concerns. We were told that signing the social chapter, with the attendant loss of the UK veto, simply did not matter. In 1995, the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, told the Confederation of British Industry that each piece of legislation under the social chapter would be judged on its merits. He said that he had
      "no intention whatever of agreeing to anything and everything that emerges from the EU".
      That was in November 1995.
      342
      On Second Reading of the Bill to ratify the Amsterdam treaty, the then Foreign Secretary reassured the House about the effect of signing up to the social chapter. He said:
      "there is no danger of a flood of prescriptive, unrealistic regulations from Europe. There is a changed tone in Europe."
      He was particularly at pains to reassure the House about the then draft proposals for a general framework for informing and consulting employees—the so-called national works councils directive. On this, he said, the Government would
      "take our seat and make sure that the directive is amended in ways that reflect our thinking."—[Official Report, 12 November 1997; Vol. 300. c. 913–14.]
      That was his promise in 1997. Repeatedly, in recent months, the Government have reiterated both their opposition to the works councils directive and their confidence that they would be able to block it. Then, days after the general election, at the Employment and Social Policy Council on 11 June, the Government had to give in. Of course Ministers claim that the amendments that they achieved on issues such as the transition period mean that the text is now acceptable. So much for the principle that such issues are not for the EU to decide.
      6.45 pm
      In reality, of course, the Government had no choice but to accept the directive, because their blocking minority had melted away—at the end of what the Department of Trade and Industry briefing to MEPs euphemistically described as "long and difficult negotiations". With that experience presumably fresh in the collective ministerial mind, is it not inexplicable and inexcusable that they are about to make the same mistake again, both with a general extension of QMV at Nice and specifically in relation to social measures? Does that not underline the need for regular reports on these matters? Instead of agreeing to extend the social chapter, as they did at Nice, the Government should be assessing the damage that is being caused by the articles already agreed.
      Does the Minister agree that the momentum on social policy continues to grow? Belgium's note on its presidency priorities states that it will
      "include a strong social dimension and will pay special attention to the development of the European social model. Special emphasis will be put on quality of work, larger participation of employees with regard to economic mutations, equal opportunity, modernising social protection, combating social exclusion and poverty and the sustainability and re-financing of pensions".
      In the light of concerns expressed by employer organisations and others, bland Government assurances are no longer sufficient. It is time for a clear, open and honest assessment of the effects of the social chapter at times of economic downturn as well as of growth, and of new measures such as national works councils agreed under it.
      At Lisbon, the Prime Minister made a speech in which he painted a picture of a modern, outward-going Europe. He talked about benchmarking and the future of high technology, and of a Europe that was open to competition in a liberalising and deregulated way. The following week, that vision was rejected by the French Prime Minister, who talked about reinforcing the social agenda. The social agenda and the ethos that obtains now in the

      343
      EU is out of date in a modern economy. I ask therefore that the Minister make clear to the Committee the implications of that.
      Peter Hain: I apologise for missing the first moments of the hon. Gentleman's speech. New clause 6, which calls for a twice-yearly report to Parliament, is unnecessary. Both this House and another place already have arrangements for scrutinising legislative and other proposals that come from Europe, including those under article 137 of the treaty establishing the European Community. That is why we reject the new clause. Scrutiny procedures are already more than adequate.
      Social policy matters. It makes sense to work together where we can improve the lives of our citizens. That is why the treaty establishing the European Community includes provisions that allow for that. I remind the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and the rest of the Opposition that since Britain, under this Labour Government, signed up to the allegedly job-destroying, uncompetitive social chapter, we have created more than 1 million jobs in this country.
      Mr. Spring: The Government did?
      Peter Hain: The Government have produced the macro and micro-economic conditions in which more than 1 million jobs have been created. In comparison, unemployment rose to more than 3 million when the Tory Government were in office.
      Mr. Spring: I hesitate to intervene, but the extent of job creation under the last Government was greater than during the last Parliament, under Labour. That is a fact.
      Peter Hain: I am not sure whether we should go too far into that matter under your chairmanship, Sir Alan, but the truth is that unemployment rose to a record post-war high of more than 3 million during the 18 years when the Conservative Government were in office. I do not deny that unemployment started to decline towards the end of that period, but we now have an excellent record of falling unemployment. Employment has risen to an historic high in Britain while the social chapter has been in force.
      Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?
      Peter Hain: Not at the moment; I shall make a little progress, then I shall happily give way if there is time.
      On social policy issues, the Nice treaty essentially reordered the Amsterdam treaty. Voting by unanimity was retained in the following key areas: social security and the social protection of workers; protection of workers where their employment contracts are terminated; representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers; and conditions of employment for third-country nationals who legally reside in the Community.
      One new provision is the addition of a reference to the modernisation of social protection systems, which can take place by qualified majority voting. Such action is limited to the adoption of measures designed to encourage co-operation between member states and does not include legislation—for example, national action plans that
      344
      involve the exchange of best practice among member states along the same lines as the social exclusion action plans.
      The Conservative party says that it is worried about expenditure, but changes that involve more national expenditure on such issues can be made only under article 137(1)(c) on social security and social protection of workers, which is still subject to unanimity and on which Britain can use its veto. Those are the old social chapter provisions and the Commission has yet to introduce any proposal under that article. Pay, the right of association, and the right to strike or to impose lock-outs continue to be excluded from the provisions of article 137.
      Article 137(4) has been amended to make it clear that any proposals agreed must not affect the right of member states to define the fundamental principles of their social security systems and must not significantly affect the financial equilibrium of national systems—an important and welcome clarification.
      As I am in a generous mood, I happily give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).
      Mr. Cash: I want to deal with the allegation that the Conservative party was somehow responsible for massive unemployment. Of course, the Minister will remember that one of the reasons why we got into serious difficulties with unemployment was the fact that we went into the fateful exchange rate mechanism. We have now left the ERM and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was responsible for creating economic stability out of the ERM, but this Government will guarantee a return to it, because they are in favour of the principle of monetary union, and they will reincur the very problems that we managed to avoid only by withdrawing from that ridiculous system.
      Peter Hain: The Chancellor has made it clear that no entry into the ERM is planned, and it was, of course, a Conservative Government, supported by the hon. Gentleman, who took us into the ERM—a ridiculous policy when the value of the pound was ridiculously high, which caused many of the problems. I should correct the hon. Gentleman in a crucial respect: the massive increase in unemployment under the Thatcher Government occurred before we went into the ERM. The record high of more than 3 million people unemployed and the destruction of manufacturing jobs occurred in the early 1980s, well before the ERM. I shall go no further, except to say that the social chapter—which gave rise to the little tirade of the hon. Member for West Suffolk, and about which I had to correct him on several matters—is an important provision that has been to Britain's advantage and strengthened our competitiveness. The new clause is unnecessary, and I hope that the Committee will reject it.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I, too, believe that new clause 6 is unnecessary. The social chapter conferred on working people certain rights that they ought to have had in any event in well managed companies. In particular, the works councils directive allows consultation, and for employees to understand how companies work, which is entirely consistent with what modern business and management practice should be. Liberal Democrats have long supported works councils and the involvement and commitment that necessarily arises from the fact that

      345
      employees are more directly involved and understand the nature of the company for which they work and its problems.
      It is worth remembering that we think that EU countries are blighted by over-generous social provision, but the United Kingdom's gross domestic product per capita is only 10th in the EU. Our living standards are 10th out of 15. Productivity in France and Germany is a fifth higher than in Britain. Given that reference has been made to the ERM, it is worth noting that since the launch of the single currency, employment growth in the eurozone has been twice as rapid as in Britain or the United States. Since 1997, in the eurozone, 4.7 million net new jobs have been created in economies that those who proposed the new clause would regard as being over-subject to social protection. With respect, the case in support of the new clause has not been made.
      Mr. Bercow: The Minister deployed his mellifluous tones and issued soothing bromides to the Committee in a fairly blatant bid to lull it into a false sense of security. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not be taken in by the sedulous propagation of his case. There is no reason why we should be becalmed by his words, because we do not have to look into the crystal ball when we can read the book. The Minister made an entirely spurious point about the social chapter's introduction coinciding with an increase in employment as though there were a causal link. He should understand—we shall seek to educate him so that he is aware of this in future—that the increase in employment has taken place not because of, but in spite of the contents of the European social chapter.
      Peter Hain: The burden of the hon. Gentleman's and the Opposition's case against the social chapter is that it stops employment growth, and prevents companies from succeeding and the economy from growing, but precisely the opposite has happened. I suggest not that the huge rise in employment or fall in unemployment has taken place because of the social chapter, but that it has not stopped it happening and that it has, in fact, assisted the country's well-being while it has happened.
      Mr. Bercow: The Minister's ill-informed view is typical of the complacency that is the hallmark of the Government's attitude. I shall have the concurrence of my right hon. and hon. Friends when I suggest that we are far too unambitious in this country. We could have done much better. We could have grown faster and employed more people and we could have had a more thriving small and medium-sized enterprise sector in this country and throughout the EU were it not for the depredations of the social chapter in particular, and of overarching, overzealous regulation by the EU in general. For example, if we consider the parental leave directive, we see what the costs to businesses are. If we consider the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, we recognise, as small business leaders do, how damaging they can be.
      On informing and consulting workers, the Minister must make the conceptual leap from believing that such measures are good to contending that there is a case for their imposition on this country by the EU. Such matters
      346
      should be for individual businesses to determine or, alternatively, for democratically elected Members of this legislature to agree; they are not the proper business of the busybodies in the EU.
      It being Seven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Orders [4 and 11 July], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question accordingly negatived.
      THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    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:—[Mr. Spring.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 141, Noes 398.

      Division No. 33]

      [7 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Evans, Nigel

      Amess, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Fallon, Michael

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Flight, Howard

      Bacon, Richard

      Flook, Adrian

      Baldry, Tony

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Barker, Greg

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Baron, John

      Francois, Mark

      Beggs, Roy

      Gale, Roger

      Bellingham, Henry

      Garnier, Edward

      Bercow, John

      Gibb, Nick

      Berestord, Sir Paul

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Blunt, Crispin

      Goodman, Paul

      Boswell, Tim

      Gray, James

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Grayling, Chris

      Brady, Graham

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Brazier, Julian

      Greenway, John

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Grieve, Dominic

      Burns, Simon

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Burt, Alistair

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Butterfill, John

      Hammond, Philip

      Cameron, David

      Hayes, John

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Heald, Oliver

      Cash, William

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Hendry, Charles

      Hoban, Mark

      Chope, Christopher

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Clappison, James

      Horam, John

      Collins, Tim

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Conway, Derek

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Cran, James

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Leigh, Edward

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Letwin, Oliver

      Dodds, Nigel

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M

      Lidington, David

      Duncan, Alan

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Duncan, Peter

      Loughton, Tim

      347

      Luff, Peter

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Spring, Richard

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Steen, Anthony

      Maples, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Swayne, Desmond

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Swire, Hugo

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Syms, Robert

      Mercer, Patrick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Tredinnick, David

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Trend, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Paice, James

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Viggers, Peter

      Paterson, Owen

      Walter, Robert

      Pickles, Eric

      Waterson, Nigel

      Prisk, Mark

      Whittingdale, John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Robathan, Andrew

      Wiggin, Bill

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Wilkinson, John

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Willetts, David

      Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

      Wilshire, David

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Ruffley, David

      Yeo, Tim

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Selous, Andrew

      Simmonds, Mark

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      >Mr. John Randall and

      Soames, Nicholas

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Browne, Desmond

      Ainger, Nick

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Alexander, Douglas

      Bryant, Chris

      Allan, Richard

      Burgon, Colin

      Allen, Graham

      Burnham, Andy

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Burstow, Paul

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cairns, David

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Austin, John

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Baird, Vera

      Caplin, Ivor

      Baker, Norman

      Casale, Roger

      Banks, Tony

      Caton, Martin

      Barnes, Harry

      Cawsey, Ian

      Barron, Kevin

      Challen, Colin

      Battle, John

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Chaytor, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Chidgey, David

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clapham, Michael

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Bell, Stuart

      Benn, Hilary

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Benton, Joe

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Berry, Roger

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Best, Harold

      Clelland, David

      Betts, Clive

      Clwyd, Ann

      Blackman, Liz

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Coleman, Iain

      Blizzard, Bob

      Colman, Tony

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Connarty, Michael

      Borrow, David

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Corston, Jean

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cotter, Brian

      Brennan, Kevin

      Cousins, Jim

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Cox, Tom

      Brooke, Annette

      Cranston, Ross

      348

      Crausby, David

      Hendrick, Mark

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Heppell, John

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cummings, John

      Heyes, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hill, Keith

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hodge, Margaret

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Holmes, Paul

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hope, Phil

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      David, Wayne

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Davidson, Ian

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Hurst, Alan

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Hutton, John

      Dismore, Andrew

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Dobbin, Jim

      Illsley, Eric

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Doran, Frank

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Doughty, Sue

      Jamieson, David

      Dowd, Jim

      Jenkins, Brian

      Drew, David

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Efford, Clive

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Joyce, Eric

      Etherington, Bill

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Farrelly, Paul

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Reid, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Fisher, Mark

      Keetch, Paul

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

      Kemp, Fraser

      Flint Caroline

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

      Flynn, Paul

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Kidney, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Gapes, Mike

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Gardiner, Barry

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lamb, Norman

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Lammy, David

      Gidley, Sandra

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Gilroy, Linda

      Laws, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Laxton, Bob

      Goggins, Paul

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Lepper, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Levitt, Tom

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Grogan, John

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Hain, Peter

      Linton, Martin

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Lloyd, Tony

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Love, Andrew

      Hancock, Mike

      Lucas, Ian

      Hanson, David

      Luke, Iain

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Lyons, John

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Harvey, Nick

      McCabe, Stephen

      Havard, Dai

      McCafferty, Chris

      Healey, John

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Heath, David

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McDonnell, John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      MacDougall, John

      349

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Mclsaac, Shona

      McKechin, Ann

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Rooney, Terry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Ross, Emie

      McNulty, Tony

      Roy, Frank

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Ruane, Chris

      McWalter, Tony

      Ruddock, Joan

      McWilliam, John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Ryan, Joan

      Mallaber, Judy

      Salmond, Alex

      Mandelson, Fit Hon Peter

      Sanders, Adrian

      Mann, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Marris, Rob

      Sawford, Phil

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Simon, Siôn

      Martlew, Eric

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Merron, Gillian

      Singh, Marsha

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Skinner, Dennis

      Miliband, David

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Moore, Michael

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Moran, Margaret

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Morgan, Julie

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

      Morley, Elliot

      Soley, Clive

      Mountford, Kali

      Southworth, Helen

      Mudie, George

      Spellar, John

      Mullin, Chris

      Squire, Rachel

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stevenson, George

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Norris, Dan

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Oaten, Mark

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      O'Hara, Edward

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Olner, Bill

      Stunell, Andrew

      Öpik, Lembit

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Organ, Diana

      Tami, Mark

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Owen, Albert

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Pearson, Ian

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Picking, Anne

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Pike, Peter

      Thurso, John

      Plaskitt, James

      Timms, Stephen

      Pollard, Kerry

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pond, Chris

      Todd, Mark

      Pope, Greg

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Pound, Stephen

      Touhig, Don

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Trickett, Jon

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Truswell, Paul

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Price, Adam

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Pugh, Dr John

      Tyler, Paul

      Purchase, Ken

      Tynan, Bill

      Pumell, James

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Rammell, Bill

      Wareing, Robert N

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Watson, Tom

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Watts, David

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Webb, Steve

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Harnilton N)

      Weir, Michael

      Rendel, David

      White, Brian

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      350

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Woolas, Phil

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Wray, James

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Wright Tony (Cannock)

      Willis, Phil

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wills, Michael

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Winnick, David

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wishart, Pete

      Mr. Graham Stringer and

      Wood, Mike

      Jim Fitzpatrick.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 12

      REFERENDUM (No. 1)
      `This Act shall not take effect prior to the laying before Parliament of the draft of an Order in Council making provision for ascertaining, by means of a referendum, the preponderance of national opinion with respect to the provisions of the Treaty signed at Nice on 26th February 2001, provided that the Order shall not be made unless separate provision has been made by Parliament for defraying out of public funds any expenses to be incurred by a Minister of the Crown or Government Department in carrying the Order into effect.'.—[Mr. Spring.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Spring: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider the following: New clause 37—Referendum (No. 3)—
      `This Act shall not take effect until the laying before Parliament of the draft of an Order in Council making provision for ascertaining, by means of referendum, the preponderance of national opinion with respect to the provisions of the provisions of the Treaty signed at Nice on 26th February 2001 amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, provided that the Order shall not be made unless separate provision has been made by Parliament for defraying out of public funds any expenses to be incurred by a Minister of the Crown or Government departments in carrying the Order into effect.'.
      New clause 44—Referendum (No. 4)—
      '.—This Act shall not take effect prior to the laying before Parliament of a draft Order making provision for the ascertaining by the Government of the preponderance of national opinion with respect to the Nice Treaty by means of a referendum (providing that the Order shall not be made until provision from public funds has been made by Parliament in respect of expenditure incurred in the undertaking of such a referendum).'.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Spring: New clause 12 calls for a referendum on the treaty of Nice, which would put to the test the direction in which the European Union is heading. At the beginning of the Committee stage, the question was posed whether the Bill would assist the development of an enlarged, diverse Europe that enhances the security and prosperity of the peoples of Europe. We believe that the treaty of Nice fails that test.
      How can the European Union on the verge of enlargement think that the right course is to become ever more integrated? Surely trying to squeeze a continent of nations in all their diversity into a rigid straitjacket of conformity and uniformity is a recipe for discontent,

      351
      disunity and disharmony. What was needed at Nice was a Government with the leadership required to press for an alternative approach resulting in a modern, reformed, flexible Europe.
      There is a fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition on the direction in which Europe should be heading. That difference is crystallised in the treaty of Nice. We believe that it is time to let the public have a say on the matter. Instead, as Europe moves further down the integrationist path, there seems to be an ever-growing gap between the views of the public and the leaders of the European Union. That view was endorsed by the newly plain-speaking and born-again Minister for Europe, so there can be no controversy about it.
      The gulf cannot be allowed to continue to develop. We have all witnessed the undercurrent of discontent around the EU, which is highly regrettable. The EU cannot afford to remain impervious to the trends of change across the world and expect to succeed. Through the low turnouts in European elections and failing support in opinion polls, the people of Europe have sent a clear message to their Governments. That message is that real unity cannot be imposed by integrationist treaties and diktat, thereby disconnecting European institutions and structures from the legitimate aspirations of the peoples of Europe.
      Last September the Danish people made their views clear when they voted no to membership of the euro. Then, in March, the Swiss rejected early membership of the European Union by a ratio of 4:1. Whatever the merits of the case for Swiss membership, the result ought at least to give those of us who are members of the EU cause to pause and think why it came about.
      Does the Minister agree that the EU's reaction to the Irish referendum speaks volumes about the extent to which EU leaders have become detached from their citizens? Why did the Foreign Secretary, days after the referendum, sign up to the General Affairs Council conclusions, which stated that the Nice treaty would remain unaltered? What do the citizens of Europe need to do to get their leaders to listen?
      Does the Minister agree with the diplomat who was reported as saying:
      "If there had been a referendum in every country, half would have voted against it. The Irish were acting as proxies for the rest of us and this needs to be handled with care"?
      Does the hon. Gentleman have sympathy for the Irish Republic's Minister of Finance, Mr. McCreevy, who described the Irish rejection of the Nice treaty as a "remarkably healthy development", or for the Irish Republic's Attorney-General, who said:
      "We have as much right as any member state, or indeed the commission, to develop and articulate and advocate our view of the future architecture of the European Union"?
      It is time for the United Kingdom Government to show the same respect for the views of the British people on the Nice treaty. Following the Foreign Secretary's recognition of the fact that the Nice treaty is not legally or technically necessary for enlargement, the last remaining fig leaf for the treaty has been removed. Indeed, further integration will make enlargement more difficult, not easier.
      If Ministers think that the Nice treaty is as popular as they claim, why are they so reluctant to put it to the test? Perhaps the reported comments of the Belgian Foreign
      352
      Minister last week give us an indication. His remarks were specifically directed at Austria but clearly have wider application. He said:
      "I personally think it is very dangerous to organise referendums when you're not sure to win them."
      That attitude of mind is deeply regrettable. When European Union leaders are not sure that they can win over the people on the benefits of a treaty, surely it is time to question the treaty itself, rather than the idea of giving the people a say.
      In the past two days, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe have set out what has been reported as a fresh Government approach to Europe. We welcome that, but the Nice treaty takes Europe in precisely the opposite direction of that in which they want to go. The Minister said that he wants a Europe of the people and not elites, but the treaty takes power away from the people and the Governments whom they elect and transfers it to the EU level. It increases the number of occasions on which the minority can be overridden by qualified majority voting. It enhances the role of the European Court and of the Commission and its President—a matter that we did not have time to discuss yesterday. Community competence is extended in commercial policy and the remit of the court is increased.
      The Minister says that he wants Europe to modernise and that its economy should be reformed, and yet the treaty reinforces the social chapter, signalling further red tape and regulation. That is the very approach that has caused Europe to lag behind in terms of job creation and the economic outlook of eurozone countries. The treaty represents a failure even on the Government's terms.
      Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman will recall that he voted against the idea of a referendum on the Maastricht treaty on 21 April 1993, when the matter was debated in the House. Presumably he did so because he supported the powerful arguments against a referendum that were advanced by the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Hurd. Which of Lord Hurd's arguments does he no longer support—and why, given that the Maastricht treaty was more far-reaching than the Nice treaty?
      Mr. Spring: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to clarify the situation. The past eight years have seen a remorseless and one-way process of political integration. Nice provided an opportunity for the Government to begin to reverse that process. I am sure that the right hon. Lady agrees that the great challenge for the European Union is to connect with the peoples of Europe and to deal with the so-called democratic deficit. One of the clearest ways of doing that would be to return powers to the national Parliaments. In the intervening eight years, the process of integration has advanced remorselessly. We want to draw a line at this point and to involve the peoples of Europe. The right hon. Lady will acknowledge that acceptance, appreciation and support of the European Union is now low in most countries and is still ebbing away. All hon. Members will accept that that is regrettable. It is now time to incorporate the peoples of this country and Europe into the process.
      Mr. David: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that less legislation is now coming from the European Union than was coming from it four years ago?
      Mr. Spring: We are dealing with the treaty of Nice and its implications. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has listened carefully to the Committee's debates. We have discovered not only that the Government repeatedly changed their mind before Nice, but that, as the Minister's answers have shown today, they simply did not think through the implications of what they agreed to there. That is the point about this Committee stage.
      The Minister has said that he wants Europe to modernise and reform its economy, but the treaty represents a failure even on the Government's terms. The loss of the veto is far wider than they envisaged. Indeed, they originally opposed the measures on enhanced co-operation. The treaty increases the size of the European Parliament beyond the limit that they set for themselves. Steps have been taken towards the regulation and funding of Europe-wide political parties, but the Government originally resisted them. A bad scene was set earlier, when relevant new clauses were rejected and Labour Members declined to allow adequate scrutiny of that process to occur in the House of Commons. I believe that the Government will regret following the route that they have taken.
      By contrast, where in the treaty is the evidence of the positive and determined engagement with our European counterparts for which the Minister is now calling? He says that he is a practical European, but where are the practical measures that he supports? Where is the signal that Europe will involve itself less in our daily lives? Where is the reform of the common agricultural policy, which Lord Haskins calls "one policy fits all" and is clearly the biggest single obstacle to enlargement? Where is the call for a multi-system Europe and real flexibility, which should move in a non-integrationist direction?
      The lack of leadership from the United Kingdom Government means that even further integration is likely to be agreed upon at the next intergovernmental conference in 2004. As was clear in the Prime Minister's speech at Warsaw, the Government have lacked any clear vision of the architecture and structures that would enable the European Union to reconnect with the British people and the peoples of Europe. The idea that a second Chamber will achieve such a reconnection is absurd. Indeed, that was pointed out by Liberal Democrat MEP Nick Clegg in his pamphlet, which dealt with the matter very effectively.
      At the Nice Council, European Union leaders agreed to discuss the status of the charter of fundamental rights, although British Ministers had tried to claim that the matter was settled. They agreed to discuss what would, in effect, be a written constitution for the European Union. Does not that alone illustrate the Government's complete failure to provide leadership in setting out an agenda that is right for a modern Europe and which reflects the wishes of the British people?
      The Minister has emphasised in his recent statements the need for the European Union to start the process of reconnecting with the citizens of its member states. There could be no clearer signal that the Government mean what they say than putting the treaty to a referendum. It is time for the British people to have their say. I see from new
      354
      clause 44 that that principle has support on both sides of the House. I welcome that support. The issue transcends the party political divide, as it is crucial to incorporate the people of this country into the process. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
      Mr. Frank Field: I rise to speak to new clause 44, on which I welcome the concluding comments of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). Indeed, I am sure that the Opposition so welcome it that he will seek to withdraw the motion on new clause 12. In the same way, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will doubtless decide not to press new clause 37, and we will instead have the opportunity to vote on new clause 44, which provides a small test of how much Opposition Front Benchers genuinely seek agreement across the Floor of the House.
      Mr. Haselhurst, I oppose many aspects—
      Mrs. Anne McGuire: Sir Alan.
      Mr. Field: I am sorry. I almost feel that I should genuflect, Sir Alan. As always, I am grateful for the guidance of the Front Bench on these matters. Sir Alan, I think—
      The Chairman: Order I do not want to make the right hon. Gentleman uncomfortable. The phrase "Mr. Chairman" would do
      Mr. Field: Too many people have taken the poetry out of life, Sir Alan. I think that calling you Mr. Chairman would in some way detract from our proceedings.
      7.30 pm
      I oppose aspects of the Nice treaty. In it, this country surrenders the sovereignty that it currently holds over 39 areas. However, I may be wrong, and if the British people wish to surrender that sovereignty, it would be proper for the House to agree that approach. Some of my constituents who take an interest in such matters know that the argument that the Nice treaty will halt integration is bogus. The Amsterdam treaty grants the authority for introducing the next round of likely candidates. To question the Nice treaty is not to question the wisdom, the speed or the ultimate aim of including many new member states.
      New clause 44 raises profound questions about this country's future and that of Europe. I, like my hon. Friends, speak as a citizen and friend of Europe and someone who knows that our destiny is bound up with the continent of Europe, as it has been since Tudor times. We also appreciate that those who began the journey in the early post-war years did so for the best of motives. They had witnessed two world wars—many had fought in both—which wrought havoc on the structure not only of their lives but of their country. In the 1940s, setting up a European Community was a most noble project. However, if we listened carefully to our constituents during the last European election campaign, we would know that their image of Europe is different from the objectives of the founding fathers all those years ago.
      I want to repeat some of the phrases that my constituents used about the great journey on which we have embarked. They believe that we are on a juggernaut

      355
      which has an automatic pilot. Its controls were set in the 1940s; it has no brake and no steering wheel. For those reasons, those of us who are friends of Europe, but critical of current developments in the European Community, support new clause 44.
      There is a case for greater co-operation. Making it divides us into two camps on our perception of the nature of politics. Some believe that it is a technical process, which can be gleaned from books, and that one can write treaties and make policies in that way. Others believe that, although the technical process can play a part, successfully achieving our long-term political objectives requires understanding of the political culture in which one works and that of other countries with which we are increasingly integrated.
      I want to emphasise the importance of natural developments, which the Nice treaty ignores. The Guardian produced a recent opinion poll of readers' views of European policy. It illustrates the divide that I mentioned. It showed huge scepticism about the single currency. Voters do not understand the reason for the way in which the project is presented, or the endgame. However, the same group of voters supported sharing sovereignty on issues such as the environment so that the policy in Europe could be more comprehensive. Such policies cannot be bound by the old nation states.
      I tabled new clause 44 as a friend of Europe. However, I am not prepared to take just anything from a project that was conceived in the 1940s, no matter how noble the objective. During my vain efforts to persuade my constituents to vote in the European elections, the worst comments revealed that they viewed Europe as a thieves' kitchen. They notice that, for example, when the Danish people are consulted about the euro, they reject it, and that when the Irish people are asked about Nice, they reject the treaty. However, they also notice that when such votes are allowed in a small minority of countries, the machine tries to get the project on the road again by dismissing the voters' views.
      The machine decides that the euro will be reconsidered in Denmark, and that, in time, the Danish people will accept it. The President of the European Commission has made absurd statements about the way in which Ireland will ultimately submit to his plans. To an enemy of the European Community, the President of the European Commission is worth every euro or penny we pay him, because we could not have a worse ambassador. He spells out his views of what other people's opinions should be.
      New clause 44 goes to the heart of what the Prime Minister describes as the Government's approach in Europe. In a recent speech, he rejected the top-down approach. He perceived its limitations and failures, and said that the Government would adopt a bottom-up approach. How does that accord with pushing through the Nice treaty without giving the people of this country an opportunity to say whether they support its main ideas? Although the Prime Minister's name is not on new clause 44,1 have tabled it in his spirit.
      Our approach to Europe has entered a new age. The old brutal approach whereby a small group of people could ram diverse traditions into a technical process, conceived 50 years ago, should be rejected. If we are serious about
      356
      reconnecting with the voters, and if that phrase is not simply the latest bit of cant served up to appease them, Labour Members will vote for new clause 44.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman's excellent speech, which has impressed me. I am worried about his initial comments. He referred to the possibility of the Opposition withdrawing new clause 12 in favour of new clause 44. What was the reason for that suggestion? It would be appalling for the Opposition to withdraw a new clause on such a fundamental issue. Was the right hon. Gentleman joking? We are not good at understanding jokes. However, perhaps he meant it. That has worried me throughout his speech, which I have thoroughly enjoyed and with which I agree.
      Mr. Field: I am not sure whether that was a double bluff. The Opposition's position is well known. They believe that, from now on, the people of Europe, or at least of this country, should be consulted about any major rearrangement of the furniture of Europe. They do not need to make a point. They say that they wish to get past point scoring and standing on precedent—an approach that bores the voters—and I therefore believed that they would respond to a genuine appeal, which was based on nothing other than hope. My constituents hope that we shall cease to play the silly game of party politics on big issues, and try to be as grown up as them.
      Mr. Cash: If the right hon. Gentleman is expecting the official Opposition to withdraw their new clause or, indeed, me to withdraw mine, will he give us an assurance that, if we were to vote on his new clause, the Government would reverse the situation that pertains at the moment and give us a referendum on the Nice treaty? It seems that the right hon. Gentleman is simply asking us to do something without having the capacity to deliver it.
      Mr. Field: I have no capacity to deliver anything. We would have to win the vote before there could be any instruction to the House. I have spent most of my parliamentary life on the Opposition Benches, as part of a party that could not win elections, although, thankfully, we now can. But even in those dark days we realised that if we were trying to maximise a vote, it was always sensible for the Opposition to group behind any movement by the Government rather than, as a point of principle or for some kind of textbook reason, tabling their own new clause.
      Mr. Cash: I am interested in the national interest and in having a referendum. If I thought that there was a genuine opportunity to defeat the Government, as we did on the issue of Select Committees a couple of days ago, I would be happy to withdraw my new clause in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some tangible evidence that, if I did that, it would do some good?
      Mr. Field: Either the hon. Gentleman is trying to extend this debate until the crucial hour at which we all wish it to end, or he is genuinely confused about this matter. There is no way in which I can give him that assurance. The only way we can try to influence Government opinion is to pass a new clause tonight. The Government would then have to try to reverse it. All I am

      357
      suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman is that the likelihood of winning that vote will be increased if we vote on new clause 44 rather than on those tabled by the Opposition or by the hon. Gentleman. It is in the spirit of doing what is best for this country that I have tabled new clause 44 and I hope that, between now and 9.30pm, sense will prevail on the Opposition Benches.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I, too, followed with great interest the thoughtful speech of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but I regret to say that I disagreed with almost all of it. I feel buttressed in the correctness of that conclusion by the fact that we have just fought a general election campaign in which one of the main political parties offered a referendum to the people of the United Kingdom on the treaty of Nice, and that party was comprehensively defeated.
      Mr. Frank Field: May I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Conservative party could not win the election and, therefore, whatever the party in government was proposing would have been approved? It would be dangerous for Labour Members to assume that voters were not interested in lower taxation or in the euro. They did not think that those issues should feature in the general election because they did not think that the group of people masquerading as Her Majesty's Opposition was fit to be elected.
      Mr. Campbell: As a result of that intervention, the right hon. Gentleman may find it more difficult to persuade the official Opposition to abandon their new clause and vote in support of his. In reaching my conclusions on this matter, I have started from a quite different place from the right hon. Gentleman, and we shall have to accept that.
      I am sure that there is amazement on the banks of the Liffey, astonishment in Galway and surprise in Sligo that the decision taken by the Irish people should have been elevated to such an extraordinary level of importance by a party that still, in some parts of the United Kingdom, describes itself as the Unionist party. Irish politicians will be astonished that they have now achieved the status of prophets—in this debate, if not in their own land—because of observations that they have made about the consequences of what happened in Ireland as a result of a referendum that arose out of an entirely different constitutional settlement from the one that obtains here in the United Kingdom.
      7.45 pm
      I do not believe that the decision of the people of Ireland should be allowed to intrude on the decision-making processes of the people of the United Kingdom. The fact that the people of Ireland decided that they did not want the treaty of Nice to be ratified in their constitutional arrangements may be a matter of some procedural consequence to the ultimate ratification and acceptance of the treaty by all the members of the European Union. However, it should not form any part of an argument in this Parliament, or in this country, about whether the treaty requires the endorsement of the British people through a referendum before it can be ratified.
      358
      I go back to the recent general election campaign. It seems like a long time ago; in fact, it was only about eight weeks. The position of Conservative Members, who have tabled the new clause, was that their party would have refused to sign the treaty of Nice and it would have gone to Gothenburg immediately after the general election in the confident expectation that it could renegotiate the terms of the treaty.
      No great constitutional issues are raised by the treaty of Nice. Taxation, social security and defence remain firmly in the intergovernmental sphere, and firmly subject to unanimity. There will be a great constitutional step for this country to take if the Government of the day ever recommend that we join the single European currency. That will be a decision not only of economic management but of political and constitutional significance. That is why the former leader of my party, whom we must now learn to call Lord Ashdown, was the first to say that it was an issue of such importance that it ought to be the subject of a referendum, and that we should not join without the endorsement of the people of the United Kingdom. That will be a decision of a quite different degree and different substance from those on the procedural issues—the housekeeping issues, as I have previously described them—that are embraced by the treaty of Nice.
      The claim for the need for a referendum was a catch-all—quite legitimately, one might argue, in the context of a general election campaign. It was something behind which all the Conservative candidates could cluster. It was a form of protection and of defence. However, one of those who was a prominent participant in the leadership contest and who is now to seek the verdict of the Conservative membership in the country holds a view of the treaty that is entirely consistent with the view that I have just expressed.
      A referendum should not be used as an act of party politics. It should be employed sparingly in circumstances in which there are principled issues of constitutional consequence. There are no such circumstances in this case. I return to a point that I made on Second Reading. Where are the people besieging the House of Commons saying, "You should not be allowed to pass the legislation on the ratification of the treaty of Nice unless you ensure that we. the people, have a referendum on the matter"? As I said before, people have been breaking into Menwith Hill and protesting against national missile defence. Our postbags are filled with arguments about that, about health and about education. The notion that there is an unsatisfied popular demand out there for a referendum on the treaty of Nice is certainly not supported by my experience. Furthermore, I have not yet heard convincing arguments from others who have spoken in this debate or on previous occasions that their own experience mirrors an unsatisfied demand that this legislation should not pass into law unless it contains the provision for a referendum.
      Mr. Spring: If such a referendum took place, what does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think the outcome would be? I know what I think it would be and that answers his question.
      Mr. Campbell: If there were a referendum on the treaty, it would return a substantial verdict of affirmation—a verdict of yes that supported ratification—

      359
      because we would have had the opportunity to conduct the argument in an intelligent and civilised way to which people would respond.
      I have to tell the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) that, in my judgment, one of the consequences of the indiscriminate use of the referendum in a representative parliamentary democracy is an undermining of the very principle of parliamentary democracy, unless we can point to an issue that is of such fundamental constitutional importance that it requires Parliament to go to the people to seek their endorsement. The treaty justifies neither euphoria nor hysteria. It provides a framework for enlargement, which Members on both sides of the House support.
      Mr. Cash: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it has been made clear as a result of discussions and altercations with Romano Prodi when he was in Ireland that the decision taken by the Irish people has nothing to do with enlargement and that the Nice treaty itself has nothing to do with enlargement? Enlargement could take place under the Amsterdam treaty.
      Mr. Campbell: That issue was fully canvassed on Second Reading and during the speech of the Foreign Secretary. Yes, the EU could be enlarged without the Nice treaty, but what sort of enlarged EU would it be? We would create a monster in which every country would be entitled to two Commissioners and the veto would be available to even the smallest country with the smallest population and the smallest gross domestic product.
      If we are to have an enlarged Union, we must have a Union whose procedures allow for the effective management of that Union, subject, of course, to qualifications for the protection of countries such as ours and the smaller countries. An enlarged EU could be achieved without the treaty, but I venture to suggest that were there to be such an enlarged EU, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) would be the first to declare it unmanageable, far too large and having reached a point at which it served no further purpose. Let me conclude—
      Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Campbell: I must sit down. The hon. Gentleman may succeed in catching your eye, Sir Alan.
      This is a framework treaty for a sensible enlargement and I believe that it should be ratified as soon as possible.
      Mr. Alan Simpson: I want to make my own arguments in favour of a referendum on the treaty by drawing mainly on comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe in his article in The Independent at the beginning of the week. He is absolutely right to say
      "this is an appeal for plain speaking on Europe. No political spin. no media hype, no pejorative prejudice. Just an honest, straight discussion of difficult but momentous issues."
      That is the context in which we ought to approach the issues raised in the treaty and how it connects to the treaties that preceded it, because momentous consequences follow from it. We do ourselves and the public a great disservice when we suggest that it is a leftovers treaty—a tidying-up
      360
      exercise of no great import either to the United Kingdom public or the future shape of Europe, the costs of it, and the political consequences that will be experienced by Europe. The British public have a right to be part of that informed debate.
      The Minister's article continued:
      "I am up for a robust debate and I respect different views, sincerely held, about Europe's future. But we need an intelligent debate about what is really happening—not a debate trapped in a time-warp caricature of doughty Britons versus fiendish foreigners."
      Again, I endorse that wholeheartedly. We have to address how we achieve that informed debate and how we take the public with us. This is the important point. When I was elected to Parliament, I understood that that mandate was conditional and that the party that won the majority of seats in the election had a mandate to govern, but that it had to be renewed. The mandate was not eternal; it was not unconditional.
      Each time a period of office runs out, a Government have to present themselves to the public in another form of referendum—one on their competence to form a Government who govern in the public's name. The presumption was always that Governments who made a mess by introducing unpopular policies could be thrown out by an electorate who were fed up with them. Throwing out the Government of the day was a channel whereby people could reject the policies of the day that they found so objectionable. The important point about the succession of European treaties that we have been presented with is how many of them have stripped from Governments the ability to offer the electorate any such choice.
      There are genuine dangers for the democratic process if we are saying to people, "Why vote when you can replace a Government, but not the policies that they will inflict on you? The same policies, acceptable or otherwise, will be pushed down your throat whoever is in power." The credibility of the House, the institution of Parliament and the democratic basis on which Parliament gets a conditional mandate is seriously undermined as we strip from ourselves the rights of the public to make those choices.
      Mr. Bercow: With reference to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no great public clamour for a referendum on the Nice treaty because the debate on the subject has thus far been characterised by waffle, verbiage and obfuscation? That is why, there is no great public demand. Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so confident of the strength of his arguments and that public opinion is with him, he should be prepared to put his view to the test? If he is not, we can draw our own conclusions.
      Mr. Simpson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that the ultimate test of our confidence in the public is to allow them to make choices for themselves. That is precisely what we have not done on a succession of European treaties. It is a perverse form of logic and justification to say, "We never gave the public a choice on Amsterdam and we never gave them a choice on Maastricht, so we had better not give them a choice on Nice either." That is like saying, "We never fed the kids yesterday or the day before, so we may as well not

      361
      feed them tomorrow." At some point, we must take responsibility for feeding the democratic process. If we do not, we will have to take responsibility for the withering away of that process.
      Mr. Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as he has referred to me if not directly, then at least by implication. Would he care to tell the House on what criteria he would base a decision as to whether to require a referendum in any particular case before the ratification of any treaty relating to our membership of the EU?
      Mr. Simpson: The question is one of reversibility and amendability. The public have a right to decide on any decision we make that is irrevocable, or irrevocable unless colossal upheavals throw the institutional arrangements in Europe into crisis.
      Parliaments have a right to make decisions within the conditionality of the mandates that they receive. Those mandates are renewable, not disposable. My fear is that Parliament has drifted down a path whereby it is treating temporary authority given to it by the public as though it has the right to dispose of the public's right to change their mind.
      8 pm
      Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Although I do not agree with my hon. Friend, I commend him on his thoughtful speech. I agree with him that reversibility and amendability are good criteria for holding a referendum, but I do not see what in the treaty is not reversible, if that were decided in the future. Joining the euro is irreversible and requires a referendum, but can my hon. Friend tell me what in this treaty is not reversible?
      Mr. Simpson: I should be delighted to answer that point, because that is the substance of my argument. If the public are to have confidence in Parliament, we must have confidence in them and ensure that they are the deciders rather than the decided for. Two central issues of the treaty have been misunderstood: one relates to an aspect of enlargement and the other to the move to qualified majority voting.
      There has been a lack of clarity about the costs of enlargement. Germany made an incredible commitment to meet the costs of unification. Amazing transfers of cash from west to east were made to pay for a unifying, inclusive future in which all German citizens would have a place, a future, a sense of security and identity. I have enormous admiration for what Germany has done, but it has not come without a cost. So far it has cost the German public £150 billion. They have just signed up to an extension of the solidarity taxation to 2020, so have voluntarily levied on themselves a further £100 billion in taxation to pay for inclusion.
      The economy of the former East Germany is stronger than those of any of the applicant states that will be part of the enlargement process, apart, perhaps, from the Czech Republic and Poland. Yet the costs of their transformation will not be met by additional resource transfers.
      If we want expansion on the current model, we must be honest with ourselves and the public, and acknowledge what the costs will be and where they will paid from.
      Mr. Hendrick: I suggest that my hon. Friend is misrepresenting what took place in Germany. At the time, there was an exchange rate of DM1 to OM1, which was totally unrealistic. The experience of German reunification led to the Maastricht convergence criteria. Deficits, interest rates and inflation were used as criteria to be brought to bear before a currency union could take place. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, our having had that experience and having established the Maastricht convergence criteria, the instability caused by German reunification in no way compares with or relates to the currency union that has taken place in the European Union?
      Mr. Simpson: Absolutely not. The issue was not the disparity between the deutschmark and the ostmark, but the physical, practical, structural and huge economic disparity between east and west.
      Mr. Hendrick: Convergence does that.
      Mr. Simpson: No. Convergence requires the collapse of economies. Demands are being made on applicant states that will result in the collapse of their economies in order to meet the convergence criteria, and they will be left with increased poverty and an increased need for social, financial and structural transfers. I do not want to duck the issue. If that is the price we must pay to build a cohesive European future, it may be worth paying, but we must be honest about it. At the moment, we are having an Alice in Wonderland debate. We are pretending that enlargement can take place and that the eastern European applicant states can be required to collapse their economies. We are not acknowledging that stability will have to be delivered in an expanded EU by huge resource transfers from west to east or we will face huge population movements from places where jobs and wealth have disappeared to places where people presume they are located. We owe it to the public and to ourselves to be clear about the consequences, and allow the public to make a choice.
      Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely powerful case. Way back during the debates on the Maastricht treaty I said that I could not believe that my own Government were deliberately creating unemployment. Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) made a powerful speech on the relationship between enhanced co-operation and prospective taxation, which Hans Eichel has said must be one of the necessary ingredients of these arrangements. The plain fact is that the hon. Gentleman is right that there is huge deceit, and the only way to resolve the problem and to make resources available for this fateful European Union—I do not agree with the manner in which it is being developed—is with the consent of the voters, on a properly informed basis.
      Mr. Simpson: That is precisely the case that I am trying to make. I am giving examples to show why it is important for the public to have the right to decide these issues. It is critical that we address these problems not in a spirit of isolationism but, perhaps perversely, out of a sense of solidarity.

      363
      I was contacted by organisations in Poland that work in conjunction with the Polish farmers union, which represents 3 million Polish farmers. It argues that, so as to meet the convergence criteria, Poland is being asked to accept the imposition of huge reforms to its agricultural system, which will put 2 million of the 3 million farm workers out of work.
      Mr. Cash: Where is the money coming from?
      Mr. Simpson: That is one of the questions that the Polish farmers union asked me to raise here. It also wanted us to consider whether this model of expansion is genuinely sustainable.
      Mr. David: Surely my hon. Friend is not suggesting that we should be in favour of maintaining east European command-style economies with their huge, unpredictable practices.
      Mr. Simpson: I am not making that case. There is a positive alternative on offer to Polish agriculture. My hon. Friend may not be a great fan of Polish agriculture, but it feeds itself, has a strong basis of family farming, a huge infrastructure of local markets, food accountability and a biodiversity that does not fit with the demands being made on it by the European Union to take a leap into a future based on industrial agriculture.
      Many global environmental movements are forewarning us of the colossal dangers if the demands of industrial agriculture that are being foisted on the European Union and on countries through the World Trade Organisation are a condition of enlargement. What the Polish people were asking me is this: why can we not have a debate about enlargement on different terms? Why can the British people not make a positive decision that is in favour of a European sense of solidarity, rather than a retreat from it?
      The general election manifesto on which I understand at least half the Polish parties are campaigning asks us in the existing EU member states to support their claims for
      "a conscious policy … to protect and promote the values of the Polish countryside, in opposition to rapidly spreading globalisation."
      It wants us to
      "recognise that the way in which to ensure optimum public and environmental health is through promoting a diet based on high quality local foods, and a countryside rich in natural bio-diversity."
      What in that agenda is so unacceptable to us? Why should we not engage with it? Why can we not offer that to the public as a positive choice when it comes to a model of expansion? At present there is no choice, but a given, defined model that has been foisted on us. I fear that that is the direction in which we are being taken.
      There is another fundamental problem that requires a referendum and the public's right to vote. I am talking about the counter side: alongside the physical expansion of EU membership is a clear democratic contraction, not just in the context of qualified majority voting. I do not subscribe for a moment to the argument that QMV is a grand German plot for the domination of Europe. That is a gross insult to the German people's integrity, and their commitment to European stability. My objections, which I consider central to the British public's right to make a decision, are based on the fact that QMV is not really about the weighting of votes in favour of politicians or political parties from different countries. The real,
      364
      fundamental shift is not from a decision made in the House of Commons to a decision made in the Council of Ministers; it is the decision-making process that will be hijacked by the European Commission.
      There is an important background to this, which the House and the country need to understand. There has been a continuing dispute between the Commission and the Council of Ministers about the Commissioners' prerogative to make decisions on everyone's behalf. It goes back to the 1994 Uruguay round, when the Commissioners argued that they alone were competent to negotiate on European matters on our behalf.
      At the time our Ministers, and other Ministers, argued that that was not so. They said that trade in services and trade in intellectual property were areas of what was described as mixed competence, rather than Community competence. The significance of that argument was this: in areas of mixed competence, our Ministers are part of direct negotiations on policies that affect our citizens—international negotiations. Many such negotiations have been thrown into turbulent conflict in the World Trade Organisation, in Seattle and beyond. None of us should pretend that those are not some of the big conflict areas with which our society must deal in the future.
      We shall be left with this question: when the public are clamouring on our doorsteps or letters pour into our postbags, on how many of those areas will we be able to make any decisions ourselves? How many, under the treaty, will we have signed away, so that we have no competence? Surely the public should have the right to choose which areas of competence to cede.
      8.15 pm
      I want to illustrate what this means in practical terms, and so explain how it affects issues raised by members of all parties and their constituents. Those will be the issues on which there will be conflict in the future. Even in the short term of this Parliament, the Government have embarked on a robust and interesting debate about the role of the private sector in public services. We have been told that none of the arrangements involved in the GATS—general agreement on trade in services—negotiations would automatically apply here, because we can choose what we will not be a part of. However, as the issue moves into the sphere of Community competence, two things happen.
      First, our Ministers have no relevance in the negotiations; they are conducted solely and exclusively by the European Commissioners. The Nice treaty offers the Commissioners a wonderful resolution of something that really cheesed them off following the Uruguay round. They took their case to the European Court of Justice, which ruled that countries had ceded the right to negotiate in the trade in goods but not the right to negotiate in the trade in services, and that the arrangement did not apply to commercial aspects of intellectual property rights.
      The Nice treaty has tied things up nicely for the Commissioners. They win the battle for the sole right to negotiate on everyone's trade terms, because we decide to give them that right. The mechanism of qualified majority voting will be much easier to manipulate than an arrangement giving individual countries the right to say no. That is profoundly important to those with an interest in environmental sustainability. In the Montreal convention, we set out the right of countries to apply the precautionary principle—to say no when they did

      365
      not know. Handing over the negotiating rights for all trade leaves us one step short of being told by the Commissioners that we no longer have any such authority.
      The Welsh, who have fought hard for Wales to remain a zone free of genetically modified organisms, may well be told that they have no right to restrict the planting of GM crops there, because that would constitute indirect interference with trade. The patent rights that the biotech companies have acquired are followed by rights to plant, grow and sell. For those with environmental concerns, it is just tough luck. They no longer have authority to make decisions in their own right in areas in which they have ceded decision-making and negotiating rights to the European Commissioners.
      If we wanted warning of that, we should have paid attention to the role that Pascal Lamy attempted to play as trade negotiator in Seattle. We were saved by the role played by some of our own Ministers, who flatly stated that they would not reach an agreement with the biotech corporations. Pascal Lamy is on public record as saying, "I will go and negotiate an agreement." Only the fact that he had not the authority to do so stopped the process, and allowed us to make those decisions. We will have to explain to the British public why we no longer have any authority to implement policies on which they feel passionately.
      The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) asked where the postbag was. The postbag will bypass us if we hand over the pass on the right to make responsible decisions relating to our stewardship of those people's environment and the shape of their society. As for services, a remit will be extended to the Commissioners to address rail services, postal services, health services and education services.
      We should not kid ourselves that we can have a debate here that presumes that we can make decisions. Perhaps we should remind those in Downing street that the party stands for a strong commitment to public delivery of public services; but even if we do that, Downing street may tell us, "You can say what you like, but the policies are no longer made here. We now have obligations that are determined at European level, rather than prerogatives that can be determined at national parliamentary level."
      Provisions on intellectual property rights will extend to the whole domain of our policies in respect of GMOs. On sustainable trade, when we seek to deal with climate change and to impose payback economics—pay back to the planet, not just to shareholders—we are likely to find that that is in breach of the decision-making authority that we have handed over to the European Commissioners, who will conduct the negotiations.
      On environmental protection, I have a particular interest in the notion of producer liability. There is a desperate cry for the UK to introduce legislation that will at least define who is liable for genetic contamination of the environment in respect of GM crop trials. Farmers, supermarkets and local communities want to know that. There is huge pressure on us to bring in producer liability legislation.
      Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Simpson: May I finish the point?
      366
      Europe is discussing producer liability legislation. People are already saying, "It is an interesting idea, but why don't we leave it and see where the European roundabout takes us?" The reality is simple. The biotech corporations have been working hand in glove with European Commissioners, saying, "We do not want any liability regime that would make us legally responsible for the damage that we do, so spin it round for the decade and then come out with a policy that is anodyne and useless." If we sign up to the measure, we will sign away any ability to say, "No. It is an inadequate resolution of a real environmental threat and the ducking of a legitimate environmental liability."
      Mr. Cash: There is a lot of talk about product liability, directives and so forth in the European Union. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He had not got on to the producer liability directive when I tried to intervene. That is the problem. Everything is being subsumed.
      Mr. Simpson: Fundamentally, it comes down to the right of the British public to decide. They may feel that there is a greater good to be had in going down the path along which the Nice treaty takes us one step further. I doubt it. After an informed debate, we would not wish to sign up to that model of an inclusive European future. There are better models. It is just that we have not had the right to address them. We face a fundamental test of our long-term credibility. If we deny the public the right to a say, it takes us one step closer to defining ourselves as of no relevance to the big issues that confront their lives. That is why I do not welcome the measure.
      Whatever disagreements we have on policy issues, there is an imperfect virtue about the nature of parliamentary democracy. It gives the public and parties the right to change course, to change positions and to be changed. If we surrender that, we have to accept responsibility for increasing numbers of the public saying that, as an institution, we have less and less relevance in determining the issues that affect their lives, and they will look elsewhere.
      There is a danger that the European project has already become hijacked. Ten thousand corporate lobbyists permanently besiege. Brussels to ensure that their policies are the ones that become EU directives. There is an agenda there. The priorities of corporate Europe are directly at odds with the long-term interests of civic Europe. If we do not deliver on-going democratic accountability, the danger is that we will prepare the ground for citizens legitimately to conclude that parliamentary democracy has become a farce or a facade. and that change will have to come through a direct challenge by citizens to corporate greed. There is huge instability in any country's going down that path. If we do not make a stand to defend the rights of citizens to decide, they will decide to do so themselves in other ways.
      Mr. Cash: I would like, as it were, to begin at the end of the debate, by taking up the point made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). He invited us to withdraw our new clauses and to allow him to go ahead with his. They are substantively the same—there is no real difference between the three new clauses—but I asked him whether he had any tangible evidence that that would deliver the type of result that I would, obviously, want. I believe passionately that we should have a

      367
      referendum on this treaty, as we should on the whole treaty on European Union. Another new clause that I tabled to that effect was not selected, but that was because it was outside the scope of the Bill, not because it did not have any intrinsic merit.
      I am not inviting the right hon. Gentleman to give the same answer as before. I merely point out that no useful purpose would be served if the position that some of us have consistently adopted in principle over a long time—that matters that come within the ambit of the treaties should be referred to a referendum—were adopted by a relatively small number of rebels on the Government Benches. In the heady days of Maastricht, the dividing line was narrow enough for us to be able to press matters to some effect. Therefore, although I will be guided by the Front-Bench team, I do not see any reason why we should not press the matter to a Division on our own account.
      I welcome the speech made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and the thoughtful speech made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). I do not agree with all his arguments, but I agree emphatically with the underlying idea of the necessity, in principle, to obtain the consent of the electorates. This treaty, like the consolidated treaty on the European Union, is of increasing and vast importance for the daily lives of our constituents.
      I have said repeatedly that every time we deal with a line in the treaty, if we implement it in our domestic law we are doing the equivalent of what would otherwise require a Bill which could take as long as six months to consider. We are conducting a monumental exercise.
      The hon. Member for Nottingham, South talked about Poland. In my travels with the Select Committee I have been all over central and eastern Europe. I have noticed over the past few years that since negotiations for accession began, those countries have been required to change and consolidate virtually every page of their statute books so that they become consistent with the acquis communautaire. That is the blackmail deal being conducted.
      I know from my discussions with Members of Parliament and members of the public in those countries that they are deeply disturbed by the extent to which their elite have driven the legislation through their respective Parliaments. Charts supplied to me through the European Scrutiny Committee and given to me by the prospective member states show that they have complied with certain chapters of the acquis communautaire. It has been a relentless process of attrition. However, the key point is that there has been no consent from the people. Slice by slice, they have had their intrinsic democracy taken away by negotiations conducted on their behalf by their elite. As far as I can make out, that has taken place without any reference to the people or any information about what is going on.
      8.30 pm
      On Second Reading, I referred to the impact that I thought that would have on the springtime of nations, which we may remember from 1988–89. At that time we were all elated by the way in which, with great courage, those countries disentangled themselves from the Soviet Union. We were all exhilarated by those events. However, 1 fear for those countries, as I do for the United Kingdom,
      368
      in respect of our democratic principles and the forum of the House of Commons. For the reasons that I have given in the many debates on the Nice treaty in which I have participated, I believe that this House is being reduced day by day—not only by the attitude of the Prime Minister and the Government Whips but by a whole series of forces, including those which require Select Committees to be nominated by the Whips, and the refusal to accept the Liaison Committee report. That is all part of a process, and that is why I am a vigorous and enthusiastic member of the Parliament First group.
      On the day we returned after the election I saw the draft of the Parliament First group motion. I said that if I were the Prime Minister, in the aftermath of a landslide victory, what would worry me most would be the fact that hon. Members from both sides of the House—many of them highly respected—were combining to put Parliament back in its proper place. In order to achieve that, given the encroachment of legislation such as this, which is about European government and emanates from the treaties of Nice, Amsterdam and Maastricht, it has become increasingly necessary for parliamentarians to take a stand.
      This will he a test for the Leader of the House, to see whether he can deliver anything meaningful. I spoke to him recently, and during an exchange in a debate, he said that he would be prepared to meet some of us to discuss the implications of the need to increase the power of Back Benchers. When we make a stand of that kind, we are standing up for the voters of this country, which is what it is all about. The bottom line on all these European questions is democracy and accountability.
      I wrote a pamphlet a few months ago entitled "Associated but not absorbed". It calls for an associated European area, which would mean that if the current member states were not prepared to listen to the arguments for renegotiation of the treaties, the associated countries could gather together and form their own treaty. That would effectively outflank the process of so-called irreversible integration. As with the great battles of the 19th century, such as those over the corn laws and the Reform Act of 1867—as the hon. Member for Nottingham, South seemed to suggest if I read his mind correctly—reversibility can be achieved only by people making it clear that when there is no response in their interest from Governments or elites, it is up to them to ensure that their freedom and democracy is preserved. Only time will tell what the exact mechanism for doing that will be. That process is dangerous. There is a disconnection.
      I have heard for very many years about the democratic deficit. However, the continuing process of integration has been accompanied by a refusal to do anything about that democratic deficit, which everyone acknowledges exists. Although the riots in Gothenburg, for example, certainly did not relate exclusively to the Nice treaty, they did occur at a European Union summit and were symbolic of people's determination to have their views heard. I deeply regret the fact that anarchists and others have become involved in all those processes, and I believe profoundly that it is essential that protest should be peaceful, but I also say that Governments create such circumstances, by carrying on as if voters were unimportant or did not matter at all.

      369
      A short time ago, as hon. Members may recall, I said that a fateful decision was taken when the Danish referendum was disgracefully rejected by the Danish Government, and John Major's Government agreed to allow another referendum to be held. I strongly objected in the House to that decision. The following week or so, the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung published an editorial saying that elections are becoming a form of protest, and that that is very dangerous and must be stopped. Such language shows an attitude of mind that is not only extremely dangerous but has continued ever since.
      Those who hold such views do not seem to have discovered that sooner or later, people refuse to put up with those views. They rely greatly on the fact that people do not know what is going on. Does anyone have the foggiest idea of the implications of enhanced co-operation? If so, I defy them to explain them to me.
      Yesterday we had a debate on the formulae, philosophy and provisions of enhanced co-operation. Hon. Members can judge for themselves the outcome of that discussion, much of which was between the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) and me. We discussed the range and depth of enhanced co-operation, the manner in which it is creating gravitational pull, the way in which it is moving towards direct taxation and the fact that it is centred on eight member states, regardless of the Union's enlargement to 27. We also discussed many other matters, although I shall not repeat them as they are set out in the report of that debate. However, I defy anyone who has not become a serious political analyst—or, I am sorry to say, a lawyer—to explain the precise consequences of enhanced co-operation. It has a vast impact.
      The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) implied that he thought that the treaty was unimportant in many respects, by saying that he could not see any constitutional implications in it. He therefore questioned our tabling a new clause providing for a referendum. As I know him to be a man of great distinction and perception, I am astonished that he could not see the constitutional implications of enhanced co-operation. Moreover, enhanced co-operation is only one of the treaty's provisions.
      Given the small number of hon. Members attending this debate—there are only two Conservative Back Benchers in the Chamber—
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Two very good ones.
      Mr. Cash: I shall leave my hon. Friend to say that; I make no claims for myself.
      I am trying my best to put the facts on the record, and to some extent I have succeeded. However, no information is going from this House to the public on the subject of enhanced co-operation.
      The communication between ourselves and the public depends on the media. I am grateful that some of my comments on defence matters were referred to in the national press this morning, but some columnist, commentator or worthy journalist should be prepared to reduce the complexity of these matters by writing an article for one of the great national newspapers to enable more people to understand what is going on.
      370
      We are individual Back Benchers, but journalists have access, through the prints, to up to 3 million people and can warn them of what the treaty contains. The same applies to radio and television. During the debate on the Queen's Speech, I spoke about constitutional implications, including the reform of Parliament. In that speech I referred to the BBC and the broadcasting authorities generally, and suggested that their research departments and commentators might take an interest in the treaty. Perhaps I am a wishful thinker, because I will be surprised if there is any reference to this debate on the radio or television. I hope that I am wrong, and I will continue to try my best.
      As for the Irish and Danish referendums, the Irish people were presented, through their referendum commission, with a paper that was delivered to every household, summarising in simple language the implications of the Nice treaty. I will not be told by anybody, no matter how self-important they may seem, that the Irish people did not know what they were doing. They received information and formed the judgment on which their decision was taken.
      There were other issues, such as the McCreevy speech—there were also problems involving Mr. McDowall—around the time of the referendum. But there is no doubt that the Irish people made their decision, by a substantial majority, in the light of information made available to them. It is irresponsible for anyone to suggest that they did not know what they were doing.
      Mr. David: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the turnout in the referendum was only 35 per cent.?
      Mr. Cash: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will remember the degree of cynicism and apathy generated by the continual driving through of this process by the elite, which was reflected, for example, in our turnout for the European elections of no more than 23 per cent. The failure—by Europe's elites, establishments and Governments—to inform people properly has led to much of the apathy and cynicism that exists, so I do not take the hon. Gentleman's point very seriously.
      8.45 pm
      I campaigned in the Danish referendum, and I appeared on platforms with French leaders during France's Maastricht treaty referendum. I did so because the matters under discussion, as they applied in those countries, affected Britain. Decisions reached by majority vote in the Council of Ministers, or by Governments at intergovernmental conferences, are part of the constant movement towards political union. They have an impact on us because laws are transferred to this country by section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.
      Britain therefore has an intrinsic interest in what is going on in other countries, and it is essential for us to take an active interest in referendums held elsewhere. However, we must do so with a degree of circumspection, depending on the country involved and whether its Government want us to participate in the referendum process.
      Mr. David: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He did not attach much significance to my earlier intervention, but I hope that he will to this one.

      371
      Does he accept that Denmark is not having a referendum on the Nice treaty because it does not consider it sufficiently significant?
      Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman clearly anticipates a riposte from me, and he shall have it: Denmark is not holding a referendum on the Nice treaty because the Danish Government are frightened that they might lose. That is borne out by the history of referendums in that country—a history that I know well.
      The Danish people voted no in the first referendum, and then were badly let down by the British Government and others. Another referendum was held, and during that campaign companies blackmailed people by threatening to close factories. People voted yes in the second referendum, but deeply regretted it. I remember being in a café in Copenhagen, and a young woman sitting with her boyfriend next to me started to cry. When I asked her why, she told me that she had voted in favour of the proposal set out in the referendum, and now wished that she had not. People were frightened. The next referendum in Denmark was on the euro, and they voted against it. I therefore base my answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on facts, not conjecture or speculation.
      Referendums should obtain the consent of a country's people—in deciding, for example, who should govern them, and how. They should not be used indiscriminately, but they are appropriate when vast tranches of power are being engineered by the elite. That is what is happening with the Nice treaty, for which no referendum is planned.
      The Government stand accused of refusing to give the British people the right to have their say on the Nice treaty. The same thing happened with the Amsterdam treaty, in connection with which I tabled an amendment similar to new clause 37.
      Moreover, I organised and ran the Maastricht referendum campaign. I am glad to say that I was supported by Bryan Gould, a member of the Labour party, and by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), from the Liberal Democrat party. They were my joint chairmen. We ran the campaign together, and obtained 500,000 signatures to the demand for a referendum from our own Government.
      On 11 June 1996 I introduced the Referendum Bill. I was hauled into the Chief Whip's office and given a roasting, which made no impact on me whatever, for daring to introduce a Bill that was supported by no fewer than 95 right hon. and hon. Members, about 98 per cent. of whom were from my party. I pay tribute to several Labour Members, too, and I remember from the Division list that the distinguished and right hon. Member for Llanelli supported the proposal.
      I gave my reasons for objecting to our not having a referendum. I do not think it necessary to go into the speech that I made on that occasion, because it dealt with matters that are now history. However, the rather pathetic attempts to haul me over the coals for daring to bring forward that Bill—an action that has proved entirely justified, in the light of further moves towards greater integration, which I predicted at the time—make me think that at least I did the right thing for the right reason.
      Mike Gapes: How does the hon. Gentleman expect the conversation to go when the Chief
      372
      Whip in a future Conservative party led by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) wishes to discuss the same matters with him? I would be interested to know whether he has any thoughts about that.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Michael Lord): That may be a most interesting question, but I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman did not pursue it.
      Mr. Cash: I will take that up one day with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), as I did with the former Conservative Prime Minister, John Major.
      In introducing the Referendum Bill I said:
      "A federal Europe involves surrendering the levers of national democratic government to central unelected officials and a remote and unrepresentative European Parliament … A proper referendum is required of those who will be most affected—the voters themselves. The judgment of the people is now required."—[Official Report, 11 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 118–119.]
      I said it then and I say it again now. As far as I am concerned, Members who vote for the new clause will be doing the right thing by the people of this country, for the right reason. I just wish that the information in these debates would be made available to the people at large.
      John McDonnell: I wish to speak in support of new clause 44 but will vote for new clause 12.
      It is important that Labour members preface our remarks on Europe so that people are aware that we are not xenophobic little Englanders. In fact, from the late 1960s and early 1970s, many of us have pursued a policy of a united socialist Europe. I do not suppose that there will be many Institute for Public Policy Research booklets or research pamphlets on that for the time being. During that debate, we learned that if we were to build a socialist Europe—a Europe in the interests of working people—we would need to take people with us, fully engage them all the way through the process and secure their support step by step.
      That is why the Irish referendum is a lesson for us. I have some anxieties about how it has been depicted. I know that a number of issues were brought to the fore in that referendum, but there is an element of patronising racism in some of the comments that have been made about that debate. I hope that we can call a halt to that.
      The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) entered into a wonderful alliteration around the Irish debate—surprise in Sligo and so on. To follow that theme, there were doubts in Dublin and worries in Waterford and there was downright chagrin along the Shannon. The Irish people came to a clear view about the overall European project, not necessarily about the treaty of Nice.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the general election was a referendum on the treaty of Nice. There was certainly a commentary about Europe throughout the election, but the detail of the treaty was not a key issue in the pubs and clubs of my constituency, although it may have been in his. He also argued that people were not demonstrating against the treaty, but that does not mean that there is tacit support for it either. There are no people marching in the streets in favour of it.

      373
      The key question—one to which I do not yet have the answer—is what triggers a referendum in a country with no written constitution. There was no referendum on Maastricht or Amsterdam, and we do not propose one on Nice. Yet for other political decisions it is almost as if we have taken a referendum diuretic. We have had referendums not only on Wales and Scotland but on a mayor for London. We are promised referendums on regional assemblies. We demand referendums on the reform of councils—whether there should be a mayor and cabinet, a leader and cabinet or a leader and chief executive. A referendum has been called for on parish councils. There was a referendum on the Good Friday agreement. A range of referendums has been established, but not on this issue.
      I understand why people say that the criteria for referendums are whether something is reversible or amendable, but without a written constitution, the main criterion has been that a debate has taken place in the House on a matter on which there is a certain level of political sensitivity so that the political will exists to consult the people. Often, to be frank, that has been politicians wanting to consult the people, hear what they want and confirm their prejudices.
      The political sensitivity about the treaty of Nice is that although it contains some significant elements—my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) made the most eloquent and detailed speech about the implications of the treaty—people from all parties are concerned that we are embarked on creeping, incremental constitutional change, treaty by treaty. At some stage, we have to confront the need to put the creeping centralisation of the EU to the people. My hon. Friend pointed out some of the key issues in the treaty, and other key issues will arise in subsequent discussions. They are about choice. The treaty of Nice and enlargement raise questions about how those policies will be paid for and what policies the EU will pursue to ensure a balance between centralisation and diversity as the new countries enter the EU.
      There should be an open debate about whether we are going for a centralised state or some form of confederacy. At some stage, we have to draw the line. I know that the argument is put before us that, with the intergovernmental conference coming up in 2004, we need to encourage a debate. I agree with that, but we have not said that we will hold a referendum on the future of Europe either before or after the IGC.
      At this stage, it would give some of us, and many of those whom we seek to represent, comfort if we made a very explicit statement that we will have a debate on the future of Europe and that, if we do not have a referendum on the treaty of Nice, there will be a referendum on Europe. Some argue that the euro is just a financial matter that does not involve constitutional change, but I disagree: it is about the overall future direction of Europe.
      9 pm
      One view is that, with the treaty of Nice, we are going one step further towards undermining representative democracy. We used to talk about the military-industrial complex; we now talk about the corporate-bureaucratic complex of the EU. We should open up such a debate,
      374
      and as we approach the 2004 IGC, we should at least assure people that, after a full and thorough debate, a referendum will take place on the future structure of Europe. That involves not only the euro, but the EU's political direction, its funding, the taxation base, the mechanisms for taxation and, above all, the mechanisms of political and representative democracy.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope that this will not he regarded as offensive, but I want to tell the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and his two colleagues that I have a huge regard for what they are doing. They know very well the problems they will have in supporting democracy and referendums, probably against their party's wishes. They will be faced with all kinds of problems. They will get no credit from anyone, and hardly anyone will pat them on the back because, by and large, the general public have not a clue what the treaty of Nice is. They know that what they are doing is absolutely right. Many hon. Members presented with such a choice would simply not bother to do anything because they would have all kinds of troubles if they did. They would not get on to Select Committees or get promoted, and they would probably be undermined in their constituencies.
      It is easy to keep quiet and do nothing, and the majority of people take that view, but the right hon. Gentleman and his two colleagues are not going that way; they know that it is vital to stand firm. As someone who has been in trouble and who knows how important the issues are, I have a high regard for them. When the time comes and they face their maker or look back on history, they will know that they have done the right thing for the right reasons. In all sincerity, I have the highest regard for them.
      What about a referendum? Opposition parties usually like referendums, but Governments do not, unless they think that they will win them. Basically, there should be a referendum if the power entrusted to us by the people might be given away irreversibly. We as an institution should manage that power and look after it. If people entrust us with money, power or anything else and we decide to give it away irreversibly so that it can never come back, they should be entitled to a referendum. I wish that both the main parties could reach an agreement so that if we might irreversibly hand away the power entrusted to us by the people, the people would be given the right to say yes or no. That should apply throughout the whole EU, but of course it does not.
      Although some hon. Members may laugh, as they always do in European debates, they should accept the simple point that with every European treaty that we have passed, including the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act—I have voted against them all—the Government have said that it was different, that it represented a step forward and that it was good. Those then on the Conservative Front Bench told me time and again that the Single European Act did not involve handing over power to majority voting, that it was simply intended to encourage free trade, that it would help Britain and our industries and jobs and that I was trying to frustrate such help. It was obvious from the treaty that, in fact, it would involve handing over masses of democratic power, but we were told not to worry. The general public were not worried at all and, of course, they were blatantly misled.
      At the time of Maastricht, our Liberal Democrat friends, and others who are always great enthusiasts for Europe, told us that there was nothing to worry about and

      375
      that everything was okay. They told me that the treaty had positive aspects that would benefit everyone. People were blatantly misled. The same is happening with the treaty of Nice—we are being told that it is nothing to worry about.
      As Labour Members know, receiving one of those ridiculous objective 2 grants is rather like winning the cup final. A colleague spoke about them in the Adjournment debate last night. Some colleagues will probably know that, for reasons that I do not understand, my constituency is the only one in the whole of Essex to get objective 2 money. We applied for grants for only three out of our six wards, but it was decided that five wards should receive funds, so we got more than we asked for. Vast sums will pour into the constituency, and everyone is very happy. When I look around at the unusual projects that such grants are spent on, however, I wonder whether they are a good thing. People in other constituencies are upset and think that the decisions are unfair because there are European rules on unemployment, and my constituency does not have a terribly high unemployment rate. My constituents and those of many Labour Members think that objective 2 is wonderful because money is pouring in to be spent on exciting projects. Our high street will get new lamp posts and trees, which is fantastic.
      Hon. Members should ask themselves what will happen to all those grants when, under the Nice treaty. the membership of the EU is extended. How many Labour Members' constituencies are receiving objective 1 or 2 funding? The plain fact is that in 2006 we will start over, and I believe that there will be hardly any objective 1 or 2 funding for the United Kingdom because, inevitably, all that money will go to eastern Europe. I challenge the Government to prove me wrong.
      I turn now to the ridiculous common agricultural policy, which everyone knows is the biggest protection racket ever devised. It wastes a vast amount of money. Farmers thought that it was wonderful at first because they got higher prices and guarantees. In the same way, fishermen thought that the EU was wonderful until everything went wrong. What on earth will happen to the CAP when we extend EU membership? Romania and Poland have the potential to grow enough food for the whole of Europe. At present, we spend most of the money from the policy on dumping or destroying food. It will be a nightmare when EU membership is extended, and eastern Europe is covered by the CAP. The Government have said, as did the previous Government, that there can be no extension of membership unless there is fundamental reform of the CAP, but that reform has not happened—indeed, it cannot happen—as hon. Members are well aware.
      GM foods have been mentioned. We can do something about that problem. If, for example, children in my constituency grow two heads and we can conclusively prove that GM foods are to blame, we can impose certain restrictions on them for three months subject to the approval of the European Commission. However, the basic freedom that we had has gone.
      I could go on for a long time because there are 17 other matters that I could mention, but my basic point is that the treaty of Nice is very significant. Like all the previous treaties, it represents a massive surrender of power. It means that 90 per cent. of the decisions in the European Union will be taken by majority vote. If we are worried about immigration controls and asylum seekers, we must
      376
      consider what will happen when the restrictions are removed and eastern Europe is included in the European Union.
      It may be that all that is for the benefit of mankind, but the people should be told about the treaty. Every time there is a treaty, we are told not to worry because it is not as bad as the last one, and represents a step forward. We must remember that when we hand over the people's power and things go wrong, the people get nasty. They are not worried now because, by and large, they do not have a clue what is in the treaty. When they ask about it they are told not to worry, and only a few people will tell them that it is bad. When democracy goes wrong and people feel that they have been betrayed and sold out, everyone will have a nasty time.
      That is why it is right to let the people decide. At least then, if it goes wrong, we can say, "You voted for it." Of course, we might have to say, "You didn't bother to vote for it—only 50 per cent. of you bothered to vote." However, we should at least give them the chance to vote. We must remember that the power is not ours; it belongs to the people, and we are meant to be managing it. If we hand over that power without giving them the chance to decide, we are not only cheating but undermining the whole principle of democracy.
      That is why I hope that hon. Members will vote tonight for a referendum. I presume that not many of them will, but if we do not, we will be making a terrible mistake. I say again in all sincerity that I know that Labour Members who vote for a referendum will be doing something unpopular that will get them into trouble, but they will be doing the right thing. True democrats will some day cheer them and say that they were right.
      Ms Meg Munn: I shall be brief, as other hon. Members want to speak.
      As the Committee knows, I am a new Member. I received a telephone call yesterday to ask whether I would write a short article for The House magazine about my first impressions. I have many first impressions, but those that are relevant to the debate concern scrutiny. In various debates over the past 10 days, we have heard much about the importance of Members of Parliament scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account. I take the matter seriously, and I believe that the people of Sheffield, Heeley elected me to do that job.
      However, with regard to some of the new clauses before us, I find it difficult to take seriously the contention that the Opposition are interested in scrutiny and in holding the Government to account. New clause 37 has the names of six hon. Members against it. New clause 12 has the names of four hon. Members against it. I cannot count 10 Members of the official Opposition in the Chamber.
      I also find it difficult to take seriously the calls for a referendum. As has been said, the Conservatives do not have a history of holding referendums on such matters. Why now? We have heard various explanations. We have heard that it is time for the people to have their say, that we should respect the views of the British people, that remorseless political integration is under way and that powers should be returned to Parliament. Opposition Members seem to be saying that they do not want to be in the European Union. If that is what they believe, they should say so. In their current search for a leader,

      377
      that will cause them some difficulties. People should be honest about what they want and clear about what they are saying.
      My constituents receive objective 1 funding, and I do not share the fears of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). We are not proud to live in an area that is among the poorest in Europe. We are extremely concerned about that. I hope that objective I money will do what it is intended to do—help to lift the people of my constituency and the surrounding area out of that situation, so that when the money comes to an end, as it is programmed to do, we will not feel the loss.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: To resolve the question, why does not the hon. Lady ask the Minister, an able, conscientious and talented person with lots of officials to back him up, a simple question: what happens to Britain's share of objective 2 and objective 1 in the event of Europe expanding to include eastern Europe? There are three possibilities: the money will be cut, it will be increased or it will stay the same. Why not ask the Minister and see what he says?
      Ms Munn: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will have heard those comments and that there is no need for me to waste time repeating them. If he wishes to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point in his winding-up speech, I am sure that he will do so. As I was saying, I hope that my constituents will not need such assistance in several years' time.
      9.15 pm
      Why do the Opposition propose a referendum on the Nice treaty when they are so reluctant to support a referendum on the euro? That reluctance has been made very clear. Some hon. Members suggested that the general election constituted a referendum on keeping the pound. If that is the case, the decision has been taken and the matter is over, although I am sure that that is not exactly what the people believe.
      I believe that the treaty will make significant improvements and help enlargement. Constituents of mine who raised the issue during the general election campaign were supportive of enlargement and wanted us to move ahead, but many people do not understand the detail of the treaty. That is for us to talk about and explain, but I support the Government's position, which is that a referendum is unnecessary on this matter.
      Dr. Ladyman: Very little time remains, so I shall keep my remarks brief and hope that hon. Members will forgive me if my contribution does not include some of the usual pleasantries. Three very thoughtful speeches were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and I hope to deal at least in part with some of the issues that they raised.
      Whenever we enter into a treaty, the minimum consequence is that we reduce our national room to manoeuvre, but sometimes we go further and limit our sovereignty. Whether we share or pool it, it will be limited in some way. However, we do not automatically have a
      378
      referendum whenever that happens because we have a parliamentary system of democracy and take such decisions here in this place. We are the ultimate deciders of such matters. If we get those decisions wrong, we expect to answer for them in an election.
      There is a precedent for holding referendums on issues of national importance when certain criteria are met. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, we have no written constitution, which means that we have no rule book and can only try to judge the nature of that precedent. In my view, for a referendum on a treaty to be appropriate, that treaty should involve a quantum leap in our constitutional position, cross party lines to the extent that we cannot resolve the matter clearly in a general election, and involve a complicated issue that is difficult to deal with and will become submerged in a general election campaign.
      If those are the tests of whether a referendum is necessary, the treaty of Nice does not fulfil them. It does not constitute a quantum leap in our constitutional position. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, matters of tax and defence are still to be decided by unanimity. The treaty does not deal with what would usually be called significant losses of sovereignty.
      Although attitudes to the treaty cross party lines, certain parties offered clear choices in the general election. One party proposed a referendum on the treaty, but it was rejected. Another argued that we should leave the Union altogether, but it, too, was rejected. Thus the criterion that I described in relation to party lines has not been met.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South added another set of criteria. He said that a referendum should be held on a measure that is unamendable and irreversible, but I respectfully suggest to him that he did not make such a case in respect of the treaty of Nice. He also argued that the treaty of Nice would have consequences which were sufficiently significant to justify holding a referendum on it. Of course it has consequences, but they are reversible and amendable. We could renegotiate them at the next intergovernmental conference. My hon. Friend did not make a clear case for the consequences being irreversible.
      If consequences are the deciding factor in whether to hold a referendum, we must bear it in mind that all our actions have consequences. My constituents often ask me whether I would vote to reintroduce the death penalty. I tell them that if they want someone to do that, they must elect a different person. In the past two elections, they have chosen not to do that. Yet opinion polls tell me that my constituents would like the death penalty to be reintroduced. If they want that, they can vote for someone else, because I shall not support its reintroduction. My decision has consequences, but we do not hold a referendum on the subject; the decision is left to me.
      I agree that the Nice treaty has consequences. I believe that they are beneficial; some of my hon. Friends would argue that they are detrimental. However, that is an argument not for a referendum but for voting for or against the treaty in Parliament.
      Mr. Frank Field: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in 1975, on the only occasion when we held a referendum, none of his criteria were fulfilled? We held it so that a divisive issue could be settled in the country.
      Dr. Ladyman: I agree that that was a factor in deciding to hold a referendum, but I disagree that my criteria were not fulfilled.
      Consequences are an insufficient reason for a referendum. If we hold referendums simply because decisions are difficult, we undermine parliamentary democracy. It is strange that Conservative Members, who usually lecture us about the importance of Parliament and the need to ensure that it is supreme again, argue for putting aside our supremacy because they do not like a decision and want a referendum on it.
      Peter Hain: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I am sorry that my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) were unable to get in, not least because of the long speech of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). However, I shall not make much of that.
      The debate was of high quality and some fundamental issues were raised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead made some important points. One was answered by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet when he talked about surrendering sovereignty. Membership of the European Union does not mean surrendering sovereignty, which we have kept. We have retained the veto where it matters: for example, over taxation, social security and defence
      As my hon. Friend said, we are considering pooling sovereignty. How else can we combat the drugs menace, human trafficking and the environmental catastrophe that faces the world, especially Europe? How else can we tackle the problems of globalisation, and negotiate with the World Trade Organisation and other bodies, unless we do that from a common position of strength?
      We pool our sovereignty, or surrender it, through membership of the United Nations Security Council. We thus give up our ability to do as we like about foreign policy. We pool our sovereignty through our membership of NATO. We thus give up our right to do as we like to defend our country. However, we gain in strength and influence by pooling sovereignty.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said that he believed that enlargement could proceed without the Nice treaty. I suppose that that is theoretically possible. [Hon. MEMBERS: " Ah!"] Wait for it! We have had this argument before. It would be theoretically possible if all 12 states had exhaustive individual accession treaties, but frankly, that is not feasible. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will accept that it is not a serious proposition to construct a new Europe on that basis.
      One of the most powerful points that my right hon. Friend made was about the gap between the leaders and the led in Europe, although I am not sure that a referendum is the logical solution. This is a serious problem. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) was kind enough to address it, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South. I made a speech on the subject yesterday, which is available on the Foreign Office website—www.fco.gov.uk—in its full glory, as opposed to the summary that appeared in The Independent.
      380
      A serious problem faces the European Union in terms of the language that is used—the Eurospeak and Eurobabble—and the sense of an elite body talking to itself, meeting behind security cordons and barriers, having been ferried there by limousines. This is a serious issue that we need to address, and Britain is determined to ensure that it is addressed. However, we will not address it by holding a referendum.
      If we are seeking to bring the leaders and the led closer together in the European Union, we should do it by constructing a different approach to communications, to policy and to the institutional relationship between the leadership of Europe and its citizens. Similarly, we would not deal with the low electoral turnout in Britain, which is an increasing problem, by holding a referendum on it, because that would not be a sensible way to proceed.
      Angus Robertson: The Minister talks about the gap between the leaders and the led. Everyone recognises that a lot of valuable work goes on in the European Parliament. One issue that I have not heard mentioned is the knock-on effect of the reduction in the number of MEPs for the United Kingdom. I asked the Library today whether the Government had at any time clarified what number of MEPs will represent Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, post ratification. There has been no such clarification from the Government. I know that that is a matter of great concern for Northern Irish colleagues, as well as those in Scotland and Wales. Will the Minister clarify how many MEPs Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will have after the ratification of the Nice treaty?
      Peter Hain: That matter has still to be addressed. I am being absolutely frank with the hon. Gentleman when I tell him that the reduction from, I think, 87 to 72 MEPs is a long way into the future. We cannot have enlargement on a sensible basis without addressing that matter. I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding in agreement.
      There is a further serious problem that cannot be solved by a referendum. In the Irish referendum, the slogan seemed to be, "If you don't know, vote no." Account needs to be taken of that. The gap between the institutions of Europe and the people of Europe is an issue that must be confronted and resolved.
      The argument by the Conservative party that the Nice treaty is so important, and makes so many changes of constitutional significance, that we must hold a referendum on it before we ratify it, seems absolutely wrong. In the majority of member states, the traditional constitutional process for ratifying EU treaties is by parliamentary procedure, just as it is in Britain, just as it was for our own accession treaty when we joined, just as it was for the Amsterdam treaty, and, significantly, just as it was for the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty. Both those measures introduced far more fundamental changes than Nice does, and both were negotiated by the Conservative party, which saw no need to trouble the people with a referendum on either.
      It is worth taking a look at some of the constitutional issues in the Maastricht treaty, which the Conservatives agreed. Maastricht established the European Union; it established citizenship of the Union; and it set up the pillar structure, with common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs joining the European Community. It extended qualified majority voting to

      381
      30 substantial new articles. The iron lady might not have been for turning, but today's Conservative party appears to be spinning like a top.
      9.30 pm
      What was the Conservative party's argument for the sudden change of heart? The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) told John Humphrys that it had not held a referendum on Maastricht because
      "at that time there was not the custom of holding referendums."
      That is not a serious argument and I am surprised that he even tried it with John Humphrys. The right hon. Gentleman has also complained that the Government held referendums on all manner of what he implied were trivial issues, such as Scottish and Welsh devolution and the system of government for London. That is the attitude that won the Conservative party precisely no seats in Wales or Scotland in 1997 and caused it to fare little better a few weeks ago.
      Those were very important constitutional issues. So too is whether we join the euro, but on that—arguably the defining issue of our generation—the Conservatives would also deny the people the chance to voice their opinion, although they would have a referendum on apparently vital issues in the treaty of Nice, such as whether to extend QMV for the pension arrangements of the registrar of the Court of First Instance, encouraging the EU's institutions to reply to letters from members of the public in a reasonable time frame, and changing the name of the Official Journal of the EC to the Official Journal of the EU, which of course would do nothing more than reflect reality.
      The Conservatives have put themselves in an incredible position—opposition for opposition's sake. They oppose a referendum on an important constitutional issue such as the euro, but want to break with established constitutional procedure and hold one on the treaty. However, the hon. Member for West Suffolk has made his case just in time and I congratulate him on that. What has the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the front-runner in the Conservative leadership election, to say about a referendum on the Nice treaty? He is opposed to one, saying:
      "Our official policy at the general election was that the Conservatives favoured enlarging the union but opposed the treaty of Nice which paves the way for enlargement … We opposed the extension of qualified majority voting to any new subject, however trivial … These policies are difficult to reconcile with Britain's continued membership of the EU … When I am leader, these will not be the official policies of the party."
      The old agenda, which will disappear in a few weeks, has been put from the Opposition Front Bench tonight.
      Notwithstanding the thoughtful comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, who made serious points that need to be taken on board, we must keep our eye on the ball. The Nice treaty is about a huge prize—reuniting Europe and healing the divisions of the second world war and the cold war. It must be endorsed as speedily as possible and ratified, as we intend to do through Parliament, to achieve European unity and to bring prosperity, stability, peace and security to all the other nations that want to join us in the EU.
      382
      Those countries are desperate to join, as I discovered when I spoke recently to the Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic, Jan Kavan, with whom I worked in the 1970s and 1980s in the anti-apartheid movement here in Britain. He wants to join the EU and we should not stand in his way—nor in that of our many other friends, such as Cyprus, Malta and Poland. I urge the Committee to reject the new clause, endorse the proposition put by the Government and ensure that the treaty of Nice is ratified.
      Mr. Spring: From the time when the Minister was active in the Young Liberals in his youth, he will remember a song called "Let The Sun Shine In". That is exactly what we have attempted with the murky areas of the Nice treaty. This is complicated legislation and the Government have covered themselves in confusion. As we have heard consistently, they did not think out the implications of what they signed up to, and that has been transparently obvious during three days of Committee debate.
      The Minister talked about Eurobabble, and for all his honeyed words, Eurobabble is what we have heard from him. There is a terrible danger that the elites of the European Union will acquire an echo of Marie Antoinette. The truth of the matter is that if we go on disconnecting the people of Europe from the institutions of the European Union, it will not survive and prosper.
      This is an opportunity to re-engage the people of Britain with the process in the European Union by offering them a referendum. I am extremely disappointed that the Minister has not given even one constructive reason why there should not be a referendum. I have listened carefully to his hon. Friends, and agree substantially with what they have said.
      We want to breathe the fresh air of democracy into this process. Unhesitatingly, we will press the new clause to a vote.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 129, Noes 377.

      Division No. 34]

      [9.36 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Bacon, Richard

      Duncan, Alan

      Barker, Greg

      Duncan, Peter

      Baron, John

      Evans, Nigel

      Beggs, Roy

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bellingham, Henry

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bercow, John

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Flight, Howard

      Blunt, Crispin

      Flook, Adrian

      Boswell, Tim

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Brady, Graham

      Francois, Mark

      Brazier, Julian

      Gale, Roger

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gamier, Edward

      Butt, Alistair

      Gibb, Nick

      Butterfill, John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Cameron, David

      Goodman, Paul

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Grayling, Chris

      Cash, William

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Chope, Christopher

      Greenway, John

      Clappison, James

      Grieve, Dominic

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hammond, Philip

      Collins, Tim

      Hayes, John

      Cran, James

      Heald, Oliver

      383

      Hendry, Charles

      Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

      Hoban, Mark

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Horam, John

      Ruffley, David

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hunter, Andrew

      Selous, Andrew

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Simmonds, Mark

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Leigh, Edward

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lidington, David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spring, Richard

      Loughton Tim

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Luff, Peter

      Swayne, Desmond

      McDonnell, John

      Swire, Hugo

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Syms, Robert

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Maples, John

      Tredinnick, David

      Mates, Michael

      Trend, Michael

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      May Mrs Theresa

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mercer, Patrick

      Viggers, Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Walter, Robert

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Norman, Archie

      Whittingdale, John

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Wilkinson, John

      Ottaway, Richard

      Willetts, David

      Paice, James

      Wilshire, David

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Paterson, Owen

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Pickles, Eric

      Yeo, Tim

      Prisk, Mark

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Mr. James Gray and

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Mr. John Randall.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ainger, Nick

      Brake, Tom

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Allan, Richard

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Allen, Graham

      Brooke, Annette

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Browne, Desmond

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Bryant, Chris

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Burgon, Colin

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Burnham, Andy

      Austin, John

      Burstow, Paul

      Baird, Vera

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Baker, Norman

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Barnes, Harry

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Barrett, John

      Cairns, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Battle, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Beard, Nigel

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Caplin, Ivor

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Benn, Hilary

      Casale, Roger

      Bennett, Andrew

      Caton, Martin

      Benton, Joe

      Cawsey, Ian

      Berry, Roger

      Challen, Colin

      Betts, Clive

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Blackman, Liz

      Chaytor, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Chidgey, David

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clapham, Michael

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Borrow, David

      384

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hancock, Mike

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hanson, David

      Clelland, David

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Healey, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Heath, David

      Coleman, Iain

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Colman, Tony

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hendrick, Mark

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Corston, Jean

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cotter, Brian

      Heyes, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Hill, Keith

      Cox, Tom

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cranston, Ross

      Hodge, Margaret

      Crausby, David

      Holmes, Paul

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hope, Phil

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cummings, John

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hurst, Alan

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hutton, John

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Illsley, Eric

      David, Wayne

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Davidson, Ian

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jamieson, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jenkins, Brian

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Doughty, Sue

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dowd, Jim

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Joyce, Eric

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Edwards, Huw

      Keetch, Paul

      Efford, Clive

      Kemp, Fraser

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Khabra, Piara S

      Etherington, Bill

      Kidney, David

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Farrelly, Paul

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Fisher, Mark

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Flint, Caroline

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Flynn, Paul

      Lamb, Norman

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Laws, David

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Laxton, Bob

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Foulkes, George

      Lepper, David

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Leslie, Christopher

      Gapes, Mike

      Levitt, Tom

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Linton, Martin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lloyd, Tony

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Love, Andrew

      Gidley, Sandra

      Lucas, Ian

      Gilroy, Linda

      Luke, Iain

      Godsiff, Roger

      Lyons, John

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Grogan, John

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hain, Peter

      MacDougall, John

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McFall, John

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      385

      McIsaac, Shona

      Ruane, Chris

      McKechin, Ann

      Ruddock, Joan

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McNulty, Tony

      Ryan, Joan

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Salmond, Alex

      McWalter, Tony

      Salter, Martin

      McWilliam, John

      Sanders, Adrian

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sawford, Phil

      Mallaber, Judy

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mann, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Marris, Rob

      Sheridan, Jim

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Simon, Siôn

      Martlew, Eric

      Singh, Marsha

      Merron, Gillian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Miliband, David

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Moran, Margaret

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

      Morgan, Julie

      Soley, Clive

      Morley, Elliot

      Southworth, Helen

      Mountford, Kali

      Spellar, John

      Mudie, George

      Squire, Rachel

      Mullin, Chris

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stevenson, George

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Oaten, Mark

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      O'Hara, Edward

      Stringer, Graham

      Olner, Bill

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Öpik, Lembit

      Stunell, Andrew

      Organ, Diana

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Tami, Mark

      Owen, Albert

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pearson, Ian

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Picking, Anne

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pike, Peter

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Plaskitt, James

      Thurso, John

      Pollard, Kerry

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pond, Chris

      Todd, Mark

      Pope, Greg

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Pound, Stephen

      Touhig, Don

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Trickett, Jon

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Truswell, Paul

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Price, Adam

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Pugh, Dr John

      Tynan, Bill

      Purchase, Ken

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Purnell, James

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rammell, Bill

      Watson, Tom

      Rapson, Syd

      Watts, David

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Weir, Michael

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      White, Brian

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Rendel, David

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Ross, Emie

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Roy, Frank

      Willis, Phil

      386

      Wills, Michael

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Winnick, David

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Wishart, Pete

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wood, Mike

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Woolas, Phil

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Worthington, Tony

      Dan Norris and

      Wray, James

      Mr. John Heppell.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 38

      EFFECTS OF NICE TREATY
      'Within three months of the ratification by Her Majesty's Government of the Treaty of Nice amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, the Government shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a White Paper on the economic, political and constitutional developments arising therefrom.'.—[Mr. Cash.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Cash: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      We have been through something of a marathon and we are now coming towards the end of our consideration of the new clauses. We have an opportunity to look at the implications of what we have been discussing over the past few days. My clause would provide an opportunity for the people of this country to be properly informed about what will be achieved after ratification of the Nice treaty. It states that within three months of the treaty's ratification
      "the Government shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a White Paper on the economic, political and constitutional developments arising therefrom."
      Tomorrow, or shortly afterwards, the European Commission will produce a White Paper based on a report made to it. It will be a White Paper from Europe. I can give a sample of it. It says that the EU is a "laboratory of world governance". We have been witnessing a continual process towards an undemocratic and unaccountable Europe within a legal framework. The Division has denied us a referendum, just as we have been denied a referendum on the treaty of European Union itself. In my opinion, it is time that we had one.
      Over the past year and a half, I have challenged the Prime Minister three times on the Floor of the House to give us a White Paper on the European issue—the constitutional, political and economic implications of what we have been deliberating on over the past few days, or indeed the past few years. Three times the Prime Minister has denied the people of this country the information that would enable them to make a judgment about what is going on. Why? The truth is that the Prime Minister dare not tell the British people what is happening. He knows perfectly well that if he were to provide a White Paper, he would have to spell out all the political and economic implications for the House and for the daily lives of the people of this country.
      It is a denial of the information that is due to the British people. Churchill said that one should tell the truth to the British people because they are a robust people, and "if you do not tell them the truth, woe betide you on the morrow". That is what is going on here. That is why we have seen riots in Gothenburg and elsewhere. It is why

      387
      there was a rejection of the Nice treaty in the Irish referendum and why the referendum in Denmark turned down the proposals for the euro. People are fed up with being governed by an elite. They are not being given the information that they require. My new clause would enable the British people to have proper information about what is being done to them.
      It is a matter of fundamental democracy and, after the Division tonight, the Government will stand accused of not being prepared to provide the people with a White Paper.
      Mr. Spring: I want to make it plain that we fully support the notion of a White Paper as contained in the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). It would mean that we could take a long, hard and proper look at what Nice was all about and the implications that flow from it. I remind hon. Members that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs concluded:
      "The Treaty of Nice has proved to be much more substantial than the United Kingdom Government and others initially envisaged."
      We know from the Select Committee proceedings how the Government went disorganised and unstructured into the Nice treaty negotiations, and how they came out of them after signing up to the treaty without fully understanding its implications and what it is all about. In those circumstances, a White Paper would be the right way of taking a proper and considered view of what was agreed to at Nice. I am happy to support my hon. Friend's proposal.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: In the course of the Committee's consideration of the Bill many comments have been made about the need for clarity and transparency and the need to reconnect the people of the United Kingdom with the European Union. I think that a White Paper of the type that the new clause seeks to persuade the Government to provide would be a very important step in achieving those objectives. For those reasons, but not necessarily for those that have been advanced so far in the debate, I believe that this is a new clause worthy of support.
      Peter Hain: Conservative Members have lost the argument in this debate and now they come waving a bit of white paper. It is not necessary to have a White Paper.
      A White Paper on the effect of the Nice treaty, "Reform for Enlargement", was published in February 2000 and clearly set out the Government's position on the 2000 intergovernmental conference. Parliament is now debating the implications of Nice, and we shall continue to keep Parliament informed of developments in the European Union as they occur. We have laid before Parliament, and published yesterday, our six-monthly report on developments in the European Union. Additionally, Parliament will have ample opportunity to debate and contribute to the future of Europe in the lead-up to the next intergovernmental conference, in 2004. I look forward to the erudite contributions that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will make to those debates.
      We believe that the treaty of Nice is a good outcome for Britain and will deliver a stronger Britain in a wider Europe. We have opened the door to enlargement, the fantastic prize of reunifying Europe. We have won more relative voting power for Britain. Conservative Members said that we could not achieve that, but we did. We have
      388
      also won a more efficient Commission. We have secured more qualified majority voting when that is in Britain's interests, and we have preserved our veto by saying that we needed to do so. We have achieved a more effective system of justice in the European Union that will help to cut delays. We have also secured a more flexible European Union while safeguarding the interests of all member states.
      We shall continue to engage at every opportunity in a discussion on all aspects of the Nice treaty as it evolves with Parliament and with the House of Commons—on the Floor of the House, in Committee, and in the Scrutiny Committee. I therefore do not think that a White Paper is necessary, and I do not think that the Opposition are serious about pressing the new clause to a Division.
      Conservative Members have had their last fling today. When they return from the summer recess, they will have a new leader. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has made it clear that he supports the Nice treaty. How will the hon. Members for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and for Stone and all the other Conservative Members who have attacked the Nice treaty be voting on Third Reading in October?
      Mr. Bercow: Against.
      Peter Hain: There we have it. A rebellion is already being planned, three or four months before Third Reading, by some Conservative Back Benchers. They will be voting against Third Reading and defying their new leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe. What a pathetic rabble they are.
      As Labour Members, we are lifting our heads above that dreadful spectacle and saying that the real issues are about the unity of Europe, a more efficient Europe, a more prosperous Europe, a Europe that drives forward towards full employment, social justice and the protection of people's job security and rights, and a Europe that fights poverty and combats the environmental threat that is the scourge of our times.
      We commend the Bill and reject new clause 38.
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Orders [4 and 11 July], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      The Committee divided: Ayes 181, Noes 334.

      Division No. 35]

      [9.59 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Allan, Richard

      Brady, Graham

      Amess, David

      Brake, Tom

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Brazier, Julian

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Brooke, Annette

      Bacon, Richard

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Baker, Norman

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Barker, Greg

      Burnside, David

      Baron, John

      Burstow, Paul

      Barrett, John

      Burt, Alistair

      Beggs, Roy

      Butterfill, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Bellingham, Henry

      Cameron, David

      Bercow, John

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Boswell, Tim

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Cash, William

      389

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Norman, Archie

      Oaten, Mark

      Chidgey, David

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Chope, Christopher

      Öpik, Lembit

      Clappison, James

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Collins, Tim

      Ottaway, Richard

      Cotter, Brian

      Paice, James

      Cran, James

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Paterson, Owen

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Pickles, Eric

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Price, Adam

      Dodds, Nigel

      Prisk, Mark

      Doughty, Sue

      Pugh, Dr John

      Duncan, Alan

      Randall, John

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Duncan, Peter

      Rendel, David

      Evans, Nigel

      Robathan, Andrew

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Flight, Howard

      Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

      Flook, Adrian

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Francois, Mark

      Ruffley, David

      Gale, Roger

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Garnier, Edward

      Salmond, Alex

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Gibb, Nick

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gidley, Sandra

      Selous, Andrew

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Goodman, Paul

      Simmonds, Mark

      Gray, James

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

      Grayling, Chris

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Greenway, John

      Spring, Richard

      Grieve, Dominic

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hammond, Philip

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hancock, Mike

      Swire, Hugo

      Hayes, John

      Syms, Robert

      Heald, Oliver

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Heath, David

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Hendry, Charles

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Hoban, Mark

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Holmes, Paul

      Thurso, John

      Horam, John

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Trend, Michael

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Tyler, Paul

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Viggers, Peter

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Water, Robert

      Keetch, Paul

      Watkinson, Angela

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Weir, Michael

      Lamb, Norman

      Whittingdale, John

      Laws, David

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Leigh, Edward

      Wiggin, Bill

      Letwin, Oliver

      Wilkinson, John

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Willetts, David

      Lidington, David

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Willis, Phil

      Loughton, Tim

      Wilshire, David

      Luff, Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Wishart, Pete

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Malins, Humfrey

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Mates, Michael

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Mr. Peter Atkinson and

      Mercer, Patrick

      Mr. Geoffrey

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Clifton-Brown.

      390

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Ainger, Nick

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      David, Wayne

      Alexander, Douglas

      Davidson, Ian

      Allen, Graham

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Dismore, Andrew

      Austin, John

      Dobbin, Jim

      Bailey, Adrian

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Baird, Vera

      Doran, Frank

      Barnes, Harry

      Dowd, Jim

      Barron, Kevin

      Drew, David

      Battle, John

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Bayley, Hugh

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Beard, Nigel

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Edwards, Huw

      Benn, Hilary

      Efford, Clive

      Bennett, Andrew

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Benton, Joe

      Ennis, Jeff

      Berry, Roger

      Etherington, Bill

      Betts, Clive

      Farrelly, Paul

      Blackman, Liz

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Fisher, Mark

      Blizzard, Bob

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

      Borrow, David

      Flint, Caroline

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Flynn, Paul

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Brennan, Kevin

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Foulkes, George

      Browne, Desmond

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Bryant, Chris

      Gapes, Mike

      Burgon, Colin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Burnham, Andy

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Gerrard, Neil

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Cairns, David

      Gilroy, Linda

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Casale, Roger

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Caton, Martin

      Grogan, John

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hain, Peter

      Challen, Colin

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Chaytor, David

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hanson, David

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Healey, John

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clelland, David

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clwyd, Ann

      Heyes, David

      Coleman, Iain

      Hill, Keith

      Colman, Tony

      Hinchliffe, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hope, Phil

      Corston, Jean

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cousins, Jim

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cox, Tom

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cranston, Ross

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Crausby, David

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hurst, Alan

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hutton, John

      Cummings, John

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Illsley, Eric

      391

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Jamieson, David

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jenkins, Brian

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jones, Helen (Wanington N)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Organ, Diana

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Owen, Albert

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Joyce, Eric

      Pearson, Ian

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Picking, Anne

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Pike, Peter

      Kemp, Fraser

      Plaskitt, James

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Khabra, Piara S

      Pond, Chris

      Kidney, David

      Pope, Greg

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Pound, Stephen

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Laxton, Bob

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lepper, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Leslie, Christopher

      Pumell, James

      Levitt, Tom

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Ouinn, Lawrie

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Rammell, Bill

      Linton, Martin

      Rapson, Syd

      Lloyd, Tony

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Love, Andrew

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lucas, Ian

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Luke, Iain

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lyons, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McCabe, Stephen

      Rooney, Terry

      McCafferty, Chris

      Ross, Emie

      McCartney, Fit Hon Ian

      Roy, Frank

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ruane, Chris

      MacDougall, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      McFall, John

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Ryan, Joan

      McIsaac, Shona

      Salter, Martin

      McKechin, Ann

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Sawford, Phil

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McNamara, Kevin

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McNulty, Tony

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McWalter, Tony

      Simon, Siân

      McWilliam, John

      Singh, Marsha

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mann, John

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Marris, Rob

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Southworth, Helen

      Martlew, Eric

      Spellar, John

      Merron, Gillian

      Squire, Rachel

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Miliband, David

      Stevenson, George

      Miller, Andrew

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Moran, Margaret

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Morgan, Julie

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Morley, Elliot

      Stringer, Graham

      Mountford, Kali

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mudie, George

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mullin, Chris

      Tami, Mark

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      392

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      White, Brian

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Tipping, Paddy

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Todd, Mark

      Touhig, Don

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wills, Michael

      Truswell, Paul

      Winnick, David

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wood, Mike

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Woolas, Phil

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Worthington, Tony

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Wray, James

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Tynan, Bill

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Wyatt, Derek

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wareing, Robert N

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Watson, Tom

      Mr. John Heppell and

      Watts, David

      Dan Norris.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      To be read the Third time tomorrow.

  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

  Asylum Seekers (Everton)
  10.16 pm
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: I present this petition on behalf of 378 Christians in Anglican and Catholic churches in the north Liverpool deanery who wish to register their concern about poor conditions and the atmosphere of fear and oppression in two tower blocks in Everton, Liverpool—Landmark and Inn on the Park—in which asylum seekers are housed.
  The petition states
  "The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons acknowledges the issues faced by the asylum seekers in Everton; that the House urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to take all measures which lie within his power to improve the safety, peace of mind, and living conditions of these residents; and that the House give its full support to all such measures.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  British Bases (Kenya)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Martin Caton (Gower): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of civilian casualties at British military training areas in Kenya. I am particularly pleased to be able to do so before the summer recess, as this is an important matter and one about which I know there is growing public concern throughout the country.
  In introducing this debate, I cannot help but cast my mind back three years to the last Parliament when we passed the Landmines Act 1998, and I can still remember the enormous pride that I felt as a new Back Bencher at the fact that our Government were demonstrating clear moral leadership in the world and making an eloquent statement about the value that they put on human life and well-being not just in our own country but throughout the world.
  I know that during our debates on that Bill, I was not alone among Members of Parliament on both sides of the House in having in mind the heart-rending pictures that we had, seen in our newspapers and on our television screens as the campaign for that legislation developed, of young children killed and terribly maimed by anti-personnel mines. All too often, because terrible and sad conflicts have taken place on the African continent in recent years, those pictures were of African children—the innocent victims of current and historic wars in their home countries.
  It was those pictures that came back to me just over a fortnight ago when I listened to a "You and Yours" radio programme about people in Kenya—mostly children—being killed, disabled and injured by unexploded munitions on military training grounds used by the British Army in the central part of that country.
  The Observer of the same weekend carried a full-page article by Kamal Ahmed headed "Britain's secret killing fields", which provided its own specific and terrible images both visual and verbal that told the story of individual and family tragedies that resulted from, in most cases, children and young people happening on artillery shells or other ordnance which had failed to explode when initially fired and which had never been collected or cleared.
  Since then, I have done some research and read a lot more personal case studies from people who live in the regions in which the two military training areas on which I wish to focus are set. I found the stories extremely moving, very distressing and quite shaming. I want to put some cases on the record this evening because it is important to keep the real human consequences of our actions—or inaction—at the centre of the debate. That can be lost sometimes if we deal only in statistics, history and geography.
  First, to set the scene, I need to explain that the areas that I am talking about in Kenya are Archer's Post, near the Shaba game reserve, predominantly the tribal lands of the Samburu, and Dol Dol, close to the town of Nanyuki, mostly Masai lands in the shadow of Mount Kenya. Both areas have been used by the British Army, but not exclusively, for more than 50 years. I cannot prove that the examples that I shall cite involve the victims of British
  394
  ordnance, but I will try to show that there is every likelihood that they do. There is every reason to believe that innocent civilians have been killed or crippled by British munitions and that that has happened ever since our Army started to use Kenyan training areas more than 20 years before independence was achieved in 1967.
  I have read of specific cases dating back to 1979—for example, that of Lemura Kapisi Ole Kipese, who one afternoon in August that year was grazing his father's livestock when he saw an oval object with a spring attached to the end. When he tried to pick it up, the spring snapped and it dropped to the ground. The next thing he knew, he was in hospital in excruciating pain. He is still disabled. He says, "Since the poisonous bits of the explosive lodged in the lower parts of my body, my left leg had to be amputated. Besides, I lost the use of both arms, which were left paralysed."
  In the same year, Swaili Mpopwoki was even unluckier. An object that she picked up and then threw down blew her to smithereens. Her brother described the consequences, "Shrapnel lodged in her breast while pieces of metal hit her face making her blind and badly disfigured. She eventually died of her wounds."
  Moving forward 20 years, things do not seem to have changed very much. In September 1999, Peter Mwangi, a 14-year-old, took home what he thought was a metal stone. He hit it with a hammer, but it would not break, so he threw it into a fire and it exploded. He and three siblings were almost killed and one of them lost a leg. A nurse at Wamba hospital—the local hospital that deals with casualties from Archer's Post—described the condition of Mowli Lmolian Lekorian, when he was brought in, saying, "He was very badly injured. The scull was almost out; the leg, the abdomen and the eyes also." I shall not go on, but I could; there are many individual and family stories such as those. On average six children a year are killed or maimed by unexploded ordnance—unexploded, that is, until the children find it.
  So who is responsible? Perhaps the first question is whose bombs and shells are doing the damage. The Kenyan, and once or twice, the American, armies have trained in those areas, but all the available evidence suggests that the British Army has been by far the most significant user of those training areas. The United Kingdom sends 3,000 to 3,500 soldiers to Kenya in any one year. Their use of artillery and mortars is now confined predominantly to the flatter areas of the Archer's Post range. That part of the country is home to the Samburu tribe, who are pasturalists—nomadic people moving to wherever there is good grazing. I am informed that around 20,000 of them live in the Archer's Post range area for part of the year.
  Local people are sure that Dol Dol used to be exploited for similar heavy artillery manoeuvres in support of infantry training until some years ago, although the Ministry of Defence has informed me that it has no record of that taking place. It is agreed that the area has been restricted to the use of lighter weaponry in recent times. However, there is some evidence of relatively new white phosphorous bomb rounds being found on the range. In any case, other unexploded ordnance—perhaps from years ago—remains at Dol Dol, which is in the Masai tribal lands. The Masai are again, of course, a nomadic pasturalist people, and thousands of them live in the area.

  395
  Incidents that cause the sort of injuries that I have described mostly involve children herding the family animals. They come across the bombs and pick them up. A significant proportion of the ordnance is still dangerous and, for the unlucky ones, the bombs blow up, killing, maiming and burning them. In one incident, a child was evaporated because the explosion was so intense. We know that since 1940 at least 55 people have been killed and 101 injured in the Archer's Post and Dol Dol areas. The actual figures are estimated to be two or three times higher because many of the victims and their families are too scared of the Government to raise the issue.
  We know that the British Army was in charge of the Archer's Post range until independence, by which time there had already been many deaths and injuries, and unexploded ordnance was left uncleared. Since 1991, the Kenyan army, lacking resources, has not had the capacity to use the range to any significant extent, so for 30 of the last 57 years, almost all the bombs and shells fired have been British. Evidence suggests that even in the 1970s and 1980s, the British used far more ammunition than did the Kenyans. Throughout the entire period, injuries and deaths among local people have continued.
  Apart from the proportion of range times and the overall quantities of ammunition used by our Army, there is another reason to believe that our ordnance is responsible for a high percentage of the injuries. I refer to the way in which we use the ranges, particularly Archer's Post, compared with the methods used by the Kenyan army. There is a big difference. The British Army trains its soldiers in combat conditions that are as realistic as possible, so our artillery and mortars are aimed just ahead of where the soldiers are training. That means that the munitions land, and mostly explode, in the flatter areas of the range where, if they do not blow up, they are more likely to be found by the children of the nomadic tribes. When it could afford to test its artillery, the Kenyan army fired into the hills, where there have been no reports of accidents to date.
  A preliminary report by David Taylor, a leading expert on unexploded ordnance, was commissioned by solicitors representing the victims and their families. It highlighted the fact that the Ministry of Defence accepts that, owing to those differing modes of operation, it left more bombs on site in low-lying areas than the Kenyan army is likely to have done. Taylor states that some and possibly all of the unexploded ordnance encountered is of British origin and would have been used by the British Army in live firing exercises. The implication is that British munitions were responsible for a significant proportion, and possibly all, of the deaths and injuries caused by unexploded ordnance in the Archer's Post and Dol Dol areas.
  That leads us to the next question. Is the British Army doing everything that it can to prevent children from being blown to bits when they follow their parents' cattle or simply play in those areas? Are they kept out of the area during training and afterwards, when clearance is under way? Are the unexploded shells and bombs properly cleared after the training sessions?
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, I was a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, as was the former Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, Christopher Fraser. A couple of years ago, we went to Mpala farm, which is part of the territory to which the hon. Gentleman has
  396
  referred, to undertake live firing exercises. Our impression was that the British Army was very careful to ensure that nobody strayed to the range. Indeed, because of the noise, it would have been difficult not to realise that the firing was taking place. The British Army takes its responsibilities seriously, and the military training that it undertakes is not only vital to Britain but a great asset to the Kenyan Government.
  Mr. Caton: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that the Kenyan Government welcome the activity. However, there is a lot of evidence that the Masai and other nomadic tribespeople do not view the use of the training areas as entirely beneficial.
  There is evidence of people being able to get on to the ranges even when live firing is taking place, although that is not the substance of my speech. The solicitor representing the tribal people who are likely to take action against the British Government managed to get into one of the training areas when live firing was taking place, so I do not think that we should be complacent.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will forgive me if I paraphrase the Ministry of Defence position, according to written answers that I have received to parliamentary questions and information that I have read elsewhere. I am sure that he will correct me if I have misunderstood the Ministry's line, but I understand it to be saying that the clearance of munitions in training areas is the responsibility of the host nation, so it is up to the Kenyan Government to make the ranges safe for their tribespeople. The Ministry admits that it has become aware of civilian casualties recently. The date quoted is 1999, and frankly I find that incredible. I shall return to that point in a moment.
  The Army says that since it found out what has been happening, it has been helping to spread information and assisting with the clear-up operation. In a written reply to me, my right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the large concrete signs outside live firing areas, with words of warning in English and Samburu. However, that does not take account of the fact that a majority of even the adult tribespeople, let alone the children, cannot read. Referring to Archer's Post, he informed me that
  "the nomadic tribespeople have been grazing their animals in the area for a considerable number of years and are aware that some of the area is a … live firing military range as it has been for many years.
  That begs the biggest question. If that is the case, why are people being blown up? In any case, that statement does not seem to lie comfortably with the other point that my right hon. Friend drew to my attention—that
  "range wardens employed throughout the year by the British Army instruct the local population about the dangers posed during live firing and from touching unexploded ordnance."—[Official Report, 16 July 2001; Vol. 372, c. 3W.]
  If that is necessary, it is clearly accepted that not all the tribespeople are already aware of the danger. Sadly, it appears from reports in the Kenyan media that most tribespeople are equally unaware of the work of those rangers. There is also evidence that people can and do get into the training areas where live ammunition is being fired.

  397
  It is true that the British Army started to carry out an annual clean-up operation last year. It is named Operation Pineapple. To date, 380 bombs have been collected, but my right hon. Friend informed me that only 64 sq km of the 1,500 sq km of the range have been cleared.
  Ross Cranston: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on raising an important subject. Does he agree that the House needs reassurance about what the British Army is doing in terms of clear-up? Whatever happened in the past, if our right hon. Friend can set out in detail what the British Army is doing now, we would be much reassured.
  Mr. Caton: My hon. and learned Friend is right. That is the core issue, although there are related issues that I shall briefly address.
  Our Army paid local people to help with the clear-up. About 60 people were employed at £2 a day each. The operation took 25 days, providing a sum total of £3,000 to the local economy. One cannot help asking whether that is the price that we are paying for six local children killed or maimed a year.
  I return to the British Army claim that it was not aware of the problem of civilian casualties until 1999. That does not hold water. We have been in the area for more than 50 years. Until 1964 we were in sole charge of the range. Deaths and injuries were occurring then, too. British Army officers have given evidence at inquests into the deaths of locals killed by unexploded ordnance over many years. The deaths and injuries have continued at a fairly steady rate over those years. There are reports of British Army personnel taking injured children to hospital in 1986 and after. It stretches credulity too far to claim that our Army was entirely ignorant of those deaths and injuries until 1999.
  What actually happened, I believe, is that by 1999 media interest was focusing on British activity in that part of Kenya and local representatives were investigating the possibility of legal action against the UK Government. That was the real impetus for the response that we have seen in the past couple of years. That legal action looks set to go ahead within weeks and there seems to be a very strong case indeed.
  Tonight, I am not speaking about legalities or about whether the law is enough of an ass to decide that a poor country such as Kenya must pick up the tab in the end, even though the injuries were caused by British munitions and the United Kingdom is a rich country, far better able, in every sense, to deal with the problem. I am not trying to preview the proceedings that may take place in the British courts on the issue this year. However, if we examine international laws and conventions, I cannot help wondering whether our activity in the Archer's Post and Dol Dol areas complies with article 28 of the UN draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, which states:
  "Military operations shall not take place in the lands and territories of indigenous peoples unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the people concerned. Hazardous material shall not be stored or disposed of on the land of indigenous peoples. Governments shall take measures to assist indigenous peoples whose health has been affected by such material."
  398
  Both the Masai and the Samburu are classified as minority groups in a state set-up—a classification that is recognised in various international human rights instruments. These people have certainly not freely agreed to the use of their tribal territories for the military operations. Apart from the mutilation of their children, they blame the military activity in their areas for considerable environmental damage that undermines their traditional grazing patterns.
  I recognise that this is ultimately an issue for the Kenyan Government, but I do not believe that we can wash our hands of all responsibility if we know or believe that our Army is involved in activity that could be undermining the basic human rights of these indigenous peoples. I do not know whether that is, or will be, a matter for law, but that is not the main point that I have been trying to make. I have tried to concentrate on our moral responsibility.
  I want my Government to be talking the language that they were talking back in 1998 when we were discussing the land mines question. I want us to value the lives of these Kenyan children as we value the lives of the children who live near Salisbury plain or any other British range. As we know that we have it in our power to repay our debt to the victims, their families and communities and to prevent these terrible incidents from happening again, surely we have a duty to act.
  10.36 pm
  The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) for securing a debate on this important subject. I also thank him for the series of written questions that he has tabled, which I have answered in full.
  While we should recognise the emotive and sensitive nature of the issue, it is equally important for us to set it in a factual context. This debate allows me to place on record an explanation of how the British Army conducts its training in Kenya, to demonstrate that we are taking all reasonable measures to ensure that that training is conducted as safely as possible and to dispel any enduring misunderstandings. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) for pointing out that that is an important part of the debate.
  My Department has received notification that a number of Kenyans will be making claims for compensation as a result of injuries allegedly suffered as a consequence of the use of training areas in Kenya by the British Army. Clearly, any accident caused by unexploded ordnance is a matter for great regret, and I do not want to minimise that fact in any way. However, no one should claim a monopoly on understanding the suffering of the victims or their families.
  My Department will deal with any claims in accordance with its usual procedures, and pay compensation if its legal liability is proven. In the circumstances, my hon. Friend will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the particulars of the claims at this stage.
  I hope that my hon. Friend shares my view that our armed forces need to be able to operate safely and effectively anywhere in the world, and that in order to achieve that, they need to train in the widest variety of environments and climates. The British Army has used training areas in Kenya for many years. The facilities

  399
  provided to us by the Kenyans provide it with excellent opportunities to conduct training in a variety of arduous conditions, including arid and jungle environments. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) alluded to his short experience of visiting a training area, and I am grateful to him for his contribution.
  Some 3,000 British troops train in Kenya each year. The number of troops exercising at any one time tends to vary between 100 and 750. They are supported by the British Army training liaison staff Kenya, who comprise 10 permanent staff, 27 temporary duty staff and 144 full-time locally employed staff. In addition, we also employ more than 100 part-time locally engaged staff on an as-required basis.
  I am grateful to the Kenyan Government for providing us with these vital training opportunities. If we cannot train in those conditions, we cannot operate in them. Many of the regiments that have run our short-term training teams in Sierra Leone previously trained in Kenya. Indeed, the 1st Battalion, the Light Infantry, which was in Sierra Leone until recently, was in Kenya earlier this year. All those regiments were able to perform their demanding and crucial tasks and make a significant contribution to peace in Sierra Leone, thanks to the experiences that they gained by exercising in places such as Kenya.
  We use nine separate training areas in Kenya, and they offer a variety of environments and conditions. Two—Archer's Post and Dol Dol—are managed by the Kenyan Department of Defence; Kathendini is managed by the Kenyan wildlife service, and the remaining six are on privately owned land, under arrangements with the individual landowners. The activities that we undertake differ from area to area. For example, at Solio and Lewa Downs, we primarily carry out acclimatisation training. Dol Dol is used for company and platoon-level dry training. Archer's Post is used for collective battalion-level training, which involves some live firing. Each six-week detachment to Kenya will train in several areas before coming together for two weeks of collective training at Archer's Post. In general, we do not use each area for more than five or six weeks each calendar year.
  In addition to the three battle group exercises, which are known as Grand Prix and take place every year between October and April, several smaller exercises at troop, company or squadron level also occur. They include engineering troop and squadron exercises, a medical squadron exercise and an explosive ordnance disposal squadron exercise. Each takes place annually. In addition to providing us with excellent training opportunities, the engineering and medical exercises give direct support to the Kenyan community through local construction projects and the provision, through links with a non-governmental organisation, of primary health care to the local community.
  Before I talk about the clearance exercises, I shall explain that in Kenya, the British Army trains using live ammunition at Archer's Post and on some privately owned land, with the agreement of the landowners. That training is conducted in accordance with both British Army and local regulations. On the other hand, we use Dol Dol as a dry range, and do not conduct live firing there. The only ammunition we use there, and at other dry training areas, is blank rounds and thunderflash noise simulators.
  400
  Let me explain the measures that we have put in place to ensure that the British Army's use of training areas in Kenya is as safe as possible. Safety is paramount in all aspects of British Army training, including the use of live ammunition. Strict regulations, applicable both in the UK and overseas, govern the issue, carriage, firing and clearance of live ammunition. We aim to declare, record and, when possible, destroy unexploded ordnance as soon as possible after it has been fired. That is the case wherever we train—and it is achieved by the troops who exercise with live ammunition, who sweep the area visually before departing from a training area.
  Depending on the terrain of the training area, there is, of course, always the possibility that a small percentage of unexploded munitions may not be located immediately. I hope that my hon. Friend will be interested to note that it is normal practice for the host nation to be responsible for the clearance of military training areas, and that the practice is followed in Kenya for the facilities managed by the Kenyan Department of Defence.
  That does not apply to privately owned land, and for many years the British Army has cleared any unexploded ordnance from such land in Kenya, as required by our arrangements with local landowners. That takes place during Exercise Pineapple, to which my hon. Friend referred. It occurs annually at the end of the exercise season in Kenya.
  In May 2000, the 30-man team conducting the clearance work on private land mounted a small clearance operation at Archer's Post to support the Kenyan Department of Defence. As a result of that initial work, we have increased our support to the Kenyans, and in May this year some 100 Royal Engineers specialists participated in a similar exercise. As my hon. Friend said, a total of 64 sq km of the most heavily used parts of the area were cleared. Some 271 items of live ammunition were destroyed and therefore made safe. A list of those items will be examined by ammunition experts to establish the provenance of munitions. Given that several armies train in Kenya, that may take time.
  I must also add that it is unlikely that we will establish with any certainty who fired all the munitions, given that some of the ammunition was old and without markings. That differs from my hon. Friend's argument, and I hope that he notes the position.
  Clearly, we also have an interest in ensuring that the conduct of military training in Kenya is carried out in as safe a manner as possible. To achieve this, we work alongside the Kenyans, who retain overall responsibility for range safety. Specifically, we continue to provide infrastructure support and range wardens, and to educate the local population about range safety. I would like to take this opportunity to explain a little more about that aspect of the work.
  Our staff in Kenya liaise closely with the Kenyan Department of Defence, the district administration and local leaders to ensure that local communities know where and when we train. We take every possible precaution to minimise danger to the Kenyan people. We conduct helicopter sweeps of the danger areas before commencing training, to check that the areas are clear of people and livestock. After training, the troops mount visual searches of the impact areas to ensure that, as far as possible, any unexploded ordnance is disposed of or clearly marked.

  401
  We have also built and equipped a range control building at Archer's Post that is manned whenever we use the training area. We liaise with other users of the range to ensure that all troops using the area use the same safety procedures. We employ and train Kenyan range wardens, whose job it is to control access to the training area when firing is in progress. The wardens also travel between the communities near Archer's Post and the indigenous population that roams in the area, to educate local people about the dangers posed by entering the training area during live firing, and by touching unexploded ordnance. We also deploy British personnel, and we fly danger flags at Archer's Post when we are training.
  I had wanted to make some further points, but my hon. Friend took slightly longer than I had anticipated because of the interventions. I have tried to set out the range of activities in which we are involved in connection with the use of the ranges, and to explain why they are important in terms of training our own forces. That has also been recognised by others when our forces are deployed in humanitarian and peaceful initiatives. I have also tried to explain the safety measures that have been put in place.
  I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend of the genuine, sincere and determined way in which we are tackling this issue. We benefit from the use of these ranges from a training perspective, and the Kenyans benefit in many other ways. I have tried to respond to the debate in a structured and informative way. However, if my hon. Friend feels that he needs more information, I suggest that he writes to me during the recess, and I shall do my best to help him.
  Mr. Howarth: Is it not the case that the British troops have every interest in ensuring that the ordnance is cleared? If it is not cleared, it poses a real danger to our troops.
  Mr. Ingram: Absolutely. Ours is not the only Army that uses that particular range, and as my hon. Friend said, the Kenyans have a responsibility as well.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock

Deferred Divisions

  SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993
  That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2001–02, and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2001–02 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
  The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 179.

  Division No. 30]

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Colman, Tony

  Ainger, Nick

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Corston, Jean

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cousins, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Cox, Tom

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cranston, Ross

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Crausby, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cryer, John (Homchurch)

  Austin, John

  Cummings, John

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Baird, Vera

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Banks, Tony

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Barnes, Harry

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Barron, Kevin

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bayley, Hugh

  David, Wayne

  Beard, Nigel

  Davidson, Ian

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bell, Stuart

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bennett, Andrew

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Betts, Clive

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Blackman, Liz

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Dismore, Andrew

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dobbin, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Doran, Frank

  Borrow, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Drew, David

  Bradley, Peter (The Wnekin)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Brennan, Kevin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Edwards, Huw

  Efford, Clive

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Browne, Desmond

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bryant, Chris

  Etherington, Bill

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Farrelly, Paul

  Burgon, Colin

  Reid, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Rtzpatrick, Jim

  Cairns, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Flint, Caroline

  Caplin, Ivor

  Flynn, Paul

  Casale, Roger

  Follett, Barbara

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Challen, Colin

  Gapes, Mike

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Chaytor, David

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clapham, Michael

  Goggins, Paul

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Hain, Peter

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clelland, David

  Hanson, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Havard, Dai

  Coaker, Vernon

  Healey, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  403

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Hinchliffe, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Hodge, Margaret

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Miliband, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moran, Margaret

  Hurst, Alan

  Morgan, Julie

  Hutton, John

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mountford, Kali

  Illsley, Eric

  Mudie, George

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jamieson, David

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Norris, Dan

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Helen (Wairington N)

  Organ, Diana

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Perham, Linda

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Picking, Anne

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pike, Peter

  Kelly, Ruth

  Plaskitt, James

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pond, Chris

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pope, Greg

  Kidney, David

  Pound, Stephen

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Purchase, Ken

  Laxton, Bob

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Rammell, Bill

  Lepper, David

  Rapson, Syd

  Leslie, Christopher

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Levitt, Tom

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Linton, Martin

  Lloyd, Tony

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Love, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lucas, Ian

  Rooney, Terry

  Luke, Iain

  Ross, Emie

  Lyons, John

  Roy, Frank

  McCabe, Stephen

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCafferty, Chris

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Ryan, Joan

  McDonnell, John

  Salter, Martin

  MacDougall, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McFall, John

  Sawford, Phil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McKechin, Ann

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simon, Siôn

  McNamara, Kevin

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mann, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marris, Rob

  Soley, Clive

  404

  Southworth, Helen

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Spellar, John

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Squire, Rachel

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Tynan, Bill

  Stevenson, George

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Watson, Tom

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Watts, David

  Stringer, Graham

  White, Brian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Tami, Mark

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wills, Michael

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Winnick, David

  Timms, Stephen

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Woolas, Phil

  Todd, Mark

  Worthington, Tony

  Touhig, Don

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Trickett, Jon

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Truswell, Paul

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Duncan, Alan

  Allan, Richard

  Duncan, Peter

  Amess, David

  Evans, Nigel

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Fabricant, Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Fallon, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Bacon, Richard

  Rook, Adrian

  Baker, Norman

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Baron, John

  Francois, Mark

  Barrett, John

  Gale, Roger

  Beggs, Roy

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Gibb, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodman, Paul

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Grayling, Chris

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Brady, Graham

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Brake, Tom

  Greenway, John

  Brooke, Annette

  Grieve, Dominic

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Burns, Simon

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Burnside, David

  Hancock, Mike

  Burstow, Paul

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Burt, Alistair

  Harvey, Nick

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Hayes, John

  Cameron, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Heath, David

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Hendry, Charles

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Hermon, Lady

  Cash, William

  Hoban, Mark

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Holmes, Paul

  Horam, John

  Chidgey, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Collins, Tim

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Conway, Derek

  Keetch, Paul

  Cotter, Brian

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

  Cran, James

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dodds, Nigel

  Lamb, Norman

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Lansley, Andrew

  Doughty, Sue

  Laws, David

  405

  Leigh, Edward

  Sanders, Adrian

  Letwin, Oliver

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Selous, Andrew

  Lidington, David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Simmonds, Mark

  Luff, Peter

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

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

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Maples, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Spring, Richard

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mercer, Patrick

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Moore, Michael

  Swire, Hugo

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Norman, Archie

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Oaten, Mark

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Thurso, John

  Ōpik, Lembit

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Page, Richard

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Paice, James

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Tyler, Paul

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Viggers, Peter

  Paterson, Owen

  Walter, Robert

  Pickles, Eric

  Waterson, Nigel

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Watkinson, Angela

  Prisk, Mark

  Webb, Steve

  Randall, John

  Weir, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Whittingdale, John

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Rendel, David

  Wiggin, Bill

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Willetts, David

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Wishart, Pete

  Ruffley, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Salmond, Alex

  Question accordingly agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY
That the draft Social Security (Literacy Etc. Skills Training Pilot) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 178.

Division No. 31]

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Betts, Clive

Ainger, Nick

Blackman, Liz

Ainsworth, Bob (Covtry NE)

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Alexander, Douglas

Blears, Ms Hazel

Allen, Graham

Blizzard, Bob

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Atherton, Ms Candy

Borrow, David

Atkins, Charlotte

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Austin, John

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Bailey, Adrian

Brennan, Kevin

Baird, Vera

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Banks, Tony

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Barnes, Harry

Barron, Kevin

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Bayley, Hugh

Browne, Desmond

Beard, Nigel

Bryant, Chris

Begg, Miss Anne

Buck, Ms Karen

Beggs, Roy

Burgon, Colin

Bell, Stuart

Burnside, David

Bennett, Andrew

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

406

Cairns, David

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hain, Peter

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Caplin, Ivor

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Casale, Roger

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Caton, Martin

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Cawsey, Ian

Hanson, David

Challen, Colin

Havard, Dai

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Healey, John

Chaytor, David

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Clapham, Michael

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Hendrick, Mark

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hepburn, Stephen

Heppell, John

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hermon, Lady

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hesford, Stephen

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hinchliffe, David

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hodge, Margaret

Clelland, David

Hopkins, Kelvin

Clwyd, Ann

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Coaker, Vernon

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Howells, Dr Kim

Coleman, Iain

Hoyle, Lindsay

Colman, Tony

Humble, Mrs Joan

Corston, Jean

Hurst, Alan

Cousins, Jim

Hutton, John

Cox, Tom

Iddon, Dr Brian

Illsley, Eric

Cranston, Ross

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Crausby, David

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Jamieson, David

Cummings, John

Jenkins, Brian

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

David, Wayne

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Dawson, Hilton

Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

Dean, Mrs Janet

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Denham, Rt Hon John

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dhanda, Parmjit

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Dismore, Andrew

Kelly, Ruth

Dobbin Jim

Kemp, Fraser

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Khabra, Piara S

Donaldson, Jeffrey M

Kidney, David

Donohoe, Brian H

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Doran, Frank

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Dowd, Jim

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Drew, David

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Drown, Ms Julia

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Laxton, Bob

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Edwards, Huw

Lepper, David

Efford, Clive

Leslie, Christopher

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Levitt, Tom

Ennis, Jeff

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Etherington, Bill

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Farrelly, Paul

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

Linton, Martin

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Lloyd, Tony

Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

Love, Andrew

Lucas Ian

Flint, Caroline

Luke, Iain

Flynn, Paul

Lyons, John

Follett, Barbara

McCabe, Stephen

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

McCafferty, Chris

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Gapes, Mike

McDonnell, John

Gerrard, Neil

MacDougall, John

Gibson, Dr Ian

McFall, John

Goggins, Paul

McGuire, Mrs Anne

407

McIsaac, Shona

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McKechin, Ann

Ryan, Joan

Mackinlay, Andrew

Salter, Martin

McNamara, Kevin

Savidge, Malcolm

McNulty, Tony

Sawford, Phil

Mactaggart, Fiona

Sedgemore, Brian

McWilliam, John

Shaw, Jonathan

Mahmood, Khalid

Shipley, Ms Debra

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Simon, Siôn

Mallaber, Judy

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Singh, Marsha

Mann, John

Skinner, Dennis

Marris, Rob

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Martlew, Eric

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Merron, Gillian

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Soley, Clive

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Southworth, Helen

Miliband, David

Spellar, John

Miller, Andrew

Squire, Rachel

Moffatt, Laura

Steinberg, Gerry

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Stevenson, George

Moran, Margaret

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Morgan, Julie

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

Stinchcombe, Paul

Mountford, Kali

Stoate, Dr Howard

Mudie, George

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Munn, Ms Meg

Stringer, Graham

Murphy, Dents (Wansbeck)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Tami, Mark

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Norris, Dan

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

O'Hara, Edward

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Olner, Bill

Timms, Stephen

Organ, Diana

Tipping, Paddy

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Todd, Mark

Owen, Albert

Touhig, Don

Palmer, Dr Nick

Trickett, Jon

Pearson, Ian

Trimble, Rt Hon David

Perham, Linda

Truswell, Paul

Picking, Anne

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Pickthall, Colin

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Pike, Peter

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Plaskitt, James

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Pollard, Kerry

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Pond, Chris

Tynan, Bill

Pope, Greg

Vis, Dr Rudi

Pound, Stephen

Walley, Ms Joan

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Ward, Ms Claire

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Wareing, Robert N

Primarolo, Dawn

Watson, Tom

Prosser, Gwyn

Watts, David

Purchase, Ken

White, Brian

Quinn, Lawrie

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Rammell, Bill

Wicks, Malcolm

Rapson, Syd

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Wills, Michael

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Winnick, David

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Woolas, Phil

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Worthington, Tony

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Rooney, Terry

Wright, David (Telford)

Ross, Emie

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Roy, Frank

Wyatt, Derek

Ruddock, Joan

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Allan, Richard

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Amess, David

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Bacon, Richard

408

Baker, Norman

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Baron, John

Keetch, Paul

Barrett, John

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

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Bercow, John

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Blunt, Crispin

Kirkwood, Archy

Boswell, Tim

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Lamb, Norman

Brady, Graham

Lansley, Andrew

Brake, Tom

Laws, David

Brooke, Annette

Leigh, Edward

Browning, Mrs Angela

Letwin, Oliver

Burns, Simon

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Burstow, Paul

Lidington, David

Burt, Alistair

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Cable, Dr Vincent

Llwyd, Elfyn

Cameron, David

Luff, Peter

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

McLoughlin, Patrick

Carmichael, Alistair

Maples, John

Cash, William

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

May, Mrs Theresa

Chidgey, David

Mercer, Patrick

Chope, Christopher

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Clappison, James

Moore, Michael

Collins, Tim

Moss, Malcolm

Conway, Derek

Norman, Archie

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Oaten, Mark

Cotter, Brian

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Cran, James

Öpik, Lembit

Curry, Rt Hon David

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Page, Richard

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Paice, James

Djanogly, Jonathan

Paisley, Rev Ian

Dodds, Nigel

Paterson, Owen

Doughty, Sue

Pickles, Eric

Duncan, Alan

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Duncan, Peter

Price, Adam

Evans, Nigel

Prisk, Mark

Ewing, Annabelle

Randall, John

Fabricant, Michael

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Fallon, Michael

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

Rendel, David

Flook, Adrian

Robathan, Andrew

Foster, Don (Bath)

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Francois, Mark

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Gale, Roger

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

Gibb, Nick

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Gidley, Sandra

Rosindell, Andrew

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Ruffley, David

Goodman, Paul

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Grayling, Chris

Salmond, Alex

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Sanders, Adrian

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Greenway, John

Selous, Andrew

Grieve, Dominic

Shepherd, Richard

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Simmonds, Mark

Hague, Rt Hon William

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Hancock, Mike

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

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Soames, Nicholas

Harvey, Nick

Spicer, Sir Michael

Hayes, John

Spink, Dr Robert

Heald, Oliver

Spring, Richard

Heath, David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Stunell, Andrew

Hendry, Charles

Swayne, Desmond

Hoban, Mark

Swire, Hugo

Holmes, Paul

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Horam, John

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Hunter, Andrew

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Thurso, John

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

409

Tredinnick, David

Webb, Steve

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Weir, Michael

Tyler, Paul

Whittingdale, John

Viggers, Peter

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Walter, Robert

Wiggin, Bill

Waterson, Nigel

Wilkinson, John

Watkinson, Angela

Willetts, David

410

Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

Wishart, Pete

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Credit Unions
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Dan Norris.]
9.30 am
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I am delighted to introduce the debate on credit unions today and will begin by declaring my membership of the Rainbow Saver credit union.
There has been much focus since the general election on the modernisation of services used by our constituents and the possible role of the private sector in that process. I have long thought that the third sector of the economy—the mutual and co-operative sector—could have a key role in improving those services, on which our constituents rely. Developing the credit union movement throughout the country offers just such a solution. At some time, all our constituents will need a loan and a facility to save. Developing the credit union movement—thus helping to continue the process of reforming the financial services industry—is one way to help support that key service.
I sought today's debate for four reasons. First, I wanted to impress on the House the need to establish a central services organisation to help drive the expansion of the credit union sector. Secondly, it will highlight the case for further deregulation of the rules governing credit unions. Thirdly, I will highlight our disappointment at the lack of effort so far by regional development agencies to expand credit union coverage in their regions. Finally, I believe that the Housing Corporation and key housing associations could be much more proactive in helping to extend access to a credit union.
Credit unions throughout the world have an open and voluntary membership. They are run on the basis of one member, one vote. They cannot discriminate within the terms of their common bond, and they help to create a sense of belonging and responsibility in the communities or the workplaces that they serve. They seek to provide high-quality, affordable, ethical financial services. They distribute any surplus that they create to their members. They provide continuing financial education for their members and support co-operation among co-operatives. The key attraction of credit unions is their affordability. They also encourage self and mutual responsibility—it is impossible to borrow without saving.
The Minister's predecessor attended a conference on financial exclusion before the general election, at which the Consumer Credit Trade Association outlined the cost of a loan from a home credit company. It gave the example of a £400 loan, repayable over 24 weeks. It indicated that a person borrowing that sum would have to pay £160 in interest. In comparison, a credit union is allowed by law a maximum annual percentage rate of only 12.68 per cent., so the loan of £400, again repayable
70WH
over 24 weeks, would incur interest of just £11.62—resulting in a considerable saving when compared with a loan by the home credit company route.
We can consider the impact, too, on a particular community. For example, 500 people, each with a £1,000 loan from a home credit company, would spend £775,000 on credit over a 31-week period. The same loan over a 26-week period with a credit union would cost those 500 people £515,725, resulting in a considerable saving for their community. A local authority making a capital investment of £250,000 to establish a credit union would, within six months, have helped to keep more than £259,000 in its community, and in the pockets of those 500 people. That financial investment by the local authority could make a real improvement to the financial position of local people.
It is arguable that credit unions are, internationally, the most successful co-operative structure on offer. There are more than 37,000 credit unions in more than 85 countries, with more than 100 million members. There are 680 credit unions in England, Scotland and Wales, with almost 300,000 members and assets of almost £200 million. I am told that the growth rate of credit union membership is 10 to 15 per cent. a year. That may sound impressive, but that membership is drawn from a relatively low base. In London, for example, there are only 44 credit unions, with 25,000 members and just £20 million in assets.
Workplace credit unions have been the most successful type in the United Kingdom to date. Nicred, which serves the employees of News International, is one such example. It has 1,000 members and assets of £1.3 million. The London Taxi Drivers Association is perhaps the most famous credit union in London. It has existed for 22 years and is one of the oldest credit unions in Britain, with more than 2,100 members and £3 million in assets. It has been proved to offer an excellent service to taxi drivers, helping them to obtain loans to undertake repairs to keep their taxis on the road. Taxi drivers can also use loans to pay for insurance.
Credit unions that serve the boroughs of Newham and Lewisham are being explored. Three existing credit unions in Lewisham would have to merge, and anyone who works or lives in that borough could join and benefit from the service provided by a single credit union.
The new work-live model for credit union development has perhaps been best demonstrated by the Southwark credit union. That credit union, which is also long established, began life serving the employees of Southwark council. It expanded two years ago to provide services to the 250,000 people who live in the Southwark borough.
Another example of that model for credit union development can be found in the neighbouring borough of Tower Hamlets. A brand new community credit union serves the 250,000 people who live or work in the borough, and the staff of the Financial Services Authority, which is based in Canary wharf, could join it. The Tower Hamlets credit union has produced bilingual publicity and information material to address the language difficulties that the substantial number of Bengali speakers in the borough face. It has also ensured that volunteers who speak Bengali help to provide the services that the credit union offers. That is an example

71WH
of a credit union that has provided—because of its size, local responsiveness and position in the community—a specific solution to address the needs of its community.
Credit unions provide access to affordable credit. They promote a regular savings culture that embraces even small deposits and they actively work to improve the financial literacy of their members through educational programmes. Credit unions are based around their members' financial needs. Some members will need a savings facility and others will need to borrow. Credit unions help to match members' savings needs to other members' credit needs. As credit unions offer local community-based financial services that are owned and controlled by the people who directly benefit from them, they provide a service that meets their members' needs, not the requirements of private shareholders or external stakeholders.
Since the publication of a research report in 1999 by Liverpool John Moores university, credit unions have sought to strengthen and modernise themselves. They have merged, opened high street premises, employed more staff and actively sought to improve their image.
Credit unions now provide a professional service. They have formed partnerships with other organisations, such as local housing associations, trade unions or local authorities. Leeds City credit union has 8,000 members, who are mainly public sector employees, and it provides services to more than 1 million people who live or work in Leeds. Telford and Wrekin council offers a similar service.
The Social Enterprise London project, now in its third and final year, is funded by the single regeneration budget, and has sought to equip credit unions in London with the professional tools and marketing material that they need in order to expand. We need more local authority initiatives, such as those in Tower Hamlets and Southwark, to make credit union membership available to everyone who lives or works in London.
Other examples of strategic programmes specific to particular areas and designed to strengthen credit unions include the work done by the National Assembly for Wales to extend credit union coverage to all the people of Wales. The Scottish Executive are developing a Scottish credit union partnership to deliver a strategic plan for credit union development in Scotland, and to that end launched a document called "Unlocking the Potential" in March.
Well financed strategic initiatives in London, Scotland and Wales demonstrate what a sustainable credit union can achieve if it has sufficient capital. Credit unions should receive capital from direct funding. Recent developments in Lewisham, Tower Hamlets and Telford have shown that it costs about £300,000 to capitalise a credit union—to provide staff, premises, information technology and operational systems—so that it can provide financial services to the community that it serves.
Once a credit union is properly established, it requires no further financial support from outside sources. Members of the Scottish Parliament have demonstrated both political and actual support for credit unions; all MSPs can now join Capital Credit Union, which has
72WH
7,000 members and assets worth £5 million. It pays a 4 per cent. dividend on savings. Members of the National Assembly for Wales and the Assembly's staff are also seeking to join or establish a credit union. Members of Parliament might wish to enjoy the benefits conferred on Scottish and Welsh colleagues—and on American congressmen and senators, who also have a credit union. The leading credit union trade association has approached the House authorities; perhaps the Minister will shed light on how that initiative is progressing.
Credit unions provide a powerful model for the delivery of core financial services. In the United Kingdom, however, it is still difficult to gain access to a credit union. There has been a series of problems, some of which remain to be addressed. When our party came to power in 1997, a series of regulatory issues needed attention in order to make credit unions more attractive. We needed to develop a central finance facility and, crucially, the Government needed the will to expand the credit union sector.
The Government have taken many positive steps since they came to power. From 1 July 2002, the Financial Services Authority will regulate credit unions as well as the other financial services industry players—the banks and building societies. Credit unions will have access to the same compensation scheme as those organisations, so that money deposited in a credit union will be as safe as that in a bank or building society.
The credit unions are concerned about the nature of the FSA's regime, because future regulations must be affordable and proportionate, and should provide safety for credit union members, while enabling growth and an increased range of services. To date, the credit union movement has had a positive response to the FSA's attitude. I hope that the FSA continues to work in partnership with the credit union movement to implement the regulations governing credit unions.
A central services organisation is needed to help to drive the expansion of the credit union sector. A visible demonstration of the Government's political will to establish such a body would be welcome. The taskforce on credit unions recommended a central services organisation. That taskforce was established by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland during her time as Economic Secretary to the Treasury. The Government accepted that recommendation, and it has been highlighted consistently in Government policy.
Today, I hope that we shall discover the time scale for the establishment of such an organisation, its financing, and an outline of its possible work programme. A central services organisation could be the Government's way to provide national strategic support for the credit union movement, which would result in a larger and stronger credit union sector. That could provide credit unions with a central finance facility, which would enable them to pool their liquidity to get a better return than they do currently. Moreover, such an organisation could make arrangements with the banks to ensure a lender of last resort for the credit union. It could focus on helping credit unions to combat financial exclusion through a challenge fund, so that they could contribute to financial inclusion. It could also support credit union development, for training and for business planning.

73WH
The Treasury taskforce's idea of a central services organisation did not just emerge out of thin air. In the international credit union movement, there are several similar bodies. Canadian Central is the Canadian equivalent of a central services organisation. Its priorities for the next 12 months include: developing the capability of credit unions to deal with e-commerce; launching a national branding and awareness campaign for credit unions; developing the liquidity efficiency of the Canadian credit union movement; and looking for further efficiencies in the handling of payments and clearing. A similar body in Australia provides business services to credit unions, including information technology support, financial management and planning. New Zealand has a central banking fund for the credit union sector. Even in South Africa, where the credit union movement is smaller than in Britain, a central finance facility has been established; its main objective is to put money back into credit unions.
Throughout the world, the credit union sector benefits from central services organisations. Such an organisation, providing expertise and resources for credit unions to rely on, would clearly be an enormous benefit. I hope that my hon. Friend will outline whether the Government intend to deregulate credit unions further.
Three particular changes would be welcome. First, the ability to declare a dividend more often than just annually and to offer variable dividend rates on different savings accounts would be beneficial. That would enable credit unions to attract more savers and thus meet other members' credit needs, and it would specifically help credit unions to meet the new liquidity requirements set by the Financial Services Authority.
The second key change would be to allow borrowing from external sources, such as housing associations or local authorities. Borrowing from sources such as other banks and credit unions is currently allowed, but additional flexibility would benefit the credit union sector and enable it to raise the capital that it needs. The regulators require new credit unions to raise that capital, as has been demonstrated by the practicalities of getting large projects such as the Lewisham and Tower Hamlets credit unions off the ground. Both have required approximately £300,000.
The final welcome change would be the ability of credit unions to charge for additional services—to pay bills to utility companies, for example. I understand that the consultation period for deregulatory change usually takes a year. That one-year period usually includes the time for a consultation document to be issued, and a three-month consultation period to allow responses, which have to be collated and assessed. Only then can a deregulation order be drafted and come into force.
The Financial Services Authority is due to increase its responsibilities to credit unions in July 2002. It would make particular sense, therefore, to allow the deregulation of the rules that apply to credit unions in those three areas in line with that time scale. I hope that my hon. Friend will outline her view on that, and say whether the Government will move in that direction. I also hope that she will be able to give a clearer steer to regional development authorities, so that they work in partnership with housing associations, the newly established central services organisation and local authorities to increase access to credit unions.
74WH
I was surprised that no mention was made of credit unions in the economic strategy that was published by the London Development Agency. There was, it is true, mention of the need to develop the wider social economy in London. Mention was also made of the excellent Social Enterprise London, to which I referred earlier, which has been doing work with credit unions. Given the need to expand access to available financial services in many London communities, the absence of a specific commitment to develop the credit union is disappointing.
The London Development Agency and other regional development agencies could provide a clear strategic lead to develop credit unions in their regions. London boroughs or other local authorities could then take up that lead. Such a strategy could include encouraging the boroughs, other partners and local employers to become involved in establishing and developing credit unions at a rate of knots. The London Development Agency could have a role in ensuring that any funds or assistance for credit unions are applied in an appropriately sustainable way. In London, for example, who could better lead approaches to the more traditional financial services community—the banks, the insurance companies, the pension funds and the building societies—to find and secure resources to help establish credit unions?
Mr. David Drew: I apologise for missing the start of my hon. Friend's remarks. I was at the opening service.
Does he also agree that there is a role for the universal bank in relation to the postal network? In rural areas there is no better way for people to have access to savings facilities. Could the Government explore that angle in opening up the real possibilities for credit unions?
Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The universal bank, once established, could help credit unions to provide further services or access to their members.
There is a need for the Housing Corporation and local housing associations to be more active in helping credit unions to develop. Richard Newcombe, writing for the Housing Corporation in March 2001, emphasised that direct attempts by housing associations to set up credit unions had generally been unsuccessful and that, given the need for a more professional and more heavily resourced set-up, housing associations were unlikely to be the key appropriate agency. Why cannot housing associations, in partnership with a central services organisation or with regional development agencies, be part of a coherent strategy to develop credit union coverage in their area that their tenants can afford and that is properly thought through?
The credit union movement offers excellent services around the country. Those who are lucky enough to have access to a credit union in this country are generally offered an excellent service. People are enthusiastic about the services that credit unions can provide. The tragedy in this country at the moment is that too few people have access to a credit union. The Government have made a series of positive steps towards developing credit union coverage, but I hope that my hon. Friend

75WH
the Minister will give that development a further sharp push so that, by the end of our second or third term, there will be far greater coverage of credit unions throughout Britain.
9.54 am
Mr. Paul Truswell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas). He is establishing quite a reputation as an assiduous advocate for the credit union movement. I declare an interest as a founder member of what is now Leeds City Credit Union Ltd.
I became involved with credit unions as a Leeds city councillor in the mid-1980s, when I was asked to chair a working group to consider how the city council could promote the development of credit unions in the city. We made two recommendations: first, that we should provide financial and other support to council employees to enable them to set up their own credit union; and, secondly, that we should appoint a credit union development worker to support the establishment of credit unions, particularly in deprived parts of Leeds.
We were fortunate to have an extremely supportive leader, whom we now know and love as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), and we pursued both initiatives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West said, the first initiative has been a huge success, but the second—the development of credit unions in small deprived communities—has had a more chequered history. I shall return to that.
The great advantage of credit unions is in respect of people in deprived areas who have difficulty accessing credit and who all too often, especially in cities such as Leeds, fall victim to loan sharks. The credit union for Leeds city council employees was registered in August 1987 and it grew slowly but steadily for about four years. Since 1991, its membership has been sustained and currently stands at 9,000 adult members and 600 junior members. The latter group is the result of an extension of the union's common bond.
Leeds City credit union is the largest in England and Wales and the third largest in the United Kingdom behind two Scottish credit unions—I do not know whether the affinity of Yorkshire and Scottish people with their purses, wallets and sporrans has anything to do with that development or whether it is pure coincidence.
The common bond of the Leeds City credit union was changed in 1996 to reflect the fact that compulsory competitive tendering and the removal of further education colleges from city council control had changed the nature of the people who had worked for the city council. That is one aspect of the way in which that credit union has developed organically and responded to changes in the needs of its members and potential members. As I said, membership was extended in 1996 to include families and junior members, which helped to boost the union's size. To reflect the changes in its role, its name was changed to the Leeds City Credit Union Ltd.
More recently, the credit union was granted a further extension to its common bond to include anyone living and working in the city of Leeds. That crucial
76WH
development gives the union a target audience of about 800,000 people and makes it, I think, the largest common bond in the country by far. With the assistance of core grant funding from the city council, the union employs a development manager to take forward citywide expansion of credit unions.
In December 1999, the union assumed responsibility for the support of other credit unions in Leeds. The new support officer conducted an extensive review of how smaller community and church-based credit unions were faring in the city. Unfortunately, it was found that some unions had great difficulties. They had the usual difficulties of finding a sufficient number of people to form the board to carry out the nuts-and-bolts mechanics of running the union. The unions also had difficulty generating a sufficient number of members to provide the assets that are essential if they are to provide the services that my hon. Friend so graphically described. It was also obvious that, although Leeds was a successful pioneer in developing credit unions, far too many people there still lacked access to the services that such a union can provide.
Five existing credit unions merged with the Leeds City credit union, but it was not a takeover or financial aggrandisement. The situation was more like that of an adoptive parent providing support and succour to orphans of a storm. It reflects what has happened in many other parts of the world. My hon. Friend demonstrated clearly how credit unions have caught on and developed over decades in other countries. There is absolutely no reason why that cannot happen in this country, particularly if the Government support the credit union movement.
I have tried to paint a picture of the experience in Leeds. It is fair to say that Leeds has been an effective trailblazer in promoting credit union development. As such, the lessons that have been learned there and the views of the people who are involved in running the credit union in Leeds are worthy of serious consideration. I do not intend to go into great detail; my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West made the case coherently and cogently, and it does not need repetition. However, as someone who has been involved with the credit union movement for many years, I associate myself with everything that he said in support of the measures that are needed, particularly on the part of the Government, to ensure that credit unions develop more effectively.
I have had discussions with people who are involved more closely and in more detail than I am with the Leeds credit union to ascertain what they regard as the major priorities that will enable the movement, not only in Leeds but generally, to progress further, reach out to more people and become even more relevant to potential members. As such, my hon. Friend's comments came as no surprise: first on the list is the establishment of a central services organisation as recommended in the Goodwin report. In particular, a central finance facility must be established to allow credit unions to pool their resources. I join my hon. Friend in pressing the Minister for an indication as to how speedily she anticipates that process taking place.
Along with everyone associated with credit unions in Leeds, I accept that organisations, particularly financial organisations, must walk before they can run. To some extent, Leeds is an exception—it is already up and

77WH
running. However, established credit unions such as the one in Leeds should be allowed to broaden the scope of their activities to make them even more attractive and relevant to existing and potential members. They could be given the ability to offer tax-free savings accounts—the son or daughter, one might say, of individual savings accounts. They could be given opportunities in the development of the new baby bond accounts, as they are colloquially called. Credit unions could be allowed to offer fixed-term deposit savings accounts to help them generate more share capital, and approved credit unions—perhaps this is a very ambitious suggestion—could be given permission to conduct mortgage business.
As my hon. Friend said, the Government could do a great deal towards generating enthusiasm for, and spreading the word about, credit unions and, where necessary, directly or indirectly providing some of the essential pump priming that is necessary to get them up and running. The experience of Leeds is worthy of wider promulgation. Organisations such as the Association of British Credit Unions do a fantastic job, but the more organisations that recognise the work of credit unions and encourage their growth by exhortation or, perhaps, with pump-priming cash, the better things will be.
The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) touched briefly on the part that credit unions can play in the development of the universal bank, which I endorse from my knowledge of the Leeds experience. Broadening out the evangelical approach—I hesitate to call it that—there may be ways of instigating discussions and learning about credit unions in schools; that would be a helpful development.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take all of those ideas on board but, in particular, will, pursue with some urgency the issue of a Central Services Organisation. The Leeds experience clearly demonstrates that credit unions work, but support from the Government and other agencies is needed to make them work even better and to extend their services to more of our fellow citizens.
10.4 am
Mr. Andrew Love: I too congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on securing the debate. We all recognise his expertise and commitment to the credit union movement. Like him, I should declare my membership of a credit union and the fact that I benefit from a small loan at a low interest rate.
Credit unions are unique community-based financial services organisations that are owned and controlled by their members. Perhaps most importantly, they foster both self-help and thrift. They share a community and collective responsibility in the form of a common bond that brings people together for their mutual benefit. There are two common misconceptions about the credit union movement. First, we must understand that their function is primarily to promote thrift and savings. People often talk about the attractions of low interest rates, certainly for those who suffer from being financially excluded from the marketplace. However, people must save before they may take out a loan. Secondly, credit unions are prudential financial institutions, not a social service or an anti-poverty strategy.
78WH
Credit unions did not originate in this country. They came primarily with immigrants from Ireland and the Caribbean, and it was some time before there was a legal framework, which eventually emerged with the Credit Unions Act 1979. Since then, we have seen steady, if modest, growth, which has been disappointing. However, growth has increased since the 1997 election, and I was pleased to see that there has been a 30 per cent. increase in membership since then, which shows some progress at least. The penetration of the movement is still insignificant compared with that in some other countries. In Ireland, more than 40 per cent. of the population are members of credit unions, while the figure for Canada is 15 per cent. Sadly, Britain does not compare to them in any way, with credit union membership totalling only 1 per cent. of the population.
There are many reasons for those figures, not least the contribution of other mutual financial services organisations, which have traditionally attracted the savings of the people who would most benefit from credit union membership. Certain factors are important in the context of the growth of credit unions and their attempt to address financial and social exclusion. The first reason is the fragmentation of the leadership of the credit union movement. Since its inception, there have been disagreements about its role, ethos, objectives and even its values. Many believe that small is beautiful and that growth in itself is almost a bad word, while others would like the movement to expand and develop.
We have ended up with a disparate movement, with some large and expanding credit unions that offer a wide range of services and other smaller community credit unions that seem to take pride in not expanding or being able to offer so much. That has bedevilled the movement's ability to act in unison and, perhaps more importantly, to speak with one voice. I therefore strongly support the recommendations of the National Consumer Council, the Treasury taskforce and the financial services organisations that there should be one national representative body. The movement needs to consider that carefully if it is to respond to the need to develop and expand the movement.
The restricted legal framework in which credit unions are currently set has already been mentioned. There have been two recent deregulations measures: the first was in 1996 and the second will be implemented mainly through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Nevertheless, we still have the most restrictive regime in the world for credit unions. If they are to grow we must be able to provide a broader range of savings, lending and financial services to compete with the high street organisations. Of course, even if we have those changes they may not lead to any spectacular growth along the lines of what has happened in other countries, but they would boost both the membership and, perhaps more importantly, the asset base of the credit union movement. I certainly endorse the deregulation measures that have been carried out, in particular those increasing the flexibility of the common bond. That is an area where further deregulation could assist growth.
I should like briefly to comment on a couple of areas that are critically important if credit unions are to grow and develop and play a part in addressing social and financial exclusions—which the Government are seeking to do. First, both previous speakers mentioned the need for a central services organisation, which will

79WH
be the main body that could sort out some of the shortcomings of the credit union movement. There is a need for more professional provision of services. All reports on the movement have commented on the need for premises, qualified staff, management skills and new technology, or back office services, as they are commonly known. Everyone needs to work together. Growth is extremely difficult to achieve. A centrally-based organisation to foster that growth, along with the member organisations and the development agencies, would go a long way to sustain and perhaps increase the recent growth.
Small and community-based credit unions face considerable difficulties in this respect. That was commented upon by both the taskforce and the recent report by John Moores university. Many credit unions are far too small in membership. They lack the dynamism to grow. They have reached a plateau and are not really going anywhere. We need to intervene to assist them to develop the services that their communities need. I am greatly attracted to the idea of a challenge fund set up for CSO to help it tackle some of the problems of community credit unions.
The CSO is an ambitious business plan and it is on an ambitious time scale. If that is to be implemented, as I think would be the Government's wish, it needs the Government's support and assistance. I hope that the Minister will tell us what measures she intends to take to get the CSO up and running.
The second issue is further deregulation. As I have already mentioned, the current framework is perhaps the most restrictive in the world. I support the Treasury's decision to bring credit unions within the regulatory regime under the supervision of the Financial Services Authority. That is the right way forward; it provides a compensation scheme for depositors and an ombudsman scheme for those who may feel they have been hard done by in their dealings with a credit union. I hope that will increase consumer confidence and promote greater trust in credit unions. We must ensure that the regulatory regime is robust, as that will offer an opportunity further to deregulate the legislative regime in which the credit unions operate.
Credit unions are worried about being supervised by the Financial Services Authority because of concerns about affordability and about having a regime that is proportionate to the risks that are faced by their membership. However, I am pleased that the FSA is responding to both those concerns, so matters can proceed. If the problems in relation to regulation have been solved, it should give credit unions the opportunity to develop the wider range of affordable and accessible services that are necessary if credit unions are to grow and respond to the issue of financial exclusion. Further deregulation measures are being considered, which I very much welcome, because it will help to stimulate future growth.
With FSA regulation kicking in in July 2002, it would be appropriate and sensible, if there are to be further deregulation measures, to consult on the issue and for implementation to take place at the same time so that when the credit union movement is taken under the wing
80WH
of the FSA, it is also encouraged to develop a wider range of services. That would produce a positive response to the movement.
Credit unions are not the only solution to financial or social exclusion but they are the only self-help, cooperatively owned and run financial organisations that promote thrift and savings. Credit unions present a unique opportunity to end financial exclusion and provide affordable and appropriate financial services, but they need Government support and help to achieve that aim.
I look forward to the Minister's response to what I have said this morning.
10.18 am
Mr. Adrian Bailey: I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on securing the debate, and endorse many of the arguments that have been advanced in support of my hon. Friend.
I want to pick up one or two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) about the nature of a credit union. He said that it was not a financial social service but rather a financial institution designed to encourage thrift and savings. The perception that credit unions are a social service has been extremely damaging to the movement's development.
Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I was a member of the Sandwell Credit Union Development Agency, an organisation introduced in the borough of Sandwell with the specific objective of promoting the development of individual credit unions. It may be a reflection on the success—or lack of it—of that body that I have never been a member of a credit union. The lack of success of credit unions in this area highlights the need for our debate and explains why we are asking the Treasury for changes.
Sandwell is a traditional black country inner-city area with relatively low incomes, low car ownership—only 50 per cent.—and relatively low membership of any financial institutions. The Government's attempts to promote social and financial inclusion should be targeted to make savings and thrift part of a wider culture of regeneration.
The financial deficit has been aggravated in recent years by the closure of bank and post office branches, which is a big issue in urban as well as rural areas. Combined with low car ownership, it makes it difficult for some people to gain ready access to financial services.
I mentioned earlier that credit unions are not a financial social service. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West said, they are able to take in savings from people not targeted by the major financial institutions and can offer loans at a much cheaper rate. They are by definition appropriate for people on low incomes in urban areas, so they have a potentially important role to play in such areas.
The Government are anxious to promote the culture of financial management among lower income people. On the surface, credit unions would seem an ideal vehicle to promote such a culture, so why are only 300,000 people in this country members of a credit

81WH
union? In the United States 25 per cent., in Ireland 50 per cent. and in some Caribbean countries 70 per cent. of the population are members.
David Taylor: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point and I apologise to him for not being present at the start of the debate. Ireland has been very successful. Our credit union in North-West Leicestershire—I declare an interest as a member of the Money Tree credit union—has been twinned with Ballinasloe credit union in southern Ireland. Picking up the threads of its ideas and suggestions has led to a new lease of life and a new period of expansion for our credit union. Perhaps that arrangement could be replicated in other areas.
Mr. Bailey: My hon. Friend makes a valuable suggestion, which should help us to develop credit union policy further. It has sometimes been difficult for other areas to develop the kind of policies that have proved appropriate for North-West Leicestershire.
I was commenting on the small number of people who are members of credit unions in this country. Given the enormous potential for development, it is obvious that that lack of growth is the result of cultural, financial and other obstacles. I hope that the Government will tell us how they will break down those obstacles.
As other hon. Members have done, I give credit for the progress that has been made. Changes in regulation enabling the relaxation of the common bond have undoubtedly been a major step in that progress. Prior to that, work-based credit unions in this country had most members—people with a secure income—and facilities to carry out the necessary financial functions; community-based credit unions had relatively few members. Extending the common bond has made it much easier to have larger, geographically based credit unions that can incorporate a far wider section of the community and far wider income bands. That is a positive development.
However, there are three obstacles. First, there is a lack of trained and confident personnel who are capable of understanding the credit union movement, promoting it and carrying out its day-to-day administration. During my years as a member of the Sandwell Credit Union Development Agency, we made strenuous efforts to find volunteers in local communities who would be prepared to put in the time to undergo training. We found some.
The poor public perception of credit unions and the lack of confidence in certain low-income and traditionally deprived communities are undoubtedly major obstacles. Tying credit unions into the regulatory framework of the Financial Services Authority and having a central services organisation that is highly professional in its approach to training could play an important role in removing one of the main cultural and institutional obstacles to their development.
Another obstacle is the status of credit unions as a social service geared only at poor people. The irony is that if one is on a low income, saving is much more difficult and one is less likely to choose as a safe haven for hard-won savings an institution that appears to be just a social service and does not have the safety and regulatory framework of an established financial
82WH
institution. Credit unions have therefore been missing some of the people who might benefit most from them. That obstacle could be removed by incorporating credit unions into the regulatory framework and by having a training and promotional body for them.
Mr. Drew: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the biggest difficulties with training is the amount of time that credit union staff—who are volunteers—are expected to give up? Anything that can be done to support people during their training period is important. Could my hon. Friend comment on that?
Mr. Bailey: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton said, some £300,000 of investment in the financial infrastructure is needed to get a credit union going. My own experience substantiates that. One must have appropriate premises and staff to generate the image of professionalism necessary to encourage people to invest their savings.
That brings me to my final point, which is the difficulty that credit unions have with a lack of premises and inadequate security. The somewhat romantic notion promoted by some of the credit union evangelists is of people starting a credit union in someone's front room, with volunteers totting up the money, banking it and so on. In my experience, that approach is a great deterrent to those who want to invest their money. Potential investors want to see proper offices, proper security and properly trained staff, and the Government or other financial institutions need to invest in the system to guarantee that they are available.
For those reasons, I support the move for a central services organisation. The credit union movement needs to be tied into the existing financial structure so that those who might benefit from its services have confidence in it. It offers a distinctive additional means of providing financial services to people who otherwise would not have access to them.
David Taylor: I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's argument. I accept that the minimum number of people required in a credit union to justify a shop-front approach of the sort that he recommends and to ensure its viability is quite high. Will he comment on the possibilities opened up by the era of the internet, although I acknowledge that a good number of those who may benefit from credit unions may not have ready access to the internet?
Mr. Bailey: My hon. Friend raises a valuable point. Promoting the internet should be part of the package of training, promotion and investment that the Government and allied financial institutions need to introduce, although it would not be accorded the highest priority in inner-city areas such as mine. However, there must be considerable potential in that direction in the long term.
The institution of credit unions potentially conforms to a number of Government objectives: first, it deals with financial exclusion; secondly, it promotes thrift and good financial planning—certainly, the proposed baby bonds would be well within that sort of financial framework; and, thirdly, it has a potential for

83WH
community and urban regeneration. By working together to save and invest in the locality, local communities have the potential for expanding community activity, which benefits the area socially and financially.
10.33 am
Mr. David Drew: I shall keep my remarks deliberately short, so that the Opposition Front-Bench Member and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary have the chance to make a good summing up. I shall concentrate on one perspective.
Like other hon. Members, I declare an interest: I am a founder member of the Stroud credit union. I want to speak about the difficulties of running a credit union in a rural area. Although I agree with everything that has been said by my hon. Friends, they represent more urban parts of the country. It is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) here; however, mine is a slightly different perspective.
The key problem in rural areas is access. Important though it is to talk about bulking up numbers and about increasing the financial base of credit unions and the services that they provide, in rural areas the key issue as regards the common bond is maintaining the local strength of credit unions by making them as accessible as possible while keeping the financial position as sound as possible. That is why I want to reiterate a point that I made in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who did an excellent job of explaining the value of credit unions. There is a synergy with the opening up of the universal bank in the postal system. As part of the negotiations on that, we could—I am looking directly at the Minister—ask the postal network to consider making available sub-post offices, particularly in rural Britain but also, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) said, in urban Britain. If we make sub-post offices places where people can access savings and if we open up the network—as I am sure we will—so that we keep sub-post offices open and make them useful for people, the need to be able to access savings from them will be all too obvious.
David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend support my request to the Minister carefully to consider what is happening in Leicestershire? The pilot scheme for post offices—the linking in of the network in the county's numerous post offices—could be twinned with the potential for expansion of, and access to, credit unions. That is true in particular of rural areas and not least of the monetary union in the town of Coalville.
Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. Friend, because he has taken my words from me. He gives an excellent example. Given all the initiatives in the postal network in Leicestershire, we could, with a push, have a win-win situation. The Government are the only people who can provide a real push.
I ask the Minister, not necessarily in direct response to today's debate and to my pleadings, but certainly over the course of developments, to understand, along
84WH
with her colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, which will obviously be the lead Ministry, that the issue could open up. So many advantages can be gained by giving people access through the universal bank to the savings network that I do not need to keep going on about it. However, unless someone provides the drive and a reason to act, we shall not take that opportunity and we shall all rue the day when we failed to do so.
10.38 am
Mr. Howard Flight: May I add my congratulations to those already given to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on securing this debate on an important subject? I also note the valuable contributions made by the hon. Members for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), for Edmonton (Mr. Love), for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew).
The objective of the debate has been to push the Government to get a move on with establishing a central services organisation, which was proposed four years ago. I cannot resist noting that I have lived through three Economic Secretaries to the Treasury waxing lyrical about how credit unions would solve the problem of social exclusion, but little has happened. Something has been made of the legislative changes, which are necessary and arguably just as important as a central services organisation. Those changes would make credit unions much more useable and viable financial services providers than they are at present.
The objectives of a central services body are perfectly sensible. The pooling of liquidity management is important if credit unions are to be competitive and professionally run. There is a need to train people in an area where there are many potential problems. The provision of automated teller machine cards for the payment of bills will be important. The legislative changes would involve arrangements to pay interest—called dividends in credit unions—in a regular way, analogous with other bodies, and to permit credit unions to borrow from other bodies so that they could constitute capital by subordinated loan. A number of those changes will be necessary when the new regulatory regimes begin this time next year. I understand that some credit unions cannot start operating until those changes have happened.
That all seems very sensible, and I congratulate the Association of British Credit Unions and Shaun Spiers, its chief executive, on the vision and leadership that they have provided. The Conservative party supports mutuals, as it supports diversification and a wide choice of financial services providers. Over the years, many of us have supported friendly societies and mutual building societies. However, so far, credit unions are immaterial in a wider UK context. With assets of only £180 million, they are tiny—as has been observed, only 0.4 per cent. of the population belong to them, compared with 25 per cent. in the United States and 50 per cent. in Ireland. The main reason is not just that credit unions are a fairly recent import from Ireland and the Caribbean, but that we already have building societies and friendly societies. Let us not forget our other mutuals when we wax keen on this new form.
Credit unions that have succeeded materially, both here and overseas, are those that are tied in with employment, particularly those provided by large

85WH
employers—British Airways is the main example, although Leeds, Birmingham and the taxi drivers' credit unions are employment-oriented. They are a low-cost and convenient benefit for an employer to offer to staff. If the credit union movement takes off in this country, as I think it will, that will be the main area in which it will succeed.
However, the movement is not the solution to the lack of financial services in deprived areas. It will become—as it has substantially in the United States—predominantly a middle-class movement. There is nothing wrong with that, or with the fact that it can help in deprived areas, as it plans to do in Leeds and Tower Hamlets, but it is much more important, as has been said, to keep post offices open. Friendly societies have an important role and banks could, too, if they would return to areas from which they have withdrawn. Worthy though the cause of credit unions is, it is mistaken to think that they provide a solution in deprived areas.
That brings me to the central services organisation. I assume that the Government have dragged their feet because it is difficult to justify providing taxpayers' money for one type of mutual and not for others. Why should friendly societies or even the many worthy remaining building societies not have similar funding? To the extent that taxpayers' money is to be made available, it should, if at all possible in the long-term, be on a self-liquidating basis—potentially by loan to be repaid by the movement, rather than by the provision of a grant.
In conclusion, the aims are excellent; the Conservative party supports mutuals and I am pleased to see some oomph behind the credit union movement.
David Taylor: If the Conservative party is as supportive of mutuals as the hon. Gentleman says, why did it stand by and let them be targeted by corporate raiders and others, the result of which is that the mutual sector has been enfeebled during the past 10 to 15 years?
Mr. Flight: We are not debating building societies. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a protection against that problem was built into the original proposals, but it proved not to work on two scores. When building societies and mutuals were liberalised, the intent was to create a fair and level playing field. However, members' ballots came to be important and building society management noted them when it need not have done. Also, methods were used to get round paying out to people who had not been members for long, some of which have been changed. The Conservative party intended to create a fair and level playing field, while offering choice. What developed was not caused by the then Government.
The regulatory changes to credit unions have mainly been sensible, and the FSA has responded to concerns that they would be over-tight on liquidity requirements. I do not see how the arrangements for money laundering and credit unions can be any different from those for any other financial intermediary. That presents a problem in deprived areas, which are essentially cash economies. I do not know how that circle will be squared. There will be a major issue about whether credit unions can be helped by larger parentages, such as Tower Hamlets, to achieve success in providing services in deprived areas.
86WH
Credit unions will grow enormously, but people should not be blind to the fact that most of their success is likely to be related to employment, as in the United States. They will probably provide services to the great rump of people in the middle of society, and will not be the key solution to increasing financial services in deprived areas.
10.47 am
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) for securing the debate. He and other hon. Members aired issues of real importance to the credit union movement, to the people who benefit and to others who could benefit from the services that credit unions offer. He is an extremely active champion of credit unions and their work, and I hope to work closely with him and other interested hon. Members on the issues in future.
Credit unions have an important role to play in the campaign to reduce financial exclusion. They make a real difference to the people and the communities that they serve, not only by providing financial services to which communities would often otherwise have limited access, but through their ethos of self-help and thrift, which plays a valuable role in educating people about managing their finances, bringing greater independence and security.
I assure hon. Members that the Government share their support for credit unions, and their hopes for a large and flourishing credit union movement in our country. The Government have already been involved in several initiatives to help credit unions grow to realise their full potential in the United Kingdom, and we shall continue to support their further development.
There are more than 700 credit unions in Britain, with around 300,000 members and assets of about £200 million. As several hon. Members have pointed out, the development of credit unions in the UK is much smaller than in other countries. Fewer than 1 per cent. of the population are members of them, compared with around 20 per cent. in Australia, 30 per cent. in the United States and 45 per cent. in Ireland. The small size of the membership of the credit union movement in this country has arisen for several reasons. It is partly because it is relatively new here. Nevertheless, it is important and clearly has the potential to grow.
With that growth in mind, the Treasury set up the credit unions taskforce in July 1998, bringing together stakeholders from the credit union movement, along with those from the wider financial services community. The taskforce was asked to explore ways in which the banks and building societies could work more closely with credit unions to increase their effectiveness. It also looked at ways of expanding the range of services on offer from credit unions, and expanding the credit union movement as a whole.
The taskforce recommended the establishment of a central services organisation, or CSO, which in addition to offering the facilities to manage resources, would create a central pool of expertise on which credit unions could draw. The taskforce also felt that such an organisation would be a straightforward way for the banks and building societies to play their part in helping develop credit unions as complementary institutions in the financial services sector. I shall say more about that later in my speech.

87WH
The Government's approach to neighbourhood renewal and social inclusion acknowledges the central importance of improving access to financial services. The social exclusion unit was set up by the Prime Minister to develop integrated and sustainable approaches to the network of problems faced by people in our most deprived neighbourhoods. The SEU established 18 policy action teams—PATs—bringing experts together with people living and working in deprived areas, to take forward an intensive programme of policy development. One of those action teams, sponsored by the Treasury, focused on issues relating to financial exclusion.
That team reported towards the end of 1999, making 44 recommendations under five headings: credit unions, banking, insurance, regulation and education. The team's recommendations reflect the complexity of the issues that make up financial exclusion, and it suggested a number of joined-up solutions. It called on central and local government, the banking and insurance industry and many other organisations to work together to deliver greater financial inclusion.
In January 2001, the SEU published a report that audited progress against the recommendations, and I am pleased to say that we are making significant progress on all the report's key recommendations, including those covering credit unions. For example, the Local Government Association has issued a good practice guide to all local authorities concentrating on the development of sustainable credit unions. It is now up to local authorities to act on the guidance, but the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is continuing to lend support in what is, of course, an on-going process.
The Treasury's role is to help create the right conditions for credit unions to expand. Earlier this year, we introduced two changes to give credit unions greater freedom. We increased the maximum loan repayment periods that credit unions may offer borrowing members, and we increased the amount that junior members may save with a credit union, bringing it into line with the amount that adults may save.
We shall also be introducing a further package of three deregulatory changes, when the relevant sections of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 are brought into effect on 1 July 2002. The forthcoming changes will abolish the maximum limit on the number of members a credit union may have, and abolish the statutory distinction between the large credit unions that are able to take advantage of the additional powers conferred by a section 11C certificate, and other credit unions. They will also abolish the requirement on credit unions to dispose of repossessed collateral as soon as possible.
We also plan to consult on a range of further measures aimed at relaxing some of the restrictions on credit unions' operational powers. This exercise will include a number of proposals that have been put forward by the sector, many of which remove or reduce legislative constraints, and which will also include some of the proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West made today.
88WH
I know that these measures are eagerly awaited in the movement, and I am keen that we make progress with the assembly of a package of measures for public consultation as soon as possible. I am also aware that it would he helpful to introduce those deregulatory changes that consultees consider desirable at the same time as the Financial Services Authority commences its regulation of credit unions, next year. A great deal of work still needs to be done before we can release the consultation document, but I hope that we shall be in a position to start the consultation process before the end of the summer.
The movement is known for its diversity, so I hope that when the time comes as many credit unions as possible—large and small, community, associational and employee based—will respond, to enable us to take account of all the different perspectives and needs before we come to take decisions about how to proceed.
The Treasury has also used the Financial Services and Markets Act to bring credit unions under the rule-making powers of the Financial Services Authority. In future, credit union members will be given similar protection to that afforded to depositors with banks and building societies.
The Government received strong support from across the movement in November 1999 when we decided to transfer the regulation of credit unions to the FSA. Since then, the FSA has been working to develop a regulatory structure that is proportionate to the nature and scale of the risks that credit unions face. As several hon. Members have pointed out, the response has been overwhelmingly positive, despite some concerns about whether the degree of regulation would be proportionate to the credit union sector. The FSA has been paying close attention, and responding positively, to such concerns.
All hon. Members mentioned the need for a central services organisation. The taskforce and the policy action team both pointed out how establishing such an organisation would be to the advantage of the credit union movement in this country. That has always been a project for the movement to take forward, and the taskforce felt that the banks and building societies could usefully support it. However, the Treasury has maintained regular contact with the Association of British Credit Unions, which is finalising its business proposals in consultation with other key stakeholders.
Under the latest plans, a CSO would offer all credit unions—regardless of the representative body to which they might be affiliated—a finance facility that should be able to achieve better rates of return on deposits, assistance with liquidity management and help with training and development. It would, however, remain a matter for each credit union to decide whether to use any or all of the facilities on offer, which means that the take-up, or otherwise, of those services would rely exclusively on their overall desirability and cost.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, among others, questioned me about the timing and financing of a CSO. I hope that the organisation will be set up soon, but, as I said, it is primarily a matter for the movement to take forward.
Mr. Flight: Have the Government worked out how the proposal will be financed? Many hon. Members are aware of discussions taking place with banks and, not unreasonably, many banks have taken the view that it is not fair, when they are being leant on to finance the universal bank, to be asked to finance a future competitor as well. The crucial issue seems to be where the money will come from.
Ruth Kelly: My view is that the crucial issue at present is how the movement will take the matter forward and finalise its plans. After that, it will be possible to examine funding arrangements. However, I think that banks and building societies have a duty to support any organisation that is set up.
Mr. Love: Will my hon. Friend undertake today to bring the parties together, to try to find an effective and quick way of setting up a central services organisation?
Ruth Kelly: I certainly will undertake to try to facilitate those discussions. I am interested in any proposals from hon. Members that might advance the process. I would also seriously consider representations about the future work programme of the CSO. I hope that, once it is established, credit unions throughout the movement will want to support it and take advantage of the services that it offers. I believe that a CSO would provide an important foundation for a stronger credit union movement in the future, and I fully intend to keep in touch with developments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West mentioned the role that regional development agencies, the Housing Corporation and housing associations could play in developing the credit union movement. That is primarily a matter for my colleagues at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. However, I understand the significance of the points that my hon. Friend raised, and I shall consider the matter in the hope that progress can be made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) and other hon. Members considered the role that credit unions can play in their localities. Clearly, they have an important role in the development of local community life, as well as in encouraging the virtues of thrift. There is clearly much scope for the future expansion of credit unions, not only in size and membership but with respect to their products. However, quite a lot of flexibility exists in them already, and I believe that some credit unions already offer facilities such as mortgages. When the relevant powers are finally transferred to the FSA in July 2002, large credit unions will be able to offer mortgages or loans over a period of up to 15 years. I am sure that some will want to take advantage of those facilities.
Credit unions make a significant contribution to tackling financial exclusion. I am keen for them to bring the benefits of their unique approach to many more of those who lack access to mainstream financial services.
The Government support credit unions, and on the Government's behalf I should like to thank all the dedicated people who run them, many of whom are volunteers. They do valuable work for their members and for all the people of this country, which is why we have, and will continue to encourage, a strong and flourishing credit union movement.

Upland Farming
11 am
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Thank you, Mr. Winterton, for chairing this morning's proceedings. I am pleased to have the opportunity to initiate a debate on an issue that is of critical importance to my Northumberland constituency, to that of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—I am pleased to see him here today—and to those of all Members who represent upland areas of the north. Naturally, there will be considerable discussion of the foot and mouth epidemic, which is still very real, particularly in Yorkshire, where there is a regular stream of new cases. Today, however, I want to focus on the legacy of foot and mouth and the crisis facing upland hill farmers in the north.
Some of the legacy of foot and mouth is glaringly obvious to anybody who journeys in Cumbria or in Northumberland: empty fields, generations of breeding wiped out, and ruined lives. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who I am pleased to see in his place, will have witnessed that at first hand. His constituency continues to suffer the live effects of foot and mouth. In mine, there has not been a case for several months, although a couple of weeks ago a renowned flock of sheep was slaughtered as a precautionary measure.
What is not obvious to the public is the impending welfare crisis looming in the upland areas, as our farmers ponder the fate of hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of unsaleable sheep. Nor is the further fall in farm incomes obvious. Before the foot and mouth epidemic, farming incomes, particularly those of hill farmers, were historically low. Some estimated their annual incomes just before the epidemic at about £4,000, although others would describe that as extremely optimistic. Since the outbreak, incomes have fallen even further, and I shall say a few words about the recent effect on prices.
A third important aspect that is also not particularly visible is that, in respect of dealing with the aftermath of the crisis and the future of farming, we are suffering from a lack of political leadership. I do not mean to be aggressively critical of the Minister. Decisions on the future of farming are extremely complex and detailed, but the Government must establish their promised foot and mouth inquiry. They should also set up the policy commission that I believe was promised in the Labour party manifesto, so that the future of farming can be examined. We are just two days away from the recess, but that commission has yet to be established.
The matter is urgent, given the problem of unsaleable sheep and the fact that we are about six weeks away from the deadline for decisions. Traditionally, in six weeks' time the sale of light lambs from the high hills begins. In my own constituency, the Hexham and Northern marts will sell tens of thousands of light lambs—Herdwicks, Swaledales and Blackfaces—during August and September. Normally, they are exported to Mediterranean countries. Southern France, Italy and Spain in particular delight in these small, tasty lambs, which the UK market has rejected. We import most Mediterranean food and eat it with great enthusiasm, but the traditional light lamb of the hills of

91WH
Northumberland, the Lake district and Yorkshire, which number about 2 million, are rejected by the market. Given that we cannot export a single lamb, the crisis in those areas will be considerable.
It is interesting to recall that before the foot and mouth disease epidemic, we exported 30 per cent. of our lamb crop. At best estimate, the epidemic has taken out 3 million lambs or 15 per cent., which leaves about 3 million lambs that cannot be exported and will have to be absorbed into the UK market. That has caused the price to fall and it will fall further. A 20 kg Suffolk-cross lamb currently fetches around £27, which is about £12 less than last year, and the main sales have not yet started. It costs around £30 to put a lamb into the market, so hard-hit farmers will lose around £3 per lamb.
A solution to the problem of light lambs might be to extend the welfare slaughter scheme to them, but if the meat is sold in supermarkets, it will displace meat from normal fat lambs that would have been sold instead. A more palatable alternative might be a slaughter scheme and long-term store. However, at some stage the meat will have to come out of cold store and enter the market. There would also be a huge logistical problem because slaughtering 2 million sheep is a huge task and abattoirs in the north-east would be unable to cope.
Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of a further problem if animals are sent to abattoirs on the other side of the border in Scotland because, despite earlier help from the Scottish Executive, there is a ban on the movement of animals across the border for slaughter—even clean animals from clean areas.
Mr. Atkinson: I am aware of that and the Minister may be able to explain the mystery. We were told originally that animals from Northumberland could go for slaughter in Scotland but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that is not happening. There has been a breakdown in communication between the Scottish Department with responsibility for agriculture and our own Department.
Apart from light lambs and surplus fat lambs, a third problem to add to the general misery concerns breeding ewe lambs, of which the north of England is a major producer. They are traditionally sold for breeding to farmers in the south, Yorkshire and the west country, but they cannot be sent there because of movement restrictions. Farmers in the south do not want to buy stock from infected areas and prefer to buy from non-infected areas for the sake of safety. One cannot blame them, but there will be a considerable surplus of breeding ewe lambs on the market. Farmers in Cumbria, Northumberland and Yorkshire who have been hit by foot and mouth disease and had their flocks slaughtered may buy some and opportunist farmers with spare grazing may also buy them, but there will be a considerable surplus.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to the problem of moving stock to Scotland for slaughter, but an additional problem for Northumberland in particular is that many of our beef
92WH
cattle are sold to Scotland as store cattle and that trade has been stopped, so there will be a problem at the back end of this year as those calves come to market.
The Minister could help by sorting out the confusion concerning the movement of fat lambs which cannot be sent to market because of movement restrictions. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced in the House recently that the movement restrictions were being lifted. That was welcomed as good news because it meant that we could sell fat lambs from the north to the large abattoirs in the midlands and the south. A problem has arisen since then because the Department insists that the transporter carrying the livestock makes the journey from farm or collection centre to abattoir non-stop, but the drivers' hours regulation specifies that they cannot drive for more than four hours—it may be four and a half hours—without a break. That effectively means that a livestock transporter can go no further than it could drive in four hours; for the sake of argument, that would be about 160 miles. The big abattoirs in the midlands are therefore out of reach for our fat lambs. Farmers in Northumberland have to sell their lambs to local abattoirs, which are accustomed to cope with 3,000 or 4,000 lambs and are largely in the butchery and industrial trade. At this time of year, however, the Hexham mart alone would be selling about 8,000 or 10,000 lambs. Clearly, that is a problem.
I mentioned a political vacuum at the top and that needs to be addressed urgently. As we know, the system of funding hill farmers has changed from the hill farm compensatory allowance to what is called the hill farming allowance, but it is still unclear how it will affect farmers in upland areas, particularly in respect of their income. It may place onerous and unreasonable inspection and environmental burdens on farmers who have already suffered a huge drop in income.
We need a proper announcement about the foot and mouth inquiry, and the policy commission to be set up so that it can begin to take evidence and consider how farming might develop in future. I did not hear the Secretary of State speak yesterday, but I have seen a press cutting or two. It seems to me that she said nothing that indicated to farmers Government thinking on the future of farming. The German Agriculture Minister made some suggestions about less intensive and more organic production. I do not agree with those suggestions at all. I would sooner side with Lord Haskins, whose recent report presented a slightly different vision of farming: the need to improve efficiency, cut costs and become more competitive. I believe that that is the inevitable future of farming.
We do not want mixed messages. We need to know the Government's thinking on how farming will develop. The Government must announce as quickly as possible whether they intend to introduce a buy-up scheme—a buy-up to slaughter scheme or a buy-up for storage scheme. Farmers need to be reassured that there is a Government out there who care about them. They have lost their Ministry of Agriculture and they want to know if the new Department will encourage and take care of them.
Finally, Northumberland, Yorkshire, Cumbria and the other upland areas have a wonderful tradition of livestock breeding. It is always said that arable farmers are trained, but livestock farmers are born. Handling

93WH
and rearing livestock to a high quality is a skill that has been passed from generation to generation in farming families in upland areas. Farmers with that skill have a future; they have a knowledge and understanding of the breed. The United Kingdom, among other European countries, has grass, so it is capable of being a major and efficient producer of meat. We must know, with certainty, what the future is, and that is what the Government must urgently address.
11.13 am
Mr. A. J. Beith: I am glad that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) introduced this debate. He is right to point out that there is a crisis in northern upland farming. The boundary between my constituency and his passes through the Cheviot hills—one of the most drastically affected upland areas—and the problems that he described are ones that I, too, have experienced. It might be hard to find our constituency boundary in that vast and largely empty territory if it were not for the small number of people who maintain the hills in the form that tourists want to see. They husband and shepherd sheep flocks primarily, and hill cattle to a more limited extent, not to mention wild goats, for which a warden has recently been appointed. It is a remarkable area, but it could face a drastic loss of the qualities that visitors appreciate if upland farming is not rescued from crisis.
The crisis began some time ago. The dangers to upland farming have continued over a long period. They were, of course, exacerbated by the BSE crisis, so the foot and mouth outbreak hit an industry that was already in a very poor state. The difference between the current crisis and the foot and mouth outbreak in the 1960s is that this time it hit an industry in much worse condition.
We have had many debates and questions about the details of what the Government are doing and what they should be doing, so we do not want to go over that ground today. However, foot and mouth is a negative influence on the state of upland farming and there is continued anxiety about what will happen. Farmers report that vets are warning them of the possibility of a further outbreak due to the identification through blood testing of sheep that are carrying the disease. There is therefore a great deal of anxiety about whether it will break out again. The most drastic effects are the loss of lamb exports and the complete disruption of the trade.
As people look ahead, there is a feeling that many who have had sheep slaughtered, particularly those whose sheep either had foot and mouth or went into welfare slaughter, will not go back into the industry. Hill farmers traditionally provided lowland sheep farmers with breeding stock. The hill farmers are looking at people that they know in the lowlands and observing that they are unlikely to go back into large-scale sheep farming. There will therefore be no market for the breeding stock from the hills, and that is a major worry for hill farmers.
Hill sheep are of course an organic product in all but name. They are not registered as an organic product but the way in which they are produced—grazing naturally on our hills—makes them, in the sense that most people would understand it, an organic product, the future of which is seriously threatened.
94WH
We need to look at what is happening in the lowlands. Prices are down from 175p to 125p a kilo on lowland Suffolk lambs. I was talking to a farmer who was selling horned Blackface sheep for carcass export at 270p a kilo before the foot and mouth outbreak; after the outbreak the price is 150p a kilo because there is no export market. No business can stand that level of reduction in prices, and certainly not the frail hill farming industry. Hill farmers cannot continue taking less than the cost of production, which they are doing now and have sometimes had to do in the past. However, in the past the good times have evened out the bad times. Now there is a run of bad prices and no prospect of the situation improving.
Most hill farmers say that they would like to get their returns on livestock in the marketplace. In principle, they are looking not for a subsidised market but for a genuine one. However, they do not have a genuine market because there is an export ban. The Government must recognise that we are in an artificial situation and any intervention that they undertake is not part of a policy of market distortion. They must try to preserve the industry so that it can get back into a position where it can compete in a genuine market, which we do not have at the moment.
Some aids that are meant to help hill farmers are not helping at the moment. The sheep annual premium—the headage payment—is calculated on the price in Europe. The price in Europe is high at the moment because our hill farmers cannot get their lambs there. Their premium is down due to the combined effects of the high European price and the exchange rate. At a time when the system should be helping hill farmers, it is giving them the lowest possible annual premium. The number of ewes has decreased by 25 per cent. in about a decade. Let us consider what has happened to them since the foot and mouth outbreak: 20 per cent. have been culled and 30 per cent. used to be exported, leaving 10 per cent. of ewes from that reduced flock on the market.
We need to know what short-term measures the Government are prepared to take to try to stabilise the market and what the long-term prospects, which are especially important to hill farmers, are. Do the answers lie in environmentally focused support? That is the message that farmers have been getting for some time and we are all party to giving it to them. Given the way in which the economics of farming is going, my party believes that there must be environmentally focused support to avoid the loss of farming from the hills. That must be the way forward, but that has not yet been proved in the eyes of hill farmers because there are an awful lot of gaps and missing figures in the equation. If the answer for the future of upland farming lies in a substantial environmental contribution from the nation, there are still problems. First, livestock are central to conservation. We cannot pay farmers to mow the Cheviots and clip the grass on the Ministry of Defence ranges that cover large parts of my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Hexham. Yet the grass hillsides form the scene that the tourists expect—it is they that make the Cheviots so distinct.
Livestock, therefore, cannot be written out of the equation. There must be some way of running a viable livestock business in the hills, even at the lower levels of intensity that we now have. To make a proper contribution to preserving the traditional upland

95WH
environment—as the national park authorities believe that we should—there must be a livestock presence, which cannot be allowed to collapse.
On an environmental basis, help must aid smaller as well as larger farmers. I was talking to a farmer who was investigating the countryside stewardship scheme. In order to participate, he would have to get rid of three quarters of his livestock to receive £2,000 income. However, he is looking ahead at ways of keeping the farm going for his son, so that there will be a future generation hill farmer there to look after the hills. Obviously, the scheme will not work for him. It will work for a large farmer, with a big acreage, who can get tens of thousands of pounds from stewardship schemes. That is probably a sensible bargain from the nation's point of view, but it will not work for the smaller hill farmer. That must be carefully examined.
A background to the situation is the attrition of services in remote areas, which makes it increasingly difficult for people to live and work there. This week, the county council told us that it plans to charge £300 to every pupil over 16 to travel to school. What does that say to a farmer living in the hills, or even more, to a farm worker such as a shepherd living in a remote position on a modest income with a family of youngsters going to school? There are many other examples of how the attrition of services is making it very difficult to keep farmers or shepherds in the hills.
Many discussions take place on the assumption that we are talking only about farmers. Believe it or not, there are still people employed in agriculture who draw a wage and do not have assets that could contribute to their retirement. Their income is limited, but their future is absolutely vital to the hills. The whole cultural life of the Cheviots has been built round shepherds, who have included great musicians, even poets and all sorts of people of tremendous talent who have lived and worked in the hills.
The Government play a large role in the area and are vital to the equation because they, in the form of the Ministry of Defence, are the biggest landowner in much of my constituency. In many respects, they have been a conserving farming landlord. Much of the area concerned is also national park. Within the area, there is short-term despair and long-term pessimism. I hope that the Minister can dispel that despair and change that pessimism by practical proposals to make farmers realise that it is worth hanging on in there, and that there is a future for hill farming. At the moment, they do not feel that there is one.
11.23 am
Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon): I do not normally tune into "Farming Today", because it is at quarter to 6, which I find somewhat premature. However, when one has hayfever and catarrh, one often ends up listening to programmes when one did not intend to. I caught the back end of Lord Whitty on that programme, following which it was commented that he would make a statement in the House of Lords today that would be repeated in the Commons. I thought that
96WH
that was an interesting inversion of constitutional practice, and I look forward to any enlightenment that the Minister can give about it.
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): Lord Whitty is responding today to a starred Question on the subject in the Lords. I think that he was asked what his response to it was going to be and that he indicated that he would make his response clear.
Mr. Curry: So we are going to hear something about the matter. I do not know what form that will be in—it does not sound as though it will be a statement.
Alun Michael: It will not be a statement.
Mr. Curry: I am glad that we have got that sorted out. I beg your pardon for the diversion, Mr. Winterton.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) because, in giving the broad picture, he has precisely set the scene for the particular cases that I wish to raise. By way of background, since the general election was called, in my constituency and the immediate neighbouring constituencies, mainly in the Ribble valley in Lancashire, we are approaching 100 outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, 400 farms culled as contiguous premises and 300.000 animals slaughtered.
I want to focus on a particular category of farmers: those who are not afflicted by foot and mouth disease, but are unable to carry on their business because they are in areas that are under heavy restrictions. I have enormous sympathy with farmers who have been culled out as either infected premises or contiguous premises. Although they receive payments for that compulsory slaughter programme, I would not wish to minimise the sheer trauma that such culling brings to a family, especially when they have built up a herd over a long period. We know about the problems to business that have come increasingly to the fore in relation to the lack of cash caused by the decrease in tourist numbers. However, the plight of farmers who are still trying to make a livelihood is too often overlooked. I therefore want to do something that I rarely do, and highlight two individual cases that illustrate the problems of those farmers, who are all in the uplands and less-favoured areas. Almost all the infected areas in my constituency are upland areas.
I start with the case of Gary and Gill Schofield, a young couple from Heber farm in Buckden, which is right at the top end of Wharfedale in the high hills. Mr. Schofield is only 33. He has been a tenant farmer for seven years and has a small family and a big overdraft, with loans on top of that. He raises 150 beef animals and has 900 ewes, which normally yield a crop of about 1,200 lambs. Because he is in environmental schemes, which are specifically aimed at reducing levels of fertility by restricting the use of fertiliser, there is not enough fertility on the land to keep the lambs over winter. He could, at a pinch, keep his breeding sheep, but nothing more, because he does not have enough lowland ground and snow covers the tops in winter. So his only substantial income comes from selling his lambs down the hill—and one cannot sell lambs at the moment.

97WH
What would be Mr. Schofield's normal pattern of business if foot and mouth had not happened? In September or October he would sell his breeding lambs down to the lowland and sell his draught sheep—ewes that have done three or four years' service breeding in the uplands—down the hill to do another three or four years in the lowland in the milder conditions, because they can no longer take the more severe upland conditions, but can still have a productive life in the kinder conditions in the south. He would also take down his male lambs—wethers—while the half-horned lambs would go to export. The mule wethers—crossbreeds—would be sold as store lambs or fattened on the lowland, perhaps until after Christmas.
What is the situation now? He has to keep his breeding lambs and draught lambs on the farm because he cannot sell them off it. He has to buy in expensive food to keep them going. They occupy the land that is needed for his normal breeding flock, which is therefore over-grazed. The land is under pressure and the stock is under pressure, so a welfare problem is looming. He wants to keep his breeding sheep—that is the heart of his enterprise—but he cannot keep his male lambs and his mules. He also has store cattle, which he is keeping on and fattening rather than selling them in July at 10 months old, which is what he would normally be doing now. That means that he needs bought-in feed, which sucks in capital, and the store cattle occupy the cattle sheds needed for his over-wintered cattle.
Mr. Schofield faces an impossible situation. He is left in complete uncertainty, with no information about what will happen, and he has had no income since February. This young couple are not dog-and-stick farmers; they are really trying to make a go of things in difficult circumstances, putting their whole life into it. His business is under pressure, his stock is under pressure and his land is under pressure. At some point there must be an intervention to relieve that pressure and make sure that he receives some income.
Another young couple, Matthew and Tracy Harrison, live at Stories House farm in Elslack, which is up the Aire valley from Skipton and close to the heart of the foot and mouth outbreak. It is in the Ribble valley, which is the epicentre of the epidemic. Tracy Harrison wrote to me. I did not solicit the letter; it just happened to come in the post when I was applying for the debate. She said that while she can appreciate the problems faced by farmers when their livestock has been culled, an income could be generated. The cleansing operation itself is remunerated and there is a payment for the stock. She wrote:
"I am bitter, and for this I do not apologise. We run a herd of suckler cows and a flock of 80 sheep. We have been placed in a D band twice, for having feed delivered so that our sheep don't starve and our lambs have a chance. Both have been lifted after the 1 month period expired. After the expiry of the last one we were able to find a buyer in Huddersfield to take last years bulls (12 in total), but the licence took 11 days to come through, even though we faxed the applications to try and speed things up. Sadly in the same post came the notice that we were in the Settle Special Area and that all licences had been retracted. Thoughts of easing the overcrowding were fading. Not to mention the money that is our income. We don't milk and therefore have no regular cheque to keep us ticking.
We are now in a D band that has no end. 20 lambs were able to be taken to the slaughterhouse".
98WH
Tracy Harrison then described the circuitous route that she was advised to take to the slaughterhouse and said that it took a two-hour discussion to prevent her from having to comply with those instructions. She continued:
"The last licence for taking 25 lambs was applied for on Friday June 22. Dates from the last infected premises were counted and a date for Thursday 28 June was arranged with the slaughterhouse and the vet who was to inspect them. Wednesday 27 June brought a call from the vets who stated the licence had not been faxed and could we chase it up…The second call was disastrous because the dates quoted back at me were different from the ones stated…The licence would not be issued.
Tracy Harrison said that the goalposts had been moved. She goes on:
"Legislation now prevents us from moving anything to slaughter. We need this income. A vet comes every two days from DEFRA to inspect all our stock and a local vet would come and inspect our lambs prior to the movement to the slaughterhouse. What else can be done to safeguard the consumer? This legislation is ridiculous and uncalled for, unless bankruptcy is the aim of the Government.
My husband and I are both under 40, with 3 children under 10 and in no rush to retire. Our standard of living was not superb in the good old days of 2000, but at least we could look forward to making things better. It's not working though, and we need help."
As I said, I do not usually quote individual cases, but these two young modern farmers are desperate to make a go of things in the dales. They may have the farming industry in their genes, but they also learnt about it through a formal education. They are receptive to modern schemes and environmental programmes. They do not believe that agriculture will continue unchanged. It may be regarded as a time-honoured tradition, but activities change with the time. The Harrisons are in a terrible situation, because they cannot farm. Farmers who have been culled out suffer such trauma, but provided that they receive their cheques, they can begin to think about how they will take forward their businesses. Although the delays in receiving cheques are the subject of a different debate, those farmers can contemplate the development of their enterprise.
We must bear in mind, however, farmers who are caught in infected areas and who have already suffered years of economic recession. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham said, they have seen the mechanisms change by which hill allowances are paid. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, the sheep premium is at an all-time low because it is based on the European price. Those farmers have nothing. They are stuck. An enormous welfare problem is building up with regard to the stock, as is an environmental problem because the welfare schemes will be shot to pieces. There is no choice other than for them to be shot to pieces. The only way to assist is to let some of the steam out of the pressure cooker. If that does not happen, the farmers will not be able to continue. The land will suffer, a welfare problem will result, and not merely the ecology but the business environment of such a precious area as the dales will go down with it. I hope that the Minister understands the problem. There must be an intervention to take the pressure off those farmers, or they will not be around this time next year.
11.34 am
Mr. Colin Breed: I and my party heartily welcome the Government's intention to introduce genuine medium-term and long-term strategies and a commission on food and farming, which should specify precisely the future for agriculture in general and hill farming in particular. This morning's debate is about the short term and urgent matters.
Slightly disappointingly, we still do not know who will lead the commission or its intended timetable. A fundamental question is in the minds of an awful lot of hill farmers today: is there a future in hill farming? They are wondering whether to do whatever is necessary now and jump all the hurdles and whether, having tackled all the logistical and other problems that have been so eloquently described this morning, their upland farming ultimately has a future. That is one of the biggest questions that must be answered as quickly as possible, even though we must take evidence. One problem is that the future will relate more to environmental stewardship than to agriculture, and that will not suit everyone. It is not how many see their future in farming, but it is fundamental to what happens to people who operate on the ground.
We are talking about the short term and urgent matters. In the short-term category, it has been clear for some time that hill farm incomes have been getting lower and are too low. Of necessity, people, including those in hill farms, question the likelihood of those incomes being driven up through farming activity. Prices are still weak and seem unlikely in the short term to improve, and it is almost impossible for many farmers even to sell and therefore receive any income at all.
Hill farming allowances are being considered. That has changed the way in which support is received and created considerable alarm and despondency in the hill farming community. Unsurprisingly, therefore, many are wondering whether now is the time to give up. That will have huge implications for many different Government policies. Perhaps the Government could help in a planned and managed way by reconsidering the potential of a retirement scheme. I know that the Government have considered the matter several times and have decided that such a scheme would not be appropriate, even though common agricultural policy funding could be used for it. I urge the Government to reconsider opportunities for a relatively small-scale retirement scheme that could put some structure into how farmers organise their futures. A retirement scheme should be part of the overall broad strategy to help hill farming.
The export of so-called light lambs is such an urgent problem that we are dealing with weeks, not even months. When I heard hon. Members speak about welfare, it struck me that there is a welfare problem not only with animals but with farmers and their families. We need to consider that and what farmers want from the Government. Obviously, they know that there are huge problems in the aftermath of foot and mouth disease and so on, but we need a clearly thought-out policy to deal with the immediate situation.
It would be nice to use all the available evidence and set a policy in the context of a medium and long-term strategy. However, we do not have time to consider all the ramifications of subsidy mechanisms, problems with
100WH
compensation, the logistical aspects of any welfare disposal scheme and the implications for the market. If we promote greater use of lamb and sheep meat, that might have a knock-on effect on other sectors and result in lower sales of beef and pork. It could take months to bring all those issues together into a comprehensively thought-out plan and strategy, but we may have a monumental problem in a few weeks' time.
The Government must come up with urgent short-term measures to deal with the real problems that have been described this morning. The word that everyone wants to see in Government policy and decision making is "flexibility". Inflexibility has been a feature of the implementation of decisions in the aftermath of foot and mouth in my part of the world and in the north. Having jumped over a number of hurdles, farmers have been obstructed by the way in which regulations have been implemented.
Unless there is real flexibility and management on the ground to deal with the circumstances of the dozens of individuals who have been affected, we shall have a huge problem in a few weeks' time. It will be interesting to hear Lord Whitty's answer to the relevant starred question this afternoon.
This debate is taking place only two days before Parliament rises for the summer recess, and many people will be looking to the Government to make a reasonable announcement about how they intend to tackle a problem that is likely to come to a head while Parliament is in recess. I hope that the Minister will provide at least some comfort by saying that the Government have not only considered the issues, but have clear plans for solving that problem.
11.43 am
Mr. James Paice: I declare an interest that is properly recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, although it is not directly related to upland farming.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on initiating the debate, which comes just two weeks after a similar debate that was secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). Two members of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) have made the same points that were made then and rightly so.
During the previous debate, which I think was the Minister's first appearance in this Chamber in his new incarnation, he rightly said that this forum provides the opportunity for a less partisan approach and a greater exploration of the issues. I agree with him entirely. I hope that he will accept that it behoves him to respond as fully as he can to the various points that have been raised and to the questions that have been asked. He has a considerable amount of time available and I certainly do not intend to encroach too much on it. He will have ample opportunity to reply to the debate.
I should like briefly to refer to the previous debate in this Chamber. The point was made, which the Minister fully accepted, that in the absence of proper information the rumour mill runs riot. All sorts of stories do the rounds in the farming world and in the farming press, for that matter. They may or may not have any

101WH
foundation, but they are bound to occur when there is no proper information. I cited the case of a flock of sheep slaughtered in Wiltshire the week before the debate. The Minister said that he would come back to me when he had received more information. I do not know whether he can do so yet. Nobody knew whether there had been an outbreak or why a flock was being slaughtered in an area that had been free of the disease for some weeks.
As my right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out, the disease continues. Although all the epidemiologists told us that it would have a long tail, there is no sign yet of that tail shortening. It seems to run somewhere between three to five outbreaks daily, with no lessening. We are now in July, although one might not think so today, and we have had quite a lot of much warmer weather and sunshine. We were told that such weather would help to overcome the disease because the virus would be less viable and more quickly destroyed. There is a great deal of worry about what is really happening.
The other issue that was touched on in the previous debate is serological testing, which we believe is being carried out on quite a large scale. I hope that the Minister can tell us a bit more about that testing and its structure. It is obviously not just to establish where there may have been undetected infection: is it concentrating on certain areas or types of sheep or farming?
Mr. Curry: If farmers on the periphery of infected zones or within them are to be able to restock farms that have been culled out, large-scale serological testing is vital so that farmers who are being restocked have the assurance that they are not importing the problem.
Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. I referred in the debate two weeks ago to the conflict that arises when some farmers opt to restock with sentinel animals and others opt to be clear for four months. If a sentinel animal goes down with the disease it can destroy a neighbouring farm's opportunity. That is a serious issue and I hope that the Minister will address it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham rightly highlighted the impending problems of the sheep and hill cattle industry, which I referred to a fortnight ago. It was widely referred to in the debate on the Floor of the House last Thursday and again today. By reciting the problems of Mr. and Mrs. Schofield and Mr. and Mrs. Harrison, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon illustrated the problems in a way that simply talking about national figures of 5 million sheep cannot do. He graphically demonstrated how serious the problems are for those who desperately need to get rid of some of their stock this autumn, partly to generate cash flow and partly because they do not have the physical resources to keep them as they have neither buildings nor feed.
Some farmers sell ewe lambs down the hill, as my right hon. Friend said, for others to keep on as breeding ewes in my part of the world. It is essential that those new lambs are kept alive whenever possible, because the consequential cost to the sheep industry would otherwise be disastrous. The problem is that, even if the farmers find some tack or agistment—whatever the word may be in a particular area to describe overwintering on someone else's land—in an affected area and are allowed to move their stock, they do not have the money to pay for that.
102WH
Almost all right hon. and hon. Members have referred to light lambs that are just beginning to come on stream and the absence of a market for them. I hope that the Government will not allow the controversy over live exports to blur the issue. The question of whether lambs are sent alive or in carcass form is secondary to finding a solution to the problem. I am not suggesting that we re-open exports any quicker than would be wise, but we must work out what is to happen to those light lambs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham rightly said, even if we could persuade supermarkets and shops to take them, they would only replace other lambs, or red meats as the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall said.
I make no apology for returning to questions that I asked the Minister in the House last week, and I hope that he will now give us answers, because the industry wants to hear them. It is being constructive about possible ways forward and, having seen its correspondence with the Minister's colleagues and officials, I know that these points have all been put in writing during the past weeks. Will the Government allow any live sales to take place outside the infected areas? Sales could take place in East Anglia, where there is traditionally one big sale per year—not of upland sheep, although I appreciate that upland sheep would not often come into it.
What does the Minister think about the Scottish highlands, which is another provisionally free area? Huge sales of sheep traditionally take place at Lairg and other places in August and September. Will the Government allow those markets to take place? We must consider also the licensing system. My understanding is that the licensing system for the transport of animals allows movement only for breeding or slaughter. Will the Government amend the regulations to allow movement for further growing and fattening, assuming that other criteria are met? There is also the issue of a welfare scheme for light lambs, as my hon. Friend mentioned.
I asked last week about corridors through infected areas, which would allow sheep to move from one provisionally free area to another. I cite all the sheep in the north of Scotland, to which I have just referred. Many of those sheep could come to central and eastern England as either store lambs for fattening or ewe lambs for breeding stock. The Government have already accepted that we can transport livestock from an infected area to an abattoir in a free area for slaughter. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham described the problems with drivers' hours on that, but the principle is conceded. The Government should designate one or two road corridors through south Scotland and northern England, so that we can move the sheep in northern Scotland to areas where they are required. That would be of some help.
Those ideas have all been put to the Minister previously, but before I give him ample time to reply, I should speak about other issues relating to the foot and mouth crisis and the uplands. I am beginning to pick up information about the clean-up process that is being undertaken on farms that are being slaughtered out. People who have gone through that awful experience have told me that the process is becoming more inconsistent. At the outset, farm tools and machinery had to be individually disinfected; cobbled floors and

103WH
flagstones had to be lifted and cleaned and farms were not passed if the flooring of livestock areas was impaired. When high-pressure washers are used regularly, they wear holes in the concrete. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not allow potholes to remain and in most cases reached an agreement with the farmer that the Department would pay for the manpower and the farmer would purchase the concrete—a perfectly reasonable compromise. Now, however, farms that previously would not have been passed are being passed although the stated cleaning requirements have only been partially met.
Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As he has raised some anxieties, I extend to him my invitation to hon. Members in previous debates to provide me with information—the why, when and wherefore—about anything that appears to be inconsistent or wrong. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that rural myths circulate in the same way as urban myths. A story is put about, but no one can put a finger on its origins. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall investigate anything that needs investigation and try to ensure that inconsistencies are dealt with. However, if we do not get the information directly, and have only a general account of a suspicion of a developing problem, it is difficult to take the necessary action.
Mr. Paice: The Minister makes a reasonable point. Subject only to the agreement of the people who provide me with information, I am happy to pass the details to the Minister. He referred to rural myths, which arise because of a lack of information, a point that I made earlier. The clean-up process needs to be tackled with consistency, according to what is acceptable.
The Minister will no doubt have seen a copy of last week's Farming News, which reports the problem of the payment of welfare cheques. I understand that 97 per cent. of farmers who put animals into the welfare disposal scheme do not receive the money within the 21-day target set by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Worse still, a quarter of applicants are waiting more than 50 days for their cheques. Although I do not have the details of individual cases, the matter is reported in the press and I hope that the Minister will look into it.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will forgive me for referring to a case in his constituency—he may also have received copies of the correspondence from Northumberland Estates about problems in the uplands concerning grouse shooting. I hope for a moment that we can put to one side people's different views about grouse shooting, which is a huge economic activity and thus vital to welfare and employment in the uplands.
Mr. Beith: Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I want to say that not only have I received the correspondence, but the Minister handed me a reply to my letter on the subject at the start of the debate. The Department yesterday issued a press release indicating that grouse shooting would be open under licence in
104WH
what appears to be quite a liberal regime. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to ask the Minister to repeat what was stated in reply to the debate.
Mr. Paice: I am delighted that I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman, who gave first-hand answers and stopped me pursuing an issue that has already been resolved.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. The agent of Northumberland Estates has obviously been very busy. I have not yet had my reply from the Minister but I reinforce what my hon. Friend said. In my constituency and in the north Pennines, grouse shooting is a huge and significant industry. It attracts large numbers of extremely wealthy people who stay in local hotels, which employ people for the shooting season. The proposed restrictions would have devastated the economy.
Mr. Paice: I look forward to the Minister's confirmation of what has apparently appeared in at least one letter of reply. I have not yet written to the Minister on the matter, because the letter went to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who passed it to me for today's debate.
The next issue that I want to raise concerns the National Federation of Young Farmers Clubs. Hon. Members may wonder why I am digressing but, in fact, the foot and mouth crisis seriously affected that organisation. In many of the hills and upland areas it plays a vital role in bringing young people together and enabling them to share skills and knowledge. In his former career as a youth worker and subsequently, the Minister has taken a great interest in youth organisations; I am sure that he appreciates the importance of the young farmers' clubs. They have lost about £450,000 as a result of the foot and mouth restrictions, because meetings, events and activities could not take place. Mr. Peter Jackson, the president, has pursued the matter diligently. He was incorrectly informed by way of a letter to the noble Lord Carter from Baroness Hayman that the Countryside Agency would deal with the funding shortfall. However, the Countryside Agency has now clearly stated that the terms of reference laid down by Government under which it is allowed to operate do not allow it to consider the claim that has been put forward by the young farmers' movement.
I am a former member of that organisation and extremely proud of it. It has missed out on the help that the Government have made available, and I hope that the Minister will respond to its concern. I believe that either he or his right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs met young farmers last week—one of the Department's Ministers certainly did.
I endorse the call of the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall for a retirement scheme. It could be introduced under the umbrella of the rural development programme and would be of benefit in some areas. However, we need a much clearer understanding of the future of agricultural policy. The Government are talking about a commission, which would be welcome, but we must avoid any regimented plan that smacks of a soviet approach. We must understand what the

105WH
Government can do within the existing constraints of the CAP to provide for payments that are connected not to production but perhaps to environmental aims.
We must balance the demands on farmers in this country with the lack of such demands on farmers in other parts of the world. Our farmers cannot operate under the serious domestic constraints that have been imposed for valid reasons—whether to do with animal welfare, the environment or food safety—if they have to compete in the British marketplace with products from abroad that have been produced where such constraints do not apply. What matters more than anything else in our long-term vision for agriculture is how we address that issue, whether by import controls or by somehow guaranteeing a premium on prices in this country. That will be the most crucial issue affecting the viability of farming in the uplands and lowlands in the years to come.
12.4 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on initiating the debate, which gives us an opportunity to consider again some of the serious and complex problems that were caused by foot and mouth disease. I will try to respond to all the issues that he raised, as well as those raised by other right hon. and hon. Members. I thought that he spoiled his speech at the tail end when he accused the Government of a lack of political leadership and wrongly alleged a political vacuum. He may have been referring to his own party as that comment certainly does not apply to the Government.
The hon. Gentleman should have the fairness to acknowledge that over the past five weeks we have established a new Department. Other changes in Government structures have taken a year to complete. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly said that speed is of the essence when setting up the right government structures to deal with rural affairs, the environment, food and farming in an integrated and grown-up way. It is hardly fair to suggest a lack of leadership and immediacy.
The new Department was established in parallel with other efforts to achieve a joined-up approach to food and farming, environmental issues and rural affairs. The hon. Gentleman criticised the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but admitted that he had not read it. That speech was an early attempt to spell out the direction of policy.
We are setting up new structures and trying to look further ahead at a time when the Department's resources—not just in London, but throughout the regions—have been stretched to the utmost by foot and mouth disease and consequential issues. Some environmental issues have to be confronted immediately and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment is displaying leadership in Bonn today, grappling with crucial long-term problems.
Simultaneously, we have invested massive time and effort with officials throughout the Department in tackling the immediate problems—direct and indirect—arising from foot and mouth disease. I chair the rural task force, which was established to respond to foot and
106WH
mouth disease. It has been an instructive experience. It has proved to be a means of getting up to speed in dealing with problems across the range of stakeholders. The group has approached serious problems constructively. It met the National Farmers Union, as my ministerial colleagues do regularly, and yesterday I met several representatives of small businesses in various areas including the south-east, North Yorkshire and Cumbria.
We have all heard about the tragedy of farming families and similarly I heard harrowing accounts of how difficult it is to keep businesses going through the winter, to remain competitive and to survive into the new year. We have had to engage directly with those problems at the same time as ensuring that everyone understands the need for biosecurity to avoid the spread of foot and mouth disease. We have also tried to open up footpaths in the countryside where it is safe to do so. It is one heck of an agenda to confront in five weeks and we have tackled it with leadership and a sense of purpose. I allow the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to withdraw his criticism of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I should like to make it clear that I was not accusing the Minister or his officials of idleness. I was able to visit the disease control centre at Kenton Bar, Newcastle and I was most impressed by the stupendous efforts made by the staff there and by the long hours that they were working.
The point that I was trying to make—in a friendly, unaggressive way—is that Ministers have caused the vacuum by, for example, not determining the policy commission. We have been waiting for some time for the policy commission to be set up; with two days to go, we still have not been given any names. The problem of upland livestock has also to be resolved. We have known about that problem, which has been raised in debate by my hon. Friends, for some time. We should have a decision by now on whether there is to be a scheme.
Alun Michael: It was worth giving way to the hon. Gentleman, first because of his acknowledgement of the hard work of the Department staff. We in the House sometimes overlook that when we visit the regions. I hope to visit several of our regional offices to see the problems directly and meet the people working there. I have been impressed by the degree of commitment that I have seen—people are coming back after having dealt with the disease, day and night, for perhaps six weeks, with their motivation intact. They say, "We must get on urgently with the farm visits and other recovery work."
Against that background of the intensity of work, I shall comment on the two points to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. There is a commitment to establish the policy commission on food and farming and for it to take a thorough look at the future. It is important to get it right. If we do not get the right people, the right structure and the right brief, the resulting inquiry may be interesting, but it will not carry us forward in the direction we want. We are determined to get it right. There will be an announcement as soon as we are sure that we have done so. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that a delay of a few weeks to get the right composition, structure and brief is a small price to pay.

107WH
The comments that have been made about the need for an inquiry are simplistic. Ministers have stated clearly that their priority is to eradicate foot and mouth disease and to deal with the immediate problems. We are as seized as anyone of the need to ensure that all the lessons are learned and that the facts and issues are brought out into the open. It is always easier to say what should have been done in retrospect. Writing history in retrospect is easier than writing it as it is being lived. The facts should be brought out and the lessons learned.
We have also said that, without prejudice to the findings of any inquiry, immediate lessons can be learned from the epidemic, in regard to matters such as disease control policy for future outbreaks. The case needs to be considered for such changes as better animal identification, especially for sheep, improved movement records, controls on the movement of cattle and sheep similar to those that exist for pigs, stricter enforcement of controls on imported meat—DEFRA is coordinating a cross-Whitehall initiative to improve our record in that area—and better biosecurity by markets, dealers and farmers. A balance must be struck because wherever one imposes a restriction, in the interests of safety and avoiding problems, it causes problems for the industry, as several hon. Members have illustrated.
Mr. Paice: The Minister and his colleagues have resisted the phrase "public inquiry" that has been used by Opposition Members. I shall not go into that, but could he assure us that the inquiry will be in public even if it does not use the legal terminology of a public inquiry?
Alun Michael: It is not my place to take us in that direction. We want the inquiry to be open and effective. As the hon. Gentleman will know—because they have been trailed over many times—all sorts of issues are involved. A public inquiry has constraints. It has to be conducted in certain ways; it has time scales that may not please Opposition Members. The question of which discussions and hearings should be held in public requires consideration—I understand the distinction that a public hearing need not necessarily be a formal public inquiry; I have dealt with a number of decisions on establishing inquiries. One has to make it possible for all evidence to be given in as open a way as possible. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we want to have the right inquiry. I live in hope that when the nature of it is announced we shall have his enthusiastic support.
Mr. Curry: I hope that the Minister will tell us what he means by eradication before an inquiry, whatever its nature, because that could well rumble on for a long time. He mentioned drawing on the analogy of pigs in looking at movement restrictions for cattle and sheep. The proposed 20-day rule is based on what has been established for pigs. Can the Minister give us any insight into how the responses to that proposition are being analysed? When does he expect to reach a conclusion? Is he thinking of considering a different scheme from that originally set out, as it has evoked an enormous response? That is crucial to the future of the live option, for example.
Alun Michael: I understand the concern that the right hon. Gentleman expresses. The trouble with all such matters is that everyone wants an immediate decision. That is understandable—to someone trying to run a business and waiting for an issue to be dealt with, a delay of even a day or two can seem enormous.
The Government are reviewing the proposals on standstill movements in the light of responses to the consultation exercise, which my colleague Lord Whitty is examining. Our aim is to move from considering just the current foot and mouth disease outbreak to looking at future disease control—including the issues of biosecurity, animal identification and licensing. We intend to allow fuller veterinary and economic assessments to be carried out. In the meantime, the current movement licensing controls will continue. I am not in a position to go into further detail, but I shall be happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman.
This is the fifth debate to which I have responded in two weeks. That illustrates the seriousness of the problem and the sense of urgency that hon. Members have in raising matters on behalf of their constituents. However, since the previous debate, we have not discovered a magic wand that will suddenly resolve the problems and straighten out a complex set of issues. We have heard today about a mixture of short-term problems, medium-term—and in some cases, short-term—recovery issues, and many matters requiring a longer-term perspective and consideration of major changes in the way in which we do things. Some hon. Members, in making the case for their constituents, have included all three of those in one sentence. I shall do my best to respond, but I might jumble them a little, because they are interrelated, which goes to illustrate the complexity of the subject with which we are dealing.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire raised, and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) responded to, almost on my behalf, the problem that the estates office at Alnwick castle has identified—I am sorry if I do not pronounce that correctly, but we do things phonetically in Wales. I will try to learn.
In respect of grouse shooting, we examined the veterinary assessment of the risk of shooting parties in infected areas and took the decision, which was announced yesterday by way of news release, that grouse shooting should resume—under licence—in such areas. That means that grouse shooting will be able to go ahead in most parts of England from 12 August, through the licensing system. The veterinary assessment of the risk of shooting parties spreading foot and mouth disease resulted in a decision that the Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1983 should be amended to allow licensed grouse shooting—I stress the word "licensed"—in infected areas. No licence is required for grouse shooting, outside infected areas, but it is prohibited on premises subject to form A or form D restrictions. All shooting parties should, of course, observe basic disease control precautions, as walkers are required to do.
Licences for shooting in infected areas will not be issued for premises within 3 km of an infected premise. I am sure that that will be accepted as sensible. For the first 30 days following the preliminary cleansing and disinfection of an infected premise, shooting will not be permitted within 10 km of that premise. That is consistent with decisions that have been taken on other

109WH
issues. The licences will be issued by divisional veterinary managers—DVMs—based at the regional animal health offices, once the Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1983 has been amended—something that we hope to accomplish very quickly. Licences will be subject to conditions, including a requirement that no member of the party should have handled livestock during the previous seven days. That will emphasise the important biosecurity precautions.
To be clear on the matter, licences will not restrict the numbers of the shooting party and there will be no change in the current provisions in the 1983 order that allow the occupier to shoot in infected areas with a party of up to three without licence. To avoid any doubt, separate measures will be brought out by the devolved administrations in Wales and Scotland. That is part of the important job of opening up the countryside, and I hope that Members are aware of the approach that the Government have adopted in relation to footpaths.
Mr. Beith: The Minister referred to form A and form D restricted areas. If shooting can take place without a licence in non-infected areas and with a licence in an infected area, what does that mean for those restricted areas? Does it mean that no licence can be obtained for an area covered by form A or form D restrictions?
Alun Michael: I believe that that is the case. The licensing system will be for those areas that are not covered by form A and form D restrictions. I am pretty sure that I have understood that correctly. I may return to the matter later, but if I do not I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman.
Where there is no need for footpaths to be closed in order to control the disease and ensure that there is adequate biosecurity, we want to see them open. It is important for people such as the individuals from Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Devon who came to see me yesterday that there is clarity about where the countryside is open, so that they can start to re-establish their businesses. Those businesses may be vulnerable during the coming winter unless they are able to reestablish them quickly.
Such organisations are subject to collateral damage in the same way as the young farmers referred to by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. Other organisations such as the Youth Hostels Association, with which I have been associated in the past, have experienced a massive loss of income, which will affect not just their ability to keep their balance sheet in order but their ability to invest. We will certainly examine those issues. I have received a letter from the young farmers and have agreed to meet them to hear their concerns
Mr. Curry: Barely five minutes of the debate are left. Everyone is especially concerned about whether upland farmers can sell the autumn crop of lamb. Will the Minister please deal with that crucial issue and with livestock movements in the time that remains?
Alun Michael: As I said at the beginning of my speech, hon. Members have raised an enormous number of issues.
As regards arrangements for the autumn movements of livestock, I should explain in response to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that an answer
110WH
will be given to a starred question in the House of Lords today. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has arranged for hon. Members to be provided with the same information in a written answer. The Department has had intensive discussions with a wide range of industry interests and with the European Commission, with a view to putting in place by the end of July a strategy that would apply from 1 September. In the meantime, all possible action is being taken to eradicate foot and mouth disease as soon as possible. That will allow a return to normality throughout the country.
I was asked what eradication meant. Basically, we want to reduce the disease to a minimum in every part of the country and then to nil as soon as possible. That will be difficult, and is hard to predict exactly how long it will take. Ministers have always included in their warnings fears about the possibility of additional outbreaks—and rightly so, as I think people will agree following events in recent weeks.
Everyone involved is clear that controlling foot and mouth disease and safeguarding animal welfare must continue to be our primary concerns when considering autumn livestock movements. We are therefore proceeding on the basis of veterinary and scientific advice. Full details will be published as soon as possible, but the arrangements for the autumn will cover the following aspects: first, the possibility of holding livestock markets in counties that have been free of foot and mouth disease for three months or more and where testing has been completed—that touches on a point that several hon. Members raised: secondly, the possibility of some relaxation in the criteria covering livestock movements outside infected areas; and thirdly, the possibility of promoting the domestic consumption of lamb, in particular, and of negotiating with the European Commission for an early resumption of pigmeat and sheepmeat exports, while not disrupting the domestic food supply chain. We are formally raising with the Commission the possibility of private storage aid as an approach and have discussed with it both the possible adaptation of the livestock welfare disposal scheme to handle the disposal of surplus lambs and the possible use of quota suspension or buy-out.
I understand that hon. Members would like to hear the announcement towards which those proposals are a staging post. Quite honestly, if we could say more, we would be delighted to do so, because we are as keen as Opposition Members to be as clear as we can with farmers about the situation that is affecting them. Again, however, I am sure that it will be understood that the negotiations involve difficult decisions, and it would be wrong to rush through a decision before everything had been thought through.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire referred in passing to a case in Wiltshire, which we discussed briefly in a previous debate. I understand that the sample has now been confirmed as negative. There has been some delay in getting that information. I do not have the full details, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman. However, it appears that the news is better than we had feared.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) illustrated the problem that we are discussing by referring to an individual farming family, and he was right to do so. Statistics do not tell the story of how foot and mouth disease impacts on a farmer who

111WH
loses all his stock or who sees the way in which he has conducted his business for many years being totally disrupted because of movement restrictions. As I said earlier, those involved in tourism who have laboriously built up small businesses over many years see their efforts being wiped out almost overnight. They fear that they will not get through the next winter and will not be able to develop their business again. We wish to engage with all those issues.
I have been unable to answer all the specific points raised this morning, so I shall write to those hon. Members involved.
Mrs. Irene Adams (in the Chair): Order.

Operation Lancet
12.30 pm
Dr. Ashok Kumar: I welcome the Minister to his new position in the Home Office.
My main reason for calling for the debate is that I represent a constituency where one of the country's longest running police disciplinary inquiries has been dragging on. I refer to the infamous Operation Lancet. Today's debate is my third on the subject in the past 18 months. That police investigation has involved one of the country's highest profile police officers. Detective Superintendent Ray Mallon has been blocked for nearly four years from doing what he does best—the effective policing of his community and providing a high-profile public service.
The Government were re-elected on a manifesto that promised improvement and reform in our public services. I congratulate the Home Secretary and his team on their appointments. I also congratulate them on the swiftness with which they made it clear that reform of the police service would be a key part of that wider Government commitment. Such an overall approach will be applauded throughout Britain, but nowhere more so than in the Cleveland police area, where residents have had to pick up the bill for a police force that has become tainted by greed and jealousy.
If the Minister wants to see an example of how a police force should not be run, I suggest that he visit Cleveland. I emphasise that I am not making an attack on the rank and file of our police force. They have battled on in the face of extreme adversity. No; the problem lies at the top, with Chief Constable Barry Shaw and his senior management team. The problem also rests with the police authority, which is seen by many on Teesside not as a watch dog for the public but as publicly funded body armour for the chief constable and his senior managers.
Operation Lancet was launched nearly four years ago by senior officers of the Cleveland police force, who chose to believe the word of convicted criminals above that of hard-working and respected detectives. It was a matter of extreme regret that, at that early stage, the chief constable did not follow the advice offered to him by the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales to call in a senior officer to have a simple look and see, in order to assess the strength of the evidence. I am convinced that such a move would have confirmed within a matter of weeks what the public of Teesside already knew, which is that those rank and file officers, including Ray Mallon, were all honest, dedicated and hard-working people. Instead, in a decision driven by petty jealousy and self-interest, the senior officers, with the tacit approval of a neutered police authority and the increasingly discredited Police Complaints Authority, embarked on a witch hunt. It was a witch hunt to equal that of Salem.
So far, Operation Lancet and the associated inquiry that followed in its wake have bled local and national taxpayers of as much as £7 million. The operation has demoralised the ordinary hard-working rank and file police officers on Teesside, men and women who had previously set the standard for crime fighting in the United Kingdom. The officers suspended as a result of

113WH
Lancet, and those officers who were questioned by Lancet investigators, have had to put up with an implied slur on their character.
Senior force managers and some members of the Cleveland police authority have been only too happy to peddle stories about severe corruption in the Cleveland force. It has been said that individual police officers traded hard drugs for confessions, beat up subjects and acted as a law unto themselves. Nearly four years on, we know that that was complete rubbish.
In Operation Lancet, 400 criminal allegations were levelled against 60 officers, 571 notices were served, 6,707 specific inquiries were made, 3,162 statements were taken, 2,444 separate officer reports were compiled and no fewer than 8,311 other documents were considered. After all that, each allegation having been considered in depth, the Crown Prosecution Service concluded that the evidence did not support any criminal charge. I ask the Minister to consider that. Would anyone now suggest that the spending of such a massive sum of public cash for no return was the best use of police resources?
The decision of the CPS should have been the end of the story, but it was not. The chief constable of Cleveland has instigated a new series of costly and long-running internal disciplinary hearings, which revisit all the Lancet evidence at great cost, I suspect, to manpower and resources. Public disquiet at the cost and length of Lancet led to the appointment of Sir John Hoddinott, the former chief constable of Hampshire and a respected man in the British police system, to bring order from chaos and to report on Lancet to the Home Secretary.
Meanwhile, Ray Mallon and some of his colleagues remain suspended. As well as having to run the gamut of the former Lancet machinery, Ray Mallon has been the victim of some peculiar and sinister practices. A highly respected civilian employee in the press section of the Cleveland police who could see what was happening was forced to resign in disgust at the orchestrated dirty tricks campaign directed at Ray Mallon from its senior ranks. The matter is now being investigated by another external police force, that of South Yorkshire. I hope that its report is near completion.
We also saw the selective leaking of a section of a highly confidential Treasury counsel report into Ray Mallon on the day after the CPS cleared him, the very day on which he was to hold a press conference to outline his views. On top of that, Mr. Mallon has discovered that operatives from a Government agency—he believes it to be MI5—have been following him. Will the Minister investigate the truth of that as a matter of urgency? If it is true, what justification can be given? Is a cleared detective superintendent a threat to our country's national security?
In the latest report on Cleveland police, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary warned of the need to keep Lancet focused. It stated that the inquiry should not
"float downstream, gathering pieces of disciplinary flotsam".
Surely that has started to happen yet again. There are to be no prosecutions, and the disciplinary process takes place behind closed doors and far from any public scrutiny.
Legal advisers to the police authority have recently suggested that it instigate a series of court orders to gag the local press and hon. Members from commenting on
114WH
any aspect of Lancet. As everyone will expect, that suggestion was treated with utter derision and contempt by the local press, which saw it as an attempt to gag free speech and comment and as part of the murky world of spin and cover-up that has come to characterise Lancet. Thankfully, for once the members of the Cleveland police authority found enough courage to tell the authors of that piece of censorship to take the suggestion back to the cesspit from which it originated. Indeed, an air of mutiny is now apparent in the police authority, as the realisation of the results of the past four years of cover-up and concealment dawns. Just a week ago, a member appointed by the Home Office resigned. Although he kept his own counsel about his resignation, I know from other quarters that it was due to his growing realisation that the authority was both unwilling and unable to hold the chief constable to account.
During the attempts at gagging orders and the first resignation over Lancet, the latest annual report of the Police Complaints Authority was published. That had a section on Lancet, which stated:
"This investigation was, perhaps, the most complex and difficult that we have ever supervised."
It continued:
"We are compiling a special report under section 79(2) of the 1996 Police Act. These reports are laid before Parliament and published".
The passage concluded:
"We may have to delay completing and publishing this report to avoid causing any prejudice to pending disciplinary proceedings."
The relevant section of the Police Act 1996 refers to matters that emerge as a result of Police Complaints Authority activities which, in the opinion of the authority
"should be drawn to the attention of Parliament by reason of their gravity or their exceptional circumstances".
I would argue that the fact that the PCA now considers the matters in question to be of such gravity that they need to be placed before the House should outweigh the timetable drawn up by the chief constable with respect to disciplinary matters. I am deeply fearful that the sheer bulk and weight of the evidence collated for Lancet, with deliberately long and drawn-out internal disciplinary hearings by the chief constable, will frustrate the will of Parliament—which is to hear the PCA's opinions on Lancet—and will prevent a proper debate on the issue.
I am aware of the reforms promised by the Home Secretary involving the framing of new legislation to open out, democratise and speed up police complaints and disciplinary procedures. I know that he is keen for a move away from the disturbing spectacle of the police investigating the police, with the Masonic and canteen-culture echoes that arise from that. I do not believe that the framing of such new measures can proceed without our taking into account the history of Lancet and without an explanation of the PCA's concerns about the handling of the issue. It would be like trying to write "Macbeth" without mentioning the character of Lady Macbeth.
I ask the Minister for some undertakings: that he will meet the chief constable and put pressure on him to speed up the Lancet disciplinary hearings and set a date for their end; that he will ask Sir John Hoddinott if he

115WH
can give a date for his final report into matters affecting the Cleveland police as a result of the Lancet years; that he will ask the South Yorkshire police for a date for the completion of their investigation into the dirty tricks operation that has its roots in the Cleveland police; and that, on receiving the relevant assurances, he will liaise with the PCA, so that a full report on Lancet, under section 79(2) of the Police Act, can be laid before the House.
The Lancet years will help to inform a better way of dealing with police complaints and disciplinary matters. In that respect, the sense of outrage felt by the people of Teesside will have done the nation a favour. However, there must still be a reckoning and a result on Teesside. The result is needed to inform root-and-branch reform of the Cleveland police and the Cleveland police authority. The people of Cleveland want a full public inquiry into operation Lancet, so that those who cannot speak now can have their say, and so that falsehood and petty jealousies can be exposed and blame apportioned. It is essential that the mistakes of Operation Lancet should never be repeated. The taxpayer and good, honest police officers, such as Ray Mallon, must never again be treated with such contempt. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to such a public inquiry. Those with nothing to fear would have nothing to hide.
12.45 pm
The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on securing the debate, and I am grateful to him for raising issues relating to the investigation of alleged misconduct in the Cleveland police, which continue to attract interest and concern locally and nationally.
It is true that Operation Lancet has been one of the longest and most complex investigations in the history of the complaints system. The investigation, which began in late 1997 as a result of serious and disturbing allegations and counter-allegations against a number of officers, has now concluded, but disciplinary proceedings continue. Some 2,000 witness statements were taken and 44 files were generated, covering various criminal and disciplinary issues. More than 500 allegations against 61 officers were dealt with. Today, eight officers remain suspended.
Public confidence in the police service rests on its reputation for integrity. When allegations of corruption or misconduct are made and the service's reputation is brought into question, it is important that there be thorough scrutiny to establish the facts and determine what action is appropriate. Cleveland acted robustly by initiating an investigation into the allegations in this case.
I share the concern of many about the time taken to bring matters to a conclusion. The investigation suffered several serious delays, some of which were the result of a substantial number of counter-allegations by officers under investigation. Those counter-allegations were brought together under a separate investigation. The senior investigating officer for Lancet, Andrew Timpson, had to be replaced because of his personal
116WH
situation and eventual departure from his post as chief constable of Warwickshire. He was replaced by Lloyd Clarke, the deputy chief constable of West Yorkshire.
My hon. Friend has taken a close interest in the progress of Lancet and its related inquiries into alleged corruption and misconduct in the Cleveland police. He has asked many questions in the House about the scope and cost of the inquiries, and secured two Adjournment debates—on 10 November 1999 and 13 June 2000—on the Cleveland police. Of course, at that time I was not the Minister with responsibility for such matters, but I have taken the opportunity to read those previous exchanges, as he would expect.
From an early stage, Operation Lancet was supervised by the PCA. Its role was to ensure that a thorough and impartial investigation was carried out. There has also been close consultation with the CPS throughout the investigation. The CPS completed its work on Lancet in February, and has not pressed any charges under Lancet. Of course, responsibility for the matter rests with the Director of Public Prosecutions.
To date, the total cost of Operation Lancet is about £3.25 million. However, my hon. Friend mentioned a figure of £7 million. Having read previous debates, I am aware of differing interpretations of the figures, but £3.25 million is the figure with which I have been provided. I shall perhaps endeavour to write to the hon. Gentleman to explain why our figures differ and resolve the matter once and for all. None the less, by anybody's measure even £3.25 million is a substantial sum. The cost of the operation raises questions about the conduct of such complex investigations. Of course, a major investigation such as this can place a significant burden on the budget of a small force such as Cleveland. It was in those exceptional circumstances that the then Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, authorised a contribution of £1.9 million from Home Office funds towards the investigation's costs.
As I mentioned earlier, the position today is that eight officers remain suspended from duty. The suspensions may continue either until it is decided not to bring disciplinary charges, or until the case is resolved. That is a matter entirely for the chief constable of Cleveland.
My hon. Friend invited me to intervene in some way in the handling of the affair. However, if he were campaigning in the Chamber for an investigation into a scandal that he thought had occurred, he might be alarmed to think that a Minister was intervening to tell the chief constable how to conduct the investigation. Ministers can rightly say that, in such circumstances, it is for the chief constables of police forces to conduct what is, after all, an operational matter, in line with their responsibilities and accountability.
The chief constable and the PCA have responsibility for considering the disciplinary aspects of the inquiry and for determining whether any officer should face disciplinary proceedings. The review of disciplinary matters is continuing but, to date, seven officers face disciplinary charges. One detective superintendent will face 14 charges and his hearing is scheduled to be held in mid-October. The other six officers, who have heard of their charges since April, will have their hearings early in the new year. One chief superintendent and one superintendent have had disciplinary charges found against them.

117WH
The Home Secretary, in addition to what I said earlier, has a role as the appellate authority in the disciplinary process. In the future, he may be called upon in that capacity to consider any disciplinary appeals from officers that arise from this inquiry. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for me to comment further on those matters.
My hon. Friend made several trenchant criticisms of the PCA and the current system of handling such affairs. It is true that the problems of the present system, in dealing with complex, long-running investigations, have given significant dissatisfaction within the police service. We are committed to introducing a new system, and we will have to be confident that it will be robust enough to deal with the most testing cases. If we are to build public confidence in the complaints system, there must be greater independence and openness in the way in which alleged police corruption and misconduct are investigated. We laid our plans for the system before the House in a framework document on 18 December 2000. The Government's fundamental objective is to promote public and police trust by providing an effective and efficient system for dealing with police misconduct. In the Queen's Speech, the Government announced their intention to introduce a Bill later this Session which included a provision to establish a new police complaints system.
Now that the Lancet investigation has concluded, we shall want to consider any lessons on how similar matters should be dealt with in the future. Calls have been made, reiterated again today by my hon. Friend, for an inquiry into the whole affair. We think that an independent review would help to identify the lessons to be learned from the conduct of Operation Lancet. We should then be able to take those into account in developing the details of the new complaints system.
The review will provide a detailed case study of the way in which allegations of corruption and other serious complaints against the police are investigated, by examining strategic operational decisions that were made and resources, including time management, that were utilised. My hon. Friend referred to that review as seeking to "bring order from chaos". It is important to make it clear, on the record, what the review will and will not cover. I need to be unequivocal. The review will not reconsider the conclusions of Lancet, which will continue to be the subject of on-going police disciplinary proceedings.
The terms of reference of the review were drawn up with that in mind. It may be helpful if I put them on record. They were drawn up on behalf of the Home Secretary to conduct a review of Operation Lancet and were as follows: to consider the functioning of the statutory constitutional arrangements for the investigation of corruption and other serious complaints against the police, including the roles of the PCA and the CPS; to consider Operation Lancet as a case study of how such an investigation is managed strategically and operationally and to consider the process by which decisions were taken during the investigation, and the extent of resources and time used; and to make recommendations for the future investigation of police complaints. The review will
118WH
consider the issues arising from the conduct and management of the investigation and will not reconsider any of the matters of substance that were the subject of investigation. The review will not consider issues relating to the substance of allegations of misconduct about individuals or any such new allegations.
As my hon. Friend knows, Sir John Hoddinott, the former chief constable of Hampshire, has been asked to carry out the review. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging the respect in which Sir John is held. That is helpful while we await the review.
We carefully considered the timing of the review. We listened to the police authority and the chief constable, who had expressed concerns about its timing and the risk of prejudice to on-going disciplinary proceedings. However, to learn the lessons in time for the new complaints system, the review had to start immediately. I am satisfied that the terms of reference will separate the disciplinary process from the review. Although I have not been able to give the dates for which my hon. Friend asked, I hope that I have reassured him that we will try to take Sir John Hoddinott's conclusions into account when drafting legislation later this year for the new complaints procedure.
I understand that some proposals were put to the police authority that suggested restrictions on the way in which some information would be made available. The position is that the police authority, like any other public body, considers many reports, including proposals offered by officials and advisers. However, on this occasion, the authority made it clear that it was not prepared to support any proposal relating to the consideration of court orders or media coverage of investigations. That has been emphasised in a statement issued by the chair of the authority, which underlined its commitment to the principle of open government. The authority cannot be criticised for having a paper tabled by its advisers. It has made its position on the proposal clear.
Finally, I should like to address the allegations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East about the involvement of the security services. He will be aware that the policy of successive Governments has been neither to confirm nor deny whether the security services have been involved in any specific operational matter. The investigatory powers tribunal, headed by Lord Justice Mummery, provides a robust redress mechanism for people who wish to complain about the activities, or alleged activities, of the security services.
Dr. Kumar: Before my right hon. Friend concludes, may I remind him of the PCA's report on Lancet? He has not commented on that and I hope that he has not overlooked it.
Mr. Denham: Given the time remaining, it would probably be better for me to write to my hon. Friend on that point.
I end by acknowledging my hon. Friend's continuing concern about the issue. We too want to find out what can be learned from Operation Lancet to ensure that we can incorporate those positive lessons in the new complaints system.

Rail Strikes (Southend)
12.59 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: One of the joys of these Westminster Hall debates is that troublesome Back Benchers such as myself can sit on the Front Bench—a pleasure that I have not experienced for at least 21 years. The other piece of good news for the Minister is that I do not hold the Government to blame in any respect for the issue that I am about to raise.
The issue is nevertheless serious and significant, and I hope that the Minister and his Department will take an interest in it and promote a solution. The problem relates to the c2c rail service, which links Shoeburyness near Southend to Fenchurch street station. It is a commuter service that is used to transport about 25,000 people to London every day. Sadly, the service is a shambles this morning, with only about one third of the trains running, due to industrial action by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which is holding its third one-day strike. A warning has been given that another such strike will take place on 1 August.
It is terrible when those strikes happen. I have before me a form, which I was handed yesterday in Southend and which contains the amended timetable for the RMT strike. The Minister will see that about one third of trains are running, which means that people are going through misery. The strike is not of train drivers, who are members of ASLEF—the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen—but of guards, who are members of RMT. In most industrial disputes the onus is on both sides to solve the problem, but the circumstances of this case are unusual and their character could justify Government action.
Many local residents use the c2c service. I often use it, and my secretary uses it every day. After privatisation, it was originally called the LTS line. Before privatisation the line was unbelievably bad; its services were so spasmodic that it became known as the misery line. After privatisation there was a dramatic improvement in the service, which may have been due to the work of a wonderful manager called Ken Bird and to the new signalling that dealt with many of the problems, and commuters were delighted.
The new contract holders who ran the service were formerly known as the Prism company, which is now part of the National Express Group. Prism decided that that improvement was not enough and that the line should be made into a magnificent new railway that would be an example to the world. It decided to replace the old rolling stock with wonderful new trains called 357s, which were manufactured by a company based in Derby called the Bombardier group—like all companies nowadays it has a complex name. Both Bombardier and c2c assured us that the new trains would be a wonderful way of travelling, but when they arrived they constantly broke down. The difficulty related to computer software, but that reassured neither the public, whose services were disrupted, nor c2c, which had to bring out the old trains.
We have been trying to sort things out for about 12 months. I met a senior c2c executive for two hours in the Commons last night and he was optimistic—as the company has been for so long—that 46 of the 76 new
120WH
trains would be operational soon. Of course, I hope that his confidence is justified but in the meantime the Railway Travellers' Association and the Rail Passengers' Committee have produced an angry report asking why, given that passengers travelled on the first of the wonderful new trains on 1 August 2000, those trains, of which only a handful are operational, are used only spasmodically on off-peak services. That has created many problems for the travelling public.
I have received many letters from constituents who heard that I was initiating this debate. One such letter, which summarises the problem, came by fax a few minutes before the start of the debate. It is not from one of my constituents, nor even from somebody who lives in Basildon—I see that the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) is here representing her constituents. The fax outlines the basic problem: the
"standard of service we now endure has declined significantly in the past 12 months on this line.
The many problems relating to the introduction of the new 'Electrostar' trains are well documented, and I will not repeat them in detail, but it has caused real problems with delays, short formation and over-crowding. It also means that the old slam-door stock continues to be used in a rapidly deteriorating state…Just last Friday I was in a train in which the toilet had overflowed and water was spilling through the carriage. That cannot be acceptable, nor can it be right.
I would also add that trains arc now frequently late arriving into London. Most mornings recently trains have been between 10 and 15 minutes late. In the past we would have received an apology and an explanation. Now we are simply greeted by silence. I wonder if' there is even an unofficial 'go-slow' in operation, as almost every day for the last two weeks we have been delayed, which is poor even by c2c's standards.
The late night service is also poor."
I could read out to the Minister seven such letters that I received this morning outlining the seriousness of the problem. The Government, either themselves or through their contact with Railtrack, may be able to help in relation to one aspect of this tragedy: lines used to test new trains. It may seem ridiculous, but in Britain we do not have a proper test rail on which new trains can be fully tested. The c2c company and the manufacturers have had to send one of their new trains abroad for testing—not to America, Germany or any of the places where one might expect superb test facilities, but to a country called Czechoslovakia. It is quite a task to transport a Southend train by lorry to that part of eastern Europe, and there may be a case for a test rail in the UK. As the Minister will be aware, the increasing emphasis on public transport means that we will probably have many new trains, and it would be a great idea if we could try them out.
What about today's crisis? As the company was endeavouring to bring in its exciting new trains—some of which were four-carriage, some eight-carriage and some 12-carriage—it decided that it should contact the unions about manning arrangements. After long discussions, the company and RMT came to an agreement that the four and eight-carriage trains would be driver-only with no guard but that, because it was accepted that 12-carriage trains were different, a guard would be provided for them alone. In exchange for that arrangement, which was of course helpful to the company, c2c agreed that there would be no redundancies of existing guards, all of whom would be offered guard duties on the 12-unit trains, or alternative

121WH
jobs. Furthermore, a 4 per cent. pay rise was agreed in addition to the normal pay increases, and the company said that it would endeavour to give more attention to the presence of staff on trains to protect the travelling public from problems or dangers.
As the agreement with RMT had been signed and agreed, the company went ahead with a pretty massive investment programme on the facilities required for driver-only trains. When I asked people at my meeting last night how much the company had spent, they would not tell me but said that it was a lot. It includes cameras and special mirrors at stations that enable the driver to check that everyone has got on and off and that everything is okay for the train to start off again.
However, all of a sudden, after the agreement had been signed and all the investments had been made, RMT stated that things had changed—it had to have guards on all trains and would be initiating strikes to secure its position. In the subsequent strike ballot, fewer than 50 per cent. of RMT members voted in favour of action—nevertheless, that provided the required majority. Ballots are very complicated things, as we in the Conservative party know these days.
The situation is difficult to understand, because driver-only trains are not a unique discovery that is being tried out only in Southend. I have been phoning around, and such systems are operated on several lines—for example, WAGN and Thameslink—with no apparent problems. Moreover, the famous Cullen report did not in any way argue that driver-only trains created safety problems. In fairness, I have not read the report in detail, but that is what I have been told.
Where do we go from here? RMT has never been regarded as one of the troublemaking unions. I have always considered it to be one of the more sensible and responsible unions, although it probably shares my basic sin of being suspicious of change. I hope that the Minister can tell us whether the Government believe that the strike is lawful, bearing in mind that it is in breach of an agreement signed by the union.
I do not want to involve the Government in controversy, but legislation is involved and it would speed up a solution if, first, they could make an assessment and say whether the strike is lawful. Secondly, bearing in mind the hardship suffered by the travelling public and the impact on the use of rail transport, there might be some merit in the Minister seeking a meeting with both parties. Although that might set a precedent inasmuch as he might find that other people want him to become involved in trying to solve other problems, it could be worthwhile in this case. I cannot see what damage would be done because everyone would be on his side. The union is not a bad union consisting of a crowd of wild or difficult people; it is worried about something and that is creating a nightmare for the company.
Although c2c has problems with the travelling public, as all companies do, it seems to consist of reasonable people who have spent a fortune trying to improve the service. Things have gone wrong with the trains, but those people are not a bad crowd. I believe that the travelling public would appreciate the Minister's intervention because they are suffering greatly, not just from today's strike, but from hold-ups and cancellations caused when employees do not work
122WH
overtime. The 7 o'clock train from Southend always seems to be delayed or cancelled, and the 7.30 train, which should be a fast service, becomes a slow one and stops at every station. The amended timetable for today states that
"no c2c peak services will call at Upminster or Barking on this day."
Many people want trains to stop at Upminster and Barking, but today they did not do so. The timetable continued:
"no c2c trains travelling from London will call at Limehouse or West Ham on this day."
West Ham connects with one of the new underground lines, so it is important.
Thirdly, would the Minister feel justified in asking the union to try to resolve the problems without having to inflict so much hardship on the travelling public? We must all try to do something. Let us hope that before long, the new trains will be working well and that relations between management and employees will be fully restored.
The vital issue is public transport. The Government want to encourage more people to use trains and to discourage them from using cars, as did the previous Government. I am told that even Mr. Ken Livingstone takes a similar view in London and would like everyone to travel by train. The number of people travelling on the c2c line has increased steadily and in the interests of the general public and the environment we want to encourage that. We do not want to return to the old misery line.
I have probably spoken for too long but I have two minutes left. As someone who uses the line, I know, as does the hon. Member for Basildon, that it used to be terrible. It then improved, but is now becoming bad again. Although the Government are not directly responsible, the Minister could help if he thought it appropriate. The dispute is not between nasty people who are looking for rows; it has arisen because everything seems to have gone wrong. If the Minister thought that something could be done, the travelling public and I would be very grateful.
1.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on securing the debate. During my brief tenure in this job I have appeared often in this Chamber, and the hon. Gentleman is the most distinguished Member to whom I have had the pleasure of replying in a debate. He said that after 21 years he has reappeared, unofficially, on the Front Bench, and I am trying to weigh up whether the developments in the leadership campaign have advanced the possibility of his return to the Front Bench. I look forward, Mrs. Adams, to the day when I can call you Madam Deputy Speaker, but that may be reliant on developments in another part of the House. I, too, note the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) who has been a forceful representative of people in the area and has vigorously made points to me about the line, for which I am grateful.

123WH
The Government greatly regret the problems that passengers have suffered on all lines in recent months and the further inconvenience currently being experienced by c2c passengers. I share the view of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East that RMT is a good union, which is well represented. I shall refer to c2c's performance of its contract. It is unfortunate that passengers have been so inconvenienced.
It might be helpful if I briefly explain the background to the dispute. It relates mainly to RMT's concerns about the role of guards on trains and the introduction of more driver-only operation. The rule book lays down safety procedures to be employed in the movement of persons and rolling stock in and around the operational railway. A change to the rule book in October 1999 removed the requirement for guards to protect failed trains and requires them instead to look after passengers.
Railtrack and the train operating companies believe that the change improves rail safety. The Health and Safety Executive had no objection to the change on safety grounds and believes that it helps to clarify the respective roles of drivers and guards in emergencies. However, RMT is worried that that reduces guards' responsibility, adversely affects safety and will lead to more driver-only trains and to job losses for guards. Accordingly, RMT is seeking changes to the rule book to reflect its concerns. In addition, RMT wants train operators to give a commitment not to increase the existing number of driver-only trains.
RMT balloted the 22 operators of trains with guards and proposed industrial action. RMT members voted in favour of industrial action and 24-hour strike dates were set for Monday 25 June and Wednesday 4 July. However, before the first of those dates the dispute was settled with all train operators other than Midland Mainline and c2c. The position of Midland Mainline was subject to a court judgment, which subsequently ruled that the RMT ballot was unlawful. Leave to appeal was not granted so the strike action could not take place on Midland Mainline. RMT agreed before the first strike date that their requested changes to the rule book should first be considered by the relevant groups in Railway Safety, the appropriate body in such cases. It is important to note that, unlike previously, RMT is now represented with other stakeholders on those groups and is able to make a full contribution to the debate. It is for hon. Members to reflect on whether we would be in the present position if it had been involved earlier.
The sticking point relates to the commitment that no more driver-only services should be introduced. All operators, with the exception of c2c, were able to give the commitment sought by RMT as they had no plans to introduce additional driver-only services. However, c2c had always intended to employ driver-only operation on the new rolling stock now being introduced and believed that it had an agreement with RMT to that effect. That is the agreement to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, RMT does not share that view and there is a difference of opinion between RMT and c2c on the validity of the agreement. The company therefore feels unable to give the commitment that the RMT is asking
124WH
for on driver-only operation until the matter is resolved. The result is industrial action, culminating in a strike today and another planned for Wednesday 1 August.
Although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's frustration and that of his constituents and others along the line with the apparent impasse, the validity or otherwise of any existing agreement between the RMT and c2c is a matter for the parties involved to resolve and not one on which I or anyone in my Department can rule. It is a contractual arrangement between the two parties, and we have no locus in the matter. Ultimately, it may be for the courts to resolve whether the agreement has any standing.
I am pleased to say that, as the hon. Gentleman points out, some services have run today. However, many services have not run, and there has been considerable inconvenience to people on the line. I note that to mitigate disruption and give passengers the most up-to-date information, emergency timetables were handed out in advance by c2c to passengers at stations and posted on the c2c website, and real-time information is available on passenger information screens at c2c stations. However, I realise that there have been difficult journeys for passengers travelling into the City on strike days. For example, trains are not generally stopping at Barking, Upminster or Ockendon, where alternative, underground links are available into the capital, as the hon. Gentleman said in relation to West Ham. I regret the inconvenience that that creates for passengers travelling from those stations and the increased pressure that results on already busy underground routes in other areas.
The roles of guards and drivers in particular circumstances on the railway are a matter for the safety authorities, the trade unions and the managements of the privatised rail companies. The hon. Gentleman may appreciate that, as the dispute does not involve contractual issues relating to the franchise, there is no direct locus for the Government or the Strategic Rail Authority to intervene.
The latest performance figures published by the SRA, which cover the six months from 15 October to 31 March, show that recently c2c has performed better than nearly all other operators, with 84 per cent. of services arriving on time. Only the Island line surpasses that level of performance. The speed restrictions imposed throughout the network post-Hatfield have not particularly affected c2c, but its performance remains 2 per cent. down compared with the previous year, partly due to difficulties with new rolling stock.
The spring 2001 national passenger survey revealed that 72 per cent. of c2c passengers are satisfied with the service overall, which is the same as the figure for the previous spring. However, only 38 per cent. of passengers believe that c2c offers value for money. That is an 8 per cent. increase on the previous spring, but it is still low. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents were pleased that the standard day return from London to Southend Central was reduced from £12 to £10.60 with the introduction of the May timetable. The seven-day ticket remains £58, the same as a year ago.
The hon. Gentleman referred to some rolling stock problems. I am sure that I need not remind hon. Members that Ministers have made it clear to rolling

125WH
stock manufacturers that late delivery and poor reliability of new stock are unacceptable. Technical problems with c2c's new rolling stock caused widespread disruption and overcrowding, especially on peak services. Faulty electrics and software problems rendered the new trains unreliable and prone to breakdown.
The majority of units could not be introduced by their contractual date and as a result the SRA negotiated a package of passenger benefits with c2c to compensate passengers for the late introduction of the new stock. That included an increase in the order of new units from 44 to 46, and a commitment to procure a second tranche of 26 new four-car trains to be delivered and in service by 30 June 2002, replacing the remaining slam-door stock.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the testing of trains and about them being sent to the Czech Republic. I appreciate that he has feelings about things the other side of the channel. We are aware that the network generally and the train operators and manufacturers have limited capacity to allow the timely testing of new vehicles. The lack of a suitable high-test track makes vehicle testing time consuming and logistically difficult. The SRA is therefore looking at the feasibility of building a new test track in the United Kingdom. We are all mindful that that is important not just for train users, but for British jobs in train manufacturing.
Returning briefly to rolling stock delivery, c2c has a franchise commitment to introduce 45 of the 46 units into passenger service by 31 July 2001, and the remaining units by the end of September 2001 once winter testing has been completed. I am pleased to confirm that c2c is now in the final stages of its fleet acceptance and the introduction should be completed
126WH
on time. The second tranche of class 357 units is in production now. The first units for testing are expected in the next few weeks. The company is confident that it will have the second tranche fully in passenger service by spring 2002. It is clear that there is a lot of work to be done and that will be achieved only if the rail industry works co-operatively to deliver real improvements for passengers right across the network.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could set up a meeting. Years ago he probably would have accused us of having beer and sandwiches, but sparkling water and canape"s may be more appropriate these days. The matters that have to be resolved concern the agreement that is said to exist between c2c and RMT. As it is so clear what the difference of opinion is about, it would be inappropriate for us to intervene at the moment, but that does not mean that we will not have considerable concern if the dispute continues, so we hope that it can be resolved soon. The Government must remain impartial, as we have no locus to intervene. Any further industrial action on the national railways would of course be regrettable, and I hope that both sides will make every effort to achieve a quick resolution, exploring all avenues for settling differences so as to avoid further industrial action and inconvenience to passengers.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter today; it is of considerable importance to his constituents and to all the people along that line. I thank him for the measured way in which he did so. It is a sign of our changing relationship here that these things are discussed calmly and sensibly, and I am pleased to have responded to him. If he feels that there are any matters that I have not considered in detail and if the dispute is on-going, I and my officials will be pleased to meet him to discuss the matter further.

New African Initiative
1.29 pm
Hugh Bayley: I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn) to what I believe is his first full debate as a Minister. I was very pleased when he was appointed to his new job. The appointment will obviously be good for him, but I am sure that it will also be good for the United Kingdom and our international development policies.
According to the Order Paper, the debate is entitled "Millennium Africa Programme". When I sought the debate just 10 days ago, the initiative had that name, but when it was launched last week in Lusaka at the 37th summit of the Organisation of African Unity, it changed the name to the new African initiative. For the sake of clarity now and in years to come, I hope that Hansard will retitle the debate accordingly.
I shall try to explain why we should take an interest in Africa. Politics is a pragmatic business. Its first rule is to concentrate on what matters to the people whom we represent. The second rule is to concentrate on what we can do something about and change for the better. Africa matters to Britain and its people, including my constituents, for three reasons.
First, Africa has a presence in the UK, and there has been contact between this country and Africa for centuries. Many people of African origin have settled here. Indeed, this country has many people of African origin whose families have been settled here for centuries, and for many years people from this country have settled in Africa.
Much of our music, particularly popular music, has clear roots in Africa. We can trace it back through the black music of the United States and the music that came across the Atlantic in the middle passage. Many of our artists take inspiration from Africa. Picasso and Henry Moore used to draw African carvings and so developed their art.
At one level, there is a bit of Africa in all of us: human beings first evolved 3 million or 4 million years ago in Africa. However, humans first emigrated from Africa only 100,000 years ago, when they crossed into the middle east. The first humans came to Europe only 40,000 years ago. Human beings have therefore been in Europe for perhaps 1 per cent. of the time that we have been on earth—a tiny proportion of the time of human history.
Secondly, we need to take an interest in Africa for humanitarian reasons. Churches, charities such as Oxfam and Christian Aid and campaign groups such as Drop the Debt say that we politicians and representatives have a responsibility to help people in poorer parts of the world. They are right to say so, and we should respond.
As an Under-Secretary of State for Social Security for a time, I, among others, had some responsibility for the programme to tackle poverty in Britain. It is a terrible fact that when we came to power four years ago, one child in three born in the UK was born into a household living in poverty, which is defined as one living on less than half of average incomes. That is a serious issue, and our constituents are right to tell us that charity begins at home. We need to address issues of poverty in the UK and we do.
128WH
However, charity does not begin and end at home, because we have responsibilities to other human beings throughout the world. The poverty faced by almost half the population of Africa, who live on less than US$1–60p or 70p—a day, is quite different from the poverty faced by people in Britain. As a result, many Africans do not have access to basic human needs and things that we take for granted, such as clean uninfected drinking water, an adequate diet, basic primary education and primary health care.
Thirdly, we need to take an interest in Africa for reasons of self-interest. Britain wants access to Africa's minerals and agricultural products. For example, chocolate could not be made in my constituency without the ingredients being imported from Africa.
The whole world faces enormous environmental problems such as global warming and problems caused by infectious diseases, such as HIV, but we should remember that 90 per cent. of the world's AIDS orphans live in Africa. Malaria, too, wreaks a terrible toll on Africa's productivity and may become a problem in Europe if global warming gathers pace. If malaria was eradicated, it is estimated that Africa's gross domestic product would increase by about 15 or 20 per cent. Problems such as the trade in illicit drugs and human trafficking have no respect for national frontiers. We cannot protect our interests in Europe if we ignore problems abroad.
It is in Africa's interest that it should seek solutions to those problems. African leaders must take the lead; it is their continent. But it is also clearly in our interest to work in partnership with them to look for solutions. I am especially glad that we have a Prime Minister who has risen to the challenge, who has taken a lead in the developed world in pressing for debt cancellation, and who, at the end of the present spending period, will have increased our aid budget by some 70 per cent. In 2004 it will be 70 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1997. The Prime Minister has made refocusing our aid on poverty reduction a primary aim.
The Prime Minister told the Millennium summit at the United Nations last September:
"We need a new partnership for Africa in which Africans lead but the rest of the world is committed; where all the problems are dealt with not separately but together in a coherent and unified plan."
Speaking in Edinburgh during the general election on 25 May, the Prime Minister pledged:
"If elected for a second term I will make Africa a major personal priority and a priority for a Labour Government."
For the first time in a generation we have a Prime Minister with a strong personal commitment to Africa, and at the same time a new generation of African leaders who are committed to thorough economic and political reform and to doing things differently, which is what is needed.
Since decolonisation, Western aid to Africa has created many development successes, but we must accept that in macro terms western aid policy on Africa has failed. So, indeed, have the economic and development policies pursued by African leaders: the average output per head in Africa is lower now than it was 30 years ago. To achieve the international development targets set by the Secretary of State for International Development, to which she persuaded

129WH
other developed countries to subscribe—one of which was to halve the proportion of people in the world in extreme poverty by the year 2015—will require 7 per cent. annual growth between now and then. That is a difficult target to meet; even the best-performing economies in Africa—the modernising, forward-looking, reforming countries—are achieving only about 6 per cent. growth. We need to go further.
The Government have recognised the need for change. Since its creation, the Department for International Development has substantially changed the role and remit of British aid, with the focus on aid to the poorest. That change of focus was explained in detail in the two White Papers that the Department published in the last Parliament.
This debate is about the new African initiative, which was launched last week at the Organisation of African Unity summit in Lusaka. That initiative is important because it comes from Africa, is led by Africans and involves Africa finding solutions to its own problems. In a speech at the Guildhall in London in June, the South African President Thabo Mbeki said:
"We accept that the buck stops with us and cannot be passed to others. But we also know that without your sustained involvement with us, we will not succeed."
I cannot summarise in a few minutes everything that is in a 27-page document, but I can tell the House why I was impressed with what I read. The new initiative talks about what Africa will do to tackle Africa's problems. It talks about strengthening conflict prevention and macroeconomic stability. One reason why African growth is low is because job creation is poor and investors are concerned about the lack of economic stability and the potential for losing their investments. We now have African leaders who recognise that they must address the economic conditions if development is to succeed.
The initiative talks about instituting transparent legal and regulatory frameworks for financial markets. I have spoken to people who want to do business in Africa but find that they do not know where their company stands in law. It is important for them to know that otherwise they find it difficult to do business. As well as speaking about basic financial structures and addressing the financial problems, the initiative discusses the basic development task of extending education, training and health care. It considers gender equality and the problem of establishing law and order, which is extremely important in Africa.
I was impressed that the initiative does not begin and end with aid. Aid accounts for some 5 per cent. of the gross domestic product of sub-Saharan Africa, while economic endeavour accounts for the rest. If progress is to be made, it must be done through home-grown economic development, albeit with support from the aid of western countries. The new initiative calls for thoroughgoing economic and political reform in Africa, but also for reform in the west. It asks us to examine the trade barriers that we impose and the farm subsidies that make it impossible for African countries to export agricultural produce to us, and to examine the terms of debt relief. Aid is included in the document, but it is much lower down the list.
We should consider trade. Africa is home to 10 per cent. of the world's population, but accounts for only 2 per cent. of world trade. In 1997, export earnings in
130WH
Africa rose by 2 per cent. only to fall in the following year by 16 per cent. Why did that happen? Out of the 48 sub-Saharan African countries, 39 are dependent on only two primary commodities, with agricultural produce and minerals accounting for 50 per cent. of exports. There is a pressing need for African countries to increase and diversify their exports, but their ability to do so depends on us. For every exporter, there must be an importer and, unless we change trade policy in Europe, Africa's opportunity to meet the development targets that we set will be severely compromised.
I was extremely pleased by the response on 4 July of the Secretary of State for International Development to my parliamentary question. She listed a wide range of activities within her Department to strengthen the capacity of developing countries to make sure that their interests are properly represented at international trade negotiations. Our Government must be level-headed about the new African initiative. There have been many bold African development initiatives in the past. The Lagos plan of action in 1980, like many others, was launched with a fanfare of publicity but did not achieve real results. The new African initiative will work only if it is led by reforming and modernising African leaders, and we should work with them to make a success of it.
The Prime Minister said in an article that he wrote jointly with Thabo Mbeki in The Guardian on 14 June:
"The British government has committed itself to this initiative and we will work to persuade others in the international community to join us."
The Prime Minister will raise the initiative at the G8 summit in Genoa this weekend and has invited Thabo Mbeki to attend the summit and speak from an African perspective about why the initiative is necessary.
The most interesting and attractive feature of the new initiative is that it is not just about aid. It is about trade, investment, financial liberalisation, democracy, transparency and conflict prevention. It is a crosscutting policy and, to do justice to it, we must formulate a cross-cutting response. Will the Minister ensure that his Department raises the trade issues with the Department of Trade and Industry? Will he raise African concerns about EU food subsidies with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? Will he raise the ambitions in the African initiative for a global health fund with the Department of Health?
I know that there is already good interdepartmental working between the Department for International Development and other Departments on many issues. The Secretary of State for International Development chairs the committee for the Africa conflict prevention fund. I recognise that the machinery of Government is for the Prime Minister, but will my hon. Friend draw this debate to the attention of No. 10 so that the Prime Minister can consider how to co-ordinate in a crosscutting way all the UK Government Departments that need to examine their policies in relation to the Africa initiative to ensure that we as a Government pull in the same direction?
1.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): It is a great pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for

131WH
City of York (Hugh Bayley). He raised a most important and topical subject, and I understand that his long interest and great expertise in development matters will now be at the service of the International Development Select Committee, whose membership we were able to agree on Monday. I particularly warmed to his reminder of the patterns of migration around the globe, in which Africa played an important part, because it encourages us to reflect on our interdependence and the fact that globalisation actually started a long time ago.
As my hon. Friend said, the challenges facing Africa are enormous. He referred to the 600 million people in sub-Saharan Africa who live on less than a dollar a day. Whereas during the past 30 years Asia has significantly reduced poverty, Africa has not. Its share of world trade is just 2 per cent., and 40 per cent. of Africa's savings leave the continent. Partly as a result of that, it is short of investment. It faces trade barriers, especially in agriculture. I assure my hon. Friend that we constantly raise the points that he made about trade, not least in arguing that the World Trade Organisation should take them on board in considering topics for a new round. Above all else, Africa urgently needs economic growth. My hon. Friend reminded us that to reach the international development targets Africa has to grow at 7 per cent. a year, but it is currently achieving just under half that, which is barely enough to maintain income per head.
To complete the list of challenges facing Africa—as if that list were not enough—there are many obstacles to economic growth and sustainable development, including poor governance, corruption, unfinished or unstarted reform, conflict, debt and HIV-AIDS, in regard to which, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government have announced that they will contribute $200 million to the global health fund, and in Brussels last week I argued that the EC should make a significant contribution. We may have further news at the Genoa summit. On its own, HIV-AIDS is a catastrophe for the continent and is a subject worthy of debate in its own right.
Rising to such a challenge is exactly what the new African initiative is all about. Its existence as an initiative represents recognition by the countries of Africa that they must do something for themselves to change the continent's future. The initiative brings together the Millennium Africa plan, the Global Compact and the Omega plan. Some joins are visible, but through the medium of last week's Organisation of African Unity summit the initiative now has "Made in Africa" clearly stamped on it. We want more exports stamped "Made in Africa", which will be a sign that economic progress is being made. That ownership, the fact that it comes from Africa, is the most important aspect of the initiative. I agree with my hon. Friend that without that sense of ownership the necessary change will be much harder to bring about.
Like my hon. Friend, the Government warmly welcome the principles on which the initiative is based—especially the commitment to democracy and human rights, which is an essential building block of stability. We welcome the explicit recognition of the importance of investment in economic growth and trade to bringing
132WH
about the requisite change. We welcome the fact that the initiative sees both the potential for poverty reduction and the need for greater equality—an objective of which we must not lose sight. The last time that my hon. Friend and I were in this Chamber we were debating poverty in the United Kingdom—the first debate on that subject for about 20 years.
We welcome the recognition of mutual interdependence and the need for global governance, global rules and an international financial institutional framework to support countries in transition. We welcome the fact that the initiative embraces international development targets and poverty eradication as a long-term objective. We recognise that it does not shy away from recognising the scale of the problems facing Africa, particularly in political and economic governance. It is candid about the fact that action needs to begin at home and it has several constructive proposals for reforming the relationship with donors to create a more equal partnership. We would all readily sign up to those principles. The question, however, is how they will be delivered. As my hon. Friend put it: what shall we do to support the initiative? In the remaining time I shall deal with that issue.
One of the most profound changes in development policy took place under the leadership of the Secretary of State for International Development, and my hon. Friend kindly referred to her leadership role since 1997. I refer to the recognition that in the long term we do no favours to developing countries by running parallel structures and delivering services through our own direct aid effort and that of other donors unless we also encourage, support and enable developing countries to do it for themselves.
Africa probably provides the greatest regeneration challenge in the world. If the effort springs from within, there is a much greater chance of success. To answer my hon. Friend's question about the first contribution that we can make, it is in fact the one that we are already seeking to make—to focus on countries with large numbers of poor people and Governments committed to the principles of change set out so clearly in the initiative. That means supporting better governance, pro-poor economic growth. conflict prevention, better health and education, sustainable management of the environment and improved infrastructure, and creating a climate in which business can do good by doing good business in those countries.
If we want signs of progress—it is always important to remember progress because that gives us the heart to rise to the next challenge—we should consider Uganda, Tanzania and Mozambique, Mozambique is the fastest growing country in Africa. Where things are not working, the scale and nature of our intervention will need to be different, not least because so many countries in Africa are emerging from or still are in conflict. Stability is the essential building block of progress. Without stability, one cannot address the other issues.
Under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, the total amount of debt relief already agreed for African countries is $25.5 billion. There is more to come for the remaining countries. provided that we can deal with the issue of conflict. In saying that Africa is a priority for the Government and the Prime Minister—in the light of the two speeches cited by my hon.

133WH
Friend—we are putting our money where our words are. DIFD's bilateral programmes in Africa have almost doubled in size, from £297 million in 1997–98 to an estimated £594 million in 2000–01 and will grow further to some £687 million by 2003–04. That is, by any measure, a substantial commitment of resources. It is particularly important when one considers that overall international aid flows to Africa are declining. Another question that we need to ask as a result of the debate is what contribution other countries will make to that process, including how we can get more private investment into infrastructure improvement in the African continent.
That brings us neatly to the dialogue that is needed to increase the momentum created by the agreement of the initiative, starting at the G8 summit in Genoa in a few days' time. We need to be honest about the fact that there will be much hard talking. Some tensions are laid bare in the initiative between different countries in Africa. We need to be realistic about the scale and timing of donor support, and we need to consider carefully how the initiative can work with existing cooperation at national and international level to spread
134WH
best practice. We are particularly interested to see how the institutional framework proposed by those who have signed up to the initiative will work in practice. One needs those mechanisms to make a difference and to turn the principles into reality. The challenges are enormous but not insurmountable. Africa has much to gain from that process through increased trade and investment, better infrastructure and communications and greater access to knowledge. To reap those benefits in the months and years ahead will require much political will and commitment.
I conclude by quoting the succinct conclusion of the document. It states:
"In proposing the partnership, Africa recognises that it holds the key to its own development. We affirm that the African Initiative offers an historical opportunity for the developed countries of the world to enter into a genuine partnership with Africa, based on mutual interest, shared commitments and binding agreements."
We agree with that. It is an opportunity that Africa, and we, cannot afford to miss.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Two o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  European Capital of Culture
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to review the guidelines associated with the European Capital of Culture for 2008. [3251]

  Dr. Howells
  Guidelines for those preparing bids for the European Capital of Culture 2008 were published in September last year, and I have no plans to review them.

  School Sports and Arts
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what will happen to moneys not used in the latest round of applications for sports and arts facilities in schools; [2870]

  (2) what the reasons are for the length of time taken for a decision to be reached on the schools that are to be awarded money for sports and arts projects. [2869]

  Dr. Howells
  As announced in March 2001, around 300 schools have been invited to develop detailed applications under the Space for Sport and Arts programme, which are due by the end of October. All 65 of the local education authorities (LEAs) participating in the programme have been given an indicative funding allocation for planning purposes with a ceiling on each project of £0.5 million. LEAs are currently in the process of designing the spaces and applying for planning permission. Only once this has been done will it be possible to confirm the final allocations for each individual project. It is expected that the full £130 million allocated to this programme will be spent on those projects identified by the LEAs involved.

  Lottery Funding
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to review how the Arts Council ensures that Lottery funding is distributed to the regions of England on an equal basis. [3203]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are keen to see a fair distribution of funding throughout the country and have directed distributors to ensure that all parts of the UK have access to Lottery funds. The Arts Council of England undertook substantial consultation last year when devising the Arts Capital Programme, the first tranche of prioritised projects being announced in June 2001. Geographical inequity was one of a number of considerations in the programme, together with investment in Black, Asian and Chinese Arts associations.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 2 July 2001,186W
  Official Report, columns 68–71W, on the Arts Council, if she will provide a breakdown of the figures per head of population in each local authority. [3131]

  Dr. Howells
  We have contacted West Midlands Arts Board to request the information required, and my noble Friend the Minister for the Arts will write to my hon. Friend as soon as it is available, placing copies of her letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much support the Arts Council provided for projects within each London authority in each of the last three years, broken down per head of population. [3204]

  Dr. Howells
  We have contacted both the Arts Council of England and London Arts to request the information required, and my noble Friend the Minister for the Arts will write to my hon. Friend as soon as it is available, placing copies of her letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Osborne House
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to comply with the provisions of the Osborne Estate Act 1902 pending the reintroduction of legislation to amend that Act; what proposals she has for the future use of rooms at Osborne House formerly occupied by the King Edward VII Convalescent Home for Officers; and what representations she has received on the future use of those premises. [3261]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: The parts of Osborne House used formerly as the King Edward VII Convalescent Home for Officers which closed on 31 October 2000 will not be available for alternative use until repair and refurbishment of the exterior of the accommodation is completed. This is currently estimated to be in January 2002. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be considering how to meet from that date the obligations under the Osborne Estate Act 1902 to devote part of Osborne House for the benefit of members of the armed forces and the civil service until such time as the statutory requirement is repealed. English Heritage, which is responsible for the maintenance and management of the Osborne Estate, have sent my right hon. Friend proposals for opening to the public a large part of the former convalescent home accommodation and the gardens previously restricted to convalescent home use. My right hon. Friend has not received any other representations concerning the future use of the accommodation.

  New Opportunities Fund
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will publish details of the most recent awards made under the New Opportunities Fund. [3956]

  Mr. Caborn
  A large number of awards have been announced recently by the New Opportunities Fund, including £1.6 million to facilitate access to 50,000 items of specific importance to the history and culture of Wales via the internet.

  187W
  I have contacted the New Opportunities Fund to request the detailed information required, and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) on what date a Green Minister was first appointed in her Department; when subsequent appointments were made; and if she will make a statement; [3973]

  (2) what the terms of reference are for the Green Minister in her Department; and if she will make a statement. [3982]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister for the Environment on 13 July 2001, Official Report, columns 689–90W.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what dates her Department's Green Minister attended meetings of the Green Ministers Committee during the current Session of Parliament; on what dates subsequent meetings are planned to take place; and if she will make a statement. [4819]

  Tessa Jowell
  This Parliament the Green Ministers Committee has been reconstituted as the Cabinet Sub-Committee of Green Ministers, ENV(G), under the chairmanship of the Minister for the Environment. It is established practice under exemption two of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to(a) extend free television licences and (b) introduce reduced-cost television licences for pensioners under the age of 75 years. [4388]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government have no plans to extend free television licences to pensioners below the age of 75 or to introduce reduced fee licences for such individuals.

  Party Political Broadcasts
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the arrangements under which the BBC and the ITV companies are given access to, and the right to edit, party political broadcasts. [4125]

  Dr. Howells
  The broadcasting of party political broadcasts is ultimately the responsibility of the broadcasters and the broadcasting regulatory authorities. It is the broadcasters' responsibility to ensure that all the material they broadcast complies with their obligations to maintain programme standards, such as those relating to taste and decency. They may reject any material submitted, including party political broadcasts, unless or until it so complies.

  Regional Arts Board (West Midlands)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funds have been made available for the west midlands to support(a) dancing, (b) singing and (c) acting through the regional arts board; and what plans she has to increase funding for these purposes. [3932]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: The table shows expenditure through grant-in-aid and the Regional Arts Lottery Programme (RALP) for all artforms by West Midlands Arts which is the main funding body for the arts in the region for the last financial year, 2000–01. The Arts Council of England separately funds Birmingham Royal Ballet (£5,650,087) and the Royal Shakespeare Company (£9,160,300).

  Alterations to the amounts already given to dancing, singing and acting is a matter for West Midlands Arts.

  Artform

  Treasury

  RALP

  Total

  Crafts

  134,120

  25,699

  159,819

  Dance

  672,775

  261,087

  933,862

  Drama/Theatre/Mime

  2,586,765

  255,660

  2,842,425

  Film, Video and Broadcast

  244,306

  64,398

  308,704

  Literature

  166,079

  89,032

  255,111

  Mixed Media

  138,475

  —

  138,475

  Combined Arts

  1,572,552

  273,584

  1,846,136

  Music

  1,958,030

  110,231

  2,068,261

  Non-artform

  800,849

  —

  800,849

  Photography

  113,534

  —

  113,534

  Visual Arts

  1,441,982

  540,413

  1,982,395

  Grand Total

  9,829,467

  1,620,104

  11,449,571

  (a) Dancing may be included within Dance, Drama/Theatre or Combined Arts.

  (b) Singing may be included within Music or Combined Arts. Not all music is singing.

  (c) Acting may be included within Drama/Theatre/Mime, Combined Arts or Film, Video and Broadcast.

  BBC
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will ask the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the market power of the BBC. [4506]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: No. It is open to anyone with the appropriate evidence of alleged infringement of the Competition Act 1998 to raise this with the Office of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport from what source the BBC plans to fund the establishment and running of Network Z. [4654]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: The BBC has applied for approval to introduce Network Z as a licence-fee funded public broadcasting service.

  Welsh Language Programmes
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people viewed Welsh language programmes broadcast on S4C each week in the last six months. [4448]
  189W
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: This information is not currently available in the form requested. However, I understand that S4C has recently commissioned a more detailed analysis of its viewing figures, from which it should be possible to extract the information requested. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as this is available.

  Foot and Mouth (Tourism)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport what plans she has to make interest free loans available to tourism businesses affected by the economic impact of foot and mouth disease. [119]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: I have no plans to make such loans available, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is closely monitoring the effectiveness of the financial assistance measures made available by Government to rural businesses, including tourism businesses, which are worth over £250 million. This package includes £50 million allocated to the Rural Business Recovery Fund, an estimated £22 million

  ASSIST 961

  CODA Accounts system

  ASSIST 20001

  Estimated cost (£ million)

  2.25

  2.8

  3.2

  Actual cost (£ million)

  2.246

  3

  3.2

  Estimated completion date

  September 1996

  July 1997

  September 2001

  Actual completion date

  September 1996

  February 1998

  On schedule

  Contractor

  ELONEX

  CODA

  COMPAQ

  1 New desk-top

  London Underground
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last travelled on the London Underground in the course of her official duties. [3684]

  Clare Short
  I rarely travel on official duties to destinations served by the London Underground. I cannot recall when I last travelled on the underground in the course of official duties. I occasionally use the underground in a personal capacity.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Walton Group
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress he is making in recovering the grant from the Walton Group plc in respect of Exchange Flags Liverpool; and if he will make a statement. [3689]

  Ms Keeble
  The civil claim for recovery of grant paid and interest thereon is proceeding and is expected to go to trial in June 2002.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 10W, what the breakdown of activities is for which the qualifying expenditure made available to the Walton Group plc for claimed work on Exchange Flags was made. [3668]
  190W
  available in hardship rate relief and £120 million available in loans under the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme. Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue will also agree to the deferral of tax or National Insurance Contributions where a business is in serious financial difficulty.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [3501]

  Clare Short
  DFID undertakes most of its IT development work in-house, with modest specialist consultancy support.

  The Department has had three IT contracts above £500,000 since April 1991.

  Ms Keeble
  The grant was made available against the following work:

  (i) the refurbishment of the semi-derelict building to provide a net area of not less than 400,000 square feet of floor space suitable for office use and not less than 350 parking spaces at basement level;

  (ii) the re-paving and landscaping of an overall area of 2,025 square metres of the adjacent courtyard known as "Exchange Flags";

  (iii) the refurbishment and fitting out of the former war room on the lower ground floor of the building as a museum.

  Train Safety
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the timetable for implementation of train safety systems. [3555]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Under the Railway Safety Regulations, made by the Government in 1999, the Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS) must be installed and operational on the rail network by the end of 2003.

  In addition, the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) will be advising the Government, next year, on regulations to take forward the new European Train Control System (ETCS) on high-speed and other main lines as recommended by the Joint Inquiry Report by Lord Cullen and Professor Uff into train protection systems published on 29 March 2001. A progress report will be published by HSC in September.

  Nuclear Freight
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on how many occasions since July 1998 external radioactivity has been discovered on(a) transport flasks and (b) railroad flathaul carriages used for the transport of spent nuclear fuel to Sellafield from nuclear power plants. [3962]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information on incidences of contamination of transport flasks and railway wagons is published annually in the report on events involving the transport of radioactive material in the UK. The reports covering events in 1998 and 1999 have been placed in the House Library. The report for events during 2000 will be published in October this year.

  Housing Developments
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many new housing developments in Chorley have been built on brownfield sites since 1997; and how many are planned in each of the next five years. [4392]

  Ms Keeble
  Detailed figures are not available centrally. Under Best Value, Chorley Borough Council is required to report on the percentage of new homes built on previously developed land. The Audit Commission is currently collecting data from all authorities and the Government expect to be able to publish estimated outturn for 2000–2001 shortly.

  Chorley Railway Station
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he has taken to ensure disabled people can access Chorley railway station. [4393]

  Ms Keeble
  Access to railway stations for disabled people is covered by Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Since October 1999, service providers have been required to take reasonable steps to change practices, policies or procedures which make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service. From 2004, service providers will have to take reasonable steps to remove, alter or provide reasonable means of avoiding physical features that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service.

  In addition, the Strategic Rail Authority is currently revising its Code of Practice, "Meeting the needs of Disabled Passengers", which is aimed at helping protect the interests of disabled users of railway passenger services and station services.

  Railtrack are also committed to ensuring that disabled people have access to the railway network. I understand they are currently exploring a framework for achieving accessibility so that a detailed programme can be developed in consultation with train operators and other interested parties.
  192W
  I am not aware of any specific plans to upgrade Chorley Station which I understand has wheelchair access to each platform but not between platforms.

  Road Building
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will announce changes to the road building programme. [4115]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced a package of transport measures on 28 March 2001,Official Report, column 639W, which included the addition of eight schemes to the targeted programme of trunk road improvements.

  Housing (Lancashire)
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what central Government support has been made available to(a) Hyndburn borough council and (b) Rossendale borough council, to tackle private sector housing disrepair in each of the last four years. [4267]

  Ms Keeble
  There is no longer a separate ring-fenced element for private sector renewal within the support provided for local authorities' housing capital programmes; this was merged into the general support for housing investment from 2001 —02 to provide authorities with greater flexibility and reduce administrative burdens. The overall resources allocated to Hyndburn and Rossendale for housing investment in the last four years were as follows:

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Hyndburn borough council1

  Total

  2,223

  2,331

  2,704

  23.607

  of which:

  Ring-fenced for private sector renewal

  769

  759

  3—

  3—

  Rossendale borough council

  Total

  1,838

  1,780

  2,117

  23,337

  of which:

  Ring-fenced for private sector renewal

  483

  483

  3—

  3—

  1 In addition, Hyndburn borough council is receiving £646,000 this year through the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  2 The 2001–02 allocations include amounts (£2,030 for Hyndbum and £2,410 for Rossendale) ring-fenced for expenditure on council housing through the new Major Repairs Allowance

  3 Not applicable

  Landlords
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 July 2001,Official Report, column 439W, on landlords, in how many cases the original decision was upheld. [4138]

  Ms Keeble
  I assume that my hon. Friend wishes to know how often, under paragraph 8 of the Schedule to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Leasehold Valuation
  193W
  Tribunals (LVTs) have decided that the insurance available from an insurer was unsatisfactory or that the premiums payable were excessive.

  The majority of applications made under these provisions were later withdrawn, were deemed to be outside the jurisdiction of the LVTs, or still await a decision. At the end of May 2001, only 10 cases had been determined. Of these, the insurance arrangements were deemed to be satisfactory in six cases. In the other four cases, the premiums were deemed to be excessive, or the arrangements unsatisfactory in other ways, or both.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions she has had since 15 February with Mr. Robert Bourne or associated parties regarding the future of the Dome. [4152]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: None, but my noble and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning met Robert Bourne and his colleagues on 28 February 2001, at Mr. Bourne's request, following the Government's decision to end Legacy plc's preferred bidder status and the existing competition as announced on 15 February 2001.

  Shared Ownership (Housing)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he next intends to review the arrangements for supporting shared ownership housing options. [4622]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department, in conjunction with the National Assembly for Wales, has commissioned a research project to evaluate the current low cost home ownership programmes in England and Wales, and to identify and assess possible measures to improve their effectiveness. The scope of the research includes shared ownership schemes offered by registered social landlords. The study is expected to report in April 2002.

  Housing Register
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of households in each local authority in London was on the housing register in April 2000. [4624]

  Ms Keeble
  The latest available information is presented in the table:

  England 1997–98 to 1999–2000

  Percentage

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Tenure and Government office region

  At least 1.5 rooms per person

  At bedroom standard

  Above bedroom standard

  All at or above bedroom standard

  Below bedroom standard

  (i) Owner occupiers

  North East

  88

  17

  82

  99

  1

  North West

  88

  17

  82

  98

  2

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  88

  16

  83

  99

  1

  East Midlands

  90

  14

  85

  99

  1

  West Midlands

  88

  16

  83

  98

  2

  East

  89

  16

  82

  99

  1

  London

  86

  24

  74

  97

  3

  194W

  Estimated percentage of households on the housing register as at 1 April 2000: London

  Percentage

  Barking and Dagenham

  3.1

  Barnet

  4.0

  Bexley

  4.0

  Brent

  12.2

  Bromley

  2.5

  Camden

  6.5

  City of London

  26.2

  Croydon

  4.4

  Ealing

  6.0

  Enfield

  5.5

  Greenwich

  6.1

  Hackney

  8.1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6.0

  Haringey

  9.6

  Harrow

  3.1

  Havering

  1.8

  Hillingdon

  3.5

  Hounslow

  5.8

  Islington

  14.3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  9.1

  Kingston upon Thames

  4.9

  Lambeth

  12.7

  Lewisham

  9.0

  Merton

  4.9

  Newham

  12.5

  Redbridge

  3.9

  Richmond upon Thames

  5.8

  Southwark

  5.2

  Sutton

  2.8

  Tower Hamlets

  8.8

  Waltham Forest

  8.0

  Wandsworth

  2.0

  Westminster

  7.2

  Note:

  Local authorities have different practices for compiling and managing housing register/waiting lists which mean that simple comparisons between authorities can be misleading.

  Source:

  DETR Housing Investment Programme returns (Housing Register data)

  DETR 1999 mid-year household estimates

  Bedroom Standard
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate, for each region in England the percentage of households(a) with at least 1.5 rooms per person, (b) occupying properties consistent with the bedroom standard and (c) occupying properties at least one room below the bedroom standard (i) as owner occupiers, (ii) as council tenants and (iii) as RSL tenants. [4625]

  Ms Keeble
  The information requested is shown in the following table.
  195W

  England 1997–98 to 1999–2000

  Percentage

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Tenure and Government office region

  At least 1.5 rooms per person

  At bedroom standard

  Above bedroom standard

  All at or above bedroom standard

  Below bedroom standard

  South East

  89

  16

  83

  99

  1

  South West

  90

  15

  84

  99

  1

  England

  88

  17

  82

  99

  1

  (ii) Council tenants

  North East

  82

  44

  53

  97

  3

  North West

  81

  48

  48

  96

  4

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  79

  45

  51

  96

  4

  East Midlands

  83

  47

  51

  97

  3

  West Midlands

  80

  47

  49

  95

  5

  East

  80

  51

  46

  97

  3

  London

  70

  57

  32

  88

  12

  South East

  75

  56

  39

  96

  4

  South West

  75

  52

  43

  95

  5

  England

  78

  50

  45

  95

  5

  (iii) RSL tenants

  North East

  86

  53

  46

  99

  1

  North West

  80

  61

  36

  97

  3

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  82

  65

  33

  98

  2

  East Midlands

  79

  61

  35

  96

  4

  West Midlands

  82

  59

  38

  96

  4

  East

  78

  60

  37

  97

  3

  London

  71

  71

  22

  93

  7

  South East

  69

  66

  30

  96

  4

  South West

  72

  66

  32

  98

  2

  England

  76

  64

  32

  96

  4

  Source:

  DTLR Survey of English Housing. Average for financial years 1997–98 to 1999–2000

  London Underground
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment of the relative priority in respect of the London underground he has made of(a) refurbishing stations to incorporate shopping malls and (b) maintenance of rolling stock, track and signals; to what extent Transport for London's chosen priority in this regard will apply and how the infrastructure companies will influence such decisions; and if he will make a statement. [4722]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The plans for the modernisation of the underground will deliver around £13 billion to improve the underground's infrastructure over the next 15 years. The relative priorities for rolling stock, track, signals and stations have been set by the public sector, not the infrastructure companies. The requirements have been designed to improve the capacity, reliability and quality of the underground as quickly and efficiently as possible, while maintaining high safety standards.

  Within this balanced programme, expenditure on stations will account for less than a quarter of the total investment over the next 15 years. The priority at stations will not be to incorporate shopping malls, but to address those other issues passengers consider important: making sure the lifts and escalators work; installing CCTV to improve passenger security; tackling congestion at the busiest stations; providing step-free access; and improving the quality and cleanliness of stations.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list penalty clauses and similar liability arrangements in
  196W
  the London Underground contract with the infrastructure companies; by whom they were drawn up; if they and performance relating to them will be published; and if he will make a statement. [4723]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Contracts for the modernisation of the tube have been developed by London Underground Limited. I understand that London Underground has set the priorities to ensure the private companies provide improved infrastructure so that London Underground can operate a safe and reliable service for passengers. Infrastructure companies will be rewarded for improving the capacity, reliability and quality of the underground infrastructure, and penalised for poor performance. Penalties in the contract will reflect the full impact of any delay or disruption to passengers and not be limited by a cap. I understand that London Underground intends to publish the contracts once negotiations have been completed and will make available information on performance

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how he expects new investment in the London Underground to be spent. [4721]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The plans for the modernisation of the tube provide a comprehensive package to renew the whole of the underground's infrastructure and are designed to ensure that the money is spent efficiently, with improvements specified by the public sector delivered on time and on budget. Around £13 billion of investment will be made over the next 15 years, with some £8.7 billion spent on enhancements and £4.3 billion on maintenance—a higher level of sustained investment than ever before.

  197W
  As a result of this investment, services will be faster and more frequent with, for example, a 20 per cent. increase in capacity on the Victoria line. Fewer breakdowns and delays will result in a more reliable service. Every train on the underground will be replaced or refurbished over the lifetime of the contracts, and every station will be upgraded in the first seven and a half years.

  Service disruptions due to failures in signals/points

  1999–45

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Non LT

  21

  26

  20

  41

  26

  26

  16

  Bakerloo

  343

  263

  264

  292

  249

  355

  248

  Central

  518

  542

  644

  880

  308

  335

  490

  District

  334

  385

  303

  269

  278

  394

  525

  Jubilee and East LL

  140

  79

  79

  110

  197

  338

  444

  Metropolitan and Circle (c and h)

  180

  212

  129

  131

  125

  238

  407

  Metropolitan and Circle (main)

  247

  256

  209

  266

  194

  290

  522

  Northern

  245

  324

  298

  323

  216

  317

  358

  Picadilly

  222

  287

  261

  241

  213

  202

  326

  Victoria

  99

  120

  115

  166

  149

  131

  186

  Total

  2,349

  2,494

  2,322

  2,719

  1,955

  2,626

  3,522

  Service disruptions due to failures in other track

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Non LT

  6

  38

  26

  10

  14

  12

  5

  Bakerloo

  53

  99

  193

  201

  176

  168

  171

  Central

  100

  147

  203

  92

  65

  50

  62

  District

  74

  101

  74

  51

  69

  83

  179

  Jubilee and East LL

  54

  74

  45

  38

  77

  146

  136

  Metropolitan and Circle (c and h)

  61

  78

  75

  61

  57

  62

  98

  Metropolitan and Circle (main)

  88

  118

  105

  73

  83

  82

  136

  Northern

  95

  123

  141

  165

  109

  105

  208

  Picadilly

  86

  125

  92

  110

  109

  135

  165

  Victoria

  42

  56

  54

  80

  66

  66

  58

  Total

  659

  959

  1,008

  881

  825

  909

  1,218

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the financial assessment of the methods of funding future capital investment in the London Underground over a similar period favoured by(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) Transport for London. [4726]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have made clear that our plans for the London Underground will go ahead only if they represent value for money. We will make this judgment guided by the results of the robust public sector comparator that London Underground has constructed. This explicitly allows for the possibility of public sector bond financing, in line with the scheme suggested by Transport for London.

  A note outlining the methodology used to develop the comparator was placed in the Libraries of the House in March 2000. The results of the comparator will also be published once negotiations with bidders have been completed. To release the comparator any earlier would risk undermining London Underground's negotiating position and jeopardise its ability to achieve value for money for the taxpayer.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what are the principal reasons for the cost overrun for the extension of
  198W
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the annual number of breakdowns on each line of London Underground involving signal, points and track failures has been since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [4611]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational issue for London Underground which has provided the following information:

  the Jubilee Line from Green Park to Stratford; what his estimate of the total of that cost overrun is; what percentage of the original estimate that represents; what is the estimated cost; which parties overran in each case; what circumstances were responsible for the cost overrun; how much was paid to consultants in relation to the line extension; what assessment has been made of how inaccurate cost assessments contributed to cost overruns; what contractual mistakes were made and extra cost incurred from them; and if he will make a statement. [4728]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Jubilee Line Extension (JLE) was a vast and complex undertaking, managed by London Transport/London Underground Limited. It was one of the largest engineering projects in this country for many years. This Government inherited a project already under way, and poorly planned. Various studies of the JLE have been carried out and others are still under way. The current forecast total cost is £3.5 billion, including commissioning costs. Actual final cost will not be known until all contracts and claims are settled. When it was given the go-ahead, the JLE was expected to cost £2.1 billion (at 1993 cash prices, excluding commissioning costs).

  The causes of JLE cost overruns included the omission from the original figure of estimates for commissioning the line and turning it into a working railway; amendments to the programme and opening strategy

  199W
  which had associated acceleration and prolongation costs; changes to specifications such as the addition of CCTV, not originally specified but later required in line with improvements elsewhere on the Tube; 'descoping' of systems such as signalling and communications; and other factors entirely outside the control of the project or its contractors, such as the new Austrian tunnelling method collapse on the Heathrow Express Project which caused all NATM JLE tunnelling to be suspended causing delays of around six months. Industrial action and vandalism contributed to increased costs.

  I will write to my hon. Friend about expenditure on consultants.

  Various studies of the JLE have been undertaken. Some have already produced outcomes; others are still under way. The end of commission report by the Secretary of State's Agent, Ove Arup, made recommendations, and following the review of this report by Peter Gershon of the Office of Government Commerce, specific OGC recommendations on the whole process of major project approval and management are being implemented.

  It is clear that project management and contractual arrangements contributed significantly to JLE overruns: this indicates the need for better measures for the future. Improved arrangements have been included in the contracts offered to bidders who will be London Underground's partners in the programme for the modernisation of the Tube. In particular, the private contractors will bear responsibility for projects that come in over time and beyond budget.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many alternatives for the future funding of the London Underground were put to(a) him and (b) Transport for London; and if he will make a statement. [4727]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government ruled out privatisation of the Underground, but carefully considered all other options for modernising the Underground, including the use of bond financing, a public trust, joint ventures, vertically integrated business and the status quo. We firmly believe that our plans are the best way to achieve a 21st Century Tube, and to ensure safety and value for money. The Underground will remain publicly owned and run, and the massive programme of investment will be carried out in partnership with the private sector as quickly and efficiently as possible.

  Transport for London submitted to the Mayor its outline of a programme for the rehabilitation and management of the Underground in December 2000 and a Proposed Management Plan for the London Underground in April 2001. It is a matter for Transport for London whether they considered any alternatives to the ideas put forward in those reports.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much(a) public capital investment and (b) private sector investment is proposed to be made in each of the next 15 years into the London Underground; what will be the return on capital for the private sector investors; who will pay it; and if he will make a statement. [4725]
  200W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The plans for the modernisation of the Underground will deliver around £13 billion of investment to improve the underground's infrastructure over the next 15 years. It is estimated that some 20 per cent. of finance for these plans will be provided by the private sector, with the remainder coming from London Underground fares and Government grant.

  The rate of the return for the private sector will be determined by the outcome of London Underground's negotiations with bidders. The agreed rate of return will be achieved only if the private companies meet their obligations to provide track, trains, signals and stations with increased capacity, better reliability and higher quality.

  Greenwich Peninsula Land Sale
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 11 July 2001,Official Report, column 527W, under what circumstances British Gas (Lattice Properties plc) would receive 7.5 per cent of the open market value of the land on the Greenwich peninsula. [4410]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: This is a matter to be agreed by British Gas (Lattice Properties plc) and English Partnerships, taking account of the Sale and Purchase Agreement between both these parties, dated 7 February 1997.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 11 July 2001,Official Report, column 527W, what previous estimates have been made of the open market value of the British Gas (Lattice Properties plc) interest in land on the Greenwich peninsula; and what its estimated current value is. [4411]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: Various (public and private) estimates have been made of the value of the land on the Greenwich peninsula which English Partnerships acquired from British Gas (Lattice Properties plc) in 1997, and consequently of the British Gas interest in such land. However, any valuations are confidential and it would be against the public interest to reveal these figures.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 11 July 2001,Official Report, column 527W, who will be responsible for establishing the open market value of the British Gas (Lattice Properties plc) interest on the Greenwich peninsula. [4412]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: This is a matter to be agreed by English Partnerships and British Gas (Lattice Properties plc), in accordance with the Sale and Purchase agreement between both these parties, dated 7 February 1997.

  Speed Restrictions (Trains)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many speed restrictions were in place on the rail network at the
  201W
  end of each month since October 2000 in (a) Great Britain and (b) the area covered by each franchise; and how many are anticipated to be in place at the end of (i) July, (ii) August, (iii) September and (iv) October. [4652]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: Railtrack reports that the number of temporary speed restrictions in place across its network in Great Britain at the end of each month was:

  Number

  October 2000

  504

  November

  626

  December

  1,100

  January 2001

  1,045

  February

  964

  March

  1,188

  April

  908

  May

  779

  June

  773

  These national figures cannot meaningfully be broken down into the areas covered by each franchise because the services of many franchisees overlap. Individual speed restrictions will often affect the trains of several operators all using that line. Railtrack does however ensure close dialogue on outstanding speed restrictions with each operator in order to maintain safety and service reliability.

  Railtrack is working with train operators and contractors to return to a sustainable level of speed restrictions across the network as soon as possible, but the precise number of restrictions which will be in place over the coming months cannot be accurately predicted.

  At any one time there is always a large number, typically 300 to 500, of speed restrictions in force on the network; these are needed to maintain safe operation in adverse operating conditions and to enable normal maintenance activities to be completed. Allowances are made for such speed restrictions within timetables.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many programme trouble reports there are in the air system controls at the new En Route Centre at Swanwick; and in each case, what the details and severity of the programme trouble reports are. [4616]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are currently 136 Programme Trouble Reports (PTRs) or "bugs" on the Swanwick systems that are required to be fixed before the unit enters operational service on 27 January 2002. Of these PTRs, fixes for 51 are scheduled for deployment on to the Swanwick software this week. Fixes for the remainder will be delivered in the software build which will be deployed to the operational system in November 2001. Listing the details and severity of each PTR would be extremely time-consuming and could be provided only at disproportionate expense.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in what 202W
  circumstances a programme trouble report can cause an aircraft not to be shown on a controller's screen. [4618]

  Mr. Spellar
  NATS have informed us that no programme trouble reports logged in the development of the Swanwick systems have caused aircraft not to be shown on a controller's screen.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much extra traffic will be accommodated by the new air traffic control systems at the new En Route Centre at Swanwick in the first year of operation. [4617]

  Mr. Spellar
  When the Swanwick Centre enters operational service in January next year, the capacity of the unit will be constrained while ATC staff gain confidence and familiarity with the new equipment and procedures. As this confidence and competence improves, capacity will be slowly increased to match the capacity of the equivalent LATCC sectors. NATS anticipate that, by the end of summer 2002, capacity will increase by around 5 per cent.; and by a further 5 per cent. the following year.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many workarounds relating to air system control there are at the new En Route Centre at Swanwick. [4619]

  Mr. Spellar
  NATS have informed us that the Swanwick systems contain no "workarounds", i.e. sub-optimal solutions to achieve system modifications.

  Compulsory Purchase
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what action he has taken to improve the system of compulsory purchase and compensation; and if he will introduce reforming legislation at an early date; [4595]

  (2) when he will publish the Government's response to the consultation on the 'Fundamental Review of the Laws and Procedures Relating to Compulsory Purchase and Compensation' conducted by the former DETR last year. [4594]

  Ms Keeble
  In response to the consultation on the Fundamental Review, to which my hon. Friend refers, we are currently preparing a Policy Statement setting out the Government's proposals for making the system of compulsory purchase and compensation more efficient, more effective and fairer to all parties. This will be published as soon as possible, and will include an assessment of the need for reforming legislation. The Fundamental Review also pointed out that the operation of the compulsory purchase system is suffering from a loss of expertise and experience in acquiring authorities. We have therefore commissioned a Guidance Manual to help authorities make more effective use of the current system. This is due to be published in the autumn.

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many empty homes there were in England broken down by region for the most recent year for which statistics are available. [4631]
  203W
  Ms Keeble
  The available information on empty residential property in England at the beginning of 2000–01 is given in the table:

  Total vacant dwellings

  North East

  49,000

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  99,700

  East Midlands

  68,000

  Eastern

  70,200

  London

  1105,200

  South East

  87,500

  South West

  64,100

  West Midlands

  79,800

  North West

  1138,300

  England

  763,900

  1 Denotes that local authority (LA) vacants exclude any such dwellings situated in another authority district. England totals reflect all LA-owned vacants.

  Sources:

  DTLR Annual Housing Investment Programme and Housing Corporation annual RS returns

  The majority of these vacants are transitional ones between owners or tenants and are vacant only for a short period.

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects the study funded by the Civil Aviation Authority into research into deep vein thrombosis and air travel to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [4587]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The study, which is being funded by the Civil Aviation Authority to look into the link between aircraft seat dimension and passenger size, is being carried out on behalf of the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). Publication of the study, which will include a review of recent work on deep vein thrombosis, will follow its approval by the JAA member states. In addition, my Department and the Department of Health, together with the Civil Aviation Authority and the Health and Safety Executive, are supporting a study to look into the research that has been done to date on all aviation health matters. This study will cover a number of health issues associated with air travel—including deep vein thrombosis—and will make suggestions for further research. This report will be published during July.

  PFI Road Schemes
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many penalty points have been accumulated for each PFI road scheme in his Department; for which reason each of these points was awarded; what penalties were invoked; and if he will make a statement. [4459]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The overall performance of our PFI contracts is good. There have however been instances when it has been necessary to award penalty points for failure to achieve the required level of performance. The use of the penalty point system has been successful in improving poor performance as contractors have been anxious to avoid contractual warning letters and to face the risk of termination. The contracts are subject to confidentiality agreements and so the information cannot 204W
  be given for individual contracts. Most points have been awarded during the construction phase of the contracts. During operations it has been necessary to award fewer points.

  PPG8
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the draft revision of Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 will be implemented. [4645]

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

  Planning Inquiry Commission
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department has undertaken into the potential for using powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to establish a Planning Inquiry Commission; and if he will publish the results. [4635]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department has considered the potential for establishing a Planning Inquiry Commission in the context of handling decisions on major infrastructure projects, but has undertaken no research.

  Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will set out the terms of reference for the role of the Green Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement; [4829]

  (2) on what dates a Green Minister was (a) first appointed and (b) subsequent appointments were made; and if he will make a statement. [4830]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 13 July 2001,Official Report. columns 689–90W.

  St. Leonard's Hospital, Dorset
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date the public inquiry into the appeal by the Secretary of State for Health in respect of the site at St. Leonard's hospital, Dorset is to be heard. [4757]

  Ms Keeble
  Although this appeal was received in the Planning Inspectorate on 1 June 2000, work on it has been suspended following a direction to the appellant by the then Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to submit an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This has now been received and the Inspectorate will shortly make arrangements for the inquiry, once the appellant has carried out the necessary publicity for the EIA.

  Bus Travel
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to reduce the cost of bus travel. [4907]
  205W
  Ms Keeble
  Outside London, the setting of bus fares is a matter for individual bus operators and they have a commercial incentive to keep fares at an affordable level, in order to attract passengers. In general, bus fares have tended to rise in line with the growth in average earnings. Local authorities have powers to arrange travel concessions for specified groups. But as part of our commitment to ensuring that elderly and disabled people have access to affordable transport, we have guaranteed them half fares on local bus services under the Transport Act 2000. The Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill, which is currently being debated in the other place, will go further and equalise at 60 the age at which both men and women become entitled to concessionary travel.

  Buses have a vital role to play in our transport system. We have brought forward a range of policies to make bus travel more reliable and attractive for the passenger, and are supporting this with substantially increased capital funding. We are confident that this will lead to increased patronage, which in turn should help to keep fares down.

  Departmental Duties
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list for each week from Monday 23 July to Monday 8 October which departmental Ministers will be on duty(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in London. [4894]

  Mr. Byers
  As is the case throughout the year there will be a Minister on duty at all times over the summer.

  Leases (Insurance)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will examine the practice of purchasing leases in order to demand from householders that they insure the houses as directed by the new leaseholders or buy the right to choose their own insurer. [4576]

  Ms Keeble
  We are aware of and deplore this practice. Leaseholders do already have rights which allow them to address such abuses. They are able to purchase their landlord's interests under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, thereby removing his control over the insurance of the property. They can also apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal to challenge the landlord's choice of nominated insurer under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Measures to improve the operation of these rights form part of our work on leasehold reform and improving the tribunals. We are also looking separately at further ways in which this practice might be addressed.

  American Vehicle Imports
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the European Commission about an exemption from the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 to allow the import of American vehicles with small number plates; and if he will make a statement. [4756]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Officials have recently met with representatives of the European Commission and 206W
  American car importers. The Government are carefully considering the representations made and will make an announcement shortly.

  Unexploded Bomb (Epping Forest)
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will provide financial assistance to Epping Forest district council under the Bellwin scheme in respect of costs incurred for the unexploded bomb incident on 7 and 8 November 2000. [5487]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified in the case of Epping Forest district council given the exceptional nature of the incident. A scheme will therefore be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grant will be paid to cover 85 per cent. of the eligible costs above a threshold, which the authority has incurred in dealing with the unexploded bomb.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Visits
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit South Staffordshire during the forthcoming recess. [2913]

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

  Government Annual Report
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister on what dates the Government have published their annual report; what the total cost of producing and publishing each report has been; when the next report will be published; and if he will make a statement. [3661]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 12 July 2001, Official Report, column 638W.

  The publication dates, and total costs of the Government annual reports are as follows:

  Publication date

  Total costs (£)

  Government annual report

  1997–98

  30 July 1998

  250,000

  1998–99

  26 July 1999

  180,000

  1999–2000

  13 July 2000

  125,000

  Public Correspondence
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he received on average per week from members of the public over the last six months. [4798]

  The Prime Minister
  During the first six months of 2001 I received 253,230 letters and cards from members of the public. The number of letters and cards I receive varies significantly from week to week.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Solicitor-General on what dates her Department's Green Minister attended meetings of the Green Ministers Committee during the current Session of Parliament; on what dates subsequent meetings are planned to take place; and if she will make a statement. [4824]

  The Solicitor-General
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 17 July 2001,Official Report, column 165.

DEFENCE

  Service Children's Education
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the key targets are for the Chief Executive of Service Children's Education for 2001–02. [5486]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Chief Executive has been set the following key targets for 2001–02.

  1. To meet the following percentage of pupils achieving Level 2 at the end of Key Stage 1 in:

  Reading—89 per cent.

  Writing—91 per cent.

  Spelling—80 per cent.

  Mathematics—93 per cent.

  2. To meet the following percentage of pupils achieving Level 4 or above at the end of Key Stage 2 in:

  English—77 per cent.

  Mathematics—74 per cent.

  Science—88 per cent.

  3. To meet the following percentage of pupils achieving Level 5 or above at the end of Key Stage 3 in:

  English—76 per cent.

  Mathematics—75 per cent.

  Science—71 per cent.

  Deaths to UK Gulf veterans1 1 April 1991–30 June 2001 Causes (coded to ICD-9)2

  ICD chapter

  Cause of death

  Gulf

  Era

  Mortality rate ratio

  All deaths

  496

  494

  1.00

  All cause coded deaths

  485

  473

  1.02

  I—XVI

  Disease-related causes

  179

  216

  0.83

  I

  Infectious and parasitic diseases

  3

  2

  1.49

  II

  Cancers

  71

  77

  0.92

  III

  Endocrine and immune disorders

  1

  4

  0.25

  V

  Mental disorders

  9

  11

  0.81

  VI

  Diseases of the nervous system and sense organs

  7

  6

  1.16

  VII

  Diseases of the circulatory system

  66

  86

  0.76

  VIII

  Diseases of the respiratory system

  10

  5

  1.99

  IX

  Diseases of the digestive system

  9

  14

  0.64

  IV, X—XVI

  All other disease-related causes

  3

  11

  0.27

  EXVII

  External causes of injury and poisoning

  306

  257

  1.18

  Railway accidents

  4

  1

  3.98

  Motor vehicle accidents

  110

  88

  1.24

  Water transport accidents

  4

  1

  3.98

  Air and space accidents

  25

  17

  1.46

  Other vehicle accidents

  0

  1

  0.00

  Accidental poisoning

  10

  13

  0.77

  Accidental falls

  8

  6

  1.33

  Accidents due to fire/flames

  0

  1

  0.00

  Accidents due to natural environmental factors

  2

  2

  1.00

  208W

  4. To meet a three year rolling average percentage of Year 11 pupils achieving five or more higher (A*-C) grades in GCSE of 50 per cent.

  5. To meet a three year rolling average subject entries achieving passes at grades A-C at A Level of 56 per cent.

  6. To meet the following percentages against the four attributes of Standards, Quality, School Climate and Management and Efficiency measured during Ofsted inspections.

  100 per cent. of SCE schools are to achieve grade 3 or above.

  85 per cent. of SCE schools are to achieve grade 2 or above except that in the "Schools Climate" attribute 100 per cent. of SCE schools are to achieve grade 2 or above.

  7. To respond in full to customers seeking education advice from SCE (UK) within the following timescales:

  93 per cent. within 10 working days of receipt

  remainder within 20 working days of receipt.

  Gulf Veterans
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the latest figures are for deaths of Gulf veterans, and among the control group. [5608]

  Dr. Moonie
  Peer reviewed scientific data comparing the mortality of UK Gulf veterans with an era group of service personnel who did not deploy to the Gulf were published for the first time in The Lancet on 1 July 2000. Updates to these figures were provided by the Ministry of Defence to the House on 20 July 2000, Official Report, columns 247–49W, and 22 January 2001, Official Report, columns 414–16W. The MOD has undertaken to continue to monitor the mortality of both Gulf veterans and the era group and will publish updated figures on a regular basis. The figures as at 30 June 2001 are shown in the table.

  Overall, in the period 1 April 1991 to 30 June 2001 the mortality of UK Gulf veterans was no different from that of the control group. The number of Gulf veterans dying from disease related causes is rather less than the control group, whereas the number of Gulf veterans dying of external causes is rather higher than for the control group. The MOD will conduct a more detailed analysis of accidental deaths, to establish where there are any underlying trends that might help explain this.
  209W

  Deaths to UK Gulf veterans1 1 April 1991–30 June 2001 Causes (coded to ICD-9)2

  ICD chapter

  Cause of death

  Gulf

  Era

  Mortality rate ratio

  Accidents due to submersion/suffocation/foreign bodies

  16

  6

  2.65

  Other accidents

  31

  27

  1.14

  Late effects of accident/injury

  0

  2

  0.00

  Suicide and injury undetermined whether accidental

  88

  84

  1.04

  Homicide

  5

  4

  1.24

  Injury resulting from the operations of war

  3

  4

  0.75

  Other deaths for which coded cause data are not yet available

  9

  18

  —

  Overseas deaths for which cause data are not available

  2

  3

  —

  1 Service and ex-service personnel only

  2 World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases 9th revision 1977

  Defence Research (Animals)
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of animals in defence research. [5609]

  Dr. Moonie
  The independent Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC), chaired by Dr. Robert C. Hubrecht, has recently published its fifth annual report. The committee was set up in 1996 in response to public and parliamentary concern over the use of animals in defence research. Its purpose is to consult, inspect and make all necessary inquiries into all aspects of animal care and their use in establishments of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), part of the former Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).

  The committee's report gives assurances that animals used in defence research programmes in the UK are regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and that no special exemptions apply to MOD. The committee's report emphasises the work that DERA have done to ensure the welfare of all animals used for defence research purposes. The committee was satisfied that all possible efforts were being made to ensure animal welfare and care.

  Animal research is essential in order to protect our troops from hazards encountered during their duties. However, the Ministry of Defence continues to place emphasis on seeking alternatives to animal use. Although the numbers of animals used have reduced from past years, the technologies which will allow further reduction are still immature. The MOD welcomes the scrutiny by the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee in this area and will continue to support AWAC's review into the care and welfare arrangements for animals used in defence research.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (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; [3895]

  (2) what the terms of reference are for the Green Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement. [3976]
  210W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment gave on 13 July 2001, Official Report, column 690W.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates his Department's Green Minister attended meetings of the Green Ministers' Committee during the current Session of Parliament; on what dates subsequent meetings are planned to take place; and if he will make a statement. [4813]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 17 July 2001,Official Report, column 165W.

  Military and Defence Exports
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish his forthcoming study into the Government's subsidisation of the military export and defence sector; when this study is expected to be completed; and when Parliament will be able to review the findings of the study. [4739]

  Dr. Moonie
  We expect the study into the costs and economic benefits of defence exports being undertaken by the Ministry of Defence's Senior Economic Adviser, with contributions from leading, independent, academic defence economists, to be completed shortly. It will be published and made available as soon as possible for review by the House of Commons Defence Committee, which originally proposed the study.

  I do not expect the analysis to show that there is Government subsidisation of defence exports, but rather to reflect the fact that there is a significant net benefit to the Defence budget—and thus the taxpayer—from defence exports. These benefits include a reduction in costs for UK procurement as a result of export orders, receipts from Commercial Exploitation Levy and disposal of surplus MOD equipment. In addition to economic benefits, responsible and legitimate defence exports, together with our own defence efforts, contribute to international stability by strengthening collective defence relationships.

  Aberporth
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of apprentices trained at DERA, Aberporth were employed by his Department(a) on completion of their apprenticeship, (b) after two years and (c) after five years, for each of the last 10 years. [4537]
  211W
  Dr. Moonie
  The number of apprentices trained at Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, Aberporth and employed by Ministry of Defence(a) on completion of

  Intake year

  Year of completion

  Numbers completing

  Employed by DERA (MOD)

  Employed by wider MOD

  Other

  After two years (employed by DERA)1

  After five years (employed by DERA)1

  1988

  1992

  14

  1

  1

  6

  6

  3

  1989

  1993

  12

  9

  1

  2

  8

  4

  1990

  1994

  23

  8

  0

  15

  8

  4

  1991

  1995

  15

  8

  0

  7

  8

  5

  1992

  1996

  8

  3

  1

  4

  2

  1

  1993

  1997

  8

  5

  0

  3

  4

  1

  1994

  1998

  10

  6

  1

  3

  4

  3—

  19952

  1998

  10

  6

  0

  4

  4

  3—

  1996

  1999

  8

  4

  1

  3

  4

  3—

  1997

  2000

  10

  6

  0

  4

  3—

  3—

  1 Only the numbers of apprentices retained by DERA are available and are based on information supplied by ex-apprentices. Information is not held as to whether any ex-apprentices, upon leaving DERA, went on to be employed in the wide MOD.

  2 New training introduced which reduced training period from four to three years.

  3 Not yet served for two years or five years.

  Kenya
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many weeks a year the British Army has had use of the range at Archer's Post and the range at Dol Dol in each of the last three years. [3218]

  Mr. Ingram
  The British Army used each area for about six weeks in each year.

  Liquidated Damages
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions agreed liquidated damages provision has not been collected by his Department; for what reason; and what legal action has been(a) contemplated and (b) taken to enforce them. [3717]

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

  NATO Enlargement
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to facilitate the enlargement of NATO at the Alliance's 2002 Prague summit. [4429]

  Mr. Hoon
  As the Prime Minister has made clear, we support the further enlargement of NATO when the political and military conditions agreed at the 1997 Madrid and 1999 Washington Summits are met. The Ministry of Defence, together with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, continues to consult closely with Allies on the implications of possible further enlargement for Euro-Atlantic security. We are assisting aspirants with their preparations through the Membership Action Plan, launched at the 1999 Washington Summit. We will continue to work with the Secretary General and Allies to ensure that the Alliance has the capabilities, force and command structures, planning and decision-making processes it needs to maintain its efficiency and effectiveness.

  Ministerial Duties
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each week from Monday 23 July
  212W
  their apprenticeship, (b) after two years and (c) after five years is shown in the table.

  to Monday 8 October which departmental ministers will be on duty (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in London. [4892]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is not normal practice to publish Ministerial Duty Rosters. Throughout the summer break a Minister will be on duty in line with paragraph 68 of the current Ministerial Code.

TREASURY

  Indirectly Held Securities
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on initiatives to clarify the law concerning conflict of laws in relation to indirectly held securities. [5388]

  Ruth Kelly
  We are today publishing a consultation document inviting views on two proposals. The first is a draft multilateral Convention, drawn up under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, to determine the law applying to the proprietary aspects of dealing in securities held through intermediaries. The second is a proposal to amend the Financial Market and Insolvency (Settlement Finality) Regulations 1999. The purpose of the amendment is to apply a common choice of law rule in respect of securities provided as collateral. We consider these measures will produce benefits in terms of simplicity, risk reduction and enhanced efficiency in financial markets. A copy of the consultation document has been placed in the Library.

  UK Debt Management Office
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the UK Debt Management Office's annual report and accounts. [5389]

  Ruth Kelly
  The DMO's annual report and administrative accounts for 2000–01 are being laid before Parliament and published today. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses, together with an updated version of the DMO's Framework Document.

  Statistics Commission
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Statistics Commission's annual report and accounts for 2000–01 will be published. [5390]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Statistics Commission's first annual report and accounts, covering the period from its inception on 7 June 2000 to the end of the 2000–01 financial year, are being published today. The report and accounts have been laid before Parliament and copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Stroke Deaths
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths there were from(a) stroke and (b) stroke-related diseases in each of the past five years. [4096]

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

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Linda Perham, dated 18 July 2001:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on how many deaths there were from (a) stroke and (b) stroke-related diseases for each of the past five years. I am replying in his absence. (4097)

  The data requested are published in the annual reference volumes, "Mortality Statistics: Cause DH2", Table 2, copies of which are in the House of Commons Library. Figures are currently available up to 1999. The underlying cause of death, classified according to the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Classification of Disease, Ninth Edition (ICD9) indicates the disease or injury that initiated the train of events leading directly to death. Deaths with an underlying cause of stroke are classified using ICD9 codes 430 to 438.

  Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what dates his Department's Green Minister attended meetings of the Green Ministers Committee during the current Session of Parliament; on what dates subsequent meetings are planned to take place; and if he will make a statement. [4818]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister for the Environment, 17 July 2001,Official Report, column 165W.

  VAT (Home Care Services)
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he expects the proposed extra statutory concession to reduce VAT on home care services supplied by private businesses to be implemented; [4183]

  (2) if he will remove VAT on home care services supplied by private businesses. [4184]

  Mr. Boateng
  HM Customs and Excise have consulted widely on a VAT concession for home care which will be introduced at the same time as proposed changes being introduced by the Department of Trade and Industry to regulate the private recruitment industry. The concession will ensure that these changes do not lead to any VAT increase in charges for those who receive care in the home.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons Mrs. Pinfield (Ref. NH653670B) of Christchurch was not paid Working Families Tax Credit on time during the period 15 May to 25 June; and what compensation is payable, and by whom, for consequential losses which have arisen. [4771]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I understand that the Inland Revenue Tax Credit Office wrote to the hon. Member on 16 July 2001 regarding this matter.

  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in the Leigh constituency are eligible for Working Families Tax Credit; and how many have claimed it to date. [4187]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the numbers of families in each parliamentary constituency receiving the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) appear, from May 2000, in the WFTC Quarterly Enquiry. Copies are available in the Library, or on the Inland Revenue website, www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk.

  The estimates for constituencies in Great Britain are based on a 5 per cent. sample of awards and are therefore subject to sampling error. Particular care is needed when making comparisons over time.

  Tax Relief (Film Expenditure)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax relief has been granted to UK films under the provisions of section 48 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997; how many films have been accepted by the Inland Revenue as qualifying films; and if he will make a statement. [3574]

  Ruth Kelly
  Between 1 July 1997 and 30 June 2001 the Department for Culture, Media and Sport certified 1,119 "British qualifying" films under the Film Act 1985. The estimated tax cost of relief provided to British qualifying films under section 48 Finance (No. 2) Act 1997 is £200 million in the period 1997–98 to 2000–01, over double the amount that would have been available under the previous arrangements.

  Biofuels
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring into force fiscal measures to encourage the use of biofuels equivalent to those available for gas fuels. [3757]

  Mr. Boateng
  Under the Government's Green Fuel Challenge launched in November last year, we will, subject to EU agreement, introduce a new duty rate for biodiesel in Budget 2002, at 20p per litre below the then rate for ultra-low sulphur diesel. Furthermore, we have already legislated to provide for duty reductions or exemptions for pilot projects covering the more environmentally friendly fuels, including biofuels such as bioethanol and biogas. We expect to invite applications for these pilots during the summer and evaluate applications during the autumn.

  Sports Clubs (Taxation)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the taxation of voluntary sports clubs; and if he will make a statement. [4043]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor has received a number of representations concerning the current tax treatment of voluntary sports clubs, as he does with all aspects of the tax system. Following the announcement in Budget 2001 of the Government's intention to consult on possible support through the tax system for community amateur sport's clubs, the Treasury is working closely with colleagues in other Government Departments and sports organisations, including Sport England, the Central Council for Physical Recreation and the National Playing Fields Association on the shape of possible relief. A consultation paper will be published later this year, which will invite comments on the proposed relief.

  In drawing up the proposals, the Government will take into full consideration which specific measures will benefit these sports clubs.

  VAT Relief (Places of Worship)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his proposed timetable is for the introduction of VAT relief on listed places of worship; and if he will make a statement. [4397]

  Mr. Boateng
  The European Commission has indicated that a reduced VAT rate for repairs to listed places of worship will be considered in the Commission's general review of reduced rates that will take place in 2003. In the meantime, the Government are working on the introduction of a UK-wide grant scheme to help congregations with the cost of repairs and maintenance of listed buildings that are used as places of worship. The effect will be equivalent to a reduction in VAT to 5 per cent. on repairs commenced on or after 1 April 2001.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  London Underground
  Bob Russell
  To ask the President of the Council when he last travelled on the London underground in the course of his official duties. [3674]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  As Leader of the House of Commons, the majority of my duties are in the Palace of Westminster and as such do not require a tube journey between my residence/offices at Carlton Gardens and the House of Commons.

  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has travelled on the tube on at least five occasions since his appointment.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Democratic Institutions
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of democratic institutions in the Province. [2876]
  216W
  Dr. John Reid
  The stability of the institutions was one of the key areas addressed at the Weston Park talks. The Government are working closely with the Irish Government to secure the full and stable operation of the institutions, alongside the full implementation of all aspects of the Agreement.

  Police Recruitment
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current police recruitment campaign in Northern Ireland. [2877]

  Jane Kennedy
  The response to the recruitment campaign to the police service was very positive—with almost 8,000 applicants.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the role of community groups in the peace process. [2878]

  Dr. John Reid
  The peace process was born out of the desire of ordinary decent people in Northern Ireland for a normal, law-abiding and peaceful society, free from the sectarianism and bitterness of the past. While the negotiations have largely been taken forward by Northern Ireland's political representatives, the significant progress we have made thus far in agreeing and implementing the Belfast Agreement has been underpinned and strengthened by the support and commitment to peace demonstrated by the numerous and wide variety of individuals and groups active in all sections of the community across Northern Ireland, particularly in their efforts to combat division and sectarianism. Their work will be a significant factor in encouraging further progress.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process since 7 June. [2886]

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on developments in the peace process. [2900]

  Dr. John Reid
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), on 18 July 2001,Official Report, column 277.

  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about developments in the peace process. [2887]

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process. [2894]

  Dr. John Reid
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), on 18 July 2001,Official Report, column 277.

  First Minister
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on steps being taken to fill the position of First Minister in Northern Ireland. [2879]
  217W
  Dr. John Reid
  The filling of these positions is a matter for the devolved administration, not the British Government. The Northern Ireland Assembly and its members must elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister jointly in accordance with the procedures set out in the constitutional arrangements of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement and section 16 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. These require the positions to be filled within 6 weeks of a vacancy occurring and the Assembly to devise the procedures under which such elections takes place.

  Road Improvements
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Secretary of State for Scotland to discuss co-operation on applications for EC support for inter-regional road improvements. [2880]

  Dr. John Reid
  I have had no discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland on co-operation on applications for EC support for inter-regional road improvements since this is a devolved matter.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress towards paramilitary weapons decommissioning. [2881]

  Dr. John Reid
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), on 18 July 2001,Official Report, columns 271–72.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about decommissioning of arms in Northern Ireland. [2883]

  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the efforts that have been made to secure the decommissioning of illegally held weapons in Northern Ireland. [2884]

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made with decommissioning. [2891]

  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures have been taken to encourage paramilitary decommissioning in Northern Ireland. [2899]

  Dr. John Reid
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), on 18 July 2001,Official Report, columns 271–272.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on decommissioning of terrorist weapons. [2885]

  Dr. John Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), on 18 July 2001,Official Report, columns 271–72.

  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the work of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and if he will make a statement. [2882]
  218W
  Mr. Browne
  The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is an independent body, and as such it is for the Commission itself to determine its work programme. It is not appropriate for me to comment on this. I do, however, welcome the start that the Commission has made in establishing itself, and hope that it will continue to build on this in the future.

  Terrorist Organisations (Political Representation)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is on the inclusion of political representatives of armed terrorist organisations in the Government of Northern Ireland. [2888]

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is on the inclusion of political representatives of armed terrorist organisations in the Government of Northern Ireland. [2890]

  Dr. John Reid
  The policy of this Government is to facilitate the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, including its provisions on the constitutional settlement. For as long as each member of the Executive is appointed to their post under the terms and conditions set out in the Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998—including their commitment under the Pledge of Office to exclusively peaceful and democratic means— they have a legitimate right to hold that position. Safeguards in the Agreement and the legislation also ensure that if a Minister loses the confidence of the Assembly, Members may vote in favour of an exclusion motion and remove them from office. The Government support these provisions.

  Terrorist Violence
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland. [2892]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government believe on balance that the main cease fires are holding. However, there remains a serious threat to the peace process from dissident republicans who have been responsible in recent months for a number of attacks including the use of Mark 15 "Barrack Buster" mortars, bomb attacks containing up to 10001bs of explosives and various booby trap devices. Loyalists are believed responsible for the recent murder of Ciaran Cummings and pipe bomb attacks in nationalist areas.

  Both loyalists and republicans seek to exercise control over their own communities by carrying out attacks and acts of intimidation. So far this year there have been 184 such attacks: 118 by loyalists and 66 by republicans.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of the RUC full-time reserve. [2889]

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the future of the RUC reserves. [2893]
  219W
  Jane Kennedy
  Discussions with the Police Federation of Northern Ireland on the application of the severance arrangements, retraining etc. are on-going. The next implementation step in the process of phasing out the Full Time Reserve will be notification of the non-renewal of contracts. Subsequent to the first recruits to the Police Service of Northern Ireland completing their training early in 2002, the prevailing security situation and policing requirements will be reviewed. Subject to that review, the notification of the non-renewal of contracts will begin.

  Terrorism
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the dismantling of the structures of terrorism in Northern Ireland since April 1998. [2895]

  Dr. John Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), on 18 July 2001,Official Report, columns 271–72.

  Political Parties (Talks)
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the outcome of his most recent talks with the political parties in Northern Ireland. [2896]

  Dr. John Reid
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), on 18 July 2001,Official Report, column 277.

  RUC Chief Constable
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Chief Constable of the RUC; and what was discussed. [2897]

  Dr. John Reid
  I regularly discuss a range of issues with the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It would not be appropriate to give details of these discussions.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Mahmood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action the Government have taken to improve human rights in Northern Ireland. [2898]

  Mr. Browne
  The Human Rights Act 1998 put in place significant safeguards to ensure the protection of rights throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. In addition, specific measures were put in place to protect human rights in Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland Act 1998 as part of the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. These include ensuring that the devolved Assembly has no power to make legislation that is incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights; and the creation of a new Human Rights Commission for Northern Ireland.

  Political Situation
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the political situation in Northern Ireland. [2901]
  220W
  Dr. John Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), on 18 July 2001,Official Report, column 277.

HEALTH

  Children's Hospices
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that children's hospices receive the same level of public funding as adult hospices. [2247]

  Yvette Cooper
  Children's hospices have an important role in supporting children with life threatening illness and their families. Provision has been made for them to receive funding from the National Health Service. The level of funding for individual hospices, which provide for the needs of either children or adults, is a matter for local discussion and agreement, based on local health needs assessment.

  Foot and Mouth
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the potential impact on vCJD in the human population as a result of exposure to the BSE agent following the burial of infected carcases during the foot and mouth epidemic. [3074]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Environment Agency issued guidelines on 26 March advising that no cattle over five years of age, which are at greater risk of BSE, should be buried. But before these guidelines took effect, it is estimated that up to 10,000 cattle aged over five years may have been buried. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC), the Government's advisory body on BSE and CJD, has considered disposal issues arising from foot and mouth on a number of occasions, including at a special meeting on 24 May 2001. A news release summarising the outcome of that meeting states:"The sites where over five year cattle may have been buried would need to be examined on a case by case basis, and appropriate risk assessments carried out. It was likely that most body fluids would already have leaked out of the carcases which would no longer be intact. Digging up the remains would itself create significant risks—for example of bringing deep soil to the surface—that would need to be taken into account in any assessment. Overall, the number of BSE infected carcases across all sites—let alone any particular site—would be small. The risk from any individual site would, normally, be small and should be kept in perspective."
  A report on the possible risks to public health from current foot and mouth disposal options was published last month and is available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/fmdguidance/disposalriskassessment.pdf.

  Advocacy in Mental Health
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the results of the research by Durham University into the role of advocacy in mental health; if the results will be published; and if the Government will consult on the findings. [2959]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has received a draft copy of the report from Durham University. We expect to receive the final version later this summer. We are
  221W
  planning to publish the findings. The report, which will contain the findings of the research commissioned by the Department, will be used to inform discussions with interested parties in the development of the independent specialist advocacy services and the standards that will be drawn up for them.

  Hospital (Liskeard)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide a new hospital in Liskeard, Cornwall; and if he will make a statement. [3411]

  Ms Blears
  Cornwall Healthcare National Health Service Trust is progressing with a £7.5 million scheme under the private finance initiative to develop a new 52 bed community hospital for the people of Liskeard and the surrounding area. The trust recently agreed preferred bidder status with a private contractor and is developing a final business case for regional office approval later this year. If approved, the hospital is due to be completed in late spring 2003.

  Mental Health Services
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the projected targets outlined in the Health Select Committee's Provision of NHS Mental Health Services' report (HC 373, Session 1999–2000) have been met. [3808]

  Jacqui Smith
  In response to the Health Select Committee's report, we described a wide range of measures that were being taken to tackle the years of neglect in the provision of mental health services. These measures, which are at various stages of development, continue to be taken forward as part of a comprehensive and co-ordinated programme of action to implement the National Service Framework for Mental Health and the NHS Plan.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the new NHS funding that has been received by mental health services. [4575]

  Jacqui Smith
  An annual mapping exercise has been set up to identify the full range of services for people with mental health problems in each National Service Framework Local Implementation area in England. The second such survey, expected to be completed by November this year, will be accompanied by a survey of spending by the National Health Service and local authorities on the services which it funds.

  Diabetes
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he proposes to take to achieve his Departmental target for reducing death from diabetes. [3822]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Diabetes National Service Framework, which we intend to publish later this year, will set national standards and define service models to improve the quality of care for people with diabetes. We expect the NSF to improve health outcomes for people with diabetes and, over time, to reduce the number of deaths related to diabetes.

  Heart and Lung Disease
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide free prescription drugs for the treatment of people with congenital heart and lung disease. [3874]

  Ms Blears
  Our policy is to give priority to helping those who may have difficulty in paying charges, rather than extending the exemption arrangements to people with other medical conditions including congenital heart and lung disease.

  Toxic Dental Materials
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ban the use of(a) mercury amalgam and (b) other toxic dental materials by the NHS. [3871]

  Ms Blears
  There are no plans to ban the use of dental amalgam or other dental materials currently used in the National Health Service. All dental materials must be safe and fit for their purpose and must meet the requirements of the Medical Devices Regulations.

  Audible Blood Glucose Testing Equipment
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to supply audible blood glucose testing equipment through the National Health Service. [3738]

  Jacqui Smith
  Blood glucose testing meters of any kind are not currently available on general practitioner prescription though blood glucose testing strips are. We have had no application from any company to have audible blood glucose testing equipment made available.

  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responses he has received from the pharmaceutical industry relating to the publication of the Pharmaceutical Industry Competitiveness Task Force report. [2015]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 12 July 2001]: The response from the pharmaceutical industry to the publication of the Pharmaceutical Industry Competitiveness Task Force report has been very favourable. The Chairman of Eli Lilly and Company wrote to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the excellence of the report, informal feedback to Ministers from senior executives of many companies based both here and in the United States of America has been very positive and Japanese companies expressed great interest in the report to the Science Minister, Lord Sainsbury, during his recent visit to Japan. At European Union level, Government and industry are now working together in a similar way on the high level group on Innovation and Provision of Medicines—known as the G10 Group. My noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who co-chaired the United Kingdom task force, is a member of the G10 Group.

  Overhead Powerlines
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on the health implications of overhead powerlines; and if he will make a statement. [3846]
  223W
  Yvette Cooper
  The Department obtains advice on the possible health implications of exposure to electromagnetic fields, including those associated with power lines, from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). In a report published on 6 March, the NRPB's Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation reviewed the potential risks of cancer from extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (documents of the NRPB Volume 12, Number 1, 2001), copies of which are available in the Library. Information can be found on www.nrpb.org.uk.

  The report states that
  "there is some epidemiological evidence that prolonged exposure to higher levels of power frequency magnetic fields is associated with a small risk of leukaemia in children. In practice, such levels are seldom encountered by the general public in this country."
  The NRPB have calculated that this relates to about 0.5 per cent. of the total population. The report also states that
  "In the absence of clear evidence of a carcinogenic effect in adults, or of a plausible explanation from experiments on animals or isolated cells, the epidemiological evidence is currently not strong enough to justify a firm conclusion that such fields cause leukaemia in children."
  An NRPB response statement noted that the higher levels of magnetic fields are not attributable solely to proximity to power lines. The Government and NRPB are currently planning a study into the factors that lead to certain households having higher levels of electromagnetic fields.

  Prescription Drugs
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on EU proposals to relax the rules on advertising prescription drugs and the possible impact on the NHS. [3722]

  Yvette Cooper
  The European Union proposals on advertising of prescription-only medicines are part of a much wider European Commission review of the European legislation governing medicines. They have yet to be formally adopted by the Commission. As currently drafted, the proposals do not lift the existing prohibition on advertising prescription-only medicines directly to the public, but are concerned with the provision of information in certain therapeutic areas on request by patients, patient groups or health professionals.

  We will examine the Commission's proposals in detail once they have been adopted. The United Kingdom will discuss these proposals with the Commission and other member states in a working group of the Council of Ministers, taking into account what impact, positive or negative, they have on the national health service and more widely. Our priority will be to ensure that any amendments agreed to the existing legislation are fully justified in the interests of public health, and are compatible with meeting patients' needs for full and comprehensible information about their medicines.

  Asian Nurses
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS nurses are of Asian heritage; what steps he is taking to increase their number; and if he will make a statement. [3842]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is in the table.
  224W

  National health service hospital and community health services (HCHS): nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff by ethnic group in England as at 30 September 2000

  Percentage

  White

  85.0

  Black

  4.6

  Asian

  1.7

  Other

  2.5

  Unknown

  6.2

  Notes:

  1. Figures should be treated with caution as they are based upon the 76 per cent. of HCHS organisations that reported 90 per cent. or more valid ethnic codes for non-medical staff; comparisons over a number of years are likely to produce more reliable comparisons.

  2. Percentages were calculated from numbers of staff expressed as whole-time equivalents.

  Source:

  Department of Health 2000 non-medical work force census.

  The Department has a well developed strategy to recruit more Asian nurses. The Improving Working Lives Standard commits all NHS employers to build a diverse work force that reflects the local community and will measure their progress. The Positively Diverse Programme has generated a substantial series of national, regional and local recruitment initiatives including issuing guidance to NHS employers around setting up diversity programmes in their organisation, widening access to nurse training, building networks between NHS work force confederation and higher education institutes, and addressing selection to and attrition from training. Early results from the national recruitment campaign suggest that around 3.5 per cent. of the people who responded to the campaign identified themselves as Asian.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to ensure food supplements used by sports people do not contain banned substances. [3730]

  Yvette Cooper
  All food supplements, including those for sports people, must comply with food law, which is enforced by local authorities via their trading standards or environmental health departments.

  Supplements which fit the legal definition of a medicine are controlled by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA). The MCA is responsible for enforcing medicines legislation, and is currently reviewing the status of a number of sports supplements.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the law covering food labelling. [3941]

  Yvette Cooper
  Food labelling laws are harmonised at European level and are implemented here by the Food Labelling Regulations 1996. We are committed to giving consumers more choice by promoting honest and informative labelling. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has adopted a wide-ranging action plan to tackle the issues consumers have identified as priorities for improving food labelling. The FSA is pressing for changes to European law and international standards and has established a number of working groups to explore the potential for voluntary improvements.

  Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the terms of reference are for the Green Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement; [3981]

  (2) on what date a Green Minister was first appointed in his Department; when subsequent appointments were made; and if he will make a statement. [3968]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 13 July 2001,Official Report, columns 689–90W.

  Breast Cancer Unit (Nottingham)
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the progress being made by Trent Regional Health Authority regarding the establishment of a new breast cancer unit at Nottingham City Hospital; and if he will make a statement. [4272]

  Yvette Cooper
  The development of the new breast care centre at Nottingham City Hospital National Health Service Trust remains a high priority. The Trent regional office of the NHS Executive continues to work closely with the trust to take forward its proposals and it is expected that the full business case will be submitted in September 2001.

  Prostate/Testicular Cancer
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to promote a greater awareness among men of prostate and testicular cancer; and if he will make a statement. [4275]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department recognises that men need to have information to identify health problems, and easy access to health care services and support when health problems arise. Two initiatives have recently been launched for men concerned about or suffering from prostate cancer.

  The informed choice project for prostate specific antigen testing (PSA) is an education programme setting out the benefits and drawbacks of undergoing a PSA test. Men who are concerned about prostate cancer and who approach their general practitioner for a test will be given this information to help them reach a decision. Initially this is a consultation period and feedback on the usefulness of the materials, from GPs and the public, is welcomed. The leaflets are on the National Electronic Library for Health website www.nelh.nhs.uk/psatesting/.

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Started

  13,263

  15,684

  17,898

  17,708

  19,348

  Leavers1

  2,572

  3,139

  3,381

  2,556

  1,362

  Interrupted2

  386

  681

  932

  883

  492

  Active3

  353

  393

  5,374

  13,966

  17,474

  Percentage left

  19.39

  20.01

  18.89

  14.43

  7.0

  Percentage interrupted

  2.91

  4.34

  5.21

  4.99

  2.5

  Percentage active

  2.66

  2.51

  30.03

  78.87

  90.3

  1 Students who have withdrawn completely from the course

  2 Students who have temporarily withdrawn but who intend to return

  3 Students who have still to complete their studies

  Note:

  These data are based on a snapshot in time of a particular cohort(s) and therefore each year there will still be students who have yet to complete their course
  226W
  The database of individual patient's experience of illness (DIPEx) is intended for use by patients, their families and carers as well as those working in the health services. DIPEx prostate cancer includes high quality information, prepared in collaboration with CancerBACUP, about the condition and its treatment, as well as answers to commonly asked questions. It is unique in recording patients in video talking about their own experiences and the choices they made.

  We are looking at other innovative methods of conveying messages to men and of improving their access to services that are more tailored to their needs. The Health Development Agency is currently examining what measures are most effective for improving men's health in different areas, and preventing men from becoming ill in the first place. The findings of this work will inform the decisions that we make on how best to achieve better health for men in the future.

  Milk Tokens
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of extending milk tokens for pregnant mothers to pregnant mothers who are asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [4129]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are no figures available on the numbers of pregnant women who are asylum seekers and not receiving milk tokens. A major part of the cost of extending milk tokens to this group would be the administrative cost of devising and managing a system to do so, since none exists currently. We are currently reviewing separately the operation of both the asylum voucher scheme and the milk token scheme and will announce our conclusions in due course.

  Nurses
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of those who have enrolled on nurse induction and training courses in each of the last five years have not(a) completed their course, (b) completed their qualifications and (c) passed their qualifications at the required grade, expressed (i) numerically and (ii) as a percentage of those originally enrolled. [4343]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not collected on nurse induction courses. Information on the number and percentage of student nurses who have not completed their course is shown in the table. The human resource performance framework, published last year, sets a target of 13 per cent. attrition (leavers) for those students entering training in 2000–01.
  227W
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures he plans to provide incentives to qualified nurses who are not working within the NHS and who have taken a career break; and if he will make a statement; [4340]

  (2) what action the Government are taking to recruit more (a) nurses, (b) physiotherapists, (c) occupational therapists, (d) radiographers, (e) pathologists, (f) theatre technicians and (g) other hospital support staff for NHS acute hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [4341]

  Mr. Hutton
  To ensure there are sufficient staff to provide the treatment and care that patients need in a modern and improved national health service, funds have been made available to employ up to 20,000 more nurses, midwives and health visitors, 6,500 more therapists and other health professionals, 7,500 more consultants and 2,000 more general practitioners between now and 2004. To do this we are increasing the number of training places; improving retention of staff throughout the NHS; attracting former staff back to the NHS and international recruitment.

  A national recruitment campaign was launched in February this year covering all staff groups in the NHS. Local initiatives continue to build successfully on the momentum of the national campaign and are again supported by NHS Careers.

  In order to attract former staff back to the national health service, a package has been developed to encourage them to return. From 1 April 2001, healthcare professionals returning to the NHS will receive at least £1,000 income to support them while they are retraining (£1,500 for midwives). In addition we have also standardised the amount of child care assistance that can be offered to returners while they retrain. This means that a returner will now receive free refresher training; a minimum of £1,000 financial support while retraining; assistance with child care support of up to £135 per week for one child and £200 for two or more children; and assistance with travel and books.

  Obstetric/Gynaecological Care
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make arrangements to give women the choice not to be treated by obstetricians and gynaecologists who perform abortions. [4114]

  Yvette Cooper
  If a woman wishes to be treated by an obstetrician or a gynaecologist who does not perform abortions then she should ask her general practitioner or consultant beforehand who will advise her. She is entitled to refuse treatment if she wishes.

  Under-age Children (Medical Care)
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers he has to regulate the medical profession's prescription and treatment of under-age children without parental consent. [4113]

  Ms Blears
  Health professionals work to the legal principle, drawn from case law, that a young person under 16 may give consent for him/herself if the health professional treating them considers them to have sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand 228W
  fully what is proposed. This is described as competence and is judged by the health professional on a case-by-case basis.

  If a young person under 16 is considered competent to consent lo the proposed treatment, parental consent is not legally necessary. However the involvement of a parent or other appropriate adult should be encouraged.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence underlay his Department's statement that the prohibition of tobacco advertising would reduce consumption by 2.5 per cent. [4245]

  Yvette Cooper
  Evidence as to the effect of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption was reviewed by the Department's Chief Economic Adviser in the Smee Report, published in 1992. The evidence has since been reviewed from time to time. The advice is that the likely eventual net effect of an advertising ban would be to decrease tobacco consumption, and the size of the decrease could lie in a range up to about 5 per cent. It is reasonable to use the mid-point of this range to indicate the likely effects of a ban.

  Other recent work supports the view that comprehensive advertising bans are likely to reduce tobacco consumption. A report from the World Bank1 suggests that implementation of Directive 98/43/EC could have reduced cigarette consumption within the European Union by nearly 7 per cent.
  1 Curbing the Epidemic: Governments and the Economics of Tobacco Control. 1999 ISBN 9 780821 345191

  NHS Prescriptions/Dental Treatment
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide further help for people on low incomes with the cost of(a) NHS prescriptions and (b) dental treatment. [4244]

  Ms Blears
  The current exemption and charge remission arrangements are intended to ensure that no one need be deterred from obtaining any necessary treatment on financial grounds. People who have to pay can seek help under the National Health Service low income scheme which provides help on an income related basis broadly following Income Support arrangements. We have no plans at present to change these arrangements.

  Bursaries (Nurses)
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing students from non-European countries have received bursaries in(a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997, (d) 1998, (e) 1999 and (f) 2000. [4333]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service Student Grants Unit's best estimate is that, as of 16 July 2001, some 2,400 students from non-European countries, at different stages of diploma courses in nursing and midwifery, were in receipt of NHS bursaries. Reliable figures on a comparable basis from earlier time periods are not available.

  229W
  The Nursing and Midwifery Admissions Service (NMAS) reports that the number of students from non-European countries accepted for entry to pre-registration diploma level nurse training programmes at English universities from 1997 to 2000 was;

  Academic year 1997–98—331

  Academic year 1998–99—627

  Academic year 1999–2000—774

  A small proportion of these students are likely to have been self-funded, that is, not in receipt of an NHS bursary. NMAS acceptance figures for earlier years, 1995–96 and 1996–97 are not available.

  NMAS acceptance figures for academic year 2000–01 will not be available until after 31 August 2001, the end of the current academic year.

  Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of accident and emergency facilities in Birmingham, with particular reference to its impact on the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust; and if he will make a statement. [4133]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are aware of the recent pressures experienced by accident and emergency departments in Birmingham.

  The recent negotiations between Birmingham City Council and Birmingham Health Authority, with the support of the Department, have addressed the situation in relation to delayed transfers of care in Birmingham. All the agencies involved will continue to work together to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to meet any future additional pressure on accident and emergency departments in Birmingham, which will minimise any possible impact on the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals National Health Service Trust.

  Breast Screening
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has set a target for breast screening coverage. [4028]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Health Service breast screening programme has a target of 70 per cent. for uptake of breast screening invitations. This was the level recommended by the Forrest Report on Breast Cancer

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2001 Three month vacancy rates1,2 and numbers for total consultant psychiatry posts in NHS Trusts in England as at 31 March for each year

  Psychiatry group of specialities

  19993

  20003

  Rates (Percentage)

  Posts (Number)

  Rates (Percentage)

  Posts (Number)

  England

  6.8

  170

  6.9

  190

  Northern and Yorkshire

  7.3

  20

  7.7

  30

  Trent

  4.0

  10

  5.0

  10

  West Midlands

  9.0

  20

  11.4

  30

  North West

  10.5

  30

  7.9

  30

  Eastern

  4.4

  10

  6.0

  10

  London

  5.5

  30

  7.4

  40

  South East

  6.2

  20

  4.7

  20

  South West

  7.5

  20

  2.2

  10

  230W
  Screening (1986) and has been in place since the start of the programme in 1988. Copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of extending breast screening to women over the age of 70 years; and how many more women would receive breast screening as a result. [4083]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: It is estimated that it would cost an extra £104 million a year to extend the National Health Service breast screening programme to women over the age of 70 years. It is estimated that the current programme costs £52 million a year and the current cost per woman screened is £40.

  It is estimated that 2.6 million women aged 70 and over would participate in the programme taking account of 2001 population projection data and if uptake were in line with younger groups (75.6 per cent. in 1999–2000).

  The Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer Screening is keeping this issue under review as new research evidence emerges.

  Chiropodists
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he plans to take to increase the number of chiropodists/podiatrists. [4278]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of chiropodists/podiatrists will increase as part of the NHS Plan commitment to provide more staff for the National Health Service. The NHS Plan states that by 2004 there will be 6,500 more therapists and other health professionals (including chiropodists/podiatrists) in post by 2004 and that 4,450 more therapists and key professional staff (including chiropodists/podiatrists) will be being trained.

  Consultant Psychiatrists
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there were for consultant psychiatry posts in each region in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [4139]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information about vacancies for consultant psychiatry posts is available only from 1999 onwards. This information is provided in the tables.

  The NHS Plan provides for an additional 7,500 consultants by 2004. While those posts are filled there will inevitably be a temporary increase in the number of vacancies.
  231W

  Total for 20013,4

  of which:

  Rates

  Posts

  Rates (Percentage)

  Posts

  (Percentage)

  (Number)

  Forensic

  General

  Old age

  Learning disabilities

  Forensic

  General

  Old age

  Learning disabilities

  England

  8.3

  190

  5.2

  7.8

  9.3

  13.3

  10

  130

  30

  30

  Northern and Yorkshire

  9.0

  30

  0.0

  8.2

  10.0

  13.5

  0

  20

  10

  10

  Trent

  7.0

  20

  0.0

  4.0

  11.4

  26.3

  0

  10

  0

  10

  West Midlands

  9.6

  20

  0.0

  11.0

  7.9

  8.3

  0

  20

  0

  0

  North West

  13.5

  40

  18.2

  12.2

  14.6

  21.7

  0

  30

  10

  10

  Eastern

  7.7

  20

  0.0

  5.8

  16.1

  10.3

  0

  10

  10

  0

  London

  7.3

  40

  8.5

  7.5

  2.3

  12.2

  0

  30

  0

  0

  South East

  1.5

  30

  7.7

  10.2

  8.5

  11.1

  0

  30

  10

  0

  South West

  1.5

  0

  5—

  1.3

  0.0

  6.7

  5—

  0

  0

  0

  1 Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March for each year which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole-time equivalents).

  2 Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post from the September medical and dental and non-medical workforce censuses (whole-time equivalent).

  3 In 1999 and 2000 breakdown of data was not available and includes consultants within child and adolescent and psychotherapy. The figures are therefore not comparable with the 2001 figures.

  4 Total for consultants in forensic psychiatry, general psychiatry, learning disabilities and old age psychiatry.

  5 Figures based on less than 10 posts.

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. Percentages rounded to one decimal place.

  3. Totals may not equal sum of component parts due to rounding.

  Consultant Neurologists
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health(a) how many consultants in neurology there are in the London NHS region and (b) what the level of vacancies is; and if he will make a statement. [4142]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of consultants in neurology there are in the London National Health Service region is provided in the table.

  Hospital medical consultants within neurology in the London region

  As at 30 September 2000

  Number

  Neurology consultants

  100

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental work force census

  The Department does not collect information vacancies in neurology.

  We are well aware of the need for more consultants, in this and other specialities. There are currently 54 specialist registrars, in London-based programmes, currently undergoing training to be neurologists. Over the next two years 27 of these will complete their training and be ready to take up consultant posts.

  Alcoholics
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the services available for rehabilitation of alcoholics in Milton Keynes, indicating the number of(a) residential places and (b) non-residential places for rehabilitation and counselling. [4347]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not held centrally. The information should be available from the Chairman of the Buckinghamshire Health Authority.
  232W
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the numbers of alcoholics requiring rehabilitation in Milton Keynes; and how many of these are being offered treatment. [4387]

  Ms Blears
  No assessment has been made centrally on the numbers of alcoholics requiring rehabilitation in Milton Keynes. Further information on planning for treatment services for alcoholics should be available from the Chairman of the Buckinghamshire Health Authority.

  Hospital Infections
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many hospital acquired infections were detected in NHS hospitals in East Sussex in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001; [4020]

  (2) how many NHS patients contracted hospital-acquired infections in (a) 2000 and (b) 2001 in East Sussex. [4019]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: This on information is not collected centrally. Further local information can be obtained from the Chairmen of the East Sussex Hospital Trusts.

  From April 2001 all trusts are required to collect data on MRSA.

  Ice Lollies
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) of 28 June 2001,Official Report, column 171W, on food labelling, if he will ensure that the working group addresses the specific problems associated with the labelling of ice lollies. [4554]

  Yvette Cooper
  The working group is looking at a range of issues, including ways of ensuring the presence of ingredients that can cause allergic or intolerance reactions is clearly and recognisably indicated. In addition, we have been pressing the European Commission to bring forward proposals for changes to European labelling rules to make this obligatory.

  Regent GM Laboratories
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date, and for what reasons the licence held by Regent GM Laboratories was suspended by the Medicines Control Agency; and on what date, and for what reason, it was subsequently reinstated. [4320]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: The Manufacturer's Licence ML 13994 for Regent GM Laboratories was suspended by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) on 18 December 1998.

  The licence was suspended because the company had contravened the provisions of the licence and had failed to a critical extent to comply with the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice.

  The suspension was lifted and the licence reinstated on 3 December 1999 following inspection of the manufacturing facilities in August 1999 and November 1999 when the licensing authority was satisfied that the deficiencies identified prior to the suspension had been rectified.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department will publish the Older People information strategy; and if he will make a statement on its contents. [4088]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: The information strategy for Older People will address the information needs of older people, those treating and caring for them and those commissioning or managing services for older people. The strategy aims to be ambitious, looking ahead both in terms of treatment and care issues and information technology developments, and be creative about the potential of new and developing technologies to provide solutions.

  The information strategy for older people will be launched later this year.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the regional reviews referred to in paragraph 25, page 119, of the National Service Framework for Older People will be completed and published. [4079]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: The National Service Framework (NSF) for Older People stated that the monitoring and planning of its implementation would include reviews at regional level. These will bring together work undertaken at local level, plan progress and set down the future direction of work. The reviews will be published annually, starting one year after the NSF's publication.

  Flu Vaccine
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of offering flu vaccine to all front-line social care workers. [4318]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: As last year, National Health Service employers have been asked to offer influenza immunisation to employees directly involved in patient care. Social care employers should consider similar action. The level of cost will depend on take-up.

  234W
  It has been estimated that there are approximately 300,000 "front line" social care staff. There are five manufacturers supplying flu vaccine this year at varying prices. If all 300,000 staff received influenza immunisation, then based on the weighted mean average list price of vaccine the cost would be approximately £1.6 million.

  Not all social care employers have occupational health functions; there may be additional costs to these employers if they have to make contractual arrangements with local general practitioner practices or external third party companies to provide an immunisation service for their staff.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to increase the take-up of flu vaccine among people aged over 65 years. [4077]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: Following on from last year's successful campaign, we are this year extending the minimum target uptake for influenza immunisation in people aged 65 and over from 60 per cent. to 65 per cent.

  The Department has met with the vaccine manufacturers to ensure sufficient supplies of vaccine will be made available; general practitioners and other health professionals have been informed of this increased target via a letter from the Chief Medical Officer. Nursing and Pharmaceutical Officers and GPs have been asked to order sufficient supplies of vaccine; we are also planning once more to use national and local media (newspaper and television) to publicise the campaign.

  Surveys
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued to NHS trusts and primary care trusts to ensure comparability of results when constructing surveys of users and carers; when the first round of surveys will be completed; and how this will be monitored. [4080]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: The NHS Plan and Public Service Agreement made new commitments about patient surveys. We will improve the quality of patient experience through measurement of performance, from the patient perspective, to drive real service improvement year on year.

  Work is in hand to select survey contractors who will be able to run surveys of acute hospital patients during 2001–02. The survey will include a common national core—which will include the requirements for the performance framework—with the option of adding local questions to inform local actions. Detailed guidance will be issued to all acute national health service trusts in late summer.

  From October 2001 NHS trusts will begin to carry out new trust-based patient surveys. From April 2002, results from core questions will be available and feed into the national performance information and traffic lights during 2002, as a first stage in measuring the patient experience of local health services as part of NHS performance management arrangements.

  Stroke Units
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general hospitals in the NHS had stroke units in each of the last five years. [4097]

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

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

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

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

  Research Expenditure
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money was spent in the last five years on research into(a) heart disease, (b) cancer and (c) stroke and stroke-related problems. [4098]

  Yvette Cooper
  Funding for research in cancer, heart disease and stroke is provided from a number of different sources, including the Government, charities and industry. The Department does not routinely collect information on all research expenditure.

  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. The Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the national health service. The Department also provides NHS support finding for research commissioned by the research councils and charities that takes place in the NHS.

  Management of much of the research supported by NHS research and development funding is devolved and expenditure at project level is not held centrally by the Department. The information is therefore not available in the format requested for all years.

  We are currently investing over £150 million a year in research that is directly relevant to cancer. Detailed figures for departmental and MRC estimated expenditure on cancer research are available for the following years:

  £ million

  Department of Health

  Medical Research Council

  1999–2000

  77.4

  52

  1998–99

  75.4

  28.5

  1997–98

  53

  27

  236W
  It is important to note that scientific definitions have evolved over time and that the MRC has improved methods of capturing data and identifying spend. For these reasons, spend figures from one year to the next are incommensurable.

  The MRC' s estimated expenditure on stroke research for the last five years was:

  £ million

  2000–01

  3.4

  1999–2000

  4.0

  1998–99

  4.0

  1997–98

  3.3

  1996–97

  2.6

  The MRC spent £12.3 million on heart disease research in 1998–99 and £10.5 million in 1999–2000. The Department spent approximately £48.9 million on research for cardiovascular disease and stroke in 1998–99 and approximately £49.1 million in 1999–2000. Research is currently being supported in these areas via regional and national research and development programmes.

  Out-patient Appointments
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of patients failed to attend their out-patient appointments for(a) general medicine, (b) surgery, (c) radiology and (d) professions allied to medicine, in the last 12 months; [4566]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the annual cost to the NHS of missed out-patient appointments; [4568]

  (3) what plans he has to penalise patients who fail to attend out-patient appointments; [4567]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the regional differences in missed out-patient appointments. [4569]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on patients who, in 2000–01, failed to turn up for their out-patient appointments for general medicine, general surgery and radiology is given in the table. We do not collect information on out-patient appointments with professions allied to medicine.

  Percentage

  Specialty

  Did not attend (DNA) rate

  General medicine

  11.0

  General surgery

  10.1

  Radiology

  8.7

  Note:

  DNA Rate: percentage of patients who failed to attend their first out-patient appointment without notifying the trust

  Source:

  QM08 quarterly returns

  Regional variations for all specialities is given in the following table.

  Percentage

  DNA rate

  Region

  1996–97

  2000–01

  Northern and Yorkshire

  10.2

  10.6

  Trent

  10.1

  10.3

  Eastern

  8.7

  8.7

  London

  15.7

  16.7

  237W

  Percentage

  DNA rate

  Region

  1996–97

  2000–01

  South-east

  8.6

  9.7

  South-west

  8.3

  7.9

  West Midlands

  11.3

  10.8

  North-west

  11.2

  12.1

  England

  11.0

  11.4

  Source:

  QM08 quarterly returns

  We fully accept that missed appointments can result in wasted resources and patients waiting longer than they need to. It is not possible to estimate the financial cost of this to the national health service because trusts usually have systems in place to minimise the impact of patients failing to turn up.

  We do not plan to penalise patients who fail to attend. Instead we are introducing booking systems that give patients the opportunity to choose a date and time for their appointment that is convenient for them. By knowing their dates well in advance patients are able to make work, child care or any other arrangements in good time. These systems also make it easier for patients to change their appointments if they find they cannot make the date they originally agreed. Booking systems have been proved to reduce DNA rates significantly.

  Under our NHS Plan two thirds of out-patient appointments with consultants and elective admissions to hospital will be pre-booked by March 2004 and all will be pre-booked by the end of 2005.

  NHS Charter
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a staff charter for staff working in the NHS, to cover(a) working conditions, (b) catering facilities, (c) housing and transport and (d) safety. [4570]

  Mr. Hutton
  The improving working lives standard commits all National Health Service employers to improve all aspects of the working lives of all staff groups in the NHS. The NHS Plan sets a target for all NHS employers to be accredited as putting the improving working lives standard into practice by April 2003. NHS employers will be assessed against this standard. All NHS trusts have achieved the first stage towards full accreditation against the improving working lives standard. A copy of the standard is available in the Library

  St. Leonard's Hospital, Dorset
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instruct NHS Estates to demolish the redundant buildings in their ownership at St. Leonard's Hospital, Dorset; and if he will make a statement. [4755]

  Ms Blears
  National Health Service Estates appealed in April 2000 against the non-determination of the planning application for the St. Leonard's Hospital site by East Dorset district council.
  238W
  In July 2000 the planning inspectorate requested that NHS Estates undertake an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the site. Work for the EIA has been completed and submitted. A date for the public inquiry into the planning appeal is awaited from the planning inspectorate.

  It would be inappropriate to demolish the buildings until the conclusion of the planning appeal.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the 2000–01 annual report and accounts for the Meat Hygiene Service will be laid before Parliament. [5391]

  Yvette Cooper
  The 2000–01 Annual Report and Accounts for the Meat Hygiene Service were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library, but formal printing and publication will not occur for another four to six weeks, pending preparation of a version in Welsh as required by the Welsh Language Act 1993.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what proportion of the total teaching population of(a) teachers and (b) deputy headteachers are not registered with the General Teaching Council; and if she will make a statement. [4663]

  Mr. Timms
  Details relating to the numbers and proportions of teachers and deputy headteachers registered with the General Teaching Council (GTC) are a matter for the GTC. I have asked the Chief Executive of the GTC to write to the hon. Member with the information requested. A copy of her response will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations she has received from teachers and headteachers who are not registered with the General Teaching Council; and if she will make a statement. [4662]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department has received a large number of inquiries about registration over the past three months and, where appropriate, these have been forwarded to the General Teaching Council (GTC) to deal with. My officials do not routinely check with the GTC whether or not someone contacting the Department about a GTC related issue is a registered teacher. Consequently, we do not maintain a record of representations made from teachers or headteachers who are not registered.

  FE Student Funding
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average funding per student was in the further education sector in each of the last 10 years. [2993]
  239W
  John Healey
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: The unit of funding for further education students based on total funding for the sector is as follows:

  £

  Year

  Unit of funding

  1993–941

  3,210

  1994–951

  3,170

  1995–961

  3,040

  1996–971

  3,050

  1997–981

  3,070

  1998–991

  3,130

  1999–20002

  3,400

  1 Actual

  2 Provisional

  Note:

  Unit of funding is rounded to nearest £10. Figures include assumed additional employer contributions and exclude FEFC administration and student support

  Source:

  Further Education Funding Council's individualised student record and DfES estimates and projects

  There are no comparable figures available prior to 1993–94.

  Curriculum and Staffing Survey
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will outline the proposed timetable for the next curriculum and staffing survey. [3364]

  Mr. Timms
  The possibility of conducting a secondary curriculum and staffing survey in 2001–02 is being considered at present.

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she last travelled on the London Underground in the course of her official duties. [3687]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State uses the most efficient and cost effective mode of transport, in accordance with the requirements of the "Ministerial Code" and "Travel by Ministers".

  Student Support
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what financial support is available for UK citizens attending UK universities whose parents are overseas as(a) civilians working in the European Union in the private sector, (b) civilians working in the European Union on behalf of the (i) UK Government, (ii) other UK public body and (iii) the EU, (c) civilians working in the private sector in a non-EU country, (d) civilians working on behalf of the (1) UK Government and (2) other UK public body in a non-EU country, (e) a member of HM armed forces based in a European Union country and (f) a member of HM armed forces based in a non-EU country. [3688]

  Margaret Hodge
  It has been the policy of successive Governments that eligibility for student support should be based on residence in the UK, or in the case of tuition fee support the EU or European Economic Area (EEA). To receive a student loan, tuition fee support and other supplementary grants, a student (and not their parents)240W
  must normally be able to satisfy three requirements relating to their residence and immigration status on the first day of the first academic year of their course. They must:
  be settled in the UK, in other words ordinarily resident here without being subject under the immigration laws to any restriction on the period for which they may stay:
  be ordinarily resident in England or Wales;
  have been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and Islands throughout the three year period preceding that date other than wholly or mainly for the purpose of receiving full-time education.
  Where a local education authority (LEA) is satisfied that a student (or their spouse or parent) is, or was, temporarily employed outside the United Kingdom and Islands, and the student meets the other eligibility criteria, they will exceptionally be eligible for support, whether or not they travel with their parents (or spouse) or stay in the UK. Where a parent's absence is not of a temporary nature and the student has remained in the UK throughout the period of the employment abroad, not wholly for the purpose of education, it may be possible for the student to establish ordinary residence in their own right. We urge LEAs to be as flexible as possible in their use of their discretion in interpreting the temporary absence provisions.

  A specific exception is made for members of the armed forces serving abroad, and their children and spouses, who are considered to satisfy the temporary employment provision because of the nature of their postings. This exception does not include MOD employees or other staff who are abroad catering for or serving the armed forces (i.e. teachers at forces schools overseas or reservists), nor does it include Government employees working abroad as they are not under the same degree of compulsion to work abroad as a member of the armed forces.

  Students who are not eligible for full student support under the normal criteria and whose LEA is satisfied that they do not qualify on the basis of temporary absence provisions may nevertheless qualify for assistance with their tuition fees. All EU nationals, including UK nationals, who have been resident in the European Economic Area (EEA) throughout the last three years are eligible to apply for income-assessed assistance with their tuition fees.

  My Department has produced a guide for students and their parents who are or have been temporarily employed overseas which is available from our website at www.dfee.gov.uk/student support.

  Child Care
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new day care places in neighbourhood nurseries have been created in Coventry since 1997. [3928]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: The Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative was launched earlier this year. Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership (EYDCP) bids are presently being considered by the DFES and an announcement will be made on funding for each EYDCP shortly.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many out of school hours child care places have been created by the three-year
  241W
  start-up fund in Coventry; and how much money from the New Opportunities Fund has gone to Coventry for this purpose. [3929]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: The New Opportunities Fund have confirmed an indicative allocation of £1,227,153 for the Out of School Hours programme for the Coventry Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership over the next two years, some of which will be available for three-year start up funds in disadvantaged areas. Assessment by the New Opportunities Fund of the first applications submitted on 1 July for this new funding will take place over the next few months.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will define the phrase "disadvantaged areas" as used for determining resources via the National Childcare Strategy. [4623]

  Mr. Timms
  "Disadvantaged Areas" are, for the purposes of the allocation of funding for the National Childcare Strategy, defined as those wards calculated to be the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged nationally against the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) index of multiple deprivation. In some cases, grants may also be made for pockets of

  Table of New Deal for Schools Allocations, Coventry local education authority

  £

  Project

  NDS 1 1997–98

  NDS 2 1998–99

  NDS 3 1999–2000

  NDS 4 2000–01

  Cardinal Newman RC Secondary School—Refurbishment of science laboratories

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  Woodway Park Secondary School—Refurbishment of science laboratories

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  Woodway Park Secondary School—Refurbishment of design and technology accommodation

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  Finham Park Secondary—Safer lighting in the Design Technology Block

  —

  6,480

  —

  —

  John Gulson Primary—Safer water storage, burners, electricity and lighting

  —

  6,180

  —

  —

  Good Shepherd RC VA Primary—Safer water storage, burners, electricity and lighting

  —

  13,880

  —

  —

  Sherbourne Fields Special School—Safer water storage, burners, electricity and lighting

  —

  8,805

  —

  —

  St. Elizabeth's RC VA Primary—Safer water storage, burners, electricity and lighting

  —

  9,880

  —

  —

  Three Spires Special School—Safer water storage, burners, electricity and lighting

  —

  14,571

  —

  —

  Whoberley Hall Primary—Safer water storage, burners, electricity and lighting

  —

  61,493

  —

  —

  Clifford Bridge Primary—Safer water storage, burners, electricity and lighting

  —

  57,457

  —

  —

  Baginton Fields Special—Safer water storage, burners, electricity and lighting

  —

  45,713

  —

  —

  Blue Coat CE SA Secondary—Upgrade obsolete electrical mains distribution panel

  —

  17,250

  —

  —

  Park Hill Primary—Safer lighting

  —

  1,620

  —

  —

  Ernesford Grange—Safer lighting

  —

  3,240

  —

  —

  All Souls RC VA Primary—Renew electrical distribution and lighting installation

  —

  41,400

  —

  —

  Whoberley Hall Primary School—Safer electrical supply and distribution

  —

  8,910

  —

  —

  Deedmore Special—Create a barrier access between cars and pupils

  —

  24,300

  —

  —

  Parkgate Primary School—Toilet refurbishment

  —

  12,150

  —

  —

  Cardinal Newman RC VA Secondary—Toilet refurbishment

  —

  32,400

  —

  —

  The Woodlands Secondary School—Toilet refurbishment (all House Block toilets)

  —

  32,400

  —

  —

  Sacred Heart RC VA Secondary—Toilet refurbishment (all toilet areas to school)

  —

  10,800

  —

  —

  Richard Lee Primary—Toilet refurbishment (all toilet areas in school)

  —

  32,400

  —

  —

  Five schools—Replacement of obsolete boilers

  —

  —

  2133,302

  —

  Christ the King Infants—Replacement of obsolete boilers

  —

  —

  16,507

  —

  Two schools—Remove friable asbestos/Heating Mains

  —

  —

  2115,439

  —

  Two schools—Replacement of dangerous arid leaking roofs

  —

  —

  246,953

  —

  16 schools—Remove and replace corroded water tanks

  —

  —

  2415,608

  —

  Bishop Ullathorne RC Secondary—Remove and replace corroded water tanks

  —

  —

  18,196

  —

  Blue Coat CE Secondary—Remove and replace corroded water tanks

  —

  —

  9,190

  —

  Cardinal Newman RC Secondary—Remove and replace corroded water tanks

  —

  —

  22,952

  —

  Cardinal Wiseman RC Secondary—Remove and replace corroded water tanks

  —

  —

  22,165

  —

  19 schools—Replace faulty and inadequate fire alarms

  —

  —

  2573,373

  —

  Cardinal Newman RC Secondary—Replace faulty and inadequate fire alarms

  —

  —

  71,765

  —

  Christ the King Infant—Replace faulty and inadequate fire alarms

  —

  —

  11,706

  —

  Holy Family RC Primary—Replace faulty and inadequate fire alarms

  —

  —

  20,626

  —

  St. Anne's RC Primary—Replace faulty and inadequate fire alarms

  —

  —

  9,898

  —

  242W
  disadvantage where it is identified that levels of deprivation are at an equivalent level to those wards in the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged banding.

  School Premises (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in Coventry(a) have received refurbishment and repair in the past four years and (b) will receive improvement projects by the end of this year. [3931]

  Mr. Timms
  Information showing the schools in Coventry that have benefited from refurbishment and repair investment under the New Deal for Schools programme in the four years from 1997–98 to 2000–01 is shown in the table. Over the same period, schools in Coventry have also benefited from other capital refurbishment and repair funding, including formula capital funding devolved to every maintained school from 2000–01. Coventry local education authority will have details of funding going to individual schools.

  Capital investment for schools already allocated to Coventry local education authority from 2001–02 to 2003–04 amounts to £20.8 million. It is for the local education authority to decide how and when to invest this money, along with any other funding from its own resources, in line with school building improvement and repair priorities in its local Asset Management Plan.
  243W

  Table of New Deal for Schools Allocations, Coventry local education authority

  £

  Project

  NDS 1 1997–98

  NDS 2 1998–99

  NDS 3 1999–2000

  NDS 4 2000–01

  St. Augustine's RC Primary—Replace faulty and inadequate fire alarms

  —

  —

  11,798

  —

  St. Elizabeth's RC Primary—Replace faulty and inadequate fire alarms

  —

  —

  14,520

  —

  St. John Fisher RC Primary—Replace faulty and inadequate fire alarms

  —

  —

  12,705

  —

  St. Thomas More RC Primary—Replace faulty and inadequate fire alarms

  —

  —

  22,688

  —

  Bishop Ullathorne RC Secondary—Create fire escape routes

  —

  —

  56,955

  —

  Bishop Ullathorne RC Secondary—Refurbishment of obsolete design and technology area to counteract health and safety hazards

  —

  —

  73,786

  —

  John Gulson Primary—Improve inadequate ventilation to teaching areas

  —

  —

  11,602

  —

  Three schools—Repair and replacement of damaged roofs

  —

  —

  2166,667

  —

  Sidney Stringer Secondary—Replacement of hazardous external cladding in disrepair

  —

  —

  43,212

  —

  Caludon Castle, John Gulson and St. John Fisher Schools—Boiler replacement

  —

  —

  —

  118,914

  President Kennedy School and Community College—replacement of obsolete water tanks

  —

  —

  —

  62,902

  Stoke Park, Manor Park, Hearsall and Whitley Abbey Primary Schools—Repair of roofs

  —

  —

  —

  96,037

  Moseley, Parkhill, Stivichall, Eburne and Easter Green Junior Schools—Boiler replacement

  —

  —

  —

  206,153

  Aldermoor Farm, Grange Farm and Wainbody Wood Schools—Replacement of electrical low voltage switchgear

  —

  —

  —

  10,928

  Barrs Hill, Stoke Park and Hearsall Schools—Flood relief

  —

  —

  —

  38,682

  Caludon Castle, Moseley, Coundon Court, Deedmore and Parkhill Schools—Refurbishment of domestic hot water system and boiler plant

  —

  —

  —

  150,187

  Coundon Primary—Replacement of junior building

  —

  —

  —

  966,000

  Barr's Hill School and Community College—Refurbishment of science accommodation

  —

  —

  —

  267,866

  Alderman Callow School and Community College—Refurbishment of science accommodation

  —

  —

  —

  213,380

  Ernesford Grange School and Community College—Refurbishment of design technology accommodation

  —

  —

  —

  232,324

  Caludon Castle—Refurbishment of design technology accommodation

  —

  —

  —

  261,109

  Caludon Castle, Coundon Court, Ernesford Grange, Bishop Ullathorne, President Kennedy and Stoke Park Schools—Refurbishment of science accommodation

  —

  —

  —

  933,881

  Ravensdale Primary School—Replace temporary accommodation with new block and playground

  —

  —

  —

  617,797

  Foleshill CE Primary School—Replace temporary class base and playground

  —

  —

  —

  221,640

  Total

  1668,000

  441,329

  43,212

  4,397,800

  1 Local education authorities were not required to specify individual project costs for Phase 1 (1997–98) of the New Deal for Schools programme. Coventry local education authority holds this information.

  2 For NDS three allocations, individual details of amounts awarded to schools within a package project were not required. Coventry local education authority will be able to provide the value of projects at schools that have benefited from these allocations.

  Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the terms of reference are for the Green Minister in her Department; and if she will make a statement; [3983]

  (2) on what date a Green Minister was first appointed in her Department; when subsequent appointments were made; and if she will make a statement. [3972]

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

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on what dates her Department's Green Minister attended meetings of the Green Ministers' Committee during the current Session of Parliament; on what dates subsequent meetings are planned to take place; and if she will make a statement. [4826]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 17 July 2001,Official Report, column 165W.

  Nursery Places
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to bring forward proposals to provide for free nursery places for all three-year-olds in England. [4270]

  Mr. Timms
  Since September 1998 all four-year-olds have been able to access a free, part-time nursery education place. This Government are committed to providing all three-year-olds with a free place by September 2004. We are currently on target to provide 66 per cent. of all three-year-olds with a part-time place by March 2002.

  Early Years Places (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many day care places in nurseries have been created in Chorley since 1997. [4362]

  Mr. Timms
  Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships have only provided details of the new child care places that have opened by constituency since April 1999. Between April 1999 and March 2001 Lancashire Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership has reported the creation of 267 day care places' in the constituency of Chorley.1 This figure includes day care places created in day nurseries, pre-schools and playgroups. No separate figure is available for nurseries only.
  245W
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many out of school hours child care places have been created since 1997; and how much money has been provided for them in Chorley. [4363]

  Mr. Timms
  Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships have only provided details of the new child care places that have opened by constituency since April 1999. Between April 1999 and March 2001 Lancashire Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership has reported the creation of 322 new out of school hours places1 in Chorley.

  We are not able to identify the exact amount of funding made available to support these out of school places. Since April 1999 the New Opportunities Fund has made four awards totalling over £947,000 in response to applications for funding from the Chorley area for out of school child care projects. However, two of these were consortium bids covering the whole of Lancashire. In addition since April 1999, Lancashire Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership has spent around £404,000 of Childcare Grant to fund new out of school hours childcare places across the county.
  1 Data include places created in out of school clubs and holiday schemes.

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the(a) targeted and (b) actual private sector funding for each education action zone. [4413]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: Each large education action zone aims to raise up to £250,000 pa from the private sector; each small education action zone aims to raise £50,000 pa from the private sector.

  The amounts of actual private sector sponsorship obtained by each education action zone to the end of the last financial year, along with the zone's start date, is shown in the following tables:

  Education action zones matched funding as reported to March 2001

  Start date

  Education action zone

  Total1 (£000)

  Large zones

  September 1998

  Barnsley

  429

  January 1999

  Birmingham (Aston and Nechells)

  133

  January 1999

  Birmingham (Kitts Green and Shard End)

  498

  September 1998

  Blackburn with Darwen

  566

  January 1999

  East Basildon

  201

  January 1999

  East Brighton

  489

  September 1998

  East Middlesbrough

  631

  January 1999

  Halifax

  668

  September 1998

  Herefordshire

  124

  January 1999

  Kingston upon Hull

  327

  September 1998

  CfBT/Lambeth

  244

  September 1998

  Leicester South and West

  374

  January 1999

  Leigh (Wigan)

  361

  September 1998

  New Addington (Croydon)

  484

  September 1998

  Newcastle

  306

  September 1998

  Newham

  991

  September 1998

  North East Lincolnshire (Grimsby)

  167

  January 1999

  North East Sheffield

  393

  September 1998

  North Somerset (Weston-Super-Mare)

  176

  January 1999

  North Southwark

  693

  January 1999

  Nottingham

  364

  January 1999

  Plymouth

  422

  September 1998

  Salford and Trafford

  567

  January 1999

  South Tyneside

  220

  January 1999

  Thetford (Norfolk)

  445

  246W

  Education action zones matched funding as reported to March 2001

  Start date

  Education action zone

  Total1 (£000)

  January 2000

  Ashington

  183

  January 2000

  Barrow-in-Furness

  255

  January 2000

  Bedford

  816

  January 2000

  Bolton

  190

  January 2000

  Bridgwater

  78

  April 2000

  Bristol

  183

  January 2000

  Camborne Pool Redruth

  261

  January 2000

  Clacton and Harwich

  375

  January 2000

  Corby

  420

  January 2000

  Coventry Millennium

  221

  April 2000

  Derby North East

  100

  January 2000

  Dingle, Granby and Toxteth (Liverpool)

  240

  January 2000

  Downham and Bellingham (Lewisham)

  187

  December 1999

  Dudley

  197

  January 2000

  Easington and Seaham

  484

  January 2000

  East Cleveland

  271

  December 1999

  East Manchester

  311

  January 2000

  Epicentre LEAP (Ellesmere Port)

  131

  January 2000

  Gillingham Partnership

  224

  January 2000

  Gloucester

  276

  April 2000

  Great Yarmouth

  161

  September 1999

  Greenwich

  228

  December 1999

  Hackney

  485

  December 1999

  Hastings and St. Leonards

  428

  December 1999

  Kent/Somerset Virtual

  128

  January 2000

  Leigh Park (Havant)

  201

  December 1999

  North East Derbyshire Coalfields

  287

  December 1999

  North Islington

  344

  April 2000

  North Stockton

  71

  April 2000

  North West Shropshire

  28

  September 2000

  Hamilton Oxford Schools

  826

  January 2000

  Peterlee

  527

  December 1999

  Preston

  158

  January 2000

  Rainbow Zone (Stoke-on-Trent)

  255

  December 1999

  Heart of Slough

  179

  January 2000

  South Bradford

  152

  April 2000

  South East England Virtual

  251

  April 2000

  South East Sheffield

  171

  December 1999

  Southend

  255

  January 2000

  Speke Garston (Liverpool)

  236

  January 2000

  Sunderland

  134

  December 1999

  Telford and Wrekin

  235

  January 2000

  Wakefield

  121

  December 1999

  Wednesbury (Sandwell)

  223

  May 2000

  Westminster

  10

  January 2000

  Withernsea and Southern Holderness

  285

  January 2000

  Wolverhampton

  257

  December 1999

  Wythenshawe (Manchester)

  311

  Total

  22,623

  1 These figures are compiled taking account of a mixture of audited annual accounts and, where unavailable, unaudited annual accounts up to March 2001

  Start date

  Name of zone

  Total £1

  Small zones

  April 2000

  Achieving Excellence in Battersea

  5,050

  April 2000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,655

  April 2000

  Learning Partnerships (Leeds)

  53,287

  April 2000

  Liverpool FOCUS

  0

  April 2000

  Manor Park (Newham)

  37,490

  April 2000

  Plumstead Pathfinder (Greenwich)

  0

  April 2000

  Rotherham Clifton Partnership

  50,000

  April 2000

  Rotherham Thrybergh

  50,000

  April 2000

  Salford East

  26,859

  April 2000

  Sheffield Abbeydale Corridor

  0

  April 2000

  Tower Hamlets Globetown

  50,000

  April 2000

  Woolwich Reach (Greenwich)

  33,000

  September 2000

  Athena (Birmingham)

  0

  September 2000

  Camden Learning Network

  29,167

  September 2000

  Excellence 2000 (Knowsley)

  0

  September 2000

  Haringey Zone of Excellence

  0

  September 2000

  King's Cross (Islington)

  0

  September 2000

  King's Norton (Birmingham)

  0

  September 2000

  Kingstanding (Birmingham)

  0

  September 2000

  Liverpool Excite

  0

  247W

  Start date

  Name of zone

  Total £1

  September 2000

  Liverpool North Deanery

  0

  September 2000

  Moss Side and Hulme (Manchester)

  0

  September 2000

  New River Partnership (Islington)

  29,200

  September 2000

  Peckham (Southwark)

  0

  September 2000

  Quinzone (Birmingham)

  0

  September 2000

  Richmond Hill (Leeds)

  0

  January 2001

  Creating Success (Lewisham)

  0

  January 2001

  East Gateshead (Gateshead)

  0

  January 2001

  East Shipley (Bradford)

  0

  January 2001

  Educating Partners in Islington and Camden

  50,000

  January 2001

  Excellence Plus (Waltham Forest)

  0

  January 2001

  Highgate (Birmingham)

  0

  January 2001

  Inner West Achievement (Leeds)

  0

  January 2001

  Kimberworth (Rotherham)

  0

  January 2001

  Learning Together (Sheffield)

  0

  January 2001

  North East Liverpool Consort

  0

  January 2001

  Popular Partnership (Tower Hamlets)

  0

  January 2001

  REAP (Waltham Forest)

  0

  January 2001

  Together We Can (Sheffield)

  0

  January 2001

  Wyke (Bradford)

  0

  Total for all 40 zones

  415,708

  1 2000–01 to date

  Note:

  These figures are compiled from pledged sponsorship to date

  School Governors
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has for ensuring that the skill-mix of school governing bodies is sufficient for the proper discharge of their responsibilities. [4428]

  Mr. Timms
  The Code of Practice on Local Education Authority-School Relations advises local education authorities to appoint as governors those who are best qualified to help schools improve and to have regard to the skills and experience of which particular schools have the greatest need. The Department's advice to governing bodies is to consider, when co-opting governors, what skills are needed to enable the full discharge of their responsibilities.

  The Department will make available to governor trainers in local education authorities from September 2001 a package for governors to help ensure that they have the information to develop the skills to do the job.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has for improving the recruitment of school governors. [4427]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department for Education and Skills is funding the School Governors' One-Stop Shop (SGOSS) to recruit people with business and management skills to become school governors in areas covered by all phases of the Government's Excellence in Cities programme. SGOSS is a private company limited by guarantee and registered as a charity. Since its inception in January 2000, SGOSS has found 1,098 candidates of whom 291 are serving governors and 181 are matched with schools and awaiting final placement.

  The Department's strategy for supporting the recruitment of governors by schools and LEAs also includes the production of publicity materials. A national school governor advertising campaign took place last autumn and funding is available for a campaign extension to support the election and appointment of governors at the beginning of the autumn term this year.

  Education (Bedfordshire)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the level of Government funding awarded per sixth form student in(a) a sixth form further education college and (b) a sixth form situated in a secondary school in the 2000–01 academic year. [4463]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In the 2000–01 financial year the range of funding delegated to schools across LEAs for their school sixth form pupils was £2,600 to £4,100. Funding for each further education college depends on the size of each individual student's programme of study, but the average for all full-time equivalent students in 2000–01 was some £3,300. Figures for funding comparisons on an academic year basis are not currently available.

  Mr. Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to enable schools in Bedfordshire to fund more programmes to tackle drug abuse. [4711]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Funding to support drug, alcohol and tobacco education will rise from £14.5 million in 2001–02 to £15.5 million in 2002–03 and £17.5 million in 2003–04. This funding will improve the quality and coverage of drug education programmes in schools, provide funding for every school to have access to an LEA drug adviser and will fund drug education training for teachers and Connexions advisers. Bedfordshire LEA will receive £98,600 in 2001–02 as part of this funding. No specific figures are available beyond 2001–02.

  In addition to this specific funding, schools will receive £15 million in 2001–02 to support Personal Social and Health Education and Citizenship, which they can choose to spend on programmes to tackle drug misuse if they wish. Bedfordshire LEA have been allocated £87,300 from this fund.

  Mr. Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many unfilled vacancies there are in the further education sector for lecturer posts in Bedfordshire; and how many there were in 1997. [4712]

  John Healey
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The Learning and Skills Council collect information on staff numbers in Further Education (FE) sector colleges by the Staff Individualised Record (SIR). SIR does not include details on vacancies, leavers, salary or grade.

  Mr. Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of three year olds in(a) Bedfordshire and (b) England have free early years places. [4713]

  Mr. Timms
  In March 2001, around 55 per cent. of three year olds in England had access to a free part-time early education place. We are currently on target to provide 66 per cent. of all three year olds with a free place by March 2002. We are committed to providing all three year olds with a free place by September 2004.

  Bedfordshire local education authority estimate that around 44 per cent. of three year olds have access to a free early education place in their area.
  249W
  Mr. Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time teaching vacancies there are in (i) lower, (ii) middle, (iii) upper and (iv) special schools in Bedfordshire. [4716]

  Mr. Timms
  The number of full-time vacancies for teachers in the maintained schools sector in Bedfordshire local authority at January 2001 (provisional) is as follows:

  Vacancies

  Vacancy rate (percentage)

  Nursery/Primary

  23

  2.3

  Secondary

  48

  2.7

  Special

  5

  3.7

  Total

  76

  2.6

  Data are not collected on part-time vacancies.

  Data are not collected on a lower, middle or upper school basis.

  Mr. Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) lower, (b) middle and (c) upper school teachers there were in Bedfordshire on 1 May; and how many are projected for 1 May 2002. [4719]

  Mr. Timms
  Full-time equivalents of regular teachers (excluding short-term supply) employed in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector in Bedfordshire local authority at January 2001 (provisional) are as follows:

  Number

  Nursery

  30

  Primary

  1,100

  Secondary

  1,970

  Total

  3,090

  Notes:

  Figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  The total does not equal the sum of the component parts because of rounding.

  Regular teacher data are collected in January of each year. Figures for May 2001 and projected figures for May 2002 will not be collected or estimated.

  Data are not collected on a lower, middle or upper school basis.

  GM Technology (Teaching Materials)
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if information provided by the Biotechnology Institute on GM technology is an approved teaching aid in United Kingdom schools. [4510]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: A wide range of organisations disseminate resources and information which can be used to support the delivery of the school curriculum. The Department for Education and Skills does not approve or quality assure such resources for use in schools in England. Teachers use their professional judgment to decide which resources will best meet the educational needs of their pupils.

  School Places (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils living in the London 250W
  borough of Wandsworth have not been allocated a secondary school place within the borough for the autumn term. [4529]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department does not hold this information. However, Wandsworth LEA has told my officials that it is in the process of identifying and contacting children who have not obtained a place at their parents' preferred school. The LEA has said that there are sufficient secondary school places available in Wandsworth to be able to place any children in the area who do not yet have a school.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the SSA per primary and secondary pupil is for(a) Staffordshire and (b) Hertfordshire; [4549]

  (2) what the percentage variation was of (a) Staffordshire and (b) Hertfordshire from the shire county average in terms of SSA per primary pupil and secondary pupil in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 2001–02. [4550]

  Mr. Timms
  The table shows for 1998–99 and 2001–02 the Education SSA per primary and secondary school for Staffordshire and Hertfordshire and compares them with the shire county average. It is not possible to produce comparable figures for 1992–93, because of local government re-organisation, which was completed on 1 April 1998.

  Standard spending assessments (SSAs) in cash terms

  Staffordshire

  Hertfordshire

  Shire county average

  1998–99

  Primary (£)

  2,040

  2,260

  2,150

  Percentage variation from shire county average

  -5.1

  +5.1

  —

  Secondary (£)

  2,650

  2,930

  2.790

  Percentage variation

  -5.0

  +5.0

  —

  2001–02

  Primary (£)

  2,330

  2,610

  2,460

  Percentage variation

  -5.3

  +6.1

  —

  Secondary (£)

  3,000

  3,330

  3,160

  Percentage variation

  -5.1

  +5.4

  —

  Universities (Management)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements she has made for the audit of management practice in universities. [4565]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Financial Memorandum between the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and each institution it funds requires institutions to have sound systems of internal control and to demonstrate they are securing good value for money. The HEFCE Audit Code of Practice states that these systems should be audited by the institution's internal and external auditors, and that the institution's audit committee should report annually on their effectiveness. In addition, the HEFCE Audit Service reviews high-level
  251W
  management arrangements as well as the effectiveness of institutions' governance and audit arrangements by means of a programme of audit visits. In line with corporate governance changes nationally, institutions will in future be required to include a statement of internal control, including risk management, in their published and audited financial statements every year.

  Education Funding Strategy Group
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects the Education Funding Strategy Group to report; and if she will make a statement. [4615]

  Mr. Timms
  The Education Funding Strategy Group has been set up to develop the proposals outlined in the September 2000 Green Paper "Modernising Local Government Finance". No firm date has been set for the completion of its work.

  Examinations
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what notification schools were given about

  £

  GCSE

  GCEA-level1

  GCEA-level2

  GCEAS-level2

  Academic year

  Cash price

  Real terms

  Cash price

  Real terms

  Cash price

  Real terms

  Cash price

  Real terms

  1995–96

  16.50

  —

  26.90

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996–97

  17.03

  16.95

  27.50

  27.63

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1997–98

  17.50

  17.50

  28.50

  28.25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1998–99

  17.64

  18.13

  29.60

  29.53

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  18.20

  18.01

  30.30

  30.22

  349.50

  —

  —

  —

  2000–01

  18.30

  18.63

  32.50

  31.01

  51.00

  50.66

  25.50

  n/a

  1 Linear

  2 Modular

  3 A direct comparison with A-level (modular) prices in 2000–01 is not possible as there were several models in use, that is two modules, four modules, six modules etc. This figure has been determined using an average of the six module course

  Note:

  This information has been provided by the Joint Council for General Qualifications

  School Transport
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements exist to pay education authorities for post-16 school transport. [4665]

  Mr. Timms
  Funding for post-16 transport is distributed via local education authorities as part of the Education Standard Spending Assessment (SSA). LEAs will continue to receive recognition in SSAs for this after the responsibility for funding post 16-school provision passes to the Learning and Skills Council in 2002–03. LEAs also receive School Access Funds to help students meet the costs of their learning, including travel. Education Maintenance Allowances, which are means tested payments to the student, are being piloted in 56 LEAs and this money is frequently used to cover transport costs. Five of the pilots are specifically designed to address transport costs.
  252W
  recent increases in the cost of examinations; and if she will make a statement. [4660]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  It is for the independent awarding bodies to determine their own procedures with regard to notifying examination centres about examination fees. However, I understand that for the summer 2001 examinations, the notice given centres varied from March to November 2000, depending upon the awarding body. Awarding bodies also post details of fees on their websites.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average examination fee was for(a) GCSEs, (b) AS-levels and (c) A-levels, for each year since 1990 in (i) cash prices and (ii) real terms prices against a 1990 baseline. [4661]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  As the fees are set by the individual awarding bodies and can vary between subjects, it is not possible to provide precise figures. Also, given the changes to the complement of, and services provided by, the awarding bodies over the period it is not possible to provide figures before the academic year 1995–96. Estimates of the amounts charged in cash prices and real terms from 1995–96 are given in the table.

  Computers
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many low income families in the Christchurch constituency have received a computer under the Computers Within Reach initiative; and how many are expected to do so during the next year; [4758]

  (2) how many low income families in each constituency have gained access to computers under the Computers Within Reach initiative. [4761]

  John Healey
  No low income families have so far received a computer under the scheme in the Christchurch constituency, as it is not within a Computers Within Reach pilot area. I have not made decisions on the location of any future pilots.

  We do not hold the information by constituency but the numbers of low income families who have, or will benefit from phase 1 of the Computers Within Reach scheme by area—with the relevant constituencies covered in each area listed after the total number of customers—are as follows.
  253W

  Pilot area

  Number delivered by 13 July

  Total number to be delivered into area during pilot phase

  Constituency

  Aidis

  106

  151

  Cover all pilot areas

  Birmingham

  1,467

  2,000

  Birmingham, Edgbaston

  Birmingham, Erdington

  Birmingham, Hall Green

  Birmingham, Hodge Hill

  Birmingham, Ladywood

  Birmingham, North Field

  Birmingham, Perry Bar

  Birmingham, Selly Oak

  Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath

  Birmingham, Yardley

  Hull

  404

  427

  Hull, West and Hessle

  Hull, East

  Hull, North

  Portsmouth

  320

  320

  Portsmouth, North

  Portsmouth, South

  Rotherham

  936

  2,222

  Rotherham

  Rother Valley

  Wentworth

  Doncaster

  898

  2,301

  Barnsley East and Mexborough

  Doncaster, Central

  Doncaster, North

  Sheffield

  1,517

  4,106

  Sheffield, Attercliffe

  Sheffield, Brightside

  Sheffield, Central

  Sheffield, Hallam

  Sheffield, Heeley

  Hillsborough

  Manchester

  1,024

  2,389

  Manchester, Blackley

  Manchester, Central

  Manchester, Gorton

  Manchester, Withington

  Leeds

  1,610

  1,610

  Leeds, Central

  Leeds, East

  Leeds, North-East

  Leeds, North-West

  Leeds, West

  Liverpool

  1,635

  2,321

  Liverpool, Garston

  Wired up Communities Pilot—Liverpool

  2,000

  2,000

  Liverpool, Riverside

  Liverpool, Walton

  Liverpool, Wavertree

  Liverpool, West Derby

  London

  581

  2,416

  Bexleyheath and Crayford

  Erith and Thamesmead

  Old Bexley and Sidcup

  Hackney, North and Stoke Newington

  Hackney, South and Shoreditch

  Dulwich and West Norwood

  Streatham

  Vauxhall

  Camberwell and Peckham

  Southwark and Bermondsey

  Bethnal Green and Bow

  Poplar and Canning Town

  Cities of London and Westminster

  Bradford

  225

  483

  Bradford, North

  Bradford, South

  Bradford, West

  Keighley

  Shipley

  Halifax

  0

  8

  Halifax

  Huddersfield

  0

  18

  Huddersfield

  Colne Valley

  Luton

  119

  119

  Luton, North

  Luton, South

  Plymouth

  914

  1,000

  Devon, South-West

  Plymouth, Devonport

  Plymouth, Sutton

  254W 255W
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many low income families have so far obtained access to computers under the Computers Within Reach initiative launched in December 1999; and at what cost to public funds; [4759]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the progress of the scheme announced on 28 October 1999 to extend access to computers to low income families within three years and the date by which she expects the 100,000 families to gain access to a computer; [4760]

  (3) how many people have so far applied for computers under the Computers Within Reach initiative; and what the average length of time between application and delivery is. [4766]

  John Healey
  The first phase of the Computers Within Reach scheme became operational with the launch of a number of locally based pilots in England in October 2000. The proposed subsidy for the scheme was that—in addition to the £60 paid by the customer—the contractor would receive funding of £150 per computer and printer package delivered—with extra subsidy available if the customer was disabled. We have made a number of changes to the proposed approach in terms of enhanced software and specification and purchased a suite of office applications software to be used on each PC and in certain circumstances increased the funding available to contractors in respect of increases in the specification of the computers supplied.

  Phase 1 of the scheme will be closed by the end of August 2001 and 24,051 PCs will have been delivered by this time. This will ensure that everyone on the waiting list will have received a computer. We do not hold data on the average length of time between application and delivery of computers but became aware of issues which were causing delays. These problems have now been resolved and all outstanding applicants will receive a computer before the end of phase 1.

  The scheme is subject to an external research evaluation contract and we will be using this and our internal evaluation to learn the lessons from the first phase. We are currently considering how to take the scheme forward.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many computers have been installed in homes and schools under the Wired up Communities initiative; and how many will be installed by 31 December. [4762]

  John Healey
  So far under the Wired up Communities initiative, 1,840 recycled computers have been installed into homes in the phase one project in Kensington, Liverpool. No computers have yet been installed in schools. There is no target for installation of computers by 31 December 2001.

  However, by 31 March 2002, the seven Wired up Communities projects aim to connect 14,000 homes to the Internet using a variety of devices, including new and recycled computers and television set-top boxes.

  Also, through the national e-Learning Foundation, 33 schools in the Wired up Communities areas will be wired up using technology such as electronic whiteboards and laptops. Some 12,000 schoolchildren will benefit from this new technology.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on her plans for issuing a replacement Code of Practice for Special Educational Needs. [4775]

  Mr. Timms
  A revised Draft Code of Practice will be placed before Parliament for approval following the summer recess. The revised Code will contain revised wording on quantifying provision in statements of special educational needs. The Code is planned to take effect from January 2002.

  Connexions Card
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made on the introduction of the Connexions Card for 16 to 19-year-olds. [5491]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Following an extensive procurement exercise conducted under the European Union Procurement Directive's Negotiated Procedure, the Government have selected Capita as their private sector partner to develop and deliver the Connexions Card.

  The Connexions Card is an exciting and innovative development, which will provide a powerful incentive to young people to stay in learning.

  The Connexions Card will be rolled out initially in one region (the North East) from autumn of this year and then progressively so that it will be available across England from autumn 2002.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Human Rights
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria he uses in balancing trade relations with the human rights records of trading partners; and if he will make a statement. [2102]

  Peter Hain
  The Government are committed to developing and maintaining open relationships with trading partners across the world, in order both to support British business and to promote human rights internationally. We continue to believe that human rights in countries with which we trade are better protected by a UK and EU-wide policy of engagement in all but the most extreme circumstances. Maintaining trade agreements, and a full political dialogue, preserves UK leverage in such countries.

  The Government raise the profile of human rights in relation to trade in a number of ways. Examples include the introduction of the Export Credits Guarantee Department's (ECGD) Business Principles under which ECGD now screens applications for support to assess the environmental and social impact of projects and, more generally, the promotion of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises to UK companies operating overseas.
  257W
  Our advice to UK business on market conditions overseas also reflects the Government's position on human rights, for example on the desirability of trade with certain countries. It is however for UK companies to judge whether to bid for projects or invest in particular markets.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments regarding land distribution in Zimbabwe. [2715]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have consistently said that we are willing to support a land reform programme in Zimbabwe that is in line with the principles agreed by international donors and the Government of Zimbabwe at the 1998 Land Conference.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was discussed when he met Morgan Tsvangirai on 2 July. [2717]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The discussion was wide-ranging. It included the current situation in Zimbabwe, international support for free and fair elections, progress of the EU/Zimbabwe dialogue and sustainable land reform.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to the ministerial resolution discussed at the recent summit of the Organisation of African Unity which related to the land reform programme in Zimbabwe. [4037]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As I stated during FCO questions on 10 July 2001,Official Report, column 657, the ministerial statement should be viewed in the context of the OAU's desire to maintain unity. In order to attract international donor support, including from the UK, land reform in Zimbabwe must be carried out in line with the principles agreed, by donors and the Government of Zimbabwe, at the 1998 Land Conference.

  EU-Israel Association Committee
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 5 July 2001, Official Report, column 254W, on the EU-Israel Association Committee, which Ministers have been informed of the decisions taken by the Committee. [3170]

  Peter Hain
  The outcome of the 21 May EU-Israel Association Committee has been reflected in advice on EU-Israel issues provided to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the Under-Secretary my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) and myself since the election.

  Bermuda Regiment
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance he has given in respect of compliance with the European convention on human rights on conscription into the Bermuda Regiment. [2495]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 11 July 2001]: None.

  Pakistan
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Pakistani authorities concerning the continuing imprisonment of Parvez Masih and Ayub Masih. [3869]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the then Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on 27 April 2001,Official Report, columns 421–22W. We are deeply concerned about the misuse of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan and about the thousands of Pakistani citizens imprisoned under these laws, including many from the religious minorities. We raise the blasphemy laws at regular intervals with the Pakistani authorities and have previously raised the case of Ayub Masih. The EU Troika raised the blasphemy laws with the Pakistani Minister of Law, Justice and Human Rights, Ms Shahida Jamil, on 3 May.

  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Pakistani authorities concerning violent attacks perpetrated upon Christian women by Muslim extremists in Pakistan. [3870]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the then Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on 1 May 2001,Official Report, column 579W. Representations were made to the Pakistani authorities concerning the allegations of violence against and kidnapping of Naira Nadia, a Christian girl. We regularly raise the treatment of religious minorities and the treatment of women with the Pakistani authorities. We also keep in regular contact with groups campaigning for the rights of religious minorities and women in Pakistan. We welcomed General Musharraf s speech of 5 June to religious leaders in which he condemned religious violence and intolerance.

  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations he has made to the Pakistani authorities concerning the disappearance of Naira Nadia. [3868]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the then Minister of State, my hon. Friend, the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on 1 May 2001,Official Report, column 579W. The Centre for Legal Aid Assistance and Settlement inform us that a settlement is under discussion between Ms Nadia's family and those accused of her kidnapping.

  Brigadier Stephen Saunders
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the investigation into the murder of Brigadier Stephen Saunders, former Defence Attaché to Greece. [3807]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We, along with the Greek Government, are firmly committed to bringing those responsible for Brigadier Saunders' assassination to justice.

  We co-operate fully with the Greek authorities. There are regular visits to and from Greece at ministerial and official level. I cannot disclose the operational details. The

  259W
  Metropolitan police and the Greek police in Athens continue to work well together on the investigation. Their objective is to ensure that there is a thorough and complete investigation leading to a successful prosecution.

  Spoliation
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made as part of the EU accession process, of the policy of(a) Hungary, (b) the Czech Republic and (c) Poland towards the restitution of assets to refugees from, and survivors of, Nazi persecution and their families; and if he will make a statement. [4128]

  Peter Hain
  The UK continues to urge the candidate countries to resolve any outstanding restitution issues as soon as possible. However, their policies on this issue fall outside the criteria they are required to meet for accession to the European Union and are not therefore part of the enlargement process.

  Botswana
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet representatives of the Government of Botswana; and what issues will be discussed. [4283]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There are no plans at present for the Foreign Secretary to meet with Government representatives of Botswana. British Ministers and officials meet their Botswanan counterparts regularly. Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met President Mogae in London on 28 June.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with(a) Botswana and (b) Namibia. [4282]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The United Kingdom maintains a high level of official and ministerial contact with Botswana and Namibia, which ensures that bilateral relations with both countries are open and cordial.

  Namibia
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet representatives of the Government of Namibia; and what issues will be discussed. [4284]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There are no current plans for the Foreign Secretary to meet with Government representatives of Namibia. The UK maintains a regular and steady dialogue with the Government of Namibia on a wide range of issues of mutual interest.

  Egypt
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last held discussions with the Egyptian authorities about the human rights of Christians in Egypt. [4126]
  260W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our Embassy in Egypt closely follows all cases of human rights concern. We raise human rights cases, regardless of ethnic or religious background, with the Egyptian authorities. We do this both bilaterally and through the EU.

  We believe that it is important to improve relations between faiths in Egypt and that is why the promotion of interfaith dialogue remains a key focus of our efforts.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the infringement of the human rights of Christians in Egypt. [4127]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are, of course, interested in the human rights of all in Egypt regardless of their religious background. We maintain a regular dialogue with many Coptic Christians and we listen to their views and opinions. Not surprisingly we hear a range of different opinions, not least on the question of discrimination. While some Copts talk of persecution, others tell us there is no Government policy of discrimination against Christians, nor do they talk of persecution. Our embassy in Cairo assesses that there is no general policy of discrimination against Christians, a view shared by many leading Copts. We do, however, raise individual cases of concern.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet his Indian and Pakistani counterparts following the recent bilateral talks on the future of Kashmir. [4269]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary saw the Pakistani Foreign Minister, Abdul Sattar, on 12 June and spoke to the Indian Foreign Minister, Jaswant Singh, on 20 June. Although there are no firm plans for a ministerial meeting in the immediate future, we expect to discuss a meeting between the Indian and Pakistani leaders during our next exchanges with both India and Pakistan.

  Middle East
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to secure a settlement in the middle east. [4140]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are actively engaged with the parties, and are working closely with the US, our EU partners and the UN to move the process forward. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have recently met Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Peres, US Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condi Rice, and EU counterparts. Lord Levy visited the region and met Sharon and Arafat on 11 and 12 July. Our message to all parties is the same: that the recommendations of the Sharm El Sheikh (Mitchell) Committee report are the roadmap for the return to political negotiations. We look to the Israelis and the Palestinians to take steps to end the violence, cease unilateral action which undermines the basis for peace, and immediately begin the full implementation of the Mitchell recommendations.

  261W
  I will be visiting the region between 18 and 25 July. I will restate this message and urge both sides to seize the opportunity that the Mitchell report provides.

  Aung San Suu Kyi
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about whether Aung San Suu Kyi will be released from house arrest. [4737]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The recent release of political prisoners in Burma has inevitably led to speculation that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi will also soon be released from the period of house arrest she has undergone since September 2000. I very much hope that this will happen.

  Amnesty International estimates that over 1,700 political prisoners remain in detention in Burma including, contrary to earlier reports, a number of MPs elect from the National League for Democracy. I will continue to urge the release of all political prisoners in Burma.

  Afghanistan
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the regime in Afghanistan about the proposed law which will require Hindus to identify themselves by wearing yellow badges. [4736]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our High Commission in Islamabad raised our concerns about the edict with the Taliban mission in Islamabad on 23 May. We worked closely with our EU partners on the 25 May EU Declaration which urged the Taliban not to implement this edict and reminded them of their obligations under international human rights law. We understand that the edict has not yet been formally implemented, and that an alternative identity card system is under consideration.

  Corporate Risk International
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with Corporate Risk International; and if he will make a statement. [4729]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no recent discussions with Corporate Risk International.

  Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates his Department's Green Minister attended meetings of the Green Ministers' Committee during the current Session of Parliament; on what dates subsequent meetings are planned to take place; and if he will make a statement. [4815]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 17 July 2001,Official Report, column 165W.

  Institute of Export
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice and assistance his Department(a) gives and (b) has given during the last
  262W
  three years to the Institute of Export; how many Foreign Office employees have been seconded to the Institute of Export in each of the last three years; for what purposes; and at what cost to public funds. [4770]

  Mr. MacShane
  My Department—through British Trade International (BTI)—maintains close links with the Institute of Export and supports the Institute's work to promote the importance of exporting and to improve the performance of British exporters. In the last three years BTI and the Institute of Export (IOE) have worked together on the development of the regional delivery of BTI services, the design of a self-diagnostic test for potential exporters and the development of a training package for BTI staff.

  In the last three years the FCO seconded two members of staff to the IOE, each for a period of approximately 18 months. These placements were managed by British Trade International as part of its remit to increase private sector expertise among its FCO and DTI staff. In previous years similar secondments were also undertaken by DTI staff. Staff remained on the payroll of their parent department. Any other costs associated with undertaking these assignments were met by the IOE.

  Ministerial Duties
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each week from Monday 23 July to Monday 8 October which departmental Ministers will be on duty(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in London. [4901]

  Mr. Straw
  It is not the normal practice of the Government to publish the daily ministerial Duty Roster. This Department will ensure that it has enough cover through the summer recess in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Women in Science
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to review the career structures of women in science. [1732]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department is currently undertaking a review of women's scientific careers as outlined in "Excellence and Opportunity", the 2000 Science and Innovation White Paper. The study has interviewed women in the public and private sector who have both returned to a scientific career and who have left and wish to return.

  The study is due to report at the end of the summer, at which time we will consult stakeholders in the development of an action plan. DTI and DFES will both be involved in this process.

  Marconi
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussion she had with Marconi prior to the recent announcement of redundancies. [3158]
  263W
  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not have any prior discussion with Marconi about its announcement of further job losses in the UK.

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date her Department received a request for documents under the Data Protection Act 1984 from Lord Ashcroft; on what dates her Department replied to the request; and if she will make a statement. [3820]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Data Protection Act 1998 prohibits disclosure of personal data to a third party without the consent of the individual concerned. The position is recognised by the exemption in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information covering statutory and other restrictions.

  Transco
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Transco price review will include consideration of the financing of extension to the gas network; and if she will make a statement. [3713]

  Mr. Wilson
  Transco's price review is a matter for the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem). The latest proposals for the price control can be found on the Ofgem website at www.Ofgem.gov.uk. The Government's draft Fuel Poverty Strategy included a commitment to working with Ofgem to ensure that, wherever possible, the gas network provides the widest viable coverage and fullest viable capacity. A working group, whose membership includes representatives of Government, Ofgem, the industry and consumers, is taking this work forward.

  Bank Holidays
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the case for introducing bank holidays on non-Christian holy days. [4254]

  Alan Johnson
  No such assessment has been made. However, the Government encourage employers to be flexible when agreeing time off for cultural and religious observance.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the impact of the new electricity trading arrangements on smaller companies in relation to their role as(a) suppliers and (b) generators. [4265]

  Mr. Wilson
  In late February, the Minister for Energy at the time asked the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) to undertake a review of the impact of the new electricity trading arrangements (NETA) on smaller generators based on the first two months of NETA operation. Ofgem is due to publish its review by August.

  In addition, Ofgem is producing regular assessments of how NETA is working, including the impact on smaller suppliers, for the Department of Trade and Industry. It is expected that many of the issues relating to smaller generators apply also to smaller suppliers.
  264W
  The Government will consult on any necessary action, including in relation to smaller suppliers, once Ofgem's review report is published.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if revised estimates of emissions of carbon dioxide from the electricity sector have been made to reflect the changes in operational management of(a) combined heat and power and renewable electricity generating plant and (b) centralised power stations since the start of the new electricity trading arrangements; and if these changes are reflected in the Government's UK climate change strategy. [4753]

  Mr. Wilson
  CO2 emissions from the electricity generation sector for the first full quarter under the new electricity trading arrangements (NETA) are not yet available. Government projections of CO2 emissions were last published in November 2000 as Energy Paper 68.1 These, along with the Government's climate change strategy, are long-term by their nature and we see no reason to revise either at this stage. We do not, as yet, have sufficient information on CHP, renewable or indeed any generation to assess resulting changes in the electricity sector fully. In any event, we are still in the early days of NETA and generator behaviour in response to the new arrangements is unlikely to have settled down. There have been particular issues regarding the impact of NETA on renewables and CHP generation, which Ofgem will shortly be publishing a report on.
  1 Energy Projections for the UK, 2000–2020—Energy Paper 68—published November 2000.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she intends to implement the proposals set out in February in the DTI Responses to Consultations and Final Proposals document concerning exemptions from the requirement for a licence to generate, distribute or supply electricity. [4466]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government plan that an order implementing these proposals should be made in the next few weeks.

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government's target is for the use of renewable energy by(a) 2020, (b) 2030 and (c) 2040; and if she will make a statement. [4444]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government have proposed targets for renewable energy for 2003 and 2010 subject to the cost being acceptable to consumers. We shall be considering the possibility of setting additional targets in the light of the energy review being carried out by the Performance and Innovation Unit.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the subsidy paid to(a) the UK nuclear industry and (b) renewable sources of energy for each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [4441]

  Mr. Wilson
  No Government investment or subsidy has been paid in years since 1997 toward the production of nuclear power or to the development, planning or construction of nuclear power stations. There is no current expectation that there will be any in the period to 2005–6.

  265W
  The levy funds paid for production and development of power from renewable sources under the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation in respect of England and Wales for each year from 1997–98 are shown in the table.

  £ million

  1997–98

  115.9

  1998–99

  113.7

  1999–2000

  41.9

  2000–01

  52.1

  2001–02 (estimate)

  111.0

  Additional sums will have been made available under the obligations operating in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Support for renewable energy in years from 2002–03 will depend upon the detailed terms of the renewables obligation, on which I will be consulting shortly.

  In addition to support to be provided under the renewables obligation, the Government have pledged over £260 million over the next three years in direct support for the production and development of renewable energy. Renewables will also be helped indirectly through exemption from the climate change levy.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of changes in(a) demand and (b) production of energy in (i) the UK, (ii) Wales and (iii) Scotland until 2020, broken down by (A) nuclear, (B) renewable and (C) fossil fuel; and what proportion of demand will be met from maximum forecast (x) nuclear, (y) renewable and (z) fossil fuel output. [3936]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: The DTI published, in Energy Paper 68 (EP68), energy demand projections for the period 2000 to 2020 in November 2000. The projections covered the UK as a whole. The DTI has made no assessment of prospects for demand and supply in separate regions of the UK.

  The projected total energy demands and contributions of each fuel, under a range of different economic conditions, are shown in Annexe H of EP68.

  Energy Paper 68 is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the maximum output is from(a) nuclear, (b) renewable and (c) fossil fuel sources; and how these capacities will vary in each year until 2020 for (i) Scotland, (ii) the UK and (iii) Wales. [3935]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]:At the end of 2000 major power producer maximum UK electrical generating capacity was 12.5GW at nuclear stations, 55.8GW at fossil fuel plants, and 2.4GW at all renewable plants (excluding pumped storage plant).

  The DTI published, in Energy Paper 68 (EP68), energy demand projections for the period 2000 to 2020 in November 2000. Figures in Annexe G of EP68 show the assumed or projected capacities for a range of generating plant in a number of scenarios. The projections cover the UK as a whole. As a broad indication, in 2010, nuclear
  266W
  capacity is estimated to be 10GW, renewables capacity between 7 and 8GW and fossil capacity between 50 and 55GW.

  Separate official figures are not available for Scotland and Wales, although the British Energy website gives output data for recent periods www.british-energy.com. The Government have not attempted to predict where capacity by fuel type will be geographically located.

  Energy Paper 68 is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will estimate as proportions of energy(a) produced and (b) forecast to be produced in (1) UK, (2) Scotland and (3) Wales from (i) nuclear, (ii) renewable and (iii) fossil fuel sources for each year from 1997–98 to 2005–06. [3934]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: DTI publishes each year in the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics electricity supplied by each type of fuel. These data are for the United Kingdom as a whole and are on a calendar year basis. Separate official figures are not available for Scotland and Wales, although the British Energy website gives output data for recent periods (www.british-energy.com). The figures for 2000 will be published in the 2001 Digest on 26 July 2001 and a copy of the digest will be made available in the Library of the House. The electricity supplied figures for the years 1997 to 2000 are as follows:

  Electricity supplied (gross) by all generating companies in the UK (TWh)1

  Year

  Nuclear

  Renewables

  Fossil fuels

  1997

  89.3

  7.2

  234.0

  1998

  90.6

  8.8

  244.8

  1999

  87.7

  9.9

  251.3

  2000

  78.3

  10.2

  267.5

  1 Supplies from pumped storage stations, and imports of electricity are excluded.

  The DTI published, in Energy Paper 68 (EP68), energy demand projections for the period 2000 to 2020 in November 2000. The projections cover the whole of the UK and no assessment was made of energy demand or supply prospects by region. Projections of the amount of electricity generated by the various types of plant are shown in Annexe D of Energy Paper 68. Annual projections of energy demand and supply are not available. In terms of the major producers of power, in the year 2005 nuclear is projected to account for around 24 per cent., renewables around 6 per cent. and other fossil sources around 67 per cent. of electricity supply. The remaining supply is in the form of pumped storage output or imports of electricity through the electricity link with France.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with leading banks about offering special facilities to non-farming businesses which have been affected by foot and mouth disease; and if she will make a statement. [4289]
  267W
  Ms Hewitt
  My officials continue to have discussions with the banks about the problems faced by all businesses affected by foot and mouth disease. The Small Business Service is working closely with the banking industry, via the British Bankers Association.

  Extensions to the small firms loan guarantee scheme for businesses affected by foot and mouth disease were announced on 6 April 2001.

  Enterprise Grants
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the criteria are for enterprise grants; [4031]

  (2) what recent changes there have been in the criteria for the awarding of enterprise grants. [4147]

  Alan Johnson
  The criteria for enterprise grants are set out in the scheme brochure, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. The brochure is also available at http://www2.dti.gov.uk/enterprisegrant/index.htm.

  Following an internal review of the workings of this new scheme, two changes to the criteria were agreed in February of this year, to allow:

  1. Firms to apply for more than one grant within the overall ceiling of £75,000; and

  2. a degree of flexibility to exceed the normal ceiling of £500,000 for capital investment.

  Post Office
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken to ensure that the Post Office does not use its powers under the Representation of the People Acts for its commercial advantage. [4123]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Representation of the People Acts allow free delivery of parliamentary candidates' electoral mailings by universal service providers. Universal service providers are reimbursed for providing this service out of the Consolidated Fund at a rate negotiated by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  Royal Mail
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment the Government have made of the impact on jobs and postal services of Royal Mail plans to restructure its provision of sorting offices in London. [4591]

  Mr. Alexander
  Under the Government's reforms of postal services, we have established an arm's-length relationship with Consignia and operational matters, such as the restructuring of Royal Mail's sorting offices, are a matter for the company.

  End of Life Vehicle Directive
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if the EU end of life vehicle directive will be restricted to new cars; and if UK vehicle manufacturers will be required to pick up retrospective liabilities(a) immediately and (b) in the future; [4108]
  268W
  (2) if she will make a statement on the implementation of the EU's end of life vehicle directive. [4109]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government will issue a consultation paper on the implementation of the end of life vehicles directive as soon as possible. The directive introduces tightened environmental treatment standards which must apply for all vehicles scrapped from 2002 onwards. The consultation paper will focus on how obligations might be apportioned between different operators and views from all parties on the paper will be welcomed.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [4597]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department and its agencies have signed three PFI/PPP contracts in the last five years. All three are on-going. No compensation has been paid in relation to these contracts. In the case of one contract, service credits amounting to £8,500 have accumulated for performance failure.

  Appointments
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many appointments she has made since May 1997 in accordance with the Nolan criteria; how many appointees were aged over 60 years at the time of appointment; and how many declared a political affiliation for(a) the Conservative Party, (b) the Labour Party and (c) the Liberal Democrats. [4708]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested is not held centrally for the period since May 1997. It is being collated and I will write to the right hon. Member as soon as it is available.

  Work-related Illnesses (Legal Costs)
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what have been the total payments from public funds to date to legal advisers of claimants in respect of(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger; and what estimate she has made of the likely total final costs. [3664]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) on 16 July 2001, Official Report, column 33W.

  Chemical and Man-made Fibre Industries
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance his Department is planning to help the chemicals and man-made fibres industries. [4647]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: The chemicals industry is undergoing radical restructuring through divestment and acquisition, which has prompted a review of the Department's analysis and strategies towards the sector. This includes the development with industry of a learning and skills strategy; a programme to

  269W
  promote the spread of best practice; support for chemical industry cluster initiatives in several parts of the country; and a new programme to support chemicals inward investment from North America, which we have initiated with regional partners and InvestUK. The Department also has a programme of activities to help promote research and development, and support for the transfer of science and technology.

  To help support this activity, the Department contributed around £4.6 million in 2000–01 to a number of programmes designed to improve the competitiveness of the chemicals and man-made fibres industries. This included the establishment of an Industry Forum for the chemicals sector to help improve process efficiency; a £2 million Faraday Partnership to improve the two-way flow of information and people in formulation technology; and a £3 million 'Manufacturing Molecules' programme to help reduce the time taken to develop and make complex molecules.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what factors underlie the recent significant reduction in business investment in the private sector managed chemicals and man-made fibres industries. [4648]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: Figures produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on 25 June show that private sector manufacturing business investment in the chemicals and man-made fibres sector, based on seasonally adjusted figures, has increased by 5.6 per cent. (at current prices) in 2001 Q1 when compared with 2000 Q4.

  These figures also show that there has been an increase in investment of 0.6 per cent. on the corresponding quarter of the previous year.

  Enterprise Scholarship Scheme
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on how the enterprise scholarship scheme will encourage British entrepreneurs abroad to establish companies in the United Kingdom. [3926]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: The recent White Paper on Enterprise, Skills and Innovation "Opportunity for all in a world of change" announced an enterprise scholarship scheme to attract the best young graduates from overseas, particularly in high-tech subjects, who want to come to the UK to develop their careers and start new businesses. The scheme will offer a tailored package of measures including postgraduate study in a business-related subject, work experience and help in starting up a business in the UK.

  In addition British Trade International is working on a pilot scheme to encourage established overseas entrepreneurs to set up companies in the UK to pursue innovative business proposals. This pilot, which will target expatriate British and other entrepreneurs, is currently being developed in consultation with Development Agencies, the Small Business Service, DTI, F120 and other partners.

  There is global competition for talent and it is the Government's aim to attract skilled and able entrepreneurs to the UK especially in areas where there is a short supply.
  270W
  These measures will support the creation of new jobs and prosperity in the UK and enhance our competitiveness in international markets.

  Nuclear Material (Russia)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 10 July 2001,Official Report, columns 477–79W, how much of the funding pledged by Her Majesty's Government to tackle nuclear problems in the former Soviet Union has so far been spent. [4094]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]: Of the some £84 million assistance over the next three years announced by HMG in July 2000, some £10.5 million has been firmly committed, of which some £4.2 million has already been spent.

  The spend breaks down as follows:

  £3.84 million—contribution to the Chernobyl Shelter Fund

  £0.03 million—nuclear materials accountancy

  £0.13 million—Nuclear Safety Projects

  £0.03 million—physical protection of sites projects

  £0.09 million—NW Russia spent nuclear fuel storage facility.

  Further spend, commitments and project proposals are in the pipeline.

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets she has set her Department's National Weights and Measures Laboratory for 2001–02. [5738]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have set the National Weights and Measures Laboratory the following quality of service and efficiency targets for 2001–02.

  Financial Targets
  To report a break-even situation in the Income and Expenditure Account 2001–02.
  To meet the net vote target in 2001–02.
  To contribute to continuous efficiency improvement by ensuring that total overhead costs are less than 55 per cent. of total costs.
  To achieve continuous growth in its non-DTI income, with an increase of 7.5 per cent. in 2001–02.

  Operational Targets
  To meet the expectations of its customers by completing at least 90 per cent. of European type approvals within 10 weeks.
  To complete European type approvals within an average of six weeks.
  To complete calibration jobs within the time requested by customers, with at least 95 per cent. of all jobs (including preparation of certificates) completed within 18 working days of acceptance of the work and an average completion time of less than 14 days.
  To complete the National Measurement System (NMS) legal metrology programme, and achieve 72 per cent. of the milestones in the programme by their due dates.
  To satisfy its customers as demonstrated by at least 95 per cent. of them rating NWML's provision of services as satisfactory or better.

  Questions delegated to the Chief Executive
  Chief Executive to reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  University Employment Tribunals
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information she has collated on the number of academic staff employment tribunals conducted in each university in the last two years. [4664]

  Alan Johnson
  No information has been collated on the number of academic staff who may have taken cases to employment tribunals in the last two years.

  Seeboard
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information she has collated on the number of power cuts experienced by residents and businesses in the Seeboard area over the last five years; and what representations she has made to energy producers concerning cuts in supply to customers. [4573]

  Mr. Wilson
  Over the last five years the number of power cuts in the Seeboard area has varied between 95.5 and 88.5 per 100 customers. Over the same period the average duration of a power cut in the Seeboard area has varied between 92 minutes and 74.5 minutes.

  Ofgem will shortly carry out initial consultation with the electricity companies in order to extend the guaranteed and overall standards to include the maximum number of power cuts, which individual customers should experience in any single year. This is being carried out under Ofgem's information and incentive project with the aim of introducing it in April 2002. The target figure has yet to be set on the maximum number of power cuts.

  Ministerial Duties
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list for each week from Monday 23 July to Monday 8 October which departmental ministers will be on duty(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in London. [4891]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is not the normal practice of Government to publish a ministerial duty roster. The Department will ensure that it has sufficient cover through the summer recess in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  Dounreay
  Mr. MacDonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will announce a decision about the future of the prototype reactor fuel at Dounreay; and if she will make a statement. [5607]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have considered carefully the advice I have received about the future of this fuel, and the implications of this decision for the major goal of restoring the Dounreay site. I have concluded that refurbishment of the reprocessing facilities at Dounreay is not justified. I have consequently asked UKAEA to take whatever action is necessary to ensure the safety and security of the PFR fuel, and to agree with its regulators the most appropriate means of doing so.

  I am confident that this decision will allow the management and workforce at Dounreay to focus exclusively on the environmental restoration of the site.
  272W
  This is a project of national importance and the staff at Dounreay have my full support in undertaking this challenging task.

  I am placing a copy of a document summarising my decision along with the responses to the public consultation in the Library of the House.

  Institute of Export
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice and assistance her Department(a) gives and (b) has given during the last two years to the Institute of Export. [4772]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department of Trade and Industry—through British Trade International—maintains close links with the Institute of Export and supports the institute's work to promote the importance of exporting and to improve the performance of British exporters. In the last two years BTI and the Institute of Export have worked together on the development of the regional delivery of BTI services, the design of a self-diagnostic test for potential exporters and the development of a training package for BTI staff.

  Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will set out the terms of reference for the role of the Green Minister in her Department; and if she will make a statement. [4825]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minster for the Environment on 13 July 2001,Official Report, column 690W.

  Research Council (Luxembourg)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Research Council held in Luxembourg on 26 June; and if she will make a statement. [5739]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Research Council of 26 June:

  1. Held an orientation debate on Commission proposals for the next EU Research and Development Framework Programme. Subsequently the Council adopted conclusions inviting COREPER to pursue its examination of all outstanding issues with a view to enabling the Council to reach a common position as soon as possible. The Council also invited the Commission to provide further clarification on a number of elements of the proposals, including research in support of Community policies and the application of new funding mechanisms.

  2. Adopted a Resolution on Science and Society and conclusions on Research Infrastructures.

  3. Received progress reports from the Commission on the benchmarking of national research policies, the mobility of researchers and the international dimension of the next Framework Programme.

  4. Received a progress report from the Commission on the production of a comprehensive inventory of research into Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies.

  5. Received a progress report from the Commission on strategic initiatives in biotechnology, on which the Commission plan to issue a communication by the end of the year.

  6. Under other business, received a progress report from the Commission on the Global Monitoring on Environment and Security satellite system (GMES).

  Energy Efficiency Commitment
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on assets purchased by a utility company in order to deliver its commitment under the Energy Efficiency Commitment; and to whom and in what manner the assets should accrue. [4408]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under the proposed Energy Efficiency Commitment for 2002–05, electricity and gas suppliers will be required to meet energy efficiency targets. It is proposed that companies should be free to develop schemes to meet their targets in the most cost-effective way. I propose to issue a consultation paper on the commitment in the summer.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Passport Agency
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the United Kingdom Passport Agency will publish its annual report and accounts for 2000–01. [5485]

  Angela Eagle
  The United Kingdom Passport Service annual report and accounts have been published today and I am pleased to say that copies have been placed in the Library.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on changes in the membership of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's Independent Complaints Audit Committee. [5488]

  Angela Eagle
  Ms Ros Gardner has been appointed as the new chair of the Complaints Audit Committee to replace Arden Bhattacharya, whose three year term of tenure ended in March. Ms Gardner has been a member of the Committee since January 2000. She presently runs a consultancy in customer care and complaint handling. She was formerly Manager of the Customer Services Department of Marks and Spencer, and was a member of the Cabinet Office's Citizens Charter Complaints Task Force.

  Mr. Paul Manning has been appointed as a new member of the Committee. Mr. Manning has over 30 years' experience in senior operational and management positions in the police. He recently retired from being an Assistant Commissioner in the Metropolitan Police Service.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will issue guidelines to local authorities for production of the 2002–03 electoral registers with special reference to legislative changes regarding opting out.

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.
  274W
  We intend, subject to parliamentary approval, to make regulations on the edited electoral register before next spring, which will be followed by the Electoral Commission issuing guidance to electoral registration officers.

  Airwave Radio System
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many communications masts are to be erected as a result of the introduction of the Airwave radio system; [1251]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the impact of the foot and mouth crisis on the roll-out of the Airwave radio system. [1252]

  Mr. Denham
  The current estimate is that 3,200 radio sites will be required for British Telecommunications (BT) to provide the Airwave service.

  Each of these sites will need a radio mast for the transmission of Airwave signals. The sites will reuse existing masts or use new masts mounted either on buildings or on the ground.

  The exact deployment of masts is determined by BT's coverage planning process, which complies with national planning and safety requirements. The current plans cover the first two years of the phased roll out of the Airwave service.

  Chief Constable (Sussex Constabulary)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions he had with members of the Sussex Police Authority about his recent media release concerning the Chief Constable of Sussex before he released it; [3134]

  (2) for what reason he did not seek to discuss his recent media release concerning the Chief Constable of Sussex with the Chief Constable before he released it. [3135]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: The Police Authority were informed by officials shortly before my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's letter to the Police Authority dated 22 June was released to the press. This letter was about the role and responsibilities of the Police Authority, and for this reason was discussed with the Chief Constable.

  Police Custody Units
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many operational police custody units there were in Devon and Cornwall in each year from 1980 to 2001; and if he will make a statement. [3412]

  Mr. Denham
  I understand from the Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, that on the basis that the definition for 'Custody Units' is individual cells, the figures are as follows:

  Year

  Custody Units

  1980 to 1985

  200

  1986 and 1987

  201

  1988

  199

  1989 and 1990

  204

  1991 and 1992

  202

  1993

  201

  275W

  Year

  Custody Units

  1994

  208

  1995

  207

  1996

  205

  1997

  204

  1998 and 1999

  1185

  2000

  207

  2001

  1219

  1 Torquay Police Station was closed in 1998–99 and its replacement opened this year.

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary has eight custody centres under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for handling those who are detained in excess of six hours. These centres are located at Camborne, Plymouth, Barnstaple, St. Austell, Torquay, Exeter, Newquay and Crownhill (Plymouth).

  Immigration
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are detained under the Immigration Act 1971, broken down by(a) nationality, (b) gender, (c) place of detention, (d) length of detention, (f) stage of application and (f) immigration status at the time of detention. [3262]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 July 2001]: The latest available information relating to the number of persons detained under Immigration Act powers by place of detention and nationality is given in the tables. Corresponding information on gender, length of detention, stage of application and immigration is not held centrally and could be obtained only by examining individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  Persons recorded as being in detention1 in the United Kingdom solely under Immigration Act powers as at 31 may 2001, by place of detention

  Location

  Total detainees

  Immigration detention centres2

  Campsfield House

  172

  Tinsley House

  100

  Dover Harbour

  17

  Harmondsworth

  87

  Longport

  6

  Manchester Airport

  13

  Other Detention Centres

  1

  Prison establishments3

  Bedford

  5

  Belmarsh

  48

  Birmingham

  4

  Blakenhurst

  6

  Bristol

  3

  Brixton

  20

  Bullingdon

  6

  Canterbury

  3

  Cardiff

  52

  Chelmsford

  7

  Cornton Vale

  3

  Craiginches

  4

  Doncaster

  13

  Dorchester

  2

  Durham

  2

  Elmley

  6

  Feltham

  10

  Forest Bank

  7

  Gateside

  40

  Glen Parva

  3

  Haslar

  151

  276W

  Persons recorded as being in detention1 in the United Kingdom solely under Immigration Act powers as at 31 may 2001, by place of detention

  Location

  Total detainees

  High Down

  66

  Holloway

  35

  Holme House

  49

  Leeds

  10

  Lewes

  3

  Lindholme

  94

  Liverpool

  104

  Maghabberry

  4

  Magilliagan

  12

  Manchester

  6

  Norwich

  5

  Pentonville

  7

  Rochester

  183

  Styal

  3

  Wandsworth

  50

  Winchester

  39

  Woodhill

  2

  Wormwood Scrubs

  70

  Other prison establishments

  7

  Oakington Reception Centre

  247

  Total

  1,787

  1 Figures exclude persons detained in police cells (other than at Dover Harbour)

  2 Figures include the use of police cells at Dover Harbour

  3 The figures for prison establishments may include some persons detained under dual immigration and other powers.

  Source:

  England and Wales data from IS Detention Services and the Offenders and Corrections Unit (RDS), and Scotland and NI data from IS Glasgow.

  Persons recorded as being in detention1 in the United Kingdom solely under Immigration Act powers as at 31 May 2001, by place of detention

  Nationality

  Total detainees2

  Afghanistan

  20

  Albania

  69

  Algeria

  63

  Angola

  6

  Australia

  2

  Bangladesh

  35

  Bolivia

  3

  Bosnia-Hercegovina

  3

  Brazil

  4

  Bulgaria

  4

  Burundi

  2

  Cameroon

  16

  China (Peoples Rep of China)

  105

  Colombia

  14

  Congo

  5

  Congo, Democratic Republic (form. Zaire)

  3

  Czech Republic

  85

  Czechoslovakia

  14

  Ecuador

  7

  Estonia

  3

  France

  6

  Gambia

  8

  Ghana

  42

  Greece

  2

  Guinea

  2

  Haiti

  2

  Hungary

  2

  India

  113

  Iran

  17

  Iraq

  27

  Ivory Coast

  6

  Jamaica

  210

  277W

  Persons recorded as being in detention1 in the United Kingdom solely under Immigration Act powers as at 31 May 2001, by place of detention

  Nationality

  Total detainees2

  Kenya

  24

  Latvia

  8

  Libya

  3

  Lithuania

  22

  Macedonia

  2

  Malaysia

  3

  Moldova

  6

  Morocco

  8

  Nepal

  3

  Netherlands

  4

  Nigeria

  95

  Pakistan

  105

  Palestine

  2

  Poland

  34

  Romania

  57

  Rwanda

  4

  Sierra Leone

  10

  Slovakia

  2

  Somalia

  7

  South Africa

  14

  Sri Lanka

  80

  St. Lucia

  3

  Syria

  3

  Taiwan

  2

  Tanzania

  6

  Togo

  4

  Trinidad and Tobago

  2

  Turkey

  35

  Uganda

  15

  Ukraine

  14

  United States of America

  4

  Unknown (officially designated)

  32

  USSR

  43

  Vietnam

  2

  Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of

  111

  Zimbabwe

  84

  Other nationalities

  34

  Total

  1,787

  1 Figures exclude persons detained in police cells (other than Dover Harbour).

  2 The figures for Prison establishments may include some persons detained under dual immigration and other powers.

  Source:

  England and Wales data from IS Detention Services and the Offenders and Corrections Unit (RDS), and Scotland and NI data from IS Glasgow.

  Murdered Children
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children murdered in each of the last five years had child contact orders extant. [3830]

  Mr. Denham
  There is no information held centrally on numbers of children murdered who were the subject of child contact orders.

  Criminal Proceeds
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the financial benefits from the confiscation of criminals' assets are apportioned between police forces which seize the assets and the Treasury; and how this apportionment will change under the Government's legislative proposals. (2350]
  278W
  Mr. Denham
  Under the Confiscated Assets Fund (CAF), which the Government established on a non-statutory basis in April 1999, a proportion of receipts from confiscation orders made against persons convicted of drug trafficking is recycled into projects in support of the Anti-Drugs Strategy. Projects funded by the CAF cover all four strands of the strategy including law enforcement projects.

  The Government intend to replace the CAF with a new Recovered Assets Fund. This is to be financed by up to 50 per cent. of all confiscation, cash forfeiture and (assuming enactment of the Proceeds of Crime Bill) civil recovery receipts. Both drug trafficking and non-drug trafficking receipts will be included. The fund, which will again operate on a non-statutory basis, will be used primarily to support the Anti-Drugs and Asset Recovery Strategies. It will also provide additional funding for community regeneration and local crime reduction projects.

  Petty Crime
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his proposed petty crime busting scheme; what assessment he has made of the impact of the scheme on Castle Point; and what proportion of the funding will go to Castle Point. [1850]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: I assume the hon. Member is referring to the Capital Modernisation Fund project to assist small retailers in deprived areas, which I announced on 27 June.

  The problem of crime affecting small retailers, particularly in deprived areas, is one which was highlighted in the report of the Social Exclusion Unit's Policy Action Team 13, which considered access to decent shopping facilities. The Retail Crime Reduction Action Team has also been examining this issue in conjunction with organisations which represent small retailers, with a view to developing schemes which may be able to assist those businesses.

  We are providing funding of £15 million over three years for a project to improve security of small retailers in the most deprived areas throughout England and Wales, with £3 million to be spent this financial year and £6 million for each of the years 2002–03 and 2003–04. We will be working with local communities to identify specific sites which can most benefit from the scheme. This may include shopping parades, individual shops or a combination of both. The money will be used to help small retailers to enhance security of their premises by installing additional locks or shutters, or may be used to make improvements to their immediate environments. We aim to maximise the value and effectiveness of these schemes by ensuring, wherever possible, that they complement other existing schemes designed to improve the quality of life of a neighbourhood.

  The regional funding allocation and the specific sites which will benefit from the scheme will be announced in due course.

  Hertfordshire Police
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were serving in the Hertsmere division of the Hertfordshire police force on(a) 1 April 2000 and (b) 1 April 2001. [3630]

  Mr. Denham
  I understand from the Chief Constable that the Hertsmere division had 132 officers on 1 April 2000 and 130 officers on 1 April 2001.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many secondees from the Metropolitan police force have returned to the Metropolitan force from Hertsmere in each month since 1 January; how many secondees are due to return; how many officers have been allocated to Hertsmere by the Hertfordshire force to replace them; and how many more it is planned to allocate to Hertsmere to replace the secondees. [3629]

  Mr. Denham
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the number of secondees to the Hertfordshire Constabulary who have returned to the Metropolitan police since 1 January is:

  Month

  Number of officers

  January

  2

  February

  1

  March

  2

  April

  6

  May

  11

  June

  9

  All secondees are expected to return to the Metropolitan police by 31 March 2002.

  I am told by the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire that the policing structure of the county is changing and will be based on the National Intelligence Model. This means the force will no longer be comparing like with like as the structure in existence on 1 April 2000, when the boundary changes were implemented, will be replaced. The Hertsmere division will be combined with two other divisions to become the Central Area with its management team based in Borehamwood. I am told that between 1 January and 1 July the number of Hertfordshire constables in Hertsmere has been doubled from 18 to 36 as Metropolitan police officers are replaced. The Chief Constable also has a programme in place to post more experienced officers to Hertsmere. He plans to have moved 32 such officers to Hertsmere by 1 October.

  The Chief Constable will review the situation on 1 November to assess the requirement for further postings to Hertsmere. At this point there will remain 18 Metropolitan police secondees. Police officers will be deployed throughout the force area to reflect the operational priorities of the force.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many residents of Hertsmere were recruited into(a) the Hertfordshire police and (b) the Metropolitan force in the last year for which figures are available. [3632]

  Mr. Denham
  I am informed by Hertfordshire Constabulary that in the year 2000–01 three residents of Hertsmere were appointed to the force as new recruits.

  280W
  The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) inform me that information about the number of residents from Hertsmere joining the MPS is not regularly recorded.

  Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (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; [3896]

  (2) what are the terms of reference for the Green Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement. [3975]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 13 July 2001, Official Report, columns 689–90W.

  Speed Cameras (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many speed cameras have been placed in(a) accident black spots and (b) elsewhere in Lancashire. [4291]

  Mr. Denham
  The Lancashire police force area has 69 fixed speed camera sites. I am informed that, in accordance with Home Office guidelines (HO Circular 38/1992), all 69 sites were selected to reduce high casualty rates at locations where the major contributory crash factor is excessive speed.

  Security Industry Authority
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on the establishment of the Security Industry Authority. [4038]

  Mr. Denham
  The. Private Security Industry Act 2001 provides for the establishment of a Security Industry Authority, which will license individuals employed in designated sectors of the security industry and approve companies.

  Plans to implement the provisions of the Act are currently being drawn up with the aim of establishing the authority as soon as possible. Once established, the authority will draw up its licensing criteria and institute a rolling programme of licensing. The relevant provisions of the Act will then be brought into force by means of commencement orders when the authority is ready to begin its licensing operations.

  Asylum Seekers
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply of 28 June 2001,Official Report, column 126W, on asylum seekers, if central records are maintained of the number of asylum seekers dispersed under the disperal arrangements of 1999; and what duty authorities concerned have to keep in touch with the dispersed persons. [2308]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 5 July 2001]: Records are not collected by the Home Office on the number of asylum seekers dispersed under the voluntary dispersal arrangements of 1999. Statistics on voluntary dispersal are collected by individual local authorities.

  281W
  The National Asylum Support Service has no power to require local authorities to remain in contact with the asylum seekers they are supporting. But local authorities need to keep in contact with those asylum seekers they have dispersed to ensure that they still have a duty to support them.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been detained in asylum-seeker detention facilities in each quarter of the last year; and how many were in detention on the last night for which figures are available. [1761]

  Angela Eagle
  Information on the number of children detained under Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 powers is not held centrally. The information is available only by the examination of individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  Unaccompanied minors are detained only in the most exceptional circumstances and then only overnight with appropriate care. Children and young persons may be cared for in detention centres as part of a family unit in preference to separating them from their parents. Where this occurs, such family units are held together in appropriate family accommodation within the detention centre. There may also be a small number of cases of detained persons who claim to be minors but where the available evidence strongly suggests that they are in fact adults: such persons may be treated as adults until the contrary is established and may be detained as such.

  Family accommodation is currently available only at Tinsley House Detention Centre and Oakington Reception Centre. The latest information provided by these two centres indicates that for the period 16 to 22 June a total of 28 children had been detained at Oakington as dependants of families held there while their asylum claims were considered, while during the month of June

  Number of full-time equivalent police officers allocated to patrol duties

  Force

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Avon and Somerset

  1,401.0

  1,442.2

  1,432.2

  1,438.3

  1,538.6

  Bedfordshire

  455.0

  543.5

  457.0

  479.1

  478.3

  Cambridgeshire

  556.0

  655.7

  614.0

  586.2

  581.9

  Cheshire

  934.6

  976.2

  1,022.9

  969.9

  867.3

  City of London

  363.8

  369.9

  353.2

  385.2

  342.2

  Cleveland

  742.8

  771.2

  742.7

  552.0

  676.1

  Cumbria

  596.0

  607.0

  630.0

  619.0

  571.1

  Derbyshire

  880.5

  911.2

  867.7

  842.9

  818.7

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,503.5

  1,499.9

  1,522.4

  1,488.1

  1,444.4

  Dorset

  690.0

  671.0

  663.0

  665.0

  612.1

  Durham

  666.2

  694.9

  720.1

  764.0

  741.7

  Dyfed-Powys

  586.0

  559.4

  601.3

  595.9

  598.7

  Essex

  1,370.7

  1,407.6

  1,549.4

  1,512.4

  1,535.9

  Gloucestershire

  540.8

  565.0

  551.2

  533.4

  501.9

  Greater Manchester

  3,113.6

  3,245.6

  3,361.2

  3,321.4

  3,615.6

  Gwent

  543.0

  732.5

  707.8

  770.1

  735.4

  Hampshire

  1,819.5

  1,975.8

  2,094.3

  2,030.1

  1,912.3

  Hertfordshire

  868.0

  919.5

  910.6

  878.7

  968.8

  Humberside

  1,112.0

  1,081.6

  1,100.6

  1,106.5

  1,147.5

  Kent

  1,512.3

  1,542.1

  1,352.1

  1,116.8

  1,132.3

  Lancashire

  1,395.6

  1,465.9

  1,274.0

  1,489.7

  1,585.6

  Leicestershire

  935.0

  1,010.4

  1,007.0

  1,016.0

  1,083.5

  Lincolnshire

  672.6

  607.8

  717.1

  661.2

  613.8

  Merseyside

  2,300.0

  2,300.0

  2,211.7

  2,033.2

  2,098.1

  Metropolitan police

  13,160.5

  12,307.0

  12,158.7

  11,716.4

  12,312.2

  Norfolk

  727.4

  761.7

  789.0

  714.0

  691.4

  North Wales

  737.5

  730.0

  752.0

  615.0

  656.0

  North Yorkshire

  680.8

  685.4

  716.2

  713.4

  749.3

  282W
  Tinsley House accommodated 23 child dependants in family accommodation and the average length of stay was two nights.

  Uniformed Police Patrols
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level of uniformed police patrols was in(a) England and Wales as a whole and (b) each individual police force in England and Wales in each of the last five years for which data are available; and if he will make a statement. [2939]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 July 2001]: The information requested has been provided by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC) and covers the years 1995–96 to 1999–2000. The table records the number of officers who are predominately assigned to foot, car and beat patrol duties for each year from 1995–96 to 1999–2000. Information for 2000–01 will be available in the autumn after it has been collated and verified by HMIC.

  I understand from HMIC that in 1999–2000 50.3 per cent. of the total number of officers in forces in England and Wales were deployed to patrol duties. Most of the other half of the police service are deployed to other operational duties, such as CID, traffic, and other specialist operational activities.

  Decisions on the allocation of resources to patrol and other functions such as CID are operational decisions for the professional judgment of Chief Officers of Police.

  The number of officers available for deployment is increasing. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 10/01, published on 28 June 2001, shows that by 31 March 2001 the strength of the police service in England and Wales had grown to 125,519 police officers (full-time equivalents), up 1,349 since March 2000. We expect police strength to reach record numbers by March 2003 and to reach 130,000 by March 2004.
  283W

  Number of full-time equivalent police officers allocated to patrol duties

  Force

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Northamptonshire

  594.0

  622.4

  592.8

  648.6

  557.5

  Northumbria

  1,966.4

  1,965.7

  1,909.3

  1,972.9

  2,069.8

  Nottinghamshire

  1,199.2

  1,198.1

  1,198.1

  1,185.2

  1,099.7

  South Wales

  1,916.0

  1,537.0

  1,472.9

  1.604.7

  1,610.6

  South Yorkshire

  1,371.4

  1,404.9

  1,498.9

  1,418.0

  1,467.6

  Staffordshire

  1,199.0

  1,044.0

  1,255.7

  1,220.2

  996.7

  Suffolk

  639.8

  660.4

  642.7

  628.7

  639.7

  Surrey

  846.6

  813.5

  659.8

  786.4

  710.8

  Sussex

  1,397.2

  1,601.4

  1,512.0

  1,324.9

  1,175.8

  Thames Valley

  1,921.0

  1,888.8

  1,906.3

  2,001.7

  1,761.0

  Warwickshire

  456.0

  429.9

  452.4

  450.6

  458.7

  West Mercia

  1,023.1

  906.0

  925.9

  903.9

  798.0

  West Midlands

  3,601.2

  3,841.6

  3,994.7

  4,410.6

  4,401.9

  West Yorkshire

  2,620.0

  2,677.6

  2,725.3

  2,614.3

  2,487.4

  Wiltshire

  578.6

  541.6

  577.3

  593.2

  555.6

  England and Wales

  62,194.0

  62,172.4

  62,202.7

  61,377.5

  61,401.3

  Source:

  Data from HMICs Annual Statistical Return

  Drugs (Medicinal Uses)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which countries supply Britain with(a) cannabis, (b) coca and (c) opium for use in (i) the legal pharmaceutical industry and (ii) research and development to investigate possible medicinal uses. [4571]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  None of these substances are imported for pharmaceutical industrial purposes. A small amount of processed cannabis has recently been imported from Germany for medical research.

  Licence holders

  Purpose

  Prof. A. D. Smith (Univ. of Oxford)

  Academic

  Dr. R. Middleton (Univ. of Hull)

  Academic

  Dr. C. Hunter (Univ. of the West of England)

  Academic

  Dr. M. A. Sackville (Univ. of Sunderland)

  Academic

  Dr. C. Wright (Univ. of Bradford)

  Academic

  Dr. P. M. Dewick (Univ. of Nottingham)

  Academic

  Dr. J. Smart (Univ. of Portsmouth)

  Academic

  Dr. Geoffrey Hall (De Montfort Univ)

  Academic

  Prof. P. J. Houghton (Kings College London)

  Academic

  Dr. Alexander (Univ. of Edinburgh)

  Academic

  Dr. J. Cole (Royal Liverpool Univ. Hospital)

  Academic

  Prof. J. F. Alder (Univ. of Manchester Institute

  Academic

  Mr. Malcolm Aiken (Univ. of Brighton)

  Academic

  Dr. K. Brain (Welsh Sch. of Pharmacy)

  Academic

  Prof. Redfern (Univ. of Bath)

  Academic

  Prof. J. Kelly (Univ. of Edinburgh)

  Academic

  Prof. T. Stone (Univ. of Glasgow)

  Academic

  Dr. D. Todd (James Paget Hospital)

  Researching general therapeutic benefits

  Dr. D. Baker (Univ. College London)

  Immune systems (inc. Multiple Sclerosis (MS) research)

  Dr. R. Pertwee (Univ. of Aberdeen)

  Neuropharmacology research

  Dr. C. Heard (Welsh Sch. of Pharmacy)

  Research into transdermal administration

  Dr. E. Williamson (Univ. of London)

  Research into Multiple Sclerosis (MS)

  Prof. R. Rainsford (Sheffield Hallam Univ.)

  Research into arthritis

  G. W. Pharmaceuticals (Porton Down)

  Research into Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and other conditions

  Dr. J. Zajicek (Derriford Hospital)

  Research into Multiple Sclerosis (MS)

  None covers coca and opium.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licences have been granted for research and development to investigate possible
  284W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the research and development projects being carried out to investigate the possible medicinal uses of(a) cannabis, (b) coca and (c) opium. [4667]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  There are 25 licences currently valid for cannabis research. The licence holders and the purposes are:

  medicinal uses of (a) cannabis, (b) coca and (c) opium in each of the last 10 years. [4666]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  According to existing records, the following number of licences have been granted to investigate the possible medicinal uses of cannabis during the last 10 years.
  285W

  Number

  1991

  1

  1992

  0

  1993

  0

  1994

  4

  1995

  1

  1996

  0

  1997

  3

  1998

  1

  1999

  3

  2000

  12

  2001

  38

  No applications were received in respect of coca and opium during the same period.

  Child Pornography (Young Offenders)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been in

  The number of defendants prosecuted at the magistrates court and convicted at all courts, by age, for possessing obscene material for gain, England and Wales 1999

  Offence

  Short title of principal statute

  Age

  Total prosecuted

  Total convicted

  Possessing obscene material for gain

  Obscene Publications Act 1959 S.2 as amended by the Obscene Publications Act 1964 Sec.1

  All ages

  131

  96

  of which:

  16

  2

  —

  17

  2

  2

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

  Protection of Children Act 1978 Secs 1, 6 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Sec. 84

  All ages

  175

  139

  of which:

  16

  —

  —

  17

  —

  —

  Possession of an indecent photograph, or pseudo-photograph, of a child

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1988 Sec. 160 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Secs 84(4) and 86(1)

  All ages

  163

  99

  of which:

  16

  —

  —

  17

  —

  —

  Norwich Prison
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the Norwich Prison Board of Visitors report to the Prison Reform Trust on the subject of overcrowding at Norwich Prison. [3147]

  Beverley Hughes
  I am not aware of any report from the Board of Visitors at Norwich prison to the Prison Reform Trust. Norwich prison was not named as causing particular concern in the Prison Reform Trust's recent press release on overcrowding. The Board of Visitors at Norwich did however refer to the issue of overcrowding in their annual report to the Secretary of State for the year 2000.

  The Certified Normal Accommodation (that is, the uncrowded capacity) of Norwich prison is 561 and the operational (that is, maximum) capacity 794. The operational capacity was increased by 50 places in October 2000, for which the prison received additional funding of £397,000. The average population during 2000 was 631, a reduction from 1999 (681). On average
  286W
  England and Wales during the last 12 months where children have been involved in the production of pornography. [2845]

  Mr. Denham
  There is no separate offence of producing pornography. Any prosecution is likely to be for possessing, taking or making indecent photographs, or pseudo-photographs, of children: and, in the case of young offenders, for possessing obscene material for gain.

  The available information, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings and Cautions Database and given in the table, shows that there were four prosecutions and two convictions of persons aged 10–17 during 1999 for possessing obscene material for gain.

  There were 175 prosecutions and 139 convictions of persons during 1999 for taking or making indecent photographs, or pseudo-photographs, of children: none of these defendants were aged 10–17. There were also 163 prosecutions and 99 convictions for possessing indecent photographs, or pseudo-photographs, of children: again, none of these defendants were aged 10–17.

  35 per cent. of the population at Norwich prison share a cell, which is less than the establishment's target of 45 per cent.

  Criminal Justice and Police Act
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when section 71 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 will come into force. [2871]

  Mr. Denham
  Section 71 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 will come into force by way of a commencement order on 1 October 2001. Prior to implementation we shall issue a Home Office Circular advising law enforcement agencies and others about the new powers of arrest for kerb crawling and hit and run driving contained in section 71.

  The circular will also include guidance on section 71 of the Act (making importation of indecent or obscene material a serious arrestable offence) which will come into force at the same time as section 71.

  Asylum Appeals
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum appeals, having been received by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, are awaiting transmission to the Immigration Appellate Authority; and what the equivalent figure was on(a) 1 January 2000 and (b) 1 January 2001. [3305]

  Angela Eagle
  Provisional data indicate that on 30 May 2001 there were approximately 33,000 appeals lodged with Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) which had not been sent to the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA). The comparable figures on 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2001 were less than 1,000 and approximately 15,000 respectively. Over the same period there was a 296 per cent. increase in decision making, from 33,720 initial decisions in 1999 to 133,695 in 2000–01.

  For every appeal lodged, IND has to review the grounds advanced and may as a consequence need to reconsider all the circumstances of the case. Appeals are not forwarded to the IAA until this consideration has been completed and appeal papers have been prepared.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evaluation has been made of the effectiveness and ease of implementation of antisocial behaviour(a) contracts and (b) orders; and what advice he is giving to local councils and the police on the merits and demerits of each. [2355]

  Mr. Denham
  Pursuant to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Twickenham on 9 July 2001,Official Report, column 412W, the first paragraph of my response should have read as follows:
  "As my predecessor confirmed in a written answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 5 February 2001, Official Report, column 424W, we are researching the operation and effectiveness of the antisocial behaviour order. We will also examine the effectiveness of the acceptable behaviour scheme in Islington".

  Income Support
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of Income Support available to(a) children aged under 16 years and (b) asylum seeking children in the UK aged under 16 years. [3876]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  From 3 April 2000 the Home Office is responsible for supporting and accommodating asylum seekers awaiting a determination of their case. Those asylum seekers in receipt of benefits prior to 3 April 2000 continue to be eligible to claim Income Support. Payment for any dependent children is at normal rates. Asylum seekers whose applications are accepted and who are awarded either refugee status or exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom are eligible for social security benefits in the usual way.

  The levels of Income Support personal allowances for younger people take account of the fact that the majority of this group live in someone else's household and can reasonably be assumed to have fewer financial
  288W
  responsibilities than people who are older and who are more likely to live independently. However, those 16 and 17-year-olds who are forced to claim independently can receive Income Support at higher rates.

  There is no provision for payment of Income Support to children aged under 16 in their own right. A dependant's allowance may be payable to people claiming benefit who have a dependent child or children living with them as part of their family.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Freedom of Information
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will outline the timetable for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for(a) Government Departments and (b) local government. [4255]

  Mr. Wills
  The Freedom of Information Act received Royal Assent on 30 November 2000 and it must be fully implemented by 30 November 2005. However, the Government intend to implement the Act, so far as is practicable, well within the statutory five years. While, as yet, there is no timetable other than that outer date, the Lord Chancellor will have a statutory duty to report to Parliament on the progress made towards implementation, by 30 November.

  There is a parallel to be drawn here between the Freedom of Information Act and the Human Rights Act 1998. Time was taken to make sure that the Human Rights Act was implemented properly, in spite of criticism at the time, and the Act's, eventual implementation was a resounding success with the time having been put to good use.

  The Freedom of Information Act similarly imposes rigorous duties on over 50.000 bodies across the public sector and so even greater care needs to be taken with its implementation. I am confident that the time taken for implementation of the Act will lead to a great success in this Government's aim to create more open government.

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

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Pursuant to the answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 11 July 2001,Official Report, column 577W, letters from three hon. Members were passed by the Lord Chancellor's Department to the Registrar General, who has responsibility for access to the 1911 Census records. The Registrar General has replied to these letters.

  Constitutional Arrangements
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what legislative proposals he has to alter the existing constitutional arrangements. [2622]
  289W
  Mr. Wills
  None. Our plans for the reform of the other place will maintain a bicameral Parliament in which this House will retain its supremacy.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the 2000–01 annual report and accounts for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. [5489]

  Mr. Meacher
  The 2000–01 annual report and accounts for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science were laid before Parliament yesterday. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the responses to the consultation on the first stage financial, management and policy review report on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee announced in March. [5490]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have today made the responses to the consultation exercise available on the websites of JNCC and my Department, and I have also placed copies in the House Libraries. We are now considering the responses.

  Pesticides Safety Directorate
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the 2000–01 annual report for the Pesticides Safety Directorate. [5387]

  Margaret Beckett
  The 2000–01 annual report and accounts for the Pesticides Safety Directorate were laid before Parliament yesterday. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Flooding (Vale of York)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received on increasing the Bellwin scheme for parts of North Yorkshire and the City of York most seriously affected by floods in November 2000. [4438]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  To date North Yorkshire county council has requested assistance through the Bellwin scheme in connection with three separate events: the severe weather events during October to December 2000; the train crash at Great Heck and more recently with the foot and mouth disease outbreak.

  In the case of the October to December severe weather events scheme, North Yorkshire did not take up the offer of an advance payment. Payment will be made within 15 days of receipt of its audited claim.

  290W
  Officials are currently looking into the circumstances of claims from North Yorkshire county council and North Yorkshire police authority for assistance with the emergency clear-up costs following the train crash at Great Heck. It is hoped that a decision on whether to activate a scheme will be reached soon.

  On 24 April, the then Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), announced the activation of the Bellwin scheme to provide emergency financial assistance to local authorities to help them meet some of the costs of responding to outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. North Yorkshire county council has registered an intention to make a claim under that scheme.

  The City of York asked for assistance through the October to December severe weather scheme. It applied for an advance of grant for 80 per cent. of eligible costs above threshold and payment was made within 15 working days of receipt of a claim.

  Infected Foodstuffs
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the adequacy of resources available to port health authorities to protect the UK from infected foodstuffs. [1995]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  The level of port health resources is a matter for the relevant local authority which allocates funds according to local need.

  Imports of food of animal origin such as meat and meat products are subject to harmonised European Union legislation. Such products must enter the EU through a border inspection post (BIP) and are subject to specified import checks. The costs of these inspections are charged to importers. The performance of BIPs is audited by the European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office and monitored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  The inspection of imported food of non-animal origin such as fruit and vegetables is not a harmonised EU area and the regulations are national legislation. Such inspections are not funded through the charge of fees to importers. These costs fall to the local authority that has responsibility for a particular port health authority. The Food Standards Agency monitors general food enforcement activity by all local authorities, including port health authorities, and has recently begun a programme of audits to provide more detailed information on enforcement standards. Local authorities would be expected to take notice of the outcome of the audits and any recommendations made.

  The FSA is aware of concerns about imported food. The FSA is carrying out a review of import controls and will make recommendations. The FSA is also working closely with port health authorities to encourage more effective and consistent enforcement of food law. This includes involvement in a benchmarking exercise recently started by the Association of Port Health Authorities, the representative body for port health authorities, aimed at producing a more uniform approach to service levels,

  291W
  policies and procedures. The FSA is participating in a cross-Whitehall initiative to ensure that import controls are made as effective as possible.

  Fly Tipping
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to reform the law on(a) illegal fly tipping and (b) illegal dumping of cars. [3691]

  Mr. Meacher
  (a) There are no plans to reform the law on fly tipping. The Government have put in place strict controls to ensure that waste is disposed of safely and the penalties for contravention of these controls are severe. The action being taken by the Government on fly tipping, and other forms of illegal waste disposal, was set out most recently in the Government's response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's Report on the Environment Agency (Cm 4832—paragraphs 55–60).

  (b) A review has been carried out into the current legislation covering abandoned vehicles in order to meet our manifesto commitment that the system for removal of untaxed and abandoned cars would be streamlined. We will be consulting on possible changes to the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 later this summer.

  BNFL
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress made to date by British Nuclear Fuels in meeting its obligations to reduce radioactive discharges under the 1998 Sintra Agreement of the Ospar Commission. [3951]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are committed to meeting the obligations they entered into at Sintra and have demonstrated this, with regard to radioactive substances, by issuing for consultation last year a draft UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges 2001–20. The final strategy will be published later this year. It will take account of information on discharges provided by British Nuclear Fuels, including that provided to the Environment Agency in the context of its current review of the Sellafield site.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library copies of(a) UK submissions and (b) other submissions with relevance to the United Kingdom to the Ospar meeting held in Valencia on 25 and 28 June. [3952]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am arranging for copies of the Summary Record of the recent Ospar meeting to be placed in the Libraries of the House. This is a full record of the issues discussed and the decisions reached at the meeting held in Valencia on 25 to 29 June. The Summary Record is also available on the Ospar website: www.ospar.org.

  Sellafield
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if a licence will be issued to British Nuclear Fuels to operate the mixed oxide plant at Sellafield; and if she will make a statement. [3723]
  292W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Health will decide whether the operation of Sellafield mixed oxide plant is justified when they have considered all relevant issues. First, we intend to publish for public comment the report of our independent consultants Arthur D. Little Ltd., as I said in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), 27 June 2001,Official Report, column 109W.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information was provided by the Government in the recent consultation process on the mixed oxide plant at the Sellafield reprocessing plant; and if she will make a statement. [3724]

  Mr. Meacher
  On 28 March the Government published a consultant paper, "British Nuclear Fuels plc—Sellafield Mixed Oxide Plant". This included a copy of the Government's previous consultation exercise in 1999, a copy of BNFL's economic and commercial justification for the plant, a copy of BNFL's March 2001 MOX market review and an endorsement of the review by the Department of Trade and Industry. The paper and annexes were placed in the House Library on 28 March.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost was of disposing of abandoned vehicles in(a) Luton and (b) all local authorities in England in each of the last four years. [3829]

  Mr. Meacher
  Luton borough council estimate that their costs in disposing of abandoned vehicles were £60,000 in 2000–01 and £15,000 in 1999–2000. They do not have information for earlier years.

  The Department holds no central records of the costs for individual authorities of disposing of abandoned vehicles each year but is considering what further information on abandoned vehicles can be collected in the next Municipal Waste Management Survey later this year.

  Pitsea Tip
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will publish a list of the uses made of potentially contaminated ash from Pitsea tip and the locations involved in each particular use; [3884]

  (2) on what date deposits of poisonous ash at Pitsea tip were first suspected; and on what date those deposits were stopped. [3889]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]: I understand that deposits of mixed bottom ash and precipator ash at the Pitsea landfill site began in early 1998 under the terms of its waste management licence. In the course of its supervision and inspection of the site, the Environment Agency became aware of the use of this ash to provide temporary cover for household waste. The Agency estimated the dioxin levels in the mixed ash to be 735 ng/kg. In the light of these estimates, the Agency wrote to the licence holder in July 1998 instructing them to cease using the mixed ash as cover material. Subsequent supervision and inspection of the site by the

  293W
  Agency confirmed that (a) the use of the mixed ash as temporary cover ceased in July 1998 and (b) acceptance of the ash for disposal at the site ceased by the end of 1998.

  The Environment Agency is carrying out a thorough investigation into the destinations of ash from municipal waste incinerators and a report will be published by the Agency on completion of its investigation. The Agency has no evidence that ash accepted at the Pitsea landfill site was subsequently consigned from the site for use elsewhere. However, the Agency will address this possibility in the context of its current investigation.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the extent to which ash from(a) Pitsea tip and (b) the Edmonton incinerator has been used in (i) civil engineering, (ii) other construction works and (iii) the manufacture of blocks for building, in Castle Point; and if he will make a statement. [4066]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: The Environment Agency is carrying out a thorough investigation into the destinations of ash from municipal waste incinerators, the environmental implications of its use and what steps may be needed in the light of these findings. A report will be published by the Agency on completion of its investigation. The Agency has no evidence that ash accepted at the Pitsea landfill site was subsequently consigned from the site for use elsewhere. However, the Agency will address this possibility in the context of its current investigation.

  National Parks
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase the number of national parks. [3914]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: The Countryside Agency is responsible for designating National Parks in England, subject to the confirmation of a designation order by the Secretary of State. In September 1999 the Government asked the Countryside Agency to consider designating two National Parks in the South Downs and the New Forest and we await their recommendations.

  Waste Disposal Site (Derbyshire)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what studies have been undertaken by the Environment Agency to establish whether radioactive isotypes and toxins have leached into watercourses surrounding the Rolls Royce waste disposal site in Crich, Derbyshire; and if she will publish the results. [4396]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency and its predecessor bodies has sampled water and silt in watercourses around Hilts Quarry, Crich over many years and the analysis results are available on the Agency's public registers. As part of its determination of two applications for revised radioactive waste disposal authorisations submitted by Rolls Royce Marine Power Operations Limited, the Agency has asked for further information and analysis to be undertaken. In particular the Agency asked Rolls Royce on 18 May 2001 to conduct a detailed analysis of the site under Regulation 15 of 294W
  the Waste Management Licence Regulations 1994 (The Protection of Groundwater with Respect to Landfill). The assessment is likely to take six to 12 months, depending on the complexity of the investigation.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will take steps to close Rolls Royce's waste disposal site at Crich, Derbyshire; [4395]

  (2) if she will take steps to ensure that the Rolls Royce waste disposal site in Crich, Derbyshire, is securely lined and that unauthorised access to the site is prohibited. [4303]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: Waste disposal sites operate under the terms of waste management licences and are subject to the controls set out in Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. The purpose of licences is to ensure that waste is disposed of in ways which protect the environment and human health. Failure to comply with a licence condition, or the disposal of waste in a manner likely to cause environmental pollution or harm to human health, is a criminal offence.

  The Environment Agency has a legal duty to inspect all licensed sites and section 42 of the 1990 Act requires the Agency to take the steps needed to ensure that (a) the activities authorised by a licence do not cause environmental pollution, harm to human health or serious detriment to local amenities; and (b) the conditions of a licence are complied with. It is the responsibility of the Environment Agency to assess whether any steps are needed to ensure compliance with these provisions.

  The Environment Agency may suspend or revoke a licence in the circumstances set out in section 38 of the 1990 Act. I understand that, on the basis of the evidence currently available to it, the Agency has no plans to serve a notice of suspension or revocation in relation to the licence for the Crich site.

  However, I understand that the Environment Agency has initiated a review of the licence for the Crich site under regulation 15 of the 1994 Regulations. The aim of this review is to assess the impact, if any, of the disposal of waste on groundwater and to ensure its protection by the use, so far as may be necessary, of the Agency's powers under sections 37 and 38 of the 1990 Act (variation, suspension or revocation of licences). I am also advised that the current licence conditions for the Crich site require the licence holder to provide and maintain sites gates and boundary fencing in a manner which prohibits unauthorised access; and that the gates must be securely locked when the site is unmanned.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent measurements have been taken of levels of radioactivity in(a) water and (b) air at the Rolls Royce waste disposal site at Crich, Derbyshire. [4304]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: The Environment Agency took samples of water and silt in surrounding watercourses on 19 June 2001, and the analysis results were placed on the public register on 9 July 2001. This sampling exercise did not detect any

  295W
  radioactivity above background levels. No air analysis is carried out in the Crich area, as the material from the Rolls Royce site in Derby is buried at the site.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of emissions from the Rolls Royce site at Crich, Derbyshire, on(a) local residential properties and (b) schools. [4305]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: The Environment Agency and its predecessor bodies has carried out assessments of the impact of emissions from the landfill site at Hilts Quarry, Crich, since the first authorisation was granted to Rolls Royce to dispose of very low level radioactive waste there in the 1960s. In the context of applications that Rolls Royce Marine Power Operations Ltd. made last year for the disposal of limited quantities of very low level radioactive waste, the Environment Agency is examining the continued suitability of the Crich site for this purpose. The Agency's assessment will include impacts in the vicinity of the site.

  White Goods (Recycling)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if it is the policy of the Government that manufacturers of electrical and electronic equipment should meet the cost of collecting such equipment from private householders when it is put out for disposal. [3912]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: No decisions have been taken on which party or parties should be made responsible or partly responsible for the cost of collecting electrical and electronic equipment from private householders. In reaching its decision the Government will consider the relevant costs and benefits to all parties and take in to account the adopted Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive.

  Recycling
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much of the Waste Recovery Action Programme's 2001–02 budget to stimulate recycling has been allocated(a) in total and (b) to each project involved. [4070]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: Total Government funding for WRAP for 2001–02 is £9,615,000. This includes contributions from DEFRA, DTI, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales. That funding has been initially allocated to core costs, programme development costs and to eight areas of programme delivery as set out in the following table. WRAP are currently in the process of developing individual projects, along the lines set out in their business plan, which can be viewed at www.wrap.org.uk.

  Total (£)

  Core

  1,237,048

  Development

  835,250

  Paper

  1,307,953

  Glass

  1,245,536

  Plastic

  1,371,303

  Wood

  697,199

  296W

  Total (£)

  Commercial Instruments

  263.124

  Procurement

  954,386

  Standards

  604,803

  Communication/Information

  1,098,398

  Total

  9,615,000

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessments she has made of the method of reporting of progress by energy conservation authorities under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995; and if she will work in conjunction with energy conservation authorities via the National HECA Forum to prepare a better reporting system of energy conservation authorities' progress under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995; [3862]

  (2) what steps she has taken (a) to encourage energy conservation authorities to reach her energy efficiency target by 2010 and (b) to assist them in reaching that target; [3864]

  (3) if energy conservation authorities are on course to reach the improvement target in energy efficiency by 2010 under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995; [3861]

  (4) what steps she proposes to take in each of the next three years to assist energy conservation authorities to meet the energy efficiency target set under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995; and what plans she has to publish a long-term strategy to help energy conservation authorities reach that target [3863]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answers 16 July 2001]: Under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 (HECA), energy conservation authorities are obliged to prepare a report identifying practicable and cost effective measures to improve significantly the energy efficiency of all residential accommodation in their area and to report on progress made in implementing those measures. There is no statutory target, but "significant" has been defined as 30 per cent. and strategies are expected to make at least substantial progress towards 30 per cent. improvement over 10 years.

  Details of the reported percentage improvements in the period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 2000 have been placed in the Libraries of the House in my reply to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) on 30 November 2000, Official Report, columns 757–58W.

  The Government assist local authorities with their work on energy efficiency by providing financial support for the Energy Saving Trust's local authority programme. Over the last six years, the HECAction initiative has awarded grants to 339 local authorities, totalling £23 million. This pump-priming has levered in an estimated £200 million in private sector funding.

  I recently announced a review of the policy framework within which local authorities carry out their energy efficiency activities, to be completed by the end of the year. One of the issues that this will address is the operation of HECA, including its reporting requirements

  297W
  and how they might be improved. We will involve stakeholders in the review process and will actively seek the views of energy conservation authorities on how they can make greater progress in improving energy efficiency in the future.

  Ministerial Duties
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list for each week from Monday 23 July to Monday 8 October which Departmental Ministers will be on duty(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in London. [4897]

  Mr. Morley
  Throughout the summer break, a Minister will be on duty for the Department, in line with para. 68 of the current Ministerial Code.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what arrangements will be put in place to allow autumn movements of livestock without spreading foot and mouth disease. [5611]

  Margaret Beckett
  My Department has had intensive discussions with a wide range of industry interests and the European Commission about this, with a view to putting a strategy in place by the end of July, to apply from 1 September onwards. In the meantime, all possible action is being taken to eradicate the disease as soon as possible.

  All concerned are clear that in considering autumn livestock movements, control of foot and mouth disease and safeguarding animal welfare must continue to be our primary concerns. We are proceeding on the basis of veterinary and scientific advice. Full details will be published as soon as possible, but the arrangements for the autumn will cover the following aspects:
  the possibility of holding livestock markets in counties which have been free of foot and mouth disease for three months or more and where testing has been completed;
  the possibility of some relaxation in the criteria covering livestock movements outside infected areas; and
  the possibility of promoting the domestic consumption of lamb in particular, and of negotiating with the European Commission an early resumption of pigmeat and sheepmeat exports, while not disrupting the domestic food supply chain.
  We are formally asking the European Commission to introduce a Private Storage Aid Scheme for sheepmeat in the autumn and are discussing with them the possible adaptation of the Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme to handle disposal of surplus lambs, and in the medium term the possible use of quota suspension or buy-out.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of employer awareness of stakeholder pensions; and if he will make a statement. [5612]

  Mr. Darling
  I have today placed in both Houses copies of research into employer awareness of stakeholder pensions.

  298W
  The research illustrates that awareness of stakeholder pensions is very high with 94 per cent. of respondents saying that they are aware of these pensions.

  Benefit Fraud (Brent)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of the London borough of Brent. [5613]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) report was published today in respect of the London borough of Brent and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as its counter fraud activities.

  The report notes that the authority was experiencing serious problems in delivering its benefit service at the time of the inspection. Inspectors found long delays and large backlogs of work in most areas. This had led to poor customer service and some significant security weaknesses, such as in verification. Although the report acknowledges that the inspection took place just after implementing new benefit processing software, inspectors consider that considerable improvements must be made to deliver adequate levels of service and security.

  The report notes the positive work done by the council to counter fraud effectively, such as its detailed investigation of prosecution cases. However, BFI inspectors were disappointed that it is not supported by more rigorous recovery of overpayments.

  BFI inspectors consider that achieving lasting improvements will not be an easy task for the council. The report notes the council has tried to use its contractual arrangements to bring about improvements in the service. The report also notes the council told BFI that it believes it is complying with 76 of a total 102 recommendations and has plans to address most of the others. Inspectors consider this demonstrates a good commitment to improve.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will estimate the numbers of Incapacity Benefit claimants(a) under the age of 40, (b) between 40 and 50, (c) between 50 and 60 and (d) over 60 years in each region and nation of the UK; [3092]

  (2) if he will estimate the numbers of (a) men and (b) women (i) entering and (ii) leaving a period of Incapacity Benefit claim in each region and nation of the UK; [3094]

  (3) if he will estimate the present numbers of (a) men and (b) women on Incapacity Benefit in each region and nation of the UK; [3096]

  299W
  (4) if he will estimate the numbers of new (a) male and (b) female Incapacity Benefit claimants in the last 12 months (i) in total and (ii) in each region and nation of the UK. [3098]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information for Great Britain is in the tables. The Northern Ireland Assembly is responsible for social security matters within Northern Ireland.

  Incapacity Benefit (IB) recipients by age group at 28 February 2001

  Thousand

  All ages

  Under 40

  40–49

  50–59

  60+

  All cases

  2,324.4

  621.9

  517.3

  844.9

  340.3

  North East

  160.9

  39.8

  35.7

  59.7

  25.7

  North West

  393.4

  105.6

  87.9

  142.8

  57.1

  Yorks and Humber

  207.1

  51.5

  44.3

  77.5

  33.8

  East Midlands

  148.4

  36.6

  32.3

  55.8

  23.7

  West Midlands

  208.5

  54.5

  45.9

  76.2

  31.9

  South West

  146.3

  40.0

  31.0

  54.1

  21.2

  Eastern

  135.3

  35.6

  29.7

  50.3

  19.7

  London

  257.0

  80.8

  62.4

  83.9

  29.8

  South East

  178.1

  47.9

  41.6

  63.9

  24.7

  England

  1,835.0

  492.3

  410.8

  664.2

  267.7

  Scotland

  288.2

  79.6

  66.3

  103.1

  39.2

  Wales

  192.6

  49.3

  38.8

  73.4

  31.2

  Overseas

  8.6

  0.8

  1.3

  4.2

  2.2

  Notes:

  1. These figures are for all rates of IB and include Credits Only cases (a small number of which are over pension age and are incorrectly held on the INCAP computer system).

  2. These figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of the benefit computer system and will exclude a small number of clerically held cases.

  3. They are expressed in thousands, rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Awards and terminations of Incapacity Benefit from 1 March 2000 to 28 February 2001

  Thousand

  Award of Incapacity Benefit

  Termination of Incapacity Benefit

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  All cases

  435.5

  254.7

  306.3

  176.0

  North East

  31.7

  17.7

  23.4

  11.2

  North West

  72.6

  42.7

  51.2

  30.5

  Yorks and Humber

  45.5

  24.9

  33.9

  18.0

  East Midlands

  27.0

  17.1

  18.8

  11.7

  West Midlands

  40.8

  22.9

  27.1

  15.9

  South West

  32.0

  17.9

  22.5

  13.1

  Eastern

  26.3

  15.8

  19.1

  10.9

  London

  39.5

  24.8

  24.9

  14.9

  South East

  34.6

  20.3

  23.6

  13.5

  England

  349.9

  204.0

  244.4

  139.8

  Scotland

  52.1

  31.9

  38.1

  23.6

  Wales

  33.3

  18.7

  23.6

  12.5

  Overseas

  10.2

  10.1

  10.2

  10.1

  1 Figures 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

  Notes:

  1. These figures are based on 5 per cent. samples of the benefit computer system and will exclude a small number of clerically held cases.

  2. They are expressed in thousands, rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3. These figures include some clerical cases which have been re-entered onto the computer system and may not be new awards of Incapacity Benefit.

  4. The termination figures are for all terminations excluding awards of retirement pension.

  5. This table does not include Credits Only cases.
  300W

  Incapacity Benefit recipients at 28 February 2001

  Thousand

  Males

  Females

  All cases

  1,458.5

  865.9

  North East

  102.8

  58.1

  North West

  246.6

  146.8

  Yorks and Humber

  134.2

  72.9

  East Midlands

  94.0

  54.5

  West Midlands

  131.7

  76.8

  South West

  94.1

  52.1

  Eastern

  83.6

  51.8

  London

  160.6

  96.4

  South East

  112.5

  65.6

  England

  1,160.1

  675.0

  Scotland

  173.1

  115.1

  Wales

  119.7

  72.9

  Overseas

  5.6

  3.0

  Notes:

  1. These figures are for all rates of Incapacity Benefit and will include Credits Only cases (a small number of which are over pension age and are incorrectly held on the INCAP computer system).

  2. These figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of the benefit computer system and will exclude a small number of clerically held cases.

  3. They are expressed in thousands, rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many women in the last 12 months for which figures are available were receiving Incapacity Benefit by the time they reached 60 years of age; [3537]

  (2) how many men in the last 12 months for which figures are available were receiving Incapacity Benefit by the time they reached 65 years of age. [3538

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table.

  Numbers of people leaving Incapacity Benefit in the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  Thousand

  Number of people leaving

  Women aged 60 plus

  46.8

  Men aged 65 plus

  118.3

  Notes:

  1. Long-term rate Incapacity Benefit is not payable after state pension age.

  2. Former Invalidity Benefit recipients who were over state pension age on 13 April 1995 may receive Incapacity Benefit for up to five years past state pension age. People awarded short-term rate Incapacity Benefit before they leached state pension age may also continue to receive it for up to 52 weeks. Therefore, the figures in the table will include some people who had left benefit after they had reached state pension age.

  3. Figures will include some cases where the person received National Insurance credits only.

  4. Figures are based on a 1 per cent. sample of claims to benefit.

  New Deal
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people living in the Greater London area have obtained a new deal placement; and if he will make a statement. [3217]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The new deals are giving people the skills, confidence and motivation to move into work. By the end of April this year 68,564 people had obtained jobs through the new deals in the region covered by the London government office.

  Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (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; [3969]

  (2) what the terms of reference are for the Green Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement. [3977]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 13 July 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 13 July 2001, Official Report, columns 689–90W.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on what dates his Department's Green Minister attended meetings of the Green Ministers' Committee during the current Session of Parliament; on what dates subsequent meetings are planned to take place; and if he will make a statement. [4816]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer from my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 17 July 2001,Official Report, column 165W.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioner couples receive(a) two category A retirement pensions at the full rate, (b) two category A retirement pensions with one or both at less than the full rate, (c) a category A retirement pension and a category B retirement pension at the full rate and (d) a category A retirement pension and a category B retirement pension at less than the full rate. [4054]

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

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what advice his Department gives regarding the age limit on women receiving retirement state pension who are eligible for the Invalid Care Allowance. [4111]

  Mr. McCartney
  Information on the age limit and other eligibility conditions for claiming Invalid Care Allowance is available from various departmental sources including the Benefit Inquiry line, departmental internet website, and a range of leaflets for carers and pensioners. The information that is given to a woman receiving State Retirement Pension is that Invalid Care Allowance can be claimed up until the age of 65 but that receipt of the benefit can be affected by the receipt of other benefits.

  Disability Benefits
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of appeals against a decision to withdraw a disability or carer's benefit following a departmental medical examination have been successful in each of the last five years. [4355]
  302W
  Maria Eagle
  Information is not available in the form requested. Available statistics on the outcomes of appeals do not show where the decision appealed against was made following a medical examination, or distinguish between appeals against withdrawal of an existing award of benefit and appeals against disallowance of a new claim.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the progress made in(a) the purchase and (b) the implementation of the information technology system needed to support the new Child Support Agency maintenance calculation formula. [4164]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. Mike Isaac to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 18 July 2001:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the Child Support Agency.
  Mr. Smith is unavailable and therefore I am writing to you on his behalf.
  You have asked for a statement on the progress made in the purchase and implementation of the Information Technology system needed to support the new Child Support Agency maintenance calculation formula.
  The contract for the design, development and subsequent operation of the new computer system to support Child Support Reforms was signed on the 8th August 2000.
  The progress is still on course for the new Information Technology system to be ready in April 2002.

  Ministerial Duties
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list for each week from Monday 23 July to Monday 8 October which departmental Ministers will be on duty(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in London. [4895]

  Mr. McCartney
  It is not normal practice of Government to publish the daily ministerial duty roster. The Department will ensure that it has sufficient cover through the summer recess in line with the requirements of the ministerial code.

  Minimum Income Guarantee (Leigh)
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of pensioners in the Leigh constituency eligible for the Minimum Income Guarantee have so far claimed it. [4185]

  Mr. McCartney
  Estimates of the numbers of people who may be eligible for, but who have not claimed Minimum Income Guarantee, are not available below national level.

  As at February 2001 there were 3,100 Minimum Income Guarantee claimants in the Leigh constituency.

  Income Support
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the
  303W
  level of Income Support (a) available to persons aged 16 and under 18 years and (b) awarded to asylum seeking young people aged 16 and under 18 years; [3875]

  Malcolm Wicks
  From 3 April 2000 the Home Office is responsible for supporting and accommodating asylum seekers awaiting a determination of their case. Those asylum seekers in receipt of benefits prior to 3 April 2000 continue to be eligible to claim Income Support. Payment for any dependent children is at normal rates. Asylum seekers whose applications are accepted and who are awarded either refugee status or exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom are eligible for social security benefits in the usual way.

  The levels of Income Support personal allowances for younger people take account of the fact that the majority of this group live in someone else's household and can reasonably be assumed to have fewer financial responsibilities than people who are older and who are more likely to live independently. However, those 16 and 17-year-olds who are forced to claim independently can receive Income Support at higher rates.

  There is no provision for payment of Income Support to children aged under 16 in their own right. A dependant's allowance may be payable to people claiming benefit who have a dependent child or children living with them as part of their family.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Government
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if his plans for further powers for regional Government in England will entail other changes to the local government structure. [4122]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 2 July 2001, Official Report, column 80W, the Government intend to publish a White Paper on Regional Governance in England. This will set out the Government's thinking on these issues.

  No decisions have yet been taken on what—if any—changes in local government structure might be involved in taking forward the Government's proposals in relation to elected regional assemblies.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has for reforming local government. [4120]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The White Paper "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People", published in 1998, set out a ten year programme for the reform and modernisation of local government in England so that councils everywhere can be effective leaders of their communities and can deliver the highest quality local services. We have already made considerable progress through the introduction of Best Value, Local Public Service Agreements (LPSAs), new political management structures and a new ethical framework for local government.

  304W
  We are now building on these achievements, easing the burden of regulation on councils, reforming the local government finance regime and developing our commitment to give freedoms and flexibilities to high performing councils. We intend during the Autumn to publish a new White Paper setting out an up-to-date picture of our plans.

  Ministerial Duties
  David Maclean
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list for each week from Monday 23 July to Monday 8 October which departmental ministers will be on duty(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in London. [4905]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  It is not normal practice of Government to publish the daily Ministerial Duty Roster. This Department will ensure that it has sufficient cover through the summer recess in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations were made, and when, to Government Departments on behalf of the Trinidad and Tobago Football Authority regarding the applications for work permits by Mr. Hector Sam and Mr. Carlos Edwards. [2089]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) on 27 June 2001,Official Report, column 97W.

  Departmental Units
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the cross-departmental and other units run from within his Department, listing in each case(a) the reports which they have published to date and (b) the topics on which they are engaged; and if he will make a statement. [2678]

  Mr. Leslie
  I shall write to the hon. Member with a full answer as soon as the information is available, and place a copy in the Libraries of the House.

  Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will set out the terms of reference for the role of the Green Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement; [4821]

  (2) on what date a Green Minister was first appointed in his Department; when subsequent appointments were made; and if he will make a statement. [4822]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 13 July 2001,Official Report, columns 689–90W.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on what dates his Department's Green Minister attended meetings of the Green Ministers' Committee during the
  305W
  current Session of Parliament; on what dates subsequent meetings are planned to take place; and if he will make a statement. [4820]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 17 July 2001,Official Report, column 165W.

  Electronic Communications
  Brian White
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans the Cabinet Office has to revise the guidance to Departments on the use of electronic communications at work. [5737]

  Mr. Leslie
  The second edition of guidance to Departments entitled "Electronic Communications at Work; What you Need to Know" will be published shortly 306W
  by the Office of the E-Envoy. It seeks to support Departments in encouraging the responsible use of e-mails and the internet by their staff. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available on the E-Envoy's website.

  E-Government
  David Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made on the second e-Government International Benchmarking Study. [5736]

  Mr. Leslie
  The second e-Government International Benchmarking Study has now concluded and the report is published today on the website of the E-Envoy at: http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/publications/reports/benchmarkingV2/intro.htm. Copies of the report have been laid in the Libraries of the House.

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 Browne of Madingley
Sir Edmund John Phillip Browne, Knight, having been created Baron Browne of Madingley, of Cambridge in the County of Cambridgeshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Simon of Highbury and the Lord Garel-Jones.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
Sir Stewart Ross Sutherland, Knight, having been created Baron Sutherland of Houndwood, of Houndwoocl in the Scottish Borders, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Flowers and the Lord Wilson of Tillyorn.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

School Term Times
2.50 p.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
What, in their assessment, are the economic, social and educational benefits of instituting a six-term school year as proposed by the English Tourism Council.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, we have no knowledge of a proposal by the English Tourism Council for a six-term school year. The Local Government Association has consulted on proposals for a six-term year and will make final recommendations in December. We shall consider those carefully. However, at present we have no plans to change the arrangements under which decisions on the organisation of the school year are taken by local education authorities and school governing bodies.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with the suggestion made by the English Tourism Council that a 10-day autumn break and an earlier scheduling of the long summer holiday—something which might appeal to noble Lords—that would be associated with a six-term year might be of great advantage to tourism enterprises? Will she further undertake to use her best offices to ensure that maximum co-operation is established between the
1470
worlds of education and tourism to their mutual benefit, always ensuring of course that the academic welfare of schoolchildren is paramount?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords. I believe in joined-up government and so of course I shall pass on the comments made by my noble friend to my noble friend Lady Blackstone. A few schools are considering the possibility of a five-term year, but so far there is little evidence to suggest that this is appropriate. Furthermore, as my noble friend has pointed out, from the education point of view the issue will be: how would this raise standards?
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, these proposals would affect the religious festivals of Easter and Passover which are closely related. However, their religious viability does not depend on the scheduling of school holidays. Do the Government agree that the proposals would result in considerable educational impoverishment, which would extend to the needs of younger pupils settling into schools at the start of the academic year? Furthermore, do the Government agree that such proposals would result in a wider cultural impoverishment, given the continuing need for society to maintain common points of reference? I have put these questions with the active support of the Chief Rabbi.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I understand that the question of the date for Easter has been settled since AD325, but I cannot recall the name of the council that reached the decision. I understand that the Churches and denominational schools would be concerned about the impact on Easter. It is a deeply significant time of the year. It is one of the factors that underlines our view that at present we are not seeking to change the structure of the academic year. I am sure that the views of the Churches and others will be fed into the review and of course we shall be mindful of those views when we come to consider it.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister accept that a six-term year could result in earlier examinations and produce a knock-on effect through many more post-qualification applications to universities? Is the Minister aware of research that has been undertaken which demonstrates that this could be advantageous to the socially excluded groups which Her Majesty's Government have declared themselves interested in further encouraging into universities?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is certainly our view that issues may arise as regards applications to universities. However, again, decisions about such matters should be taken locally rather than by central government. As I have said, we have no plans to make any changes, but we shall listen to representations. Universities will have to think about whether this proposal should be considered.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned that representations are to be made. Can

1471
she give the House a categorical assurance that the HMC and the GBA, namely, the independent sector, will be fully consulted before anything reaches a semi-permanent form?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I said in my earlier responses, we have no plans to make changes. This review is taking place with the Local Government Association. However, it would be the view of the department that it would wish to consult widely and of course the bodies mentioned by the noble Lord would be included in such consultation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I may be mistaken, but I believe that this is the first occasion on which the noble Baroness has answered Questions. On behalf of the whole House, I should like to welcome her most warmly to the Dispatch Box.
I have never been an advocate of one-size-fits-all. Some freedom should be given to head teachers, teachers, parents and staff of schools to make arrangements, while of course protecting the position of Easter and taking into account the importance of applications to universities. Does the noble Baroness agree that as much flexibility as possible should be given to schools and that such a decision should not come as a mandate either from local government or national government?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. As I said, this is a decision to be reached locally. I can cite the example of city technology colleges, which operate a five-term year. A few other schools are beginning to examine such arrangements. We are taking note of what is happening and looking at the implications for schoolchildren; namely, whether the arrangements are of any benefit. However, I agree completely with the noble Baroness that local flexibility is an issue in this area and we are mindful of that.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a degree of flexibility as regards school holidays would be greatly welcomed by parents? At present the straitjacket of school holidays results in airlines, bus and train services, hotels and a range of other services hiking up their prices during that time, greatly to the detriment of parents. Here I should declare an interest.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, perhaps I may also declare an interest in this area. As I said earlier, it is for LEAs to reach such decisions. I believe that the noble Lord might wish to make representations to his LEA, which I believe is the same as my LEA. This is an area where joined-up government has to play its part. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Blackstone will read the noble Lord's comments with care and take the matter forward.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that teachers from overseas need
1472
the long summer holiday because it is the only time available to them to visit their relatives? I hope that she will bear this in mind when considering any decision to change the school year.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, noble Lords will appreciate that many factors have to be considered in this debate. My noble friend has cited an important factor because we recruit teachers from overseas. The same is true for some of our pupils from ethnic minorities. They use the long summer break to visit relatives living perhaps in India, Pakistan or Bangladesh. All those considerations reinforce the case for local flexibility and for these decisions to remain with LEAs.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, will the Minister give attention to the position of teachers in these considerations, in particular those teachers undertaking more advanced work in secondary education? They need time to read and to attend conferences in order to improve their performance. I believe that it would be a mistake to consider the needs of the tourist industry over the needs of schoolteachers.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, teachers are of paramount importance in our schools. The noble Lord will know that we have instituted a workload study, which will be important in this context. I take on board the point made by the noble Lord.

NHS Dental Treatment
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to ensure that National Health Service dental treatment is available to everyone living in London and other large cities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, perhaps I may say first how good it is to see the noble Baroness in her place in your Lordships' House and looking so well.
All health authorities have prepared dental action plans to ensure that everyone in the local area can access NHS dentistry, if they want it, within a reasonable time and distance.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, unfortunately the facts do not appear to balance that response. Is it not correct that national health dentists are paid according to nationally averaged expenses built into a fixed fee for each specific item of treatment? Does that not mean that those dentists who incur low costs fare well, but that those whose costs are higher than average fare badly? Indeed, they fare so

1473
badly that in high cost areas often they cannot offer any form of national health treatment. What does the Minister propose to do about that?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the point made by the noble Baroness is well taken. I imagine that she might argue that a special weighting should apply to dentists practising in London to reflect that. However, I have to say to the noble Baroness that relatively few problems are encountered when recruiting dentists in London as compared with other parts of the country. As regards the remuneration of dentists in relation to the General Dental Service, I can tell the noble Baroness that a dentist aged 35 and over who has the highest level of commitment to the GDS would have annual earnings, after expenses, of around —65,000 per year.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is it not the case that approximately 1,000 extra dentists are needed if the Government's plans are fully to be put into effect? The Minister may have seen a survey recently carried out among dentistry graduates. Few of them stated that they would consider the NHS as a career choice. How do the Government square those findings with their plans?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, most dentists undertake a great deal of NHS treatment. So far as concerns the strategy, I am very confident that we will deliver on that strategy. We have said that we will make NHS dentistry accessible to all who require it by September this year. We shall ensure that that happens.
As to the number of students coming through, the figures for 2000–01 show an intake of 915 pre-clinical dental students, which is up on the previous three years. We are instituting a workforce review—the first for many years—to look at our future requirements in terms of the number of dentists that we need. We shall make sure that it will not be a snapshot review but one which will be ongoing over the next few years.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the Minister of a speech made by the Prime Minister in the Royal Free Hospital, a most appropriate place. He said that we should use the spare capacity of the private sector to help the public sector. There is an enormous amount of spare capacity in private dentistry, but the reason it is not used in the public sector is that people cannot afford it. Is it not the case that people cannot find National Health Service dentists; that there is a waiting list; that NHS dentists use inferior materials and offer a narrow range of treatment; and that 75 per cent of the costs have to be paid by the patient? What are the Government going to do about using the services available in the private sector? Will they cease the policy of underfunding started by the previous Government and pay for people to get a free health service?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. There is nothing
1474
like friendly fire. I do not agree with my noble friend. I believe that the quality of NHS dentistry is very high; we have a high quality profession and high quality training. Through continuing professional development and the work of the General Dental Council, we are ensuring that we enhance the quality of treatment.
So far as concerns the mix between public and private provision in NHS dentistry, most dentists provide both private and NHS treatment. The challenge for us is to encourage dentists to undertake more NHS treatment. We have introduced incentives such as commitment payments and modernisation funds to encourage that. Certainly, so far as concerns the comments about dentistry made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, I am confident that by September this year we will achieve the access that he pledged.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that there has been a 27 per cent decline in applications for dental student places at our higher education institutions? Does not that cause him some concern?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, nevertheless dental places are being filled. There has been an increase in the numbers coming into our dental schools. I am assured that the quality of people applying is of a very high calibre. But, of course, we must keep the question raised by the noble Lord under review. It is an issue that we will address within the workforce planning review. Dentistry is a profession of a very high order and we want to attract the highest calibre of people to it.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that he could assist National Health Service dental treatment by making rapid progress on the fluoridation of water supplies, particularly to those large cities referred to in the Question?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend surprises me by his question. He will know that we commissioned an up-to-date review of the evidence on fluoridation and health from the University of York. The review found evidence that fluoridating water does help to reduce tooth decay. It also considered evidence of its adverse effects on general health but found that there was no association with some of the allegations made in relation to osteoporosis, bone fractures, cancer, Alzheimer's disease or other irregularities. None the less, the report identified that there was a lack of good quality research in this area. For that reason we have asked the Medical Research Council to advise us on what further research should be commissioned. Any decision on legislation in regard to fluoridation must await the advice of the Medical Research Council.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the adult dental health survey—a vast survey—shows that 42 per cent of the adult population

1475
suffer from quite serious periodontal disease? What steps can the Government take to ensure that there are enough periodontal specialists to tackle this pervasive problem?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important question. The workforce review that I have mentioned will commence work tomorrow. It will look at all issues in relation to the workforce within the wider profession. I hope that it will come forward with proposals to ensure that we have the workforce we need to provide the range and quality of services identified by the noble Lord.

Autumn Sheep Sales
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest: I have a flock of pedigree sheep in North Yorkshire.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the autumn sheep sales will be allowed to proceed; and, if not, what will happen to the breeding stock.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government are very much aware of the problems posed by foot and mouth movement restrictions to the traditional autumn sheep sales and movements. Ministers in the department have had intensive discussions with a wide range of industry stakeholders and with the European Commission about this, with a view to putting in place a strategy by the end of July, to apply from 1st September onwards. In the meantime, all possible action is being taken to eradicate the disease as soon as possible.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Before he goes away on his summer holidays, will he set up a special working party for the breeding livestock industry—with representatives from DEFRA, the livestock industry, vets and all those involved—to look at breeding, sales, movements, costs, vaccinations, welfare and so on? This is a very serious problem and farmers are in a terrible dilemma.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are two time dimensions in regard to this issue; first, to put in place a regime which will operate for sheep and other animal movements in the autumn, and, secondly, to look at the fundamentals of the industry. In regard to the latter, we shall be announcing in a matter of weeks the establishment of a policy commission, which will look at that issue. It will be in contact with all the interested parties mentioned by the noble Baroness.
1476
So far as concerns movements in the autumn, a Written Answer from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be repeated in this House. It will spell out that we are looking at a number of possibilities being brought together in the announcement at the end of July. It will include the possibility of holding livestock markets in those counties which have been free of foot and mouth for three months or more, and where testing has been completed; a relaxation in the criteria covering livestock movements outside affected areas; the possibility of promoting the domestic consumption of lamb, in particular; and negotiating with the European Commission an early resumption of pigmeat and, it is to be hoped, sheepmeat exports without disrupting the domestic food supply chain. We are formally approaching the Commission about the possibility of private storage aid schemes to deal with some of the surplus lamb, and a possible adaptation of the livestock welfare disposal scheme to handle disposal. In the medium term we are discussing with the Commission issues of quotas and possible quota buy-ups.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, we feel that the Government have been somewhat dilatory in this area and so we welcome the announcements made by the Minister today. Four issues follow on from the noble Baroness's Question: first, the 2 million light lambs flooding into our market which cannot be exported; secondly, the store lambs, which the Minister may wish to consider; thirdly, the cull ewes; and, fourthly, the sheep that would normally come down to the lowland for the winter. Can the Minister enlarge upon these very urgent matters because time is not on the Government's side?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly the timescale is acute. However, we need to get European clearance on a number of issues we have been discussing with farmers and others. Light lamb is the most acute problem as almost all of it goes for export, and no export market is likely to be there in the autumn. That is where the various disposal schemes come into play. As to store lambs and cull ewes, the adaptation of the welfare disposal scheme is appropriate. That is a matter that we are also discussing with the industry and the Commission.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, will the Minister give the House, and the farmers, a general assurance that the 2 million lambs that are to be slaughtered will not go to waste, and that the Government will make an all-out effort for a marketing campaign? We welcome the fact that the department is looking into the possibilities of cold storage. However, does the Minister accept that the processing of light lamb in particular will present difficulty? It will not be economic, as lamb will be flooding the market. Do the Government have a plan to deal with the processing of lambs? Do they intend to subsidise them? And are they satisfied that the capacity exists to deal with such large numbers?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with reference to the various potential schemes, it is clear that there is a surplus of lamb. We export 30 per cent across the board and virtually all light lamb. There is a potential market for some light lamb, but it is relatively small compared with the total amount that is likely to come on to the market. I welcome particularly the announcement by Tesco—if I am not advertising too much—that it is promoting new cuts of light lamb. Other supermarkets have discussed similar promotional campaigns with the Meat and Livestock Commission. But we should not deceive ourselves. There may be significant take-up of those promotions, but it will not represent a significant proportion of the total number of lambs. We shall therefore need to deal with the disposal of some of the surplus, particularly in the light lamb sector. I cannot, therefore, give the blanket assurance that the noble Baroness seeks.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, will the Minister continue to hold urgent discussions with his colleagues, the agriculture Ministers in the devolved administrations, to ensure that the interests of areas of the United Kingdom such as the one in which I live—which is dependent on the livestock industry as its only source of income—are fully represented to the European Commission?
Lord Whiny: My Lords, the situation in Wales—the main producer of light lamb—is particularly acute. I assure the noble Lord that we are in constant contact with the Ministers for the devolved administrations. Indeed, Carwyn Jones was here for a meeting with myself and other Ministers only last night.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who receives support as a hill farmer. The Minister is no doubt aware that, even if he manages to get the market sales going, the 21-day restriction will cause immense upset in the normal marketing pattern, particularly for hill farmers. Unless some new regulation is introduced, most of the trade will probably take place by private bargain. In that case, the traceability will have to be through the system that was introduced following the outbreak of BSE. The one weakness in the system is that at present it is not properly policed. Will the Government not agree that the proper implenentation of this policy is the most practical system for the future?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, taking into account the situation that will arise in the autumn, it is clear that although there may be some relaxation in disease-free counties, in general, movements will be under licence and under control. That raises questions of the proper administration of the restrictions. In the long run, we shall have to take a decision on the long-term 21-day standstill, but the restriction will continue in the autumn. I hope that we can address the administrative problems referred to by the noble Duke.

Global Wealth: Inequalities
3.13 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosbyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals to reverse the growing inequalities in global wealth and incomes they propose to put to the G8 Summit in Genoa this weekend.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the G8 Summit will focus on managing globalisation so that poor countries share in its benefits, thereby reducing inequalities. We shall work with our G8 partners to launch a new trade round and improve market access; to establish a global health fund to help to tackle HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis; to strengthen the international financial system; and to push forward on debt relief, under which 23 countries have now received 53 billion dollars in relief.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that constructive Answer. However, does she accept that sealing off protest trains cannot seal off a great sense of indignation that arises from the fact that 7.2 million dollar millionaires in this world own and control one-third of the entire world's resources? Can Her Majesty's Government express a view so far on Mr Bush's new initiative regarding grants instead of loans from the World Bank? Also, will the Tobin tax will be considered by the G8 countries?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I cannot at this stage say anything about the two specific points raised by the noble Baroness. I shall reply to her in writing once we have a clearer view on them.
This weekend's G8 Summit will prioritise issues relating to development and poverty reduction. The fact that the leaders of the G8 countries are to spend a considerable amount of time talking about questions of inequality is something that we in the development community take extremely seriously.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister accept, as the evidence suggests, that the globalisation of finance and trade, far from worsening inequalities, is actually narrowing inequalities in some areas and can bring vast benefits to many of the poorest people in the world? Does she agree that that message should be strongly conveyed to the rabble and the well-organised mob converging on Genoa this weekend? Should it not be explained to them that their protests are aimed in exactly the wrong direction?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we must accept that there is a right to peaceful protest. What we do not accept is the violence that has marred a number of summits. As regards the noble Lord's comments about finance and trade, we made clear in our globalisation White Paper at the end of last year that we saw

1479
globalisation bringing with it opportunities and threats, and that it is for us to work to manage the process in such a way that globalisation delivers benefits for the poor rather than being a threat to the developing countries which we seek to assist.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, more specifically, is it government policy to retain the quota system for as long as it takes to ensure a level playing field?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government have worked long and hard to promote access in terms of trade. The noble Viscount will be aware of the European Union's Everything But Arms initiative, which gives access to least developed countries. We have been working hard to ensure that the next trade round at Doha is seen as a developing round.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept the analysis in the Economist magazine last month that global inequalities are widening rather than narrowing?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, this is a complex question and one that we have been examining. In some areas of the world inequality is widening; in others it is narrowing. We seek to learn lessons from those countries where inequality is lessening and to apply them to such areas as sub-Saharan Africa in order to improve matters and ensure that such countries are able to meet international development targets, and to work towards narrowing income inequality.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of those who voted to re-elect this Government were in favour of a much enhanced aid programme, including the completion of the heavily indebted poor country initiative? Will the Minister confirm that at the summit in Genoa a genuine lead will be taken by the United Kingdom on the issue of debt relief in particular?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Earl is aware of the lead that we have already taken with respect to the HIPC initiative. Twenty-three countries have qualified. We are concerned that a number of the countries that could qualify are mired in conflict and we are working hard with the World Bank and the IMF to see what we can do in terms of the initiative as it currently stands to take on board the additional fact of conflict. We see our role as being to stay with the initiative as it currently stands but to examine why it is that some countries have been unable to qualify because of the particular circumstances affecting them.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make further provision in relation to the functions of the Historic Buildings and
1480
Monuments Commission for England; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Anelay of St Johns.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Williams of Crosby set down for today shall be limited to five hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliament and the Executive
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby rose to call attention to the case for making Parliament more effective in holding the executive to account, and therefore more relevant to voters; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying how grateful I am to colleagues in this House for having supported in such substantial numbers the debate that is about to take place. It indicates, I believe, that many Members of this House are profoundly concerned about the need for the reform of both Houses of Parliament—not only one, but both of them. I very much look forward to the speeches that are to be made which I believe will be of significance and importance.
I never quite understood the proper definition of the word "serendipity", but I have decided that it characterises the timing of this debate. As your Lordships will know, somewhat unexpectedly and all of a sudden on Monday, what one might describe as the "poodle" of Parliament turned round and bit its master on the executive. That gave me, for one, a very great sense of satisfaction. I hope that the opportunity it presents will now be seized. The former social security Minister in another place, Mr Frank Field, said that he believed that what had happened would be the "engine" for much wider reform. I very much hope that he is right. I also notice that Mr Graham Allen, a colleague of his and former Labour Whip, described the House of Commons as a "six-stone weakling". I might have used the term "a 12-stone weakling", but the message is quite clear.
Let us admit that there has been a loss of purpose in the other place. It flows from three factors, none wholly within its own control. It flows, in part, from devolution of power to Scotland and to Wales. One of the reasons why devolution is today a very substantial challenge to the House of Commons is precisely that the devolved assemblies have chosen working

1481
practices and methods that bring them a good deal closer to their own people. This House will recognise that, very strikingly, the regional media in both Scotland and Wales have virtually totally abandoned the coverage of Westminster in order to cover Cardiff and Edinburgh. That move is not without significance.
The second reason for the loss of purpose is a subject that has often been debated in this House; namely, our membership of the European Union. This has led to a good deal of legislation being ultimately decided in Brussels. We all know about that. And, regardless of our own opinion one way or the other on such subjects as membership of the euro, we are all very much aware of the need to establish the best mechanisms we can to scrutinise European legislation.
The third area has been little discussed in this House, or, indeed, in the other place. I refer to the growing power and extension of international treaties over precisely what are the sovereign powers of national parliaments. We do not discuss the World Trade Organisation; we do not have the pleasure of looking at the agenda for the G8; and we do not have an opportunity to talk at great length about the global environment convention. However, we all recognise that those treaties are now shaping our world and producing decisions that affect our citizens, while we are virtually voiceless in them.
One of my great concerns is that two elements are now eroding the power and the influence of Parliament. The first is the loss of interest among our own electors: a 59 per cent turnout, dating from the last election, is an alarm call to all of us. Secondly, when young people believe that protest is the only effective way for them to express themselves—even peaceful non-violent protest, as distinct from lobbying Parliament—-then, again, there is a very serious issue that we are obliged to address.
One of the reasons why Parliament has lost influence relates not only to the issues about which I have talked; namely, devolution, membership of the European Union, and the growing extent and power of treaties: we must also recognise that the extraordinary proliferation of quangos, regulators, commissioners, and the like, over the domestic field for which Parliament was once responsible has created a feeling of distance between the electors and Parliament which is also serious. I make no party point. However, whichever party we may belong to, the fact that 10,000 appointments a year are now made to quangos and regulatory bodies with virtually no scrutiny by either House of Parliament is a matter of considerable concern.
In a very distinguished study undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, for the Hansard Society, one of the most disturbing findings was Parliament's sense of its own impotence. The society's survey showed that Members of Parliament regarded virtually every one of their powers as now being ineffective. They said that parliamentary Questions were ineffective. The most famous day for parliamentary Questions—now Wednesday for Prime Minister's Questions—was, according to the study,
1482
regarded by 71 per cent of parliamentarians as being "ineffective". Only 8 per cent believed that Prime Minister's Questions were in any sense effective in ensuring the accountability of the Prime Minister.
Indeed, the Hansard Society study went much further. Of all the mechanisms open to Parliament—parliamentary Questions, Private Notice Questions, parliamentary debates and Select Committees—one, and only one, was regarded by more than half of the Members of Parliament questioned as being effective to any substantial extent. It will not surprise noble Lords to learn that that mechanism was the Select Committee procedure: 54 per cent of MPs thought that they had some ability to scrutinise and control the executive, but virtually every other traditional method was seen by them not to work.
A study by the BBC conducted last year—a survey of the British people's attitude towards their institutions—showed that Parliament was tied third from the bottom. If noble Lords would like to know who was even further down the list than Parliament, which attracted the confidence of exactly 32 per cent of our fellow citizens, I can tell them that the two institutions that did even worse were political parties (not much divorced from Parliament in the public mind) and the press, which noble Lords will be pleased to hear was the lowest of all, with just 11 per cent support from the public.
In such a situation, where not only the public have lost a great deal of confidence in Parliament but also where Parliament—this is the crucial point—has lost confidence in itself, we must ask the question: what can be done about it? However, before I address that question, I should like to say a few words about the executive. The worry is not just that Parliament has effectively lost its power to scrutinise and to hold the executive to account. Developments within the executive must also be the cause of some concern.
Over the past 15 or 20 years there have been two steady developments. One of those has been the consistent weakening of the Cabinet. I do not point particularly at the current Prime Minister, or at one of his most distinguished predecessors, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. But the truth of the matter is that except for a brief period under John Major, the Cabinet has become more and more a committee established to say yes to what the Prime Minister of the day wants it to do. Cabinet committees have been increasingly replaced by ad hoc committees, some of them comprising a small group of people called together for the purpose of agreeing a particular policy.
In addition, No. 10 has grown out of all proportion. Today There is something very close to a Prime Minister's office. That office is staffed by many young aides, undoubtedly brilliant young men and women, but—this is the key point—not accountable to Parliament. They are not accountable to the electorate; they are accountable only to their masters and mistresses who appoint them as aides. That causes us to be considerably concerned about growing prime ministerial power.
Ours is not a presidential system. I believe that it cannot be turned into a presidential system. At the conclusion of my remarks—I shall speak for less than the allotted time—I shall underline why I believe it is a dangerous illusion to suppose that Britain can turn its system into a presidential system, given the conditions that apply in other presidential systems that do not apply in this country.
Let me turn for a moment to what can be done. Obviously, one of the most important first steps, which could be taken soon—as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and the excellent Conservative document, Strengthening Parliament, both point out—is effectively to exclude the Whips from the process of selecting members of Select Committees and their chairs.
If, in this House, someone proposed that a man or woman accused of some offence could select not only the jury but also the judge, we would find it laughable. But the truth of the matter is that when the Whips choose Select Committee members and their chairs, that is exactly the position in which we find ourselves. How can the scrutineers be chosen by the very people who are to be scrutinised? It is simply absurd. Frankly, if we were a little more blunt, we would laugh it out of court. I very much hope that another place does not "buy" the compromise now being suggested; that is, that senior Back-Benchers should join with the Whips to select members of Select Committees. It is absolutely critical that Select Committees are independent of the executive; after all, they do not, frankly, wield any great power.
The second thing that needs to be done—again I owe a great deal here to the two reports I have already mentioned—is to try to make sense of parliamentary Questions. In this respect I think that this House has a good deal to teach the other place. There should be room for topical questions every week and there should be a limited number of questions. Above all, duplicate questions should not be accepted. Prime Minister's Questions have become absurd because one open-ended question after the other is put down, the sole purpose of which is to enable people to join in a rugby scrum called parliamentary Questions. That does not commend Parliament to the electorate, who increasingly dislike yahoo politics and who could not have more clearly indicated that dislike than at the last election.
I shall briefly mention two other matters. One that I believe is important is to reconsider the significance of a committee on treaties, for which my noble friend Lord Lester has pressed time and again. It is crucial to start to scrutinise international treaties. We are not suggesting that the executive should give up its power to ratify them, but at least it should consider the views of Parliament before it does so. Our young people recognise the effects of these treaties and are outraged that there is no constitutional method of discussing their impact and their effect on us and on other citizens of the world.
Finally, on the reform front, let me take a leap into the radical cyber age. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who is very aware of the impact of
1484
globalisation, will be an enthusiastic supporter of my next proposal—at least I hope so. We should start to think seriously about introducing a drafting stage debate for every major Bill before it is accepted by the Government for Second Reading. In other words, before the Whips are imposed there should be an opportunity to discuss the impact and effect of Bills. We might also adopt a process of the US Congress and some other legislatures; that is, placing draft Bills on the Internet so that the public and the interests concerned have an opportunity to express their views before the Government finally commit themselves to legislation. We have to recognise that we are now in a new electronic age. What better than a government committed both to information technology and the concept of citizenship to advance such a reform?
I turn to the issue of this House. I have already mentioned that in my view this House has some significant lessons to offer the other place. Sometimes I think we should be a little less humble about our role. Those lessons include what I have already said about parliamentary Questions, the timing of debates and the provision for topical debate, all of which are better at this end of the parliamentary corridor. But I would be irresponsible if I did not express my concern, the concern of these Benches, and not least of my noble friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats in this House, about the decision by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to state in a Written Answer—I regret that it was a Written Answer with no opportunity to question him further—that he saw no point in further consultation following the Wakeham report. I put it on the record that both of the major Opposition parties were under the impression that there would be another round of all-party consultation on those matters. We fully recognise the Government's right to say that there should not be prolonged delay. However, the matter could be dealt with by timetabled discussion. I register our concern, about which my noble friends Lord Dahrendorf and Lord Goodhart will have more to say.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that I was deeply concerned about the extent to which the executive is trying to become more and more presidential. Incidentally, it is greatly aided in that by the media—about which my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham will say something—in their insistence on concentrating on just one or two figures in each party to the exclusion of virtually everything and everyone else—not least, of course, to the exclusion of policy. Noble Lords will have noticed that Mr Gerald Kaufman's suit—I believe a copper and filigree suit—set off a degree of attention that policy has not attracted from the media for many months past. If I may say so, that is just a little daft.
In conclusion, the United States has a presidential system, a written constitution and a Supreme Court which is used to dealing with political questions. It also has an extraordinarily powerful legislature and a federal system in which the states hold much power. To try in any sense to graft a presidential system on to a unitary state with a weak legislature, a non-political judiciary and no, or very little, power for local and

1485
regional government, would, in my view, put at risk the whole of parliamentary democracy. I believe it is high time that we in this House and those in another place drew the line and said, "Thus far and no further and, indeed, we ought to step back". I beg to move for Papers.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on moving the Motion. In doing so she has drawn our attention to a strange paradox; namely, that Parliament and society, which are so relevant to each other, are becoming more and more disengaged. You would have thought that their mutual dependence and relevance would have brought them closer together, but in fact the opposite is true. I am not surprised. I have come across this paradox elsewhere in the world of business and of science. I think that there are lessons to be learned.
Those of us running businesses in the 1970s and 1980s could not help but observe that macho management and personal greed were alienating and antagonising the public—the very people on whom our profits and growth depended. Concern about that made the more perceptive of us realise that the business of business is not to serve ourselves but society. Out of that came the philosophy of corporate social responsibility. Companies became good citizens by adapting society's best values. Social responsibility is not only how you treat your customers but also your suppliers, employees and neighbours—and having a dialogue with them.
At the same time, business changed its attitude towards branding. Brands were developed originally as a market tool: a way of keeping market share. However today brands—and for "brands" one can substitute political parties—are seen as a method of earning trust and respect for products and services. It is that trust and respect which delivers the sales and growth to business. In that way business set about resolving the paradox. I do not say that the relationship between business and society is perfect, but it is a great deal better than it was. I think that there is a parallel.
The second area in which I came across the same paradox is science. People know that science is crucial to many aspects of modern life. Indeed, there was a time when people hardly questioned science. However, cracks in that confidence began to appear with episodes such as Thalidomide through to BSE. Some thought that the way to repair those cracks was to increase the public understanding of science. If people understood more about science, then there would be more acceptance of it and its risks. Among others, in its paper, Science and Society, your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology pointed out that that attitude towards the public was not only condescending but did little to repair the breakdown in trust between science and the public. The committee pointed out that the business of science is to serve society and not science: that it was equally important for science to understand the public as for the public to understand science. As a result all kinds of avenues of
1486
dialogue between science and the public have begun to open up with new museums, science weeks and many other initiatives. Those were discussed in the debate in this House on 16th February of this year.
It is perhaps too early to say with certainty, but I have no doubt that all the effort at dialogue will reverse the trend of the public becoming disengaged and less trusting of science. Again, I believe that there is a parallel here with Parliament. What can we in Parliament learn from the experience of science and business, of trying to resolve the paradox of their relationship with society?
The Electoral Commission's survey conducted by MORI of the recent general election concluded that voter engagement is the issue rather than apathy. We must engage the public more, as science and business now seek to do. There are many indications that there is a wish to do so. The debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on the public galleries produced some useful ideas about how we could make our sittings more user friendly. I think that those reforms should extend to the way in which the committees of the House work. Your Lordships' committees deal with matters of great interest to the general public ranging from the health of air travellers to the confidentiality and use of genetic data, and the work of the Monetary Policy Committee to animal testing. That work could be wasted unless it is combined with dialogue with the public.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. We should be more serious about consulting the public. I have said at the Dispatch Box that the Government are consulting the public knowing full well that the consultation consisted of inviting people and organisations to write in or answer a questionnaire. Consultation has to be a two-way affair. We could use telephone help lines or online consultation with chat rooms. Information about these consultations could be more widely advertised. Fortunately your Lordships' website is being restructured, modernised and made more user friendly. It will have the capacity for individual Peers to have their own website with which they can have a two-way dialogue with the public. Perhaps this will help consultation.
A couple of weeks ago we were debating our declaration of interests. Of course, we should declare our interests to counter the cynicism about parliamentarians being on the make. But what about a declaration of all the public services that we perform? What about a declaration of the huge number of voluntary activities we undertake? Looking about the Chamber I see many noble Lords who put a great deal more back into society than they take out.
We are an unelected Chamber and likely co remain so for some time. That means that we should be more accountable to the public, not less. If we do not adequately respond to their concerns their only course of action is disengagement. They cannot remove us as they can remove Members of another place; and so, also for the sake of democracy, we should undertake more active dialogue with the public. The business of Parliament is to serve society, not the Government.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord with his experience and the noble Baroness with her exceptional knowledge of Government and Parliament. I congratulate her on initiating this debate.
I have read the notes for guidance for maiden speakers and would plan, as instructed, that my remarks should be short and non-controversial. The most deeply uncontroversial statement that I can make after 31 years' experience of another place is that not all wisdom resides in the House of Commons. That is not intended as an observation on my party's leadership election process—as a supporter of Ken Clarke, how could it be?—but as an indication that as the years have gone by the ability of the House of Commons, even its desire, to hold the executive to account has reduced.
On Monday we saw the Commons flexing its muscles with regard to Select Committees. We shall have to see whether that process continues and goes further, as the noble Baroness hopes. I have to say that so far the trend is not encouraging. Under both governments—I stress, both governments—the accountability of the executive has been reduced. Some of the traditional ways of checking the actions and policies of Ministers have been blunted.
On the face of it the clearest and best way of holding Ministers to account is during Oral Questions. As any Minister will testify sharp questions from in front and even more from behind—are the most effective way of revealing weaknesses in policy. But things have changed, and let me give an example of how. When I was first elected to the Commons at the 1970 general election there was a terrible row some 12 months later involving that wonderful character, the late Julian Amery, Lord Amery of Lustleigh. He had been made (perhaps slightly surprisingly) Minister for Housing. His famous protestation that he lived in a terraced house like everybody else was perhaps only half convincing when it was discovered that the terraced house was in Eaton Square. At any rate in March 1971 Labour MPs noticed—they could hardly fail to do so—that no fewer than 24 Questions for Oral Answer appeared on the Order Paper tabled by Conservative Back-Benchers. They were all helpful, along the lines, "Wouldn't the Minister agree that the Government's housing policy is wonderful?" There was immediate outrage and accusations that the Questions had been prepared by civil servants and planted. There were Statements in the House. The whole issue was referred to a Select Committee. There was even speculation that the Minister might fall.
How things have changed. These days everybody does it. It does not cause a murmur. Questions are planted and helpful supplementaries are circulated. I suspect that they are prepared by special advisers, not civil servants, but the aim remains to give Ministers an easy ride. I describe the process because I am sure that such actions are entirely unknown in this House.
1488
Some in the other place disguise the process much better than the Government Back-Bencher in the last Parliament who, having the rare opportunity to question the Prime Minister, simply rose and said rather sulkily that her question had already been asked, meaning that the suggested supplementary had mistakenly been given to a Member higher up the Order Paper.
My first point is that if we are to progress, Westminster must recover its independence and its pride. We must place more value on independent Back-Benchers. Governments—any government—must understand that the function of their Back-Benchers is not to give unqualified support on any policy or decision; the Government right or wrong.
I do not wish to overstate the case. There are occasions when Members of the other place show total independence. Most consistently, they reject the Government's proposals on pay and allowances for something more generous. Ministers protest, but often very softly. More constructively, they pursue regional interests entirely independently. As the Member of Parliament for Sutton Coldfield, I was a consistent opponent under governments of both parties of the Dome going to Greenwich, although perhaps in retrospect we in the West Midlands had a lucky escape. There is currently a rather better all-party campaign, which I strongly support, to bring the national football stadium to Birmingham. Ministers know the strength of feeling for having some of our national projects sited in the Midlands and the North.
The point remains that if Parliament is to recover its influence, it must exert its rights. Again I emphasise that it is not just one government who have been responsible for the erosion of those rights. In the last years of the Conservative Government, I confronted a senior Minister on the grounds that, rather than making a Statement on the Floor of the House, he had given an announcement as an exclusive story to a national newspaper. The journalist in me was offended because scoops used to be the stories that the Government did not want in the newspapers rather than the ones they had planted there. The parliamentarian in me was offended because, even a few years before, the rule had been that Parliament should always hear first of any significant new announcement.
The Minister's reply was frank. He did not attempt to deny the accusation. The newspaper in question supported his policies and he thought that it was sensible to give it preferential treatment. Ministers also know that such statements of policy are not subject to the same scrutiny as they otherwise might receive. The announcement is praised as an important development to justify the scoop.
In my view, the position has deteriorated even further since then. There is no answer but for Parliament to assert its own rights and not allow itself to be used or bypassed.
I have one last point, which has not yet been made. In holding the executive to account, we should be concerned not just about the announcement of new

1489
policies, but about the implementation of policies that have become Acts of Parliament. That is where serious errors can take place and the aim of Parliament can be defeated. It is not just a question of scrutinising legislation before it is introduced, valuable as that is, hut also a question of post-legislative scrutiny. The truth is that the concern to get legislation passed is not matched by an equivalent concern to see it successfully implemented.
All too often, at the crucial moment when, after long preparation, a Secretary of State finally gets his measures on to the statute book, he moves off to another department. The implementation of the measures is then left to his successor. Whether we like it or not, the political truth is that a Cabinet Minister does not normally reckon that he will make his reputation by successfully implementing the decisions of his predecessor. A new Minister means a new focus. The department is required to put its efforts into developing new policies. That is where the excitement is. The danger is that the implementation of existing policy goes down the league of importance.
I shall give one example from my experience about which I still feel strongly. In 1986, when I was Secretary of State for Social Services, we passed a long and complex Social Security Act. One of its proposals was to change widows' entitlement inside the state earnings-related pension scheme, but to give more than 12 years' notice of the change. In Committee, my then Minister of State, John Major, promised a publicity campaign to explain the change further. Following the election. John Major and I both left for other jobs. The result was that the departmental leaflet failed to mention the change and gave the wrong information. Had a committee been set up to monitor the post-legislative impact, the mistake would have been avoided.
One problem with debates about the accountability of the executive is that they so often seem automatically hostile to the Government. In fact, as my example shows, the process can be to the positive advantage of Ministers. Although we have our political differences, some of which run very deep, holding the executive to account is essentially about good government, better legislation and its better implementation. Surely all parties can unite on that.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on his admirable maiden speech. In his memoirs, George Thomas recounts a moment when a former Cabinet Minister went past his chair and said, "May I have a word with you after the debate, Mr Speaker, as an old friend?", to which George replied, "Mr Speaker has no old friends". I had no old friends when I was the Speaker, but I am pleased to say that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and his wife have been friends of mine for many years. I hope that that will long continue.
When the noble Lord entered the House of Commons in 1970, I was already a Whip. I do not recollect him ever giving me any trouble. He quickly
1490
found himself on the Front Bench and when we were returned to government he became a distinguished Secretary of State for Transport and later for Social Services. His experience will be of great value to your Lordships' House. He also has the great advantage of being young. I trust that we shall have the benefit of his experience over many years.
I have a confession. When I looked at the list of speakers just before lunch, I was 13th in the line. I thought that I would come into the Chamber and make up my speech as we went along, picking the plums from other people. I have been caught red-handed by being put up to this position.
I wonder how many of your Lordships remember the days when we were all issued with old-style passes. In those days there was enormous cachet to being a Member of the House of Commons. I think that Members of the House of Lords had similar passes. They enabled us to park almost anywhere in our constituencies. I doubt that that would be wise today.
The truth is that Parliament has never been held in high repute. A man was whipped and pilloried arid put in prison for life in the 15th century for "cursing Parliament and all its works". It is not new to hold Members of Parliament in doubt. However, the current situation is dangerous. I do not recollect a time when Members of the other place have been held in quite such low esteem. That is dangerous for democracy.
Part of the reason, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has said, is that the system of government these days is much more presidential than parliamentary—and without the checks and balances of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the United States of America. I should like to see a return to parliamentary government in which Her Majesty's Government are held to account in Parliament not only by the Loyal Opposition but by Back-Benchers on both sides of the House, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said.
I was a Whip for 12 years. To paraphrase Dunning's famous Motion, I believe that the power of the Whips has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. In my day, the Whips did not impose their wishes upon reluctant Members; rather, it was the other way round. It was our duty to ensure that the leadership knew the views of the Back-Benchers. If the news was good, of course the Chief Whip took it in; if it was not so good, that was my duty. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, is not here today, but she will recollect that her traditional greeting to me was, "What is it now?". But it was essential that the leadership was told of the views of the Back-Benchers.
Mention has been made of Select Committees. When they were first introduced, I was somewhat dubious. I believe that at that time I was Chairman of Ways and Means, but I was concerned that the introduction of departmental Select Committees would tend to empty the Chamber. In that, I regret to say, I was correct. Latterly, when I was Speaker, I cannot begin to tell your Lordships how many times Members would come to me to ask, "Mr Speaker, Sir,

1491
will I be called before five o'clock?", to which I would reply, "The Front-Benchers will not finish by five o'clock. You have a Select Committee, have you?".
Members have no choice. They can either wait, hoping to catch the Speaker's eye and to be called, or go to a Select Committee. Of course, they go to the Select Committee. Therefore, I fear and regret that speeches in the Chamber are now pretty well irrelevant. Members speak to television cameras hoping to see themselves later in the evening on Tyne Tees or Border Television, or wherever their constituencies may be. I believe that it is through Select Committees that the Government effectively are held to account. In that, as has already been mentioned, lies the real importance of the revolt that occurred in the other place on Monday this week.
I turn to the subject of reform of procedure. There is insufficient time to deal with the matter in detail, but I am highly alarmed by the present practice in the other place of not taking votes after 10 o'clock at night; instead, debates are wrapped up and voted upon on a Wednesday. As one old friend on the government side of the House said to me the other day, "It's not right, mate, but it's done a power of good to my voting record". It is wrong in principle and I hope that something can be done about it.
I believe that we need to review our procedures not only in the other place but also in this House. I agree with what the noble Baroness said about Prime Minister's Questions. They are an absolute farce. They may make good television in the United States, but I believe that they have brought the House of Commons into grave disrepute. When I was Speaker, I tried to do something about it. I asked the then Prime Minister whether she could try to arrange for her Members to put down definitive Questions so that, if Members of Parliament strayed from them, I could bring them back to order. She replied in general terms that she did not use Prime Minister's Questions for that purpose; she used them to give a message to the nation. I believe that our present Prime Minister does much the same thing.
Finally, I turn to the subject of language. I believe that we must make our proceedings acceptable and understandable to those who elect us—I refer, of course, not to this House but to the other place. Far too many of our procedures and the language that we use are a mystery to those who turn on their television sets or listen to the radio, if they do so at all. Of course, I do not advocate a change to the traditional courtesies—indeed, in recent years those have tended to slip somewhat—nor am I against passion and anger. Both have a place in Parliament when they are necessary but not when they are unnecessary.
My time is up. Perhaps I may come to a close by recounting to your Lordships a story about language which I found in the parish magazine of my local church in Ide Hill. It was as follows:
"A ten year old boy told his mother, 'Our teacher told us how God sent Moses behind the enemy lines to rescue the Israelites from the Egyptians. He brought them to the Red Sea, and then ordered his engineers to build a pontoon bridge.
1492
After they had all crossed over Moses looked up and saw the Egyptian tanks coming. Quick as a flash Moses grabbed his walkie talkie and ordered his airforce to bomb the bridge, and save the Israelites'.
'David', exclaimed his mother, 'is that how your teacher told that story?'. 'Well not exactly', David admitted, 'hut if I told you it her way you'd never believe it"'.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, in preparing for my contribution this afternoon, I spent a little time looking at previous maiden speeches. Perhaps not surprisingly, I found that the word "trepidation" occurred regularly. I must say that, in feeling that, I am no exception.
I entered the other place 31 years ago with the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. He and I must have spoken hundreds of times within the Palace of Westminster. But this is very different. This afternoon I am conscious that I am speaking in a House where every Member has reached success in his or her chosen career or profession. I am conscious that, no matter on which issue I speak, someone in this Chamber will know more about the subject than I do. I was tempted to say, "Except possibly on the subject of my beloved Carlisle United", but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, may contest that.
Before I develop my thoughts, perhaps I may also place on record my sincere thanks to the Members and staff of this House who have been kind and thoughtful and have offered me much friendship over the past three weeks. It is much appreciated and has made my transition along the Corridor most enjoyable.
This afternoon I want to make some pragmatic, practical and selective points based on 18 years' experience on the Opposition Front Bench and on 18 months' running the Cabinet Office—one too long; one too short. Perhaps I should say that I could speak about the work of the Opposition Front-Bencher with great authority and perhaps without a great deal of challenge in this place. The point about the Cabinet Office was that one was, in a sense, trying to manage the machinery of government while, at the same time, holding responsibility for the senior Civil Service. When we consider the executive or the Government in a classical sense, we tend to think of Ministers; but we should also take on board the power, influence and role of the Civil Service.
Before I develop that subject, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on her choice of subject for the debate. I believe that it is most apposite and timely. However, I want to follow up one point that she raised. When we talk about the executive and Parliament, we must talk about them in relation to our citizens.
On Saturday, I attended the Durham miners' gala—a large meeting which took place in the beautiful city of Durham. I watched the banners which were being carried through the city. A phrase on the banners which cropped up repeatedly was "Knowledge is power". I believe that that is very true. In the world of information technology it is even truer now than it has been. That is why I was so keen to develop a radical

1493
White Paper and draft Bill on freedom of information. If we, as parliamentarians, together with the press and our citizens use the Freedom of Information Act, we can challenge government and, I hope, ensure that they govern better. Really, that is what this is all about—delivering better services to our citizens.
I have already referred to the Civil Service; I add that it is absolutely brilliant. Of the incoming government in 1997 not a single member of the Cabinet had previously served in a Cabinet but there was a seamless transition. The Civil Service was simply brilliant. I doubt whether there is another civil service in the world that could have accomplished that. I start from that base.
However, I became rather concerned that there were institutional handicaps built into our constitutional framework, which meant that our civil servants rarely came into contact with legislators. In a career spanning perhaps 40 years, civil servants might never come into contact with a Member of Parliament unless they were attached to a government department that did a great deal of work in the Houses of Parliament. Indeed, the whole concept of ministerial responsibility meant that if they spoke to a Member of Parliament, they had to do so through a Minister. I suggest that that is wasteful and we should look at it further.
We initiated a scheme that is still continuing, although I hope that the Government will find more money for it. Under that scheme, which operated on a voluntary basis, civil servants who wanted to spend a week with a Member of Parliament in his or her constituency and in the House of Commons could do so. The arrangement was completely non-political—it was handled by the Industry and Parliament Trust—and civil servants to whom I have talked told me that they found it very useful indeed. It helped to build up a bond of trust and understanding between civil servants and the legislature. We should be trying to build on that sort of arrangement.
I want to touch on one or two other small points. A great success in the House of Commons is the Public Accounts Committee. It is the one committee that has achieved results; it is the one committee that saves money for our citizens and it is the one committee that makes senior civil servants shake at the knees at the thought of appearing before it. It is an effective committee and we should examine ways of extending it. It is successful because it has independent resources. A former chairman, my noble friend Lord Sheldon, knows much more about it than I do. The fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General is not appointed by government and the fact that public servants are appointed by Parliament mean that we are able to challenge the authority and actions of the executive in a meaningful manner. The excellent report by the Hansard Society, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred, made it clear that that society wants to build into the Select Committee system the same system that the PAC uses. That is the right approach. I take on board the idea of having a finance and audit sub-committee attached to every Select
1494
Committee in order to challenge, for instance, government and executive Estimates. That would be a successful way of strengthening Select Committees.
While I am on that subject of Select Committees, whose membership I do not want to discuss, I want to make a pragmatic point. I could never understand why Select Committees did not call before them each year the appropriate Secretary of State to give an annual statement. I volunteered to do so—my civil servants thought that I was mad—and I found it a wonderful exercise. It concentrated my mind and that of my department and it gave me an opportunity to defend my department in front of parliamentarians, which is what we should be doing.
I should conclude my remarks, which I accept are practical—that is one of the roles that we can play in this House. I advance my proposals because I want to strengthen Parliament. By strengthening Parliament and by rigorously challenging it, I believe that we are strengthening our government and executive. By strengthening our government and executive, and by getting better decisions, I believe that we are strengthening something that I hold dearest of all, our democracy.
4.16 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, it gives me a special delight to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, on his telling maiden speech. His name in the North East is still held in great reverence because he is someone who can speak up for and participate in the politics of the North East. He is also revered as a person for his genuine care of and contact with people. I have walked the back streets of Jarrow with him, we were at the gala together on Saturday and I think that we have even shared terraces at the Stadium of Light—but not at Carlisle United.
The noble Lord's story about being too long on the Opposition Benches and too short in government reminded me of an encounter that I had recently with a young married clergyman, whom I was mildly reprimanding for wearing a blue clerical shirt. I said to him, "Did you know that in the early Church blue shirts were reserved for virgins and archdeacons?". "Ah, bishop", he replied straight away, "too late for one, too early for the next!". We hope that the noble Lord will enjoy his time in this Chamber and we look forward to his many contributions, which, as he ably illustrated today, will be of great benefit to this House. He can draw on his long and distinguished presence in the other place.
It is also my duty and pleasure to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important subject. She reminded us that this is one part—a pivotal part— of a whole range of constitutional issues that we are currently addressing. She picked out one or two of those issues about which I know very little. However, two issues with which I am very much concerned are the development of political regional devolution and the reform of this House. The noble Baroness's remarks on those matters must be linked with today's

1495
debate on public and parliamentary accountability. The subject of this debate is fundamental to all of that and it strikes at the very credibility of our democracy.
Successive elections—parliamentary, European and local—repeated a message of the electorate's alienation and disengagement from the political process. Frustration arises because it can sometimes seem that acceptance of responsibility and admission of mistakes, especially in areas that directly affect people's lives, are in short supply. An example of that is the lack of accountability and acceptance of responsibility in response to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Initially there was an extremely slow response—there was a failure to use past experience—and there remains a lack of co-ordination among support services. There has certainly been poor communication with those who are directly affected. All of that has added to the burdens of farmers and the many others who have suffered at the hands of the epidemic. That crisis highlighted a lack of accountability beyond a single government department because the agricultural community and industry is affected by European policies, global trading conditions and long-term environmental issues.
That example illustrates the question of who is doing the joined-up thinking that will give the farmers some hope. Who is to ask that question and who will answer for the validity of the response?
Another example is the Ouseley report on Bradford. That issue ranges across many different governmental departments. Who, on behalf of the Government, is not only answerable but also accountable for those issues? For accountability procedures to be effective, it must be clear who is accountable to whom and for what, and what are the consequences of that accountability. In theory, the consequence of accountability is the giving or withholding of the confidence of Parliament, but in practice, it is unreal when a government hold a majority of any size, but especially one with a large majority. That leads to our system of accountability which provides no more than answerability.
The question arises about the difference between public and parliamentary accountability. Perhaps, as has been said already by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, we need to give more attention to direct forms of participation in the process of government. Devices such as referendums and citizens' juries are often suggested. Modern technology, such as the radio phone-in, e-mails and Internet chat rooms seem to offer other possibilities. For many people, John Humphrys and Jeremy Paxman seem to be more effective at achieving public accountability than Back-Bench Members of Parliament and Opposition spokesmen. Our immediate concern is to make Parliament more transparently the body which holds the executive to account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to the Hansard Society's Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny. One of its principles is that Select
1496
Committees should have a set of objectives and performance indicators by which their performance can be judged and their effectiveness measured. It proposed that Committees should hold public periodic reviews assessing how far their recommendations had been implemented. Committee work should be more closely integrated into parliamentary activity, for example, by making time for short debates on reports.
Your Lordships' House, of course, plays a vital complementary role in the scrutiny process. Listening to the debates in this Chamber, I am frequently struck by the high quality of the contributions. Our lack of true democratic accountability is more than compensated for by a greater measure of independence and a wider range of expertise. We are able to echo the needs and concerns of the communities that we know so well.
It is a pity that our debates are not always adequately brought to public attention. Perhaps we should consider how we can communicate with the public more effectively and exercise more responsibly our duty to bring to the Government our knowledge of public opinion and concerns, to which our involvement in regional public life gives us access.
Apart from the role of this House in the legislature, it would be good to have some confirmation of the extent to which the Government take note of the knowledge and expertise that is represented here.
In international terms, our accountability arrangements seem to be weak because of party discipline and the Whipping system. In spite of appearances our parliamentary parties are coherent. There is strength in that because it provides the Government with the confidence of a mandate. But even party cohesion must not be allowed to take precedence over truth and conscience. The appearance of party unity, short-term views with an eye to the next election, or keeping favour with the Whips for reasons of political ambition must never replace our primary duty to represent and speak for the common good of the nation and its people.
It would be arrogant to speak from the Bishops Benches without the discipline of party allegiance, proposing naive solutions. Nevertheless, we wish to play our part in seeking to make Parliament more accountable, more credible, more relevant and more transparent in the daily lives of ordinary people and the concerns that they have. Unless we can do that together, I fear that an accelerating apathy and a lessening of participation will threaten the vitality of the democratic process.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the rules now say that only the immediately following speaker should congratulate noble Lords on their maiden speeches, but I want to take advantage of the fact that I am the first from these Benches to say that both the maiden speeches that we heard today were outstanding and every bit as good as one would hope, though not always expect, from former Cabinet Ministers. We hope to hear a lot more from both noble Lords.

1497
I shall start by talking about holding the executive to account through the scrutiny of Bills—especially pre-legislation scrutiny. The scrutiny of Bills is one of the most important duties of a legislature. After all, what is it for if not to legislate? We have now drifted into a situation in which all too often Bills are driven through the other place by a majority, without proper debate. When these Bills reach Your Lordships' House, they have not been properly prepared and we are faced with hundreds of late government amendments, as happened far too many times during the previous Parliament.
Pre-legislation scrutiny of government Bills is of enormous value. I was involved in one of the outstanding examples of such scrutiny in recent years—the Freedom of Information Bill. The Select Committee on the draft Bill was very effective. The Bill had suffered severely as a result of its move from the responsibility of the noble Lord, Lord Clark, to his right honourable friend Mr Jack Straw. Thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, who chaired the Select Committee, the Bill, as eventually introduced, although far from perfect, was much better than it would have been without that scrutiny. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House would agree because he gave evidence to us in his then capacity as a Home Office Minister.
The process of scrutiny enabled us to concentrate on issues within the Bill and to make more effective contributions at Committee and Report stages. Pre-legislation scrutiny is, of course, much more extensive than simply responding to a consultation paper. It gives the real possibility of an exchange of views, the chance to probe weaknesses in the Bill and the opportunity to call evidence on it. Pre-legislation scrutiny is especially valuable when examining difficult constitutional issues.
If ever a Bill called for such scrutiny, it is the prospective House of Lords Bill. It was made brutally clear on Tuesday last week that that is not what it will get. We were given the answer to a Written Question by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, as my noble friend Lady Williams has already said. That Written Answer states:
"The Government will publish their proposals before introducing a Bill. It will therefore be open to anyone who wishes to comment on our proposals. We do not intend to repeat the extensive public consultation exercise of the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord. Lord Wakeham, but we shall of course ensure that the political parties have a full opportunity to make their views known. We do not see a role for the joint committee. As I told they House in the debate on the Address, our proposals will be based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission. We will consider carefully all recommendations made within their context, but we will not allow consultation to become an excuse for excessive delay".—[Official Report, 10/7/01; col. WA69.]
That is it. There will be a consultation paper to which, for what it is worth, the parties can respond. But Wakeham reigns supreme. There will be no Joint committee. There will be no proper pre-legislation scrutiny. There will be no chance to engage the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, in dialogue. There will be no
1498
chance to call evidence. There will be no chance to produce an authoritative report on the strengths and weaknesses of the Government's proposals
Yet that is a Bill of extreme constitutional importance. Indeed, it is much more important than stage 1 of House of Lords reform. Until complicated by the Cranborne-Irvine concordat, stage 1 was, in essence, a one-clause Bill removing what even most hereditary Peers recognised was an indefensible anachronism. But stage 2 is intended to create a second Chamber for the long term. Surely your Lordships' House, through a Joint Committee of both Houses or through a Select Committee of your Lordships' House alone, should have a collective role in the formulation of stage 2.
The Wakeham report contained some good proposals and some bad ones. I take a few examples of what is bad. Should your Lordships' House be deprived of the power to reject secondary legislation, or even to delay it for more than a few hours? Can we take seriously the proposal, as Wakeham option B proposes, that voters should have a right to vote for their regional representatives in the second Chamber once every 15 years? Do we really want to give an appointments commission of seven people, however independent, however distinguished, the power to appoint the great majority of Members of your Lordships' House, including most political appointments? Indeed, what is the point of having a token elected membership of your Lordships' House which may amount to only one in eight of the total membership? Those are vital questions.
I have no doubt that there will be much in this Bill with which we do not agree. There will be much with which the Conservatives do not agree. There will be much with which a number of Labour Back-Benchers do not agree. But there will be no proper forum for debating those issues before the Government commit themselves to the contents of that Bill. Even if there were such consultation, we might not be able to change the Government's mind—but, by God, we should at least be given a chance to try.
It is grotesque that the Government intend to bring forward half-baked proposals for fundamental changes in the composition and powers of your Lordships' House without having had proper consultation with this House. If the Government go ahead on the present basis, they will get no easy ride from us.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness who introduced this Motion not only on the Motion but on the content of her speech and also, as she admitted herself, on a certain fortune in her timing. I add my congratulations also on the general tone of the debate which the Motion has produced. There have been no party polemics, no waste of time and the debate has been extremely welcome and timely. I, too, add some brief words of congratulations to both my noble friend, who is an old friend, and to the noble Lord opposite on two exceptionally welcome and good maiden speeches.

1499
There can be absolutely no doubt that respect for Parliament has been on the ebb for many years now. There have been powerful contributors to that process—successive governments, the media, the political parties and certain well-publicised, but few in number, delinquents.
In blaming all those culprits, we should be wrong to excuse ourselves from blame. There are many in your Lordships' House who have either been in that strange place down the other end of the building or here in your Lordships' House for many years. We should not dodge the responsibility for what has manifestly gone wrong.
It seems to me that we have let slip from our minds Parliament's importance and that Parliament's importance attaches to and depends upon not its Members but its duties. It would not be out of place if, from time to time, we reminded ourselves of what those principal duties are: first, to uphold the liberties of the people; secondly, to ensure that the laws we pass are both fair and comprehensible; and, thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, to restrain the executive.
It is my belief that in all three we have failed quite seriously over many years. We have fallen short and allowed Parliament instead to become an arena for arid, irrelevant party manoeuvres and, worse still, a tool for the executive. We have permitted a huge, untidy, ill-managed mass of government to grow to a point at which it feels called upon to meddle, often without effect, in more or less every activity of which the human race knows.
Recently, there has been a dramatic instance of the growth in government which really almost comes under the heading of cannibalism. No. 10 has swallowed No. 12 without, so far as I know, leaving even the remnant of a Whip behind.
We have accepted almost without protest the Government's right to suffocate us in a flow of law and regulation which is ill conceived and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made the same point—not thought through, inadequately debated and in constant need of attention and repair.
One result has been to leave people confused and obliged to rely upon professional advisers, whose services do not always come cheap, to guide them through the fungus of rules which grows monstrously in such fields as taxation and social legislation.
I turn for a moment to political parties. I have come to regard them as the only thoroughly nasty thing of which you need to have more than one. Long ago, they succeeded in squeezing out the independent Member, even though, in the last Parliament, under unusual circumstances, one did appear. Another one, happily, has appeared in this Parliament. A retired general practitioner, protesting against the closure of a hospital, has succeeded in making his opponents look silly and totally out of touch. In ordinary circumstances, no independent stands a chance against a candidate with the backing of a powerful party organisation.
1500
In your Lordships' House—and I tender my admiration for them unsolicited—the Cross-Benchers survive to show the worth of people who do not suffer the shackles of party control. Two days ago, a new mood manifested itself in the House of Commons. A large slice of Government supporters moved, as they had not moved for half a century and more, against the bidding of the Government, to tell an over-weaning Administration that they had gone too far and they had better back off. With Gwyneth Dunwoody saying it, they had the good sense to do so. One must just cherish the hope that that vote was not a flash in the pan but a significant event which can and will be repeated.
I turn to those who own and control the media. They have the huge paraphernalia of modern communications at their disposal which gives them unrivalled influence over our affairs, so much so that one cannot imagine the possibility of any political party winning a general election without an element of support from the tabloid press.
That brings me face to face with Mr Murdoch. I have nothing to say about him as a man, but he is not bound to this country by any ties. He sees this country as a place in which to make money and to wield power. Bewildered by such a situation, in order to maintain appearances, and to suggest that someone is sitting near the controls, we have set up the Press Complaints Commission. Its mission is to control the uncontrollable. A report from my noble friend Lord Wakeham, who is its chairman, is a little like David facing Goliath, but bereft of the sling and the pebble with which David achieved such notable results.
This is not a disguised plea for censorship. It is more a lament that those who enjoy such unparalleled influence should see fit to deride or to ignore Parliament, the one institution on which they could rely for support if there is a serious challenge.
Under the bidding of Ministers, your Lordships' House is about to foist upon itself a body of rules already complex and certain to become more so. I remind your Lordships, with due delicacy—the noble and learned Lord has the right of reply to this debate, so I must speak with great caution—that the other day when explaining—mark the word "explaining"—the rules, the noble and learned Lord found himself saying these extraordinary words:
"It is as simple as that".—[Official Report, 2/7/01; col. 641.]
In using those words, he must have surprised himself. Of course, remarkably, it was not at all simple. Anyone who reads that passage can satisfy themselves of that.
While the Government's proposals may appear to be commendable as an act of self-abasement, in my view they will do nothing to enhance respect for Parliament. I fear that the concept of integrity will get lost in the confusion and that the word will be drained of its meaning. The Motion has the merit of being a reminder that persons and institutions who surrender their liberties are unlikely to be respected by those who borrow or usurp them and even less by an astonished public.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, but if all noble Lords speak for three minutes over their time we shall have less time in which to hold my noble and learned friend to account when he replies.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for her little lecture. I apologise to the House.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for initiating this debate. It is an important one and so far it has been a good one. On Monday the vote in another place demonstrated that the mechanisms of Parliament, however arcane they may appear to the uninitiated, are the stuff of constitutional rectitude in this country.
I draw your Lordships' attention to a specific case for making Parliament more effective: the future of your Lordships' House. Voters will care more if, on a daily basis, they know that we are reflecting their differences of opinion and enforcing consideration of those differences on the executive. The executive—the Government—will not collapse if Parliament is able to do that. It may even be strengthened if Parliament reflects, more widely than the Government do, the reality of society outside Westminster's walls. In excellent speeches, those points were made by both maiden speakers.
The Government have embarked on a reform of your Lordship's House that I believe is intended to reflect more closely the wishes of the wider society of the United Kingdom. Following the statement in their 1997 manifesto—
"A Committee of both Houses of Parliament will be appointed to take a wide ranging review of possible further change and then to bring forward proposals for reform"—
the Government set up a process for that. First, there was to be a Bill to remove the right of the hereditary Peers to sit in the House; then a Royal Commission; then a Joint Committee; and then a Bill to reform the House. That was a clear process. I believe that your Lordships embarked on the journey—the most important journey we could embark on—to reform our supreme constitutional body, Parliament, by the process set out clearly by the Government. The British constitution is, classically, about process.
On 10th July this year—eight days ago—in reply to a Written Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rees, to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has already referred, the Leader of the House said:
"We do not see a role for a joint committee".—[Official Report, 10/7/01; col. WA69.]
The rest of his reply has already been read to the House. Perhaps that was prescient of the Leader of the House. The vote in another place on Monday suggests that the Government could not have controlled the membership of such a committee. Nevertheless, the process of reform of your Lordships' House has been established. We have all agreed to the process.
1502
At the risk of boring your Lordships perhaps I may remind you of the Government's commitment to the process. The White Paper of January 1999 gave the next intimation of the proposed Joint Committee on page 35. On 23rd February 1999 your Lordships debated the White Paper. The Government Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said:
"We have appointed a Royal Commission. followed by a Joint Committee which will produce proposals for the final stage of reform".—[Official Report, 23/2/999; cols. 1094–95.]
On 29th March 1999 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that there was a majority in both Houses for the removal of the hereditary Peers. He went on to say:
"Having done that, a consensus is sought about what should happen next, first, through the medium of the Royal Commission, and, secondly, through the Joint Committee of both Houses".— [Official Report, 29/3/99; col. 189.]
On 20th April 1999 the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, the then Leader of the House said:
"Whether or not we should seek a second stage referendurn—if one can call it that … is … a matter we would hope to proceed with by consent once the Royal Commission and the joint committee of both Houses (which we have no intention of abandoning) have reported".—[Official Report, 20/4/99; col. 1052.]
On 13th May 1999 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said during the Committee stage of the Bill:
"If one sets up a Royal Commission, one ought to be prepared to attend to its conclusions. If one invites a committer. of both Houses, which, by definition, will have an authoritative composition, one ought to have the courtesy and ordinary sense to listen to what it says".—[Official Report, 13/5199; cols. 1412–13.]
There have been numerous mentions in another place of the setting up of the Joint Committee, but I believe that the House would prefer it if I rely on what has been said in this House. However, as late as 19th June 2000 the Leader of the House of Commons confirmed that it remained the intention to establish the Joint Committee. I do not suggest that in his Answer last week the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House reneged on a commitment; nor do I accuse him personally of bad faith. Of course, the noble and learned Lord acts on behalf of the Government. It was, nevertheless, on that basis that all noble Lords read the report of the Royal Commission.
The Royal Commission clearly envisaged no Joint Committee, although it was open to it to do so; but it was not Parliament. I never understood that a Royal Commission, which is just a very grand expression of the Royal Prerogative, should be superior to Parliament or a parliamentary Joint Committee.
On 20th June 2000 the then Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, replied to a Question for Written Answer tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alli. The noble Lord asked whether the Government intended to set up a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the parliamentary aspects of reform of this House. The noble Baroness replied that the,
"Government do intend that such a committee should be established in due course".—[Official Report, 20/6/00; col. WA17]

1503
Your Lordships will be aware that the Royal Commission, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, had reported in January of that year. Here we have a working example of Parliament holding the executive to account, or failing to do so.
The British constitution depends on process. The integrity of that process depends above all on undertakings given in Parliament being honoured. If Her Majesty's Government believe that they are allowed, or they are allowed by Parliament, to renege on undertakings that they have given, that process is destroyed.
I thank the noble Baroness for giving me this opportunity on behalf of your Lordships to ask: if the process of reforming your Lordships' House is to be abandoned in so cavalier a fashion, how can Parliament hope to hold the executive to account?
4.52 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend for initiating this important debate and congratulating the two noble Lords for their outstanding maiden speeches. I declare an interest as the new chairman, as of yesterday, of the Hansard Society. Its report last week on parliamentary scrutiny, which has been referred to by several noble Lords, is germane to this debate, and I commend it to those of your Lordships who may not have seen it. At the same time, I pay tribute to, and thank, the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, who chaired the commission which produced the report. I also draw to the attention of those noble Lords who believe that they are overworked to page 143 of the report. Appendix 4 sets out the amount of time that Members of Parliament believe they work each week: the average is 70 hours. I make no further comment.
Regrettably, a long-standing piece of Hansard Society business which I have inherited means that I must leave the debate before the Leader of the House winds up. I apologise to him and the House for that.
It may be helpful to inquire for a moment why, if accountability is so self-evidently a good thing, we do not have more of it. Is it simply because of the machinations of the executive—the Demon King of this debate—backed up by the sticks of the Whips and the carrots of patronage? Is it because of what some constitutional scholars call fusion; namely, that the executive and Parliament have in a deep way begun to fuse when there should be a greater separation of powers?
I should like to introduce a slightly different thought. I believe that part of the answer is the pervasive and very debilitating culture of blame which so disfigures contemporary life in Britain. The heart of this culture of blame lies at Westminster. As a result of history, our Parliament is constructed and conducted on an adversarial basis. We have political partisanship which too easily overflows—not in your Lordships' House but elsewhere—proper limits. Our media are dependent not only on the personalisations to which
1504
my noble friend Lady Williams referred but the short-term adrenaline of exposé and recrimination. How readily the four-letter words "rage" and "fury" leap from the keyboards of the headline writers every day. Each morning there is free-floating anger looking where next to strike as the newspapers are prepared.
Following the debate on Monday in another place on Select Committees, I was interested to note that one honourable Member was quoted in the press as saying that,
"democracy is nothing without culpability".
It may be that he was misquoted. Perhaps Hansard improved his sentiments, since by the time the record appeared "culpability" had been replaced by "accountability".
That confusion serves to highlight the dilemma. If accountability is always taken to mean culpability and nothing more, pin the tail on the donkey, identify the guilty men, name them and shame them and find today's sacrificial victims to be thrown on the steadily burning pyres of synthetic outrage. If that is all there is to accountability, what is the likely, rational response of those in government? I venture an answer: Whitehall will be full of secrecy and Westminster will be full of spin. It sounds rather familiar, does it not? What will be the popular attitude to Parliament and politics? The answer is: apathy and alienation. Perhaps that is also rather familiar.
Yet I believe that accountability is an infinitely precious and indispensable part of good governance for all kinds of institutions—for companies as for Parliament—to ensure not only that power is exercised properly on behalf of those in whose name it is held but, just as importantly, that we learn from experience. The whole governmental system is a learning process. If mistakes are covered up and every new government must start in Whitehall from the year zero, as they do, and the best and brightest in the corridors of power are forced to spend a significant part of their time week in, week out, denying painful experience, with clever words and bright smiles, rather than openly setting out to learn from that painful experience and to do better next time, we shall not have a successful system of learning. To paraphrase the famous biologist Jonas Salk, the organism—the system of government in Britain—will be doomed because it does not have a feedback mechanism to modify its behaviour so that it does better next time.
What can we do to break out of the vicious circle and ensure that accountability is normal and continuing, that power is shared, that there is a good system of learning and that culpability is an exceptional and secondary matter? The first thing we can do is to decide that the mother of parliaments is due for reskilling, retraining and reform. I hope that the modernisation committee in another place will prove useful. The report by the Hansard Society and the Norton report, which is another document pointing in the same direction, show the way to better pre-legislative deliberation and scrutiny.
We need better joined-up thinking between the Houses so that both Houses of Parliament can be seen as one integrated system. Several noble Lords have

1505
referred to the need to learn from good practice elsewhere—we have no monopoly of wisdom—not just legislative assemblies abroad but the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly which are now working in a very interesting and experimental way. We need to learn from local government. Dare I say that the House of Commons might learn something from the House of Lords?
We need to develop an alternative career path for those in Parliament who want to be scrutineers and not Ministers and to make it worth their while in terms of status and remuneration. We need to drag the usual channels out of the shadows. Of course business has to be managed through both Houses, but could it not be managed with the involvement and consent of Back-Bench Members? Could we not have, as other legislatures, a business committee which is out in the fresh air and visible and transparent to us all?
Many of your Lordships made the point about power moving to regulatory agencies of one kind or another. Parliament should be at the apex of the system of scrutiny. Similarly, Parliament should be at the hub or public consultation, which is again a matter to which several noble Lords have referred. In that context, perhaps I may commend one piece of work of the Hansard Society; that is, its e-democracy programme. It has already worked with Select Committees in the other place and indeed with the Select Committee here on stem cell research. This autumn there will be a web consultation conducted by the Hansard Society to try and get maximum public involvement.
To conclude, if the Government were serious about modernisation and reform, and were really concerned about apathy and alienation, they would pursue a twin-track policy. They would pursue electoral reform. One would expect that from these Benches, but I hope that the Conservative Party will now be more sympathetic to the idea of electoral reform since it has been so scandalously misrepresented by the results of the recent election. I do not see warm support from those Benches, but perhaps it will come as the Conservative Party registers that in Wales it received 21 per cent of the votes but no seats at all. Those are hard lessons for minority parties which colleagues to my left might want to think about. However, on this twin-track of electoral and parliamentary reform, there is every prospect for the new Leader of the House in another place, who has himself the reputation of being a reformer, to take some steps forward which could produce a Parliament that is really fit for a mature democracy in the 21st century.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, made an excellent speech, of which I agreed with 75 per cent. I shall come to the other 25 per cent in a moment. I also enormously enjoyed, as all your Lordships did, the superb maiden speeches of my noble old friend Lord Fowler and the noble Lord, Lord Clark. They were extremely clear. I also enjoyed the splendid speech of my noble friend Lord Peyton about the shackles of parliamentary
1506
party control and the fact that parties are an unnecessary evil, although he put it more bluntly than that. I have not noticed, frankly, that the shackles of party control have restrained much of his natural ebullience. But there it is; some people can wear the whip more lightly than others.
Since the early days I have been a very partisan and strong supporter of developing the Select Committee systems of both Houses of Parliament. It always seemed to me that, as we moved into the immense complexities of the modern age, hearings, public hearings, hearings in front of television cameras and hearings where one could come back again and again in question and answer were a much more effective way of establishing who was accountable for what and why, or if public power had been wielded under what responsibilities and authorities, than the traditional methods. In that sense I disagree with my noble friend Lord Fowler about the glories of oral questions. They do not come anywhere near the power of effective Select Committees.
Therefore, I was delighted, as all your Lordships were the other day, and many people in the other place as well, when the fingertips of the whips got sharply sliced and caught over the attempt to over-manoeuvre the membership of Select Committees. That was a splendid moment and I hope that the lessons are learnt, although that remains to be seen.
But the truth is that power is now far more widely distributed in the network age, particularly into the media, as noble Lords have mentioned, and into the Internet service providers, the credit agencies and a variety of other enormous baronies of power. People expect their elected and appointed institutions—anyway Parliament as a whole—to call all these bodies to account. That cannot be done by the old processes. It requires the enormous strength of the committees which have grown up over the years—very successfully in relation to the European Union, which I shall come to in a moment—in your Lordships' House. Within limits—I shall come to those too—they have done a very good job.
I was disappointed that in the Wakeham Commission's report more was not made of the fact that this is now the central issue: the power of committees to hold to account the sources of public power in our society, not just the executive. That is where this noble House can make by far its most effective contribution. That should have had much more emphasis in the Wakeham report. The Wakeham report urges that our committees should have more resources put in. Heaven knows why we did not do that long ago. Our committees are staffed by the most marvellous people, but with impossible workloads. In the House of Lords they have far bigger workloads than in the other place. But they have a pathetic paucity of resources. It is extraordinary that we have sat here long enough and done little to reinforce and strengthen these committees ourselves.
I also agree with those noble Lords who say that if ever there was a case for further powerful committee examination, it should be of the Wakeham

1507
Commission and its proposals. That is natural material for a detailed committee examination. But apparently we are not to have it. I am reminded of the story from my predecessor, who as Energy Secretary went to France to find out how they had succeeded in dotting the whole of France with nuclear power stations without any bother of planning inquiries or consultation. He received the contemptuous reply, "But when you are draining the swamp you do not consult the frogs". I feel that the frogs in this case perhaps should be consulted just once more before the swamp is drained.
I turn briefly to my concern about our general desire to call everybody and everything to account. That is fine, provided those we call to account are the people who have the power, the jurisdiction and the control and can initiate and propose laws and can be questioned about them. But the reality—I slightly wonder that perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, did not give a little more emphasis to this—is that since about the mid-1970s a growing number of powers which affect every citizen in this country have been wielded in camera by the Council of Ministers of the European Union.
A recent very detailed authoritative study stated that by 1997—that is under both governments, so it is not a partisan point—40 per cent of all the legislative flow affecting the citizens of this country was authorised and initiated, and occasionally added to, in the European institutions in Brussels and Strasbourg. It also states that that level is now 55 per cent and suggests that if we go for the Europeanisation of judicial co-operation, if we adopt corpus juris and if we have the full euro-membership, that figure will rise to between 70 and 80 per cent.
Last year, no fewer than 4,000 statutory instruments were pushed through the various scrutiny committees—A, B and C in the other place—and the legislative committee and our own European Union committees, most without any debate at all, and almost all of them without even minor debate.
Therefore, whether or not one likes this project—I myself have doubts about it—we have a serious duty to ask how we control this fantastic flow that now dominates our citizens' lives. We have the scrutiny system. However, I had the privilege of being chairman of one of the committees a year or two previously and I must say that the work is very hard, the reports are excellent and widely admired around Europe, but the scrutiny is perfunctory. In many cases we found that the Minister had acted because he could not wait for the scrutiny to be lifted. The truth is that this can never change unless the national parliaments of all the member states of the European Union have a much earlier look in on the drafting and initiation of legislative proposals.
As someone once said, the duty of democracy is to know then what it knows now. That is the problem—that all the time we are discovering about legislation when it is much too late. We should have the opportunity long before to hear what the Council of Ministers and its increasingly powerful secretariat is
1508
up to. I do not see that we shall change this at all or restore anyone's confidence that we are properly calling our law-makers to account until the Council of Ministers itself, which is the Parliament of the European Union, is far more open and democratic and reports to and has open co-ordination with the national parliaments. We will then begin to see some accountability in the early stages—pre-legislation, pre-draft regulations and pre-instruments. That is the real truth of the matter. However much we set up new groups and bodies, we will not restore public confidence until it is known that we have far greater access to, and are able to call to account, the people who are initiating and authorising the legislation which governs us.
Finally, I would make one immediate plea, which again should come into a further Wakeham debate that we are not going to have. This noble House should have its own Foreign Affairs Select Committee. We have our European Union committees. They are excellent. I hear it constantly said outside the House, "Why do not your Lordships look at Russia, the Middle East, Hong Kong, Africa, Latin America and relations with the United States? What is wrong with you?" The House is full of experts on these matters but we have no committee to look at them. It is said that we should not overlap with the Commons. But I can speak from authority and say that the powers and remits of the Commons committees are inevitably limited and that there is only so much they can get through. I believe that your Lordships could add a most powerful addition to the processes of accountability and public debate if the House had its own Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
5.11 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in listening to the debate I have at moments wondered whether my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby would have been a water diviner if she had grown up in the Australian outback. She has certainly touched a rich spring today. There is, however, one danger in the theme we have set ourselves. It is the danger of looking for a golden age. My academic colleagues, I fear, have made the mistake of consistently overrating the importance of the legislature and underrating the importance of the executive and of the power of patronage. It is a fundamental weakness of the sovereignty-based way of thinking about politics.
I do not think there ever has been a golden age of Parliament. Having said that, I have been asking myself over the past few days whether I can think of any period since the death of Simon de Montfort when the power of Parliament was clearly less than it is at present. I very much regret to say that the answer to that question is, "No, I am not sure that I can". I do not think it needs to be like that. If this debate can do anything to change it, it will have performed a very signal service.
Those who believe that there is a golden age are, I suspect, thinking of the period of the "invention of tradition", just after the opening of the building in which we now sit. Between 1855 and 1865 the

1509
government were defeated in another place no fewer than 112 times. My great-grandfather, among other senior politicians, hated it. He hated it so much that he actually made his peace with Palmerston. I am not suggesting that we go to that extreme, but pendulums do tend to swing too far. Between 112 and one there is an undistributed middle. It is that undistributed middle which I think we might usefully explore.
We have had an extremely good debate in terms of thinking about improvement of our performance. What I have not heard as much as I had hoped to hear is an alarm which we all ought to feel; that we may be improving our performance in a rapidly emptying theatre; the fear that there is no longer anyone out there listening to what we are doing. The drop in turnout is serious. It is not just a matter of conscientious abstention, which I believe is a legitimate weapon of democratic politics. It is not even any more that people are angry with us. It is that they are not interested enough in what we are saying to bother to be angry with us. I do find that rather alarming.
When I listen to my own pupils, I get what is near enough to be a consistently based sample to add to a kind of tracking poll. I hear as much concern as I ever did about injustice. I hear a rapidly diminishing faith in solutions, which is not just a distrust of our own good will but an awareness of the points made by my noble friend Lady Williams about global governance, global power and the limits of the power of national governments. In that context, it is interesting that, with the exception of a noisy and entertaining minority with whom I enjoy talking, I hear less distrust of the power of the European Union than I do of the power of Westminster and Whitehall.
At a wider level among the electorate, I hear total indifference and sometimes a very deep anger; a sense of people saying, "You're all the same. You're all in it for yourselves". I know that has always been there; but I heard it in the recent election with a volume that I have never heard before—and it worries me.
I do not have very many answers. My right honourable friend Mr Kennedy has answers about language which I think are right and have been proved to be right. I shall not repeat them. The first point I want to make is that I believe we should live in a world in which all votes count equally. I was reading recently Macaulay's speech on the second Reform Bill, protesting that Aldborough was allowed representation when Manchester was not. That sense of proportionality is something which now we lack. My honourable friend Mr Oaten, when he won the first election at Winchester in 1997 by two votes, was asked by a journalist how he explained the result. He said, "I always said that my wife and I were right to go to live in the constituency". On the other hand, at the recent election, my son put me on the spot the way only one's children can do. He said, "What difference does it make whether I come back to vote at this election?" I put up a series of answers which he shot down in flames as only one's children can. I was finally reduced to saying to him that whether he voted would make a small difference to the amount of Short money our
1510
party would be allocated. That is true, but it is an answer that only an aficionado would for one minute begin to understand.
That is not all votes counting equally. It is going back to the 18th century days of electoral property when if one happened to own electoral property, one had an amount of power that other people did not have. An electoral system which lets a vote in one place carry equal weight with a vote in another would be very welcome. We should not forget that outside Parliament the overwhelming majority of electors are, in effect, Cross-Benchers. If I think, for example, of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, the first adjective that comes to mind is not apathetic, but their political passions are not in favour of one party rather than another. They could not express their preferences in an election unless they were allowed to do so through a single transferable vote, by which they could vote for people's policies on something other than just which party they support.
I wonder why the Conservative Party has the masochism to continue its attachment to first-past-the-post when we look at the way in which that voting system has treated it. With a nine-point lead, Mr Blair has acquired a majority of 167. Mr Peter: Kellner recently calculated what would have happened if Mr Hague had had a nine-point lead. He would have been 41 votes short of a majority in the Commons. That is perturbing. It perturbs me and I hope it perturbs the Conservative Party also.
More seriously, about once every century—perhaps a little less—the recognition symbols of politics change; the magnetic poles of politics shift. There was one such occasion which Namier immortalised in his study on 1761–14 years after the succession ceased to be the motor of political ideology which it had been for a century; and 15 years before the American Revolution began the extension of rank and privileges which became the staple of the 19th century. When the recognisable symbols of politics shift, people do not recognise what they see. They do not understand what divides the parties. They say that nothing divides them, when patently that is not the case. Under those circumstances, they notice only the sleaze. They say, "You're all in it for yourselves".
Since 1997, I have wondered many times whether again we are in a moment of ideological slack water such as described by Namier in 1761. The other two parties each need to redefine their philosophical identity. When they do so, I hope that the voters will be more interested. If they are not, we are all in trouble.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Newton of Braintree: My Lords. I wish to intervene only briefly, because it could be said that others have already said much of what f wish to contribute to this subject. They have also written it, in the shape of the report of the Hansard Society Commission, to which so many friendly references have been made in the course of the debate—or at least, I think that all the references have been friendly.

1511
However, I felt that I should speak for several reasons. The first was that I have been looking at these matters in my role as chairman of that commission. Secondly, I, too, wish to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for introducing the debate and thank her for her kind comments on the report. I should like also to pay tribute to the Nuffield Foundation which financed it, to the Hansard Society for putting the report together, to the other members of the commission and not least—I say this with emphasis bsecause they were hugely helpful—to the two vice-chairmen of the commission, Peter Riddell of The Times and Robert Hazel] of the Constitution Unit. They should share in taking credit for the report.
A further pleasure has been added to the debate, other than that of following the noble Earl, Lord Russell. On a previous occasion I pointed out that I have been debating with him in one way or another for some 40 years. I still find myself dazed on each occasion that I listen to him. Today has also been the occasion of two excellent maiden speeches, one of which particularly interested me because it was that of my noble friend Lord Fowler. He and I have been doing business together for as many years as either of us cares to remember. He was senior to me both as an MP and as a Minister. We formed a long-running partnership at the then DHSS. Not to put too fine a point on it, I worked for him for something like six years. It is a pleasure to see him in this House and, indeed, in any place where I can claim to have been around for longer than he.
The customary approach to this subject—I have heard echoes of it in several contributions, in particular in the speech immediately preceding my own—is to talk about the decline of Parliament. I could echo that exact phrase in my notes, but I am suspicious of what might be called the "theory of the golden age". That was recently reinforced for me when I attended a speech day at which the headmaster performed a classic and always effective rhetorical trick by quoting an unattributed source which referred to the monstrous decline in the morals, behaviour and so forth of young people. That account might easily have been written today, but he then revealed that it had been written in the 12th or the 13th century. I believe that Parliament falls into much the same category.
The main point of my contribution is to say that, while I think it is right that we should try to identify the causes of the problems that we perceive—namely, of the fall in the standing of Parliament—we should not spend too much time trying to stop them, remove them or turn back the clock. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, clearly identified some of those problems. There are difficulties as regards the scale and complexity of government, the growth in the number of agencies, regulators and non-parliamentary scrutineers; the great expansion and development of the media, including the electronic media rather than simply the "Today" programme; the growth of new institutions; the growing demands being made of MPs; and one argument was put forward that the mere
1512
availability of television pictures of what goes on in the House of Commons in offices outside the Chamber itself has diminished its role. However, the fact is that whether we wanted these developments and whether we like them is irrelevant; they will not go away. I hope that the emphasis of our deliberations both here and in the other place will not be on whingeing about them or attempting to make them go away, but rather to work out how best we can adapt the way in which Parliament operates to accommodate them.
The biggest problem has not been that Parliament has not changed. For example, the introduction of Select Committees is a huge credit to my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley, who introduced them some 20 years ago. They represented a major and significant change. The major underlying problem is that Parliament, working in a world that is moving and changing faster and faster—cliché though that may be, it is the case—has not adapted at anything like the same pace. What we need to do now is to spend much more time seeking ways in which we can adapt the procedures and working methods of both Houses of Parliament—although the focus of the report was on the House of Commons—to our fast-changing world. The report proposes—not least in its observations on Select Committees, to which many references have been made—adaptations to the way in which the Chamber of the House of Commons debates matters. These should be undertaken in a shorter and sharper manner, with more topical and focused debates, along with more rapid discussion of Select Committee reports. Those proposals are designed to encourage the speedier adaptation of Parliament to the world as it is today and not as it was or even as we would like it to be.
For reasons of time and common sense it would not be sensible for me to attempt to rehearse the recommendations of the report. I shall not seek to do so. Not all noble Lords will agree with the detail of all the recommendations. It may be that not even every member of the commission would have written the recommendations in exactly the form in which they now appear. But I am encouraged by the overlap of observations from the commission which I had the privilege to chair, the commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and, indeed, those of the House of Commons Liaison Committee, in particular in respect of Select Committees. I believe that a kind of tide is running here which it would be unwise for anyone in politics to disregard, including those in government. New Leaders of the House have taken office here and in the other place, both of whom I regard as having given signals that they intend to bring a constructive approach to these matters. I hope that they will regard these proposals as helpful rather than tiresome.
My final point has nothing to do with the report because it did not cover legislative scrutiny. I should like to add my own words of support to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Fowler and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about the scrutiny of legislation. Some years ago, when my noble friend Lord Cranborne and I were respectively Leaders of the

1513
two Houses, we were pleased that we were able to persuade our colleagues to accept much more readily the publication of Bills in draft in the year before they were brought before the House. That is a practice on which we wanted to build. I think that it is fair to say that the present Government have themselves sought to build on it. It is absolutely vital for the improvement both of accountability and of scrutiny that that policy should be further developed.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, this is a vital subject for debate and I congratulate my noble friend Lady Williams for initiating it. Unfortunately, owing to a prior engagement, I shall not be able to remain for the winding-up, which I am sure will be of equal merit to the contributions that we have heard so far. I apologise to the House and crave the indulgence of noble Lords.
I accept the warnings issued by my noble friend as regards the myth of a golden past, but I believe that since 1979 successive governments seem to have pursued actions that have had the disastrous effect of exalting the power of the executive while diminishing both the effectiveness and the status of the legislature. That observation is generally accepted—except, of course, by Ministers in post at any one time. It is heartening to hear the conversion to reform of so many ex-Cabinet Ministers. It was always thus.
Some noble Lords have identified, and doubtless others will be identifying, the increasingly overweening power of the executive relative to that of Parliament as one of the main reasons for the greater alienation of citizens with politics, their growing apathy and the consequential steady decline in voter turnout at elections. As has already been observed, the problems of Parliament's weaknesses have been the subject of two recent investigations: one was led by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for the Conservative Party; the other by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, on behalf of the Hansard Society. In their way, both reports are admirable in the proposals that they make to restore the balance between the two branches of government. I see merit in the procedural reforms they advocate and I shall take them as read, so to speak.
However, my main purpose today is not to expatiate further on the uneven ratio of powers between government and Parliament. My purpose is to highlight recent developments within the executive branch of government itself—to which my noble friend alluded in her, if I may say so, consummate introductory review—that are all of a piece with the present era of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, once called "elected dictatorship", and which contributed in no small measure to the popular disaffection with politics. I refer to what I shall term the demi-monde of politics and government. It is this which has occurred almost unnoticed and is the reason why parliamentary scrutiny needs to be strengthened so urgently.
Were Walter Bagehot to be reincarnated today to apply his penetrating insights into the real workings of the British constitution—as he did so perceptively a
1514
century and a half ago—what would he his likely observations? If he were to employ his twin analytical categories of "dignified" and "efficient", it is not too fanciful to suggest that he would have had little hesitation in transferring most of the erstwhile functions of both Parliament and the Cabinet from the "efficient" into the "dignified". He would have noted that, with the growing assertion of prime ministerial power that has burgeoned under both the Thatcher and Blair administrations, the institutions of Parliament and the Cabinet that he had emphasised—particularly the latter—as the hallmarks of British governance in the 19th century, were but a shadow of their former selves.
He would note, too, that they had been superseded in the "efficient" category—though I doubt he would think that the appropriate term nowadays; "de facto" would perhaps be more accurate—by a myriad of persons and agencies that have mushroomed over the past 20 years or so. These comprise what I have called the demi-monde of government. They are sometimes accorded the more sanitised term of "policy networks". They are that part of the British state that is characterised as tentacular government.
These various expressions refer to the host of quangos, task forces, executive so-called "First Step" agencies, ad hoc czars, peripatetic unaccredited plenipotentiaries, regulators and inspectors, all of which comprise a patchwork of governance that is beyond the capacity of Parliament to monitor and is thus effectively shielded from the public gaze.
I suppose that a gifted spin doctor could contrive some sort of rationale for these developments. It might be said, for example, that they introduce a greater measure of flexibility and quicker responses in dealing with items on the policy agenda. Equally, it may be claimed that some represent a degree of administrative devolution away from the deadening clutches of Whitehall departments, while bringing in outside and more relevant skills that cannot always he provided by the conventional Civil Service.
I do not dismiss such arguments out of hand, nor do I think that there is no case for such innovations in particular circumstances. I accept that there may have been some successes. What I am querying is the cumulative effect of these developments and their overall impact on our constitutional arrangements. For each part of this governmental demi-monde that may be justified on the grounds of expediency, in aggregate the sum of the whole cannot be justified in terms of democratic accountability. Taken together, these developments constitute a major by-pass operation on the body politic, effectively immunising it from the checks and balances that ought otherwise to characterise a system of representative democracy.
Democratic and constitutional considerations apart, there is the further problem of discovering the effectiveness of these developments. For example, to judge from the reports of successive chief inspectors, it is not obvious that the state of our prisons has improved following their operations being hived off to a First Step agency.

1515
The emergence of the demi-monde has had, in my view, two other deleterious effects. First, it has spawned a new breed of personnel to serve it; a kind of nomenclatura of fixers, henchmen and renegades who, in many ways, are the emblems of the epoch. They are recruited from the ranks of management consultancy, other parts of commerce and industry, what is left of the higher Civil Service and occasionally entertainment management. If para-state agencies are to be used, it would make for a better degree of public accountability if, say, two MPs were to be members of them ex-officio.
The primary role of the nomenclatura is to serve and advise the handful of senior Ministers who, led by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, effectively determine government policy. The second unfortunate effect of the demi-monde is to have reduced the traditional role of the higher Civil Service and of local government.
What I have been describing has led to a serious shrinking of the public realm in this country. Too much of governmental activity is now befogged. It is this as much as anything else that has contributed to public disaffection with politics and voter apathy. The familiar saloon-bar Johnny opinion that, "You don't know the half of what goes on in government" is no longer an exaggerated speculation but a valid interpretation of reality.
Form and clarity must be restored to our constitution if popular cynicism is to be reversed. The Scottish Parliament has made a start with its proposed "bonfire of the quangos". Devolution has put the searchlight of democracy on this aspect of the demi-monde. Regional assemblies for England, now the most under-enfranchised part of the United Kingdom, could follow Scotland's example. English regional devolution would stimulate similar democratic impulses and would help to re-engage the elected with the electorate.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on initiating the debate. It has been well concerted, if I may say so, among her colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches in covering most aspects of the subject.
I approach the debate from the perspective of a career in the non-parliamentary executive. I believe that I am the only speaker today who will do so. Perhaps I may catch the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, as he leaves the Chamber. As I am the only representative of the Civil Service, I take the opportunity of thanking him very warmly for his generous remarks about the Civil Service. They will, I know, be greatly appreciated by those who, like me, worked with him when he was a Minister in the Cabinet Office.
I begin on a slightly less gloomy note than some other speakers. It is easy, even for parliamentarians, to underestimate the influence of Parliament on the
1516
executive. To a man from Mars, it must appear that a government with a substantial majority in another place can vote through whatever business they like and take no notice of any opposition. But it is not as simple as that.
Perhaps I may give an example. The noble Baroness referred to the report of the Hansard Commission and to the fact that 71 per cent of Members of the House of Commons think that Prime Minister's Questions are ineffective. The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, described that part of the procedure as "farcical". However, it has one very important effect. Seen from the other side, it means that the head of the British Government has to spend some hours each week briefing himself or herself in detail on the policies of the Government. Having had the opportunity of seeing and comparing heads of governments at European Councils and international meetings, I believe that it has resulted in the head of the British Government being better informed on matters of detail than any other head of government in the western world.
Even when faced with a large majority, oppositions have ways of making life difficult for governments. Oppositions have levers in their hands. Deals have to be done, and are done, between the usual channels, as the Whips will know better than I. These often cover policy as well as procedure.
A poor performance by a Minister in defending a government policy matters. It matters when the Opposition get the scent of blood and the Minister's supporters cannot summon up the enthusiasm for full-hearted support. Many times, in returning with a Minister from the House of Commons, I have seen that in such circumstances policy has to be revised.
Civil servants do not take lightly appearances before Select Committees. They prepare for many hours. I have seen careers broken when such events go wrong. When a weakness in departmental performance is exposed, departments have to work hard to see that it is not repeated.
Of course, the power of the Opposition to push attacks home is lessened when a government have a large majority. It is not a coincidence that we hear more of the ineffectiveness of Parliament in the present circumstances than we did during the term of office of the previous Conservative government or during that of the Labour government of 1974–79. When a government's majority is large, the Opposition know that they cannot push through even a good case in the arena where it ultimately matters—on the Floor of the House of Commons. Conversely, when a government's majority is small, the Opposition know that they need only split off a small number of government supporters to win a good case. But there is another side to this coin: oppositions may be tempted to use that power to win bad cases, and I have seen that happen.
So is all well with parliamentary control of the executive? No—I agree with previous speakers—it clearly is not. There are grounds for concern when important legislation is pushed through with no

1517
scrutiny in another place. Mistakes are made, and these matter to our fellow citizens. There are grounds for concern when the proceedings of Parliament are not thought worth reporting in the media except as a source of amusement. There are grounds for concern when Ministers give higher priority to announcing their measures to the public through the media rather than through Parliament—although it is fair to say that that problem is not unique to this country.
I believe it now to be true that in the relationship between the executive and the legislature the executive has got too many of the levers into its own hands. I believe also that this situation may be getting worse. There is obviously a case for a user-friendly Parliament in which no one has to stay late at night or attend at inconvenient times. But exhaustion and inconvenience are important weapons in the hands of the Opposition. Their removal weakens the Opposition's negotiating power.
What is the remedy? In considering that question, we need to consider why this situation has come about. Over the past century or so, successive governments have increased their grip on Parliament—not because Parliament is unimportant, but because it is important. If governments could get a similar leverage over the media, they would do so. They may be working on it, but they have not achieved it yet!
If that analysis is correct, I am afraid that another conclusion follows. The executive will not voluntarily give up the power it has established over Parliament. If Parliament is to matter, it must make itself matter. In this, issues of procedure are important; but they are not the whole answer. The exercise of will is also necessary. It was important to establish the departmental Select Committees in another place, but their importance depends on how they are used. It is important, given the dominance of the executive, that the further stages of reform of your Lordships' House produce an independent and representative House. The need for that came out again and again in the evidence given to the Royal Commission. But again, the importance of the House of Lords depends on the way in which its powers are used.
There are certain powers that Parliament has; for example--as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Howell— it has power over its own expenditure and the provision of advice which it commands. Parliament needs the will to use its powers to exert an influence over the executive. While enabling the executive to govern, Parliament must be prepared to resist the executive's unreasonable behaviour. That depends to a large extent on the will of Members, and particularly Members of another place. Parliament should be more than a waiting room for an appointment in the executive. If Parliament is to become effective, the remedy must lie, as it always has, in Parliament's own hands.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. lit is a great relief to hear that the executive
1518
can still to some extent control a government—"Yes, Minister" is still alive and well. But ate we not primarily concerned with parliamentary control of the executive, which is not quite the same thing?
At the outset, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on an outstanding speech, which covered the ground for her assertion, with which I unreservedly agree:
"Thus far and no further and, indeed, we ought to step back".
The presidential style of No. 10, the structure of the Cabinet, with its committees, ad hoc committees and so forth, is simply not in accord with the traditional style of government and is not acceptable, as I now understand it, to either of the parties in Opposition in this House. It may be unacceptable also to those on the Cross Benches, as it assuredly is to some Members on the Benches opposite.
The refusal to consult on stage 2 reform of this House is but a manifestation of the style of government that we oppose. There is no need for any formal understanding between the Liberal Democrats and our party on opposition to such a style of government. In the previous Session, the Liberal Democrats voted against the Government on 256 occasions—well over a third of the number of occasions on which they voted for the Government. There is absolutely no question of any need for a formal understanding on matters concerning control of the executive by Parliament, on consultation and such. A joint opposition to this Government will be spontaneous in this House.
As the noble Baroness recognised, the voter is the determinator of the democratic process of preservation of the body politic. That is our concern. That is what lies at the core of this debate. I liked the way in which the right reverend Prelate expressed it. He referred to,
"the common good of nation and people".
Such would be the situation as would have been understood by Burke. Sooner or later all political parties lose their way. Now the new Labour Party has lost its way, for want of control of the executive—apart from want of due provision of public services and the impending doom of recession in manufacturing.
Parliament will not be in Session for three months. Preservation of the body politic demands that both opposition parties should draw this state of affairs to the attention of the electorate as from now, pending cohesive opposition in both Houses on the return of Parliament. If the voter is to regain interest and enthusiasm, he has to be lured out of his lair of disenchantment and apathy and assume the role of determinator.
The House will also be grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity to debate want of control of the executive by Parliament, at a time when we have an over-weaning Administration—an authoritative Administration—the likes of which has not been seen for a very, very long time. A Government who have abused their power, not only in another place but also in your Lordships' House: a

1519
government who have sold the dummy to their paymasters, the trade unions, fiddled with Select Committees to suit their own political ends, and used representatives of the people as their placemen.
The Government are due to remain in office until the next general election, save for the extremely unlikely event of a vote of "no confidence" in them. Therefore, this style of government could well become the norm. The Quintine philosophy has all but been fulfilled; but not quite so, as yet. If our traditional form of government is to be restored by the voters, the only effective opposition in Parliament to this style of administration may be made in your Lordships' House, weakened already by design and, by design, to be weakened further without consultation.
I conclude my remarks at this point because the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made a speech in which he said everything that I would have wished to say, and said it better. I agree with every word, and repetition is idle. However, I shall finish my contribution by reference to the charming and amusing remark that I believe was made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, "Is there anyone out there that listens?"
5.53 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, my comments are a mere footnote on the question of what your Lordships' House can do in order to hold government to account. However, I cannot do otherwise than begin by making an observation. I am struck, and actually pleased, by the fact that no fewer than seven of the speakers previous to me on the Speakers' List are former Members of the other place; and in many cases were Members for long periods of time. The other day I heard mention on a radio programme that at this point more than a quarter of the Members of your Lordships' House have been Members of the other place. Indeed, I believe that I am probably not wrong to guess that another quarter of them have been elected somewhere at some time, or are presently in an elective position. If I am not mistaken, that is very different from the House that I joined some eight years ago. I believe that it is relevant to the ability of this House to have an authoritative discussion of issues concerning Parliament in general.
I share the view of those who have indicated in a variety of ways that parliaments everywhere—I repeat, everywhere—are in an extremely difficult position today. Politics have changed; the style of politics has changed. There is the curious development of what I sometimes call "celebrity politics". There is also a development that one might call "throw-away politics", where people make political choices which last about as long as what they have bought in the nearest supermarket, after which such choices are thrown away and ignored. People are capable of electing a government and turning against them a week later, even in active demonstrations.
I believe that there is quite a fundamental change in the style of politics which has moved us away from the deliberative style and a sense of the medium term;
1520
indeed, allowing governments to be unpopular for a period. I take that as a background for pointing to three areas in which I believe your Lordships' House has a very special role to play precisely because, as such, it is not elected at this time. Some noble Lords may know that I am not a supporter of an elected, or part-elected, House. But even if the House were part-elected, it would be different from an elected Chamber. I also think that this House has a special place because it is not distracted by obligations that are, quite rightly, the obligations of Members of the other place. Therefore, in a sense, this House has the time to concentrate, for example, on the detail of legislation.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships my three examples, which are not particularly original. Incidentally, the splendid chapter on the decline of Parliament that is to be found in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, lists them all in one way or another. The first is the growing complexity of legislation, including the strange significance of secondary legislation. The House has tackled that subject in a most effective way. Now that I am no longer a member of it, I can praise the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee as a supreme example of holding the executive to account. I am sure that that committee would be prepared to engage to a greater extent than in the past in pre-legislative scrutiny and thereby be involved in the process of legislation at its various stages. Indeed, that is an excellent example. Perhaps I may add to that the scrutiny of European legislation through the European Union Committee.
However, I cannot help but say that we should examine in due course the question whether our European committee is really scrutinising the decisions of the European Union sufficiently or whether perhaps the committee and its sub-committees have become too deeply involved in the undoubtedly more interesting process of producing reports about wider issues that are suitable for general debate. There is a case for scrutiny at an early point. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, observed that there is a case for becoming involved in European legislation at a very early stage.
The second major area in which this House has a particular function relates to the key development as regards parliaments; namely, the emigration of important decisions from the spaces for which parliamentary institutions and our other political institutions were originally established. If more and more decisions are taken—or not even explicitly taken; indeed, they happen in some cases—beyond the nation state, not just in Europe but in undefined, wider spaces and quite often with worldwide implications, we shall be faced with a whole new set of problems. I am not suggesting that any country, any national parliament or, indeed, the House of Lords can solve them. But there is a strong case for involving national parliaments in the scrutiny of international decisions.
Although I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, about a foreign affairs committee, for some time I have felt that my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, with his

1521
insistence on looking at treaties and getting involved—I put it in those terms—in the process of ratification is one important handle, although not the only one. We should probably do both.
The third area I wish to mention specifically is the following. Nowadays we are often faced with situations—I hate to say this as a traditional Liberal—where common sense alone is not enough to take a considered decision. I should love to think that we continued to live in a world in which ultimately common sense judgment could be applied to all necessary decisions. But as one who has the pleasure of being a member of the Select Committee on stem cell research, I know that we are sometimes faced with issues in which political, legal, scientific and ethical questions are intertwined in such a way that in order to take a considered decision one needs the advice of a group which includes all those aspects in its deliberations. The Select Committee on stem cell research may constitute a good precedent for discussing issues of that character. I believe that your Lordships' House is almost uniquely suited to hold the decision makers to account in that area.
There are not many successful second chambers in the world. I do not know a single second chamber this side of the Atlantic which I would describe as a truly effective second Chamber and a model for others. We could become a model in the area of holding government to account if we concentrated on issues which we are uniquely qualified to decide. I prefer a debate on that kind of issue to a further debate on the composition of your Lordships' House.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it has been a good debate and we have had two excellent maiden speeches. There are two ways of considering this problem. We can consider i t from the narrow perspective of how we reform the procedures of this Parliament or from the perspective of how we make the executive more accountable. But many noble Lords have already commented on that matter. Not having been in another place, nor having been a Cabinet Minister, a junior Minister or even a civil servant, I am not well qualified to speak on that matter.
I wish to consider a broader perspective which I believe was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Haskel and, to some extent, by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Parliament is irrelevant—whether or not it is powerless I do not know—because in a sense it has not changed with the times. There was perhaps never a golden age. But in all our minds we have an ideal model of the days when the executive was subject to the will of Parliament and parliamentarians were independent, good people, often of noble character. They were usually all men, but we shall skip that for the time being. Somewhere in 1867 that system disappeared. That was a pre-democratic Parliament.
We are in a much worse situation now because our citizens do not find politics interesting. To the extent that they may have complaints, they do not realise that addressing those complaints to their MP is an effective
1522
way of dealing with them. It may or may not help to locate the Dome in Sutton Coldfield, but when citizens want to complain about fuel prices, for example, they take to the streets. That is a much more effective method of protest. No amount of petitioning Parliament would have changed that situation at that time. The action of citizens taking to the streets abolished the poll tax. Given the parliamentary situation at that time, it could not have been abolished within Parliament. We have to consider Parliament in the broader context of the world outside. We must ask ourselves whether the whole parliamentary system is obsolete and whether that is why people do riot respect it and do not bother to vote.
Although people are sceptical of opinion polls, and it is de rigueur for the losing party to throw doubt on their findings, the final result of the 2001 election was not all that unpredictable. It could be predicted about three months before the election was held. People could not be bothered to vote because they thought that the result was predictable. As the son of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked, what difference does it make whether or not one votes? My friends who study political choice theory tell me that it is not rational for a citizen to vote as it makes not the slightest difference to any outcome. In terms of a citizen's self-interests, voting is not worth the effort. Of course, we have to believe that that is wrong. However, we must ask ourselves whether we are in need not just of procedural reform but of a very sharp look at ourselves.
It is not at all clear to me that the drift of decisions away from the classic executive is all that, bad. I believe that that happened because the sys tern was too cumbersome to achieve good results. It is more efficient for decisions to be taken by specialised agencies because Parliament is too elaborate and too cumbersome for that. It constitutes a democratic but not an efficient way of doing things.
We believe that amateur parliamentarians are best equipped to judge matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said, that is increasingly not the case. We do not take sufficient account of specialist opinion while legislation is going through. Therefore, increasingly, decisions are entrusted to specialised agencies. That is indeed what has happened in every other walk of life. Why should Parliament continue to be run on an amateur basis with people thinking that their speeches change the world? Parliament is far too large, with far too many Members.
Robert Mackenzie, who was a professor of political science at the LSE, told me long ago that the British Parliament sat on more days than any other Parliament but did less work. That was true then and may still be true. However, if we carried out an efficiency audit on ourselves, I do not believe that it would reveal satisfactory results. I do not believe that anyone has carried out an efficiency audit on Parliament to determine whether it constitutes an efficient way to do business. We must ask these broader questions. Everywhere people are being subjected to downsizing, organisations are becoming less hierarchical and managements are becoming "flatter". But we still want Parliament to be at the apex

1523
of society, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said. I know the great democratic dream that that is what we fought for in 1832. Be that as it may, it is not relevant now.
We have to ask ourselves how we can better adapt our democracy to modern times. Our democratic system is old-fashioned and the world has moved on. Our citizens do not have the patience to read an entire speech, much less an entire debate. They want quick soundbites. They have been brought up on television rather than the printed word. If we receive information from the television or the Internet, it has to be fast, well presented and succinct. It cannot include orotund, endless sentences. Newspapers are in competition with television. They have to adopt the methods of television. They must concentrate on leaders and soundbites. No one has the time to read the complete, unexpurgated version of any speech, elegant though it may be. That is not an efficient way of communicating information.
We must rethink our methods of communication and operation, the size of Parliament and what Parliament does. Why does Parliament have to meet in London all the time? Why cannot it meet around the country? Why do we not have more citizens coming not only to listen but also to contribute? Perhaps every week we should bring in 30 citizens to participate in Parliament. In a sense, we have cut ourselves off. That is why governments find it more useful to go to the "Today" programme, "Newsnight" or the newspapers; otherwise the news will never come out from Parliament.
We need to look more critically at ourselves. While the executive may be horrible, and I believe that it is always horrible—and a majority of 167 the second time running can only cast doom and gloom—we must consider democracy in Parliament in a far more radical way.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am pleased to note that the depressing commentary of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, on the valuelessness of speeches did not inhibit him from making a very good one.
I shall concentrate in a practical way on some suggestions that have not necessarily been covered in the many powerful speeches which have been made. One of the most powerful was that of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to whom I am particularly glad to pay tribute. He and I were members of the same cohort (if that is the right word) in Cambridge 40 years ago; and he has hardly changed since then—and nor have I, I think!
The proper functioning of a modern parliamentary democracy requires that Parliament should be active, professional and inquiring in calling the executive, public authorities and public officers to account. Parliament, through both Houses and the Select Committees, performs vital scrutiny functions—it has been said again and again—as public watchdog and bloodhound working for the public interest of the
1524
people we serve. As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said, Parliament is the friend and not the enemy of good government.
Since I came to this House eight years ago, I have sought, somewhat obsessively some would say, with noble Lords across the House working together, to enhance the functions of bloodhound and public watchdog, for example seeking to protect fundamental human rights more effectively, to enable the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to be a more effective watchdog and to scrutinise the prerogative powers of the Crown in ratifying international treaties. I have sought to have a proper independent supreme court for the United Kingdom in place of the hotchpotch of the Judicial Committees of this House and of the Privy Council and, if the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, will forgive me, to create a constitutional Civil Service which is regulated by statute rather than under a scheme devised to rule the British Raj in the 18th and 19th centuries.
I am sorry to say that the pace of reform is painfully slow—a snail's pace. Apart from the notable exception of the Human Rights Act, we have not accomplished very much in any of those areas. Even though the Wakeham Commission supported the creation of a treaty scrutiny committee, that has been kicked into long grass. Even though the under-powered Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration deals with a miserably small case load compared with other powerful ombudsmen in other democracies, there is no indication that the Government intend to give priority to the reform of his office. The Cabinet Office review is already 15 months old and gathering dust.
I am glad that in his interview in The Times on Tuesday the senior Law Lord, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, said that there is very strong case for having a supreme court that is in the same position constitutionally as the supreme courts of every other country in the world, whether in the United States, Canada, Australia, India or France. He is right to question whether the link with this House is justified. He was right to quote Bagehot indicating that,
"The Supreme Court of the English people ought to be a great conspicuous tribunal. ought to bring our law into unity, ought not to be hidden beneath the robes of a legislative assembly".
It should not be cramped in the absurd way that it is, with the public not served with proper facilities when they attend to argue their cases through lawyers like myself. I think that the creation of a supreme court would enhance both the administration of justice by the independent judiciary and the workings of this House.
In the time that remains, I wish to mention another important way of increasing the effectiveness of Parliament in calling the executive to account: that is, by requiring that important public appointments should be subject to parliamentary advice and consent. The admirable report of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for the Hansard Society noted that Parliament should stand at the apex of the scrutiny network which ought to exist. The Chief Inspector of

1525
Prisons is only one of a long list of public office holders and public watchdogs appointed by government to scrutinise the executive and other public authorities with little, if any, input from the theoretically supreme Parliament.
Another example is that of the Information Commissioner who plays a vital role in protecting personal information and, when the Freedom of Information Act 2000 eventually—I hope not too "eventually"—comes fully into force, will play an even more important constitutional role. She is officially responsible to Parliament and is often assumed to be a government official, something that she finds wholly unacceptable. Elizabeth France believes, and I agree with her, that her office could contribute much more effectively to holding the Government to account than it currently does if there were some effective mechanism in place through which Parliament could call systematically on her expertise and, I would say, if her appointment could be scrutinised and vetted by Parliament to give her greater authority.
The same applies to the Commissioner for Public Appointments. She monitors, regulates, reports and advises on 12,500 ministerial appointments to public bodies. Surely she should be appointed not by the very Ministers whom she is intended to call to account but by the Crown with the advice and consent of Parliament. One could give other examples. The Comptroller and Auditor General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards have some parliamentary input in another place into their appointments. Those examples show that it is entirely feasible to do what is done in other European and Commonwealth democracies. For example, the Police Complaints Authority, the equality commissions, the Director-General of Fair Trading and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and other regulators could have a greater parliamentary input into their appointment and their work.
My final point arises from the report of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, with regard to the effectiveness of scrutiny by the Select Committees. I want to emphasise the importance of the recommendation that the core responsibilities of Select Committees should be defined from the outset, if possible by a co-ordinating overall parliamentary committee. My personal experience on three or four Select Committees of the House is that with a changing membership and changing chairs it is very important for a Select Committee to know from the beginning exactly what it is expected to do. For example, I serve with other Members of this House on the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is important to be clear from the outset whether such a committee is to be a scrutiny committee, a wider debating kind of committee or both; and for the resources for that committee in terms of membership and expertise to be geared to those core functions.
In the interests of good, efficient and accountable government, we must hope that the new Leader of the House of Commons will be able to usher in a new era of much-needed reform sooner rather than later. As
1526
the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, said, there needs to be an exercise of parliamentary will to use the powers of Parliament in those and other ways.
6.20 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on introducing the debate. Characteristically, she presented her case with great clarity, energy and independence of mind. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, and my noble friend Lord Fowler on their excellent maiden speeches and thank them for their valuable perception of certain shortcomings and remedies of address in the procedures of the other place.
I shall touch on three themes to arrive at a certain conclusion. The first point is the traditional concept, emphasised by many of your Lordships—the role of Parliament as it should be and is expected to be. That means carrying out the function to which the noble Baroness draws attention—holding the executive to account and thereby becoming more relevant to voters.
My second point is the current scope for such balanced parliamentary democracy in Europe. More than anything else, this opportunity has been enabled by two developments: the end of the Cold War in 1989 and the consolidation of peace in the majority of the former Yugoslavia at the turn of the century.
Connected to that, my third point is the benefit and reward arising from the right form of parliamentary democracy. Those benefits include the maintenance of peace and stability and the progress of social development in European states, regions and communities.
From those three themes, once connected, the conclusion may be fairly obvious: that the achievement of much better parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom is essential and that the example of its practice will also benefit other European states and their collective security. That is so for a particular reason. No outside observer will necessarily be fascinated by British policy towards the European Union, still less by changing British pronouncements on aspects of European institutionalism. On the other hand, the rest of Europe has much respect for and takes a keen interest in the tradition and continuing practice of British democracy.
By example, Britain can exert considerable influence for good in Europe. It goes without saying that we can do so by avoiding one kind of parliamentary democracy and espousing another. The version to be espoused is the traditional concept called for by the noble Baroness today. The type to be avoided is that which may appear to have become entrenched and should now be altered radically, because it reflects an insufficient capacity by Parliament to hold the executive to account. As the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, has reminded us, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham described that system as flawed many years ago and castigated it as "elective dictatorship".

1527
In considering ways to redress the imbalance in this country between Parliament and the executive, we will all be grateful to my noble friends Lord Newton of Braintree and Lord Norton of Louth, both of whose committees have produced very good reports. As my noble friend Lord Newton has said today, those reports emphasise the need for adaptation. For Members of the other place, career prospects within Parliament, as distinct from within the Government, must become far more attractive. Hence also independent-mindedness and the deliberative function must be encouraged far more. My noble friends illustrate how that change of direction and culture will enhance the quality and focus of legislation and debate. As a number of your Lordships have already observed, the reports show how such a change of direction will also improve public confidence in the operation of both party politics and executive control—each often accused of stifling parliamentary scrutiny and debate and each currently held in very low esteem.
My noble friends also distinguish in their reports between necessary expedients and the political resolve to implement them. No doubt political resolve has its best chance of implementation when it is entertained cross-party and if it can be assisted by the Government. Arguably, there is now a strong case for partnership and co-operation on the issue, not only between political parties, but also between Parliament and the Government.
When the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House winds up today, I am sure that he will concur that that is the best approach in this case: I am sure too that the Government will give all their support to the efforts of the current Leader of the House of Commons to improve parliamentary scrutiny and will support the establishment of new systems for attracting Members of the other place towards a parliamentary career as an alternative to a government one.
This House can give constructive help to that process of adaptation in the other place. There is already a satisfactory balance between Lords and Commons Select Committee work. The two are able to complement each other. However, there are anomalies. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford referred to the absence of a Foreign Affairs Select Committee in this House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, another anomaly is that, while the Select Committee scrutiny remit applies to the European Union, it does not go beyond that boundary to address Council of Europe conventions, let alone to consider international treaties.
It has been contended that parliamentary scrutiny of relevant matters within that wider area should be set up through a committee in this House. Does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House agree that that would be a good and timely development, all the more so in the context of this debate?
My second theme is how improved democracy here can assist reliable democracy in Europe. That is clearly a constant challenge, quite separate from the issue of
1528
European Union membership, although, conversely, it is of particular relevance to emerging and consolidating democracies in the Balkans and in central and eastern Europe.
My third theme is the benefit from stability and the progress of social and economic development arising from sustained balanced democracy within Europe. The United Kingdom All-Party Group for Social Development in Europe, of which I am currently chairman, seeks to address that issue. The group is affiliated to the Council of Europe, and thus includes a number of parliamentarians from each of its states. Its purpose is to exchange information and to increase awareness and involvement by European parliamentarians in effective methods and expedients for social and economic developments, which, within regions and communities, are often best evident on very small scales.
In summary, the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is one of the most important with which we are faced. We must get it right. The combined remedies and adaptations required are even quite simple to set in place. The key to success is partnership and shared resolve by all concerned. The results of success are also very clear. In this country, it will result in much more confidence by voters in their politicians and parliamentarians. Correspondingly, on political delivery, there will be a much more convincing version of social and economic development. For Europe and beyond, this country's example will make a far more valuable contribution towards human rights and security.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Williams for instigating the debate and I congratulate the two maiden speakers, the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Clark. My noble friend Lord Lester said that he was a member of the cohort of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. I was a member of the same college and remember with mixed feelings the way in which he gave me a jack pass in handing over the chairmanship of the Trinity Hall Debating Society. It is a great pleasure to have him here.
The Motion calls attention to the case for control of the executive by Parliament, thereby making Parliament "more relevant to voters". I shall concentrate on the relevance of Parliament to the voters. It is plain that if Parliament is to have the authority to hold the executive to account effectively, it needs the loyalty or allegiance of the electorate.
My particular interest in the subject goes back a long time. Many years ago, I got a headmaster to allow me to experiment with his pupils to see whether politics, democracy and the law could be of interest to typical 15 and 16 year-olds. I believe that noble Lords who said, as many have done tonight, that citizens do not find Parliament interesting—we have heard that phrase on a number of occasions—are wrong. If the problem that we have were one of interest, it would, in a sense, be easier to tackle. However, I believe that the problem is more complex and more profound.

1529
In the past fortnight, three reports have been published which I believe throw light on this matter. One is the Carnegie report on promoting young people's involvement in public decision-making. Another is the report on Bradford, Community Pride not Prejudice, which, ironically, came out just a few days before the Bradford riots. Finally, there is the Parekh report, The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. Two of those reports have been debated in this House.
The Crick report in 1998 was the foundation upon which the Government decided—in my view, absolutely correctly—to make, as from autumn of next year, citizenship a compulsory component of every secondary pupil's curriculum. The Crick report concluded a long analysis of all the evidence as to public attitudes towards Parliament and democracy by saying:
"There are worrying levels of apathy, ignorance and cynicism about public life".
In last year's European elections the turn-out was 23 per cent and the turn-out of voters under the age of 25 was considered to be lower than 15 per cent. We know that in the recent general election the turn-out was 59 per cent but, again, it is believed that the turnout of those under the age of 25 was well below that. Indeed, an Adam Smith Institute report last year by Dr Pirie and Robert Worcester of MORI found that of that age group—the 18 to 24 year-olds—no fewer than 40 per cent had failed to register. Therefore, the statistics underestimate the problem of "citizen inaction", if I may use that phrase.
The Carnegie report made this remark:
"young people need to feel they are having a tangible influence, and to perceive the link between their contribution [to civic societies] and real changes".
Plainly, they do not. The Parekh report quoted with approval the findings of Miss Adolino. Following research, she wrote—I consider this to be a telling
observation:
"Political parties are more interested in ethnic minorities' votes than their opinions".
I would say that that is no less true of the majority white opinion also. The Parekh report went on to say:
"Rather than concentrate on minorities based on ethnicity or religion, should we not urge the Government increasingly to counter the emergence of an underclass whose deepening exclusion—known to every Youth Magistrate—is a matter of shame to the whole nation?".
I am sure that we would all say, "yes", "yes" and "yes" to that.
Finally, the report of the Bradford working group not only made as its first recommendation the teaching of effective citizenship—it is not a marginal matter—but referred to the lack of leadership in our communities and what it called "white flight". It also made the point that:
"People at street level are rarely told what is going on by politicians or leaders and therefore form misconceived or wrong views".
I believe that we need to look again at the basics of an effective democracy. As I see it, we need to look at the absolutely fundamental proposition that democracy is a bottom-up relationship with us here. It
1530
is about heart rather than head and about loyalty and relationship. I believe that we should consider the needs of common men and women with perhaps greater acuteness than we sometimes do. We need to look at their hopes and fears and spend less time examining the observations and the often considered conclusions of what is needed of bureaucrats with first-class degrees, professionals with specialist expertise, and the like.
We need to look at the whole question of the centralisation of powers. I believe that a relationship exists between the year-by-year aggregation of power at Westminster and Whitehall as against local councils of different types that has a great deal to do with the lack of identification between so-called "ordinary citizens" and the institutions of our democracy.
We need to examine the ethos of central government, which has become ever more corporatist and managerial and increasingly forgetful of the fact that most of us would rather make our own mistakes in our own way and learn in the process than have everything decided for us by our supposedly cleverer superiors. That has resulted in a type of infantilism in British public life, and the consequences run deep.
I believe that we also need to accept that the diminishing power of local government has led to a problem in relation to local leadership. The best in local societies are no longer drawn to local government and its institutions of democracy. That is a crucial element in the democratic malaise from which I believe we suffer.
Then there is what I would call the "culture of detachment and disparagement". If people do not own politics or have a sense of allegiance to it, they will too readily and too easily criticise it and stand back from it in a detached way. Disparagement has become the leitmotif of British life—my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham referred to that—crowding out virtues of affirmation, loyalty and—dare I use the word'?—forgiveness, because politicians, too, need forgiveness.
In ending, perhaps I may say a word about the concept of "crowding out". I believe that a problem of indigestion exists in public life. In my view, the British public long ago ceased to feel competent to deal with the everlasting flow of laws, secondary legislation, European directives, regulations, diktats, guidance, the endless creation of quangos and committees, and initiatives and projects. You name it, we have heard it all today. I believe that it has become a serious problem.
The consequence, or, rather, the mode, of dealing with such crowding out is so fundamental that one is apt to be accused of being simplistic if one asks whether or not we should seriously contemplate limiting the sheer volume and complexity of legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said, perhaps we should spend far more time examining the post-legislative impact of legislation and, if it has not achieved what it was supposed to achieve. we should consider chucking it out. There is much that we should do.

1531
I turn to the issue of displacement. We cannot continue to shove a quart into a pint pot. So much of what we do is self-indulgently useless. It does not hit its mark. It adds to the confusion; it adds to the detachment; and it adds to the democratic malaise that we all very much want to remedy. With those few remarks on what is perhaps a slightly different aspect of an enormous subject, I must hold my peace.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, it is very welcome that at the beginning of this Parliament we should debate how to make Parliament more effective. Many noble Lords have already mentioned the low turnout at the last general election. That is a serious and disturbing matter, particularly for a country such as ours, which is steeped in a parliamentary tradition going back many centuries.
Our forefathers fought many battles in Parliament to extend the franchise which eventually achieved universal suffrage. But we must now face the fact that many people—particularly young people—do not feel that Parliament is relevant to them or that we encourage their hopes or understand their fears. I believe that it is the first duty of both Houses of Parliament to put that right. We must find ways of bridging the gap between Parliament and the people. In my judgment, that is our most important job.
The Government also have a very important role in this matter. As I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will agree, there has been an increasing tendency for governments of both colours to make major statements outside the House rather than in Parliament, where they can be subject to cross-questioning. Of course, if the government of the day bypass Parliament and devalues its role, no wonder the electors do the same. The noble and learned Lord well knows that criticisms in that regard do not come only from this side of the House; they come from all sides. I hope that he will assure us, with the great authority that he has in Cabinet, that he will do his utmost to ensure that major statements from now on are made to Parliament and not to the media outside.
I turn to rather more optimistic themes—to the procedure and effectiveness of your Lordships' House. I do not believe that we need more powers; it would be unrealistic to ask for them and they would be unnecessary. We merely need to use our existing powers to greater effect.
There are encouraging developments. The Government, to their great credit, are introducing increasing numbers of draft Bills. That is greatly to be welcomed because it enables parliamentarians and people outside to make a contribution before Bills are set in concrete. That should lead to better legislation and people outside will feel that legislation is more relevant to them. That is an encouraging development on which the Government are to be congratulated.
We also have in your Lordships' House a well-developed system of Select Committees, on which we pride ourselves. The European Union Committee and
1532
its sub-committees produce high-quality reports that influence the government and Brussels. We also have what is now called the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which I had the privilege to serve until I was rotated off it. It gives valuable guidance to the House and the government on the use of delegated powers. Governments of both colours have almost invariably accepted the recommendations of that committee. That again is an optimistic point about the working of your Lordships' House.
We now have the new Constitution Committee, which I greatly welcome. I am sure that it will give us valuable guidance on the constitutional implications of Bills. I also hope that it will be able to assist us in developing good relations between Westminster and the devolved bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This is new territory and differences of view are bound to develop between Westminster and the new bodies. It is important to find ways to remove friction and to get those bodies working effectively together. Your Lordships' House can be more effective in that regard than the other place. Of course there will be differences of opinion, but I hope that we can work with the aid of this new committee to produce harmony and that we will strengthen the unity of the United Kingdom. There is much work to be done in that regard. That is another optimistic note that I strike.
The new Joint Committee on Human Rights is much to be welcomed. We need to avoid the dangers of having conflicts between Parliament and the judiciary—we are all conscious of those dangers when we look back in history. Conflict did neither side any good. If the new committee enables us to avoid those dangers it will be very welcome indeed.
Select Committees are one of the jewels in the crown of the working of this House. I make a plea to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House and the usual channels: may we have more opportunities to debate those valuable reports in -prime time"? Such debates should not be tucked away on a Friday, as they so often are.
What about procedures in the Chamber? Our general debates are of great value. Unstarred Questions and debates on Wednesdays enable noble Lords to discuss subjects that would otherwise remain unheard. I hope that we shall not move Wednesday's business to Thursdays. If we do, the likes of me would be tempted to go home and we should reduce the number of noble Lords participating and devalue the significance of those debates.
I turn to the revising function of your Lordships' House. That is one of our most important functions, on which we pride ourselves. It is wholly right for the Committee stage of most Bills to be taken here on the Floor of the House. It may well be that not too many noble Lords take part, but that is not the point. It means that our revising role is at centre stage—long may it remain so. Equally, all amendments are discussed if noble Lords so wish. That arrangement should also be retained. There are differing views

1533
about the Moses Room. In my view, the Moses Room is all right for technical and non-controversial Bills but the Committee stage of main Bills should be taken on the Floor of the House.
My time is running out. I had hoped to say a word about secondary legislation. I am glad that during the previous Parliament this House asserted its right to vote down secondary legislation if it thought that that was appropriate. That is not a veto; the Government can always come back with the same secondary legislation or with an amended version if they want to. However, it is wholly right to maintain the right.
I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, in her place. When she was Leader of the House she was always telling us that we are now more legitimate. We should therefore have greater confidence about using the powers that we have. That is especially necessary when a government, of whichever party, have a big majority in the House of Commons. That puts a bigger onus on us to use all of our powers to hold the government to account. We are well equipped to do so.
6.47 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for giving us an opportunity to debate this important matter.
I am concerned that we should not rush to strengthen the Upper House in order to fill the breach created by the lack of an effective opposition in the other place. It is of concern that the Government do not face more challenges from Back-Benchers and opposition parties. However, this House has its virtues and I am concerned that they should not be lost. I have seen a small part of that value during the past three years—three short years.
One important role of your Lordships' House is to sensitise government to the unforeseen consequences of legislation. One might describe this House as a focus group of people with great life experience who are already highly tuned to existence in our society and beyond.
When the Children (Leaving Care) Bill was making its way through your Lordships' House, my noble friend Lord Laming, the chief inspector of social services, attempted to persuade the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that significantly more protection should be offered to children leaving local authority care. Significantly stronger provision for those vulnerable young people was included in that legislation, which is to the immense credit of the Minister and the Government.
Concern was expressed last week about a new code for children with special educational needs and an amendment to that code was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. However, the code was postponed before even reaching your Lordships' House. On another occasion involving legislation to enable further development in human embryo research, your Lordships examined the hopes and
1534
concerns that such research brings with it. That contentious legislation received the full and expert scrutiny that it clearly needed.
There are many virtues in this House as it is currently constituted. Of course, one must always be self-critical and consider what could be done better. Let me make it plain that I am not asking for myself and other hereditary Peers to remain, but I am asking that party should be strengthened only as little as possible and that the expertise and experience of individual Peers is given as much play as possible.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I. too, am grateful to the noble Lady, Baroness Williams of Crosby, for holding this debate on a vital question that is important not only to those affected by government but to those who work in all branches of government who, let us remember, are also voters.
I apologise that I could not be here for the opening speech and for the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and my noble friend Lord Clark, both of whom have contributed greatly to the public administration and politics of this country. I speak from experience as a former civil servant, a local councillor and as someone who has had other involvements with many branches of government.
I have had no real constitutional education beyond reading Gibbon's Decline and Fall as a student and the excellent textbook that was given to me when I arrived here last year. I do not share the gloom of some noble Lords, but I believe that we can learn from the experience of other countries and perhaps teach them something too.
Electors judge governments by demanding high standards, expecting governments to improve their health, welfare and, to some extent, their happiness. All governments and Parliaments are struggling, and not always succeeding, in meeting rising expectations. The United Kingdom is not unique. I shall read a report from an international newspaper, which I read yesterday, which states:
"Last summer with its record delays and deteriorating passenger service was a memorably unpleasant ordeal. Business has not forgotten it … The current decline in business travel is responsible for the worst year in a quarter century … 'We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it any more'. Several thousand passengers sat fuming for up to eight hours with no food, toilets overflowing and surly employees barking at them".
That was in the United States, involving private sector airlines, which incidentally led to a national passenger rights Bill shortly afterwards.
Governments take on more responsibility and increase expectations—even about how long we should be here. But at the same time, governments want to keep the civil service at a constant level, so they realise that only a limited range of services can be delivered. Therefore, governments have to rely on the private sector, non-governmental organisations and encourage individuals and groups to collaborate in working towards society's goals. That is now as important a role for government and the executive branch as passing laws and running the civil service

1535
and armed forces. Governments and their agencies are so complex that they cannot be closely co-ordinated. They have to be led by general guidance and broad policy directives, rather than by micro-management.
Government and Parliament have not addressed how they should best monitor and help this new role. We need to learn from industry how it should be done. The Government do not micro-manage. Indeed, they have abandoned the command and control approach and have to focus on a much more general approach. They no longer focus on detailed matters of maladministration.
I very much hope that the ideas that emerge from this debate will be considered by our reforming Leader of the House and by those from the Prime Minister's office who are responsible for the workings of government. They are now responsible for training in the Civil Service. Reforms reported in the recent annual report are welcome, but further change is needed as the modes of government and Parliament change.
The first corollary of governments operating by guidance and target setting is that there is inevitably some ambiguity, as we have seen from the current debate on the national health service. The Civil Service at every level must be encouraged to understand how to respond, just as in business good managers aim to meet their overall objectives, whether in health, the environment or the economy, through intelligent use of resources and by listening to the overall strategy. This new managerial approach would mean that government departments and civil servants should be monitored more according to how they innovate, and how they generally meet their objectives, and less by the errors that they make. That is the antithesis of the Public Accounts Committee approach.
History records how often government servants in this country were pilloried for their efforts. I was reading recently how Clive of India was scolded by Parliament after his great achievements. Only occasionally do we read of successes like Watson-Watt who invented radar and received £100,000.
This week, Peers on all sides of the House attempted to move an amendment encouraging all government departments to contribute to international development and poverty reduction, but disappointingly, it was turned down. The spirit of the amendment was to ensure that the Government were taking an overall strategic view and encouraging all branches of government to co-operate. I regret that that approach was not accepted.
I believe that Parliament and the Government need to have a completely new approach to legislation and its execution to change the culture, as they say in business. Appropriate rewards and encouragement of innovation is an essential part of that transformation. Parliament should also monitor the executive by looking more closely at how the Government measure their own performance. There is a good deal of scepticism about targets and what information is being revealed, but the Freedom of Information Act should
1536
lead to some improvement in openness. Only a new Select Committee format or genuinely open seminars are likely to produce more confidence and more informed monitoring. My noble friend Lord Desai made some good suggestions in his speech, and yesterday, in a Select Committee in the House, we were considering having a seminar to bring in more people.
Currently the Government appear to resist amendments to legislation that call for regular reporting on the grounds that satisfactory arrangements are in place. That was discussed in a debate in the House this week. That is not a widely held opinion outside Whitehall, but Parliament, in its own interests, needs to address that point. The problem of monitoring government intelligently becomes even more necessary when government act more like a broadcasting organisation and funding agency and less like a signal box pulling levers and switching points.
Clear examples of new governmental processes include the openness and guiding procedures of the Food Standards Agency, which is the great success of this Government. Another example is the open publication of statistics and predictions of mathematical models for the spread of foot and mouth disease. Surely Parliament should be studying such developments and considering whether they can be applied elsewhere—even to foreign affairs and understanding arms races, as was suggested in a recent letter to Nature.
There are many new ways through open government and the Internet that encourage wider public involvement and input. Perhaps bulletin boards should be set up by investigating committees for monitoring and developing policy.
The greatest responsibility for government and Parliament is to look after the long-term interests of the country. That requires considering issues that are far from urgent, but which will become so. The House of Lords, through its regular debates and questions raises such strategic issues, many of which are highly controversial, such as Europe and defence, or highly unpredictable, such as the future effects of climate change, rising sea levels, demography, technology, societal change, and so on. The Government's chief scientist says that his job is to scan the horizon for up-and-coming problems. Surely it is the responsibility of the permanent secretary and Ministers in all the departments to do that.
There are several institutes for studying the future in the United States, but there are none in the UK. Instead we have various groups in government that quietly plan future legislation and carry out their own predictions. Surely it would be appropriate to have a House of Lords group at least once in each parliament to hold hearings to get the views of the Government, the executive, the agencies and those outside government about how the Government should be looking into future problems facing the UK and seeking milestones to be set by the Government in their plans to deal with long-term issues.

1537
I agree with all the noble Peers who have said that Parliament must examine its relationship with the Government and the executive. I hope that such a study will not be framed in the slightly antagonistic wording of the resolution. The role and ambitions of government are changing and they are now more complex. With a new openness, new technology, devolution of power and a willingness to listen, as well as investigate, I am sure that we can move forward with new and constructive procedures.
7 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, anyone listening to this debate. as I have been, would certainly agree that the general opinion is that there is something rotten about the present state of Parliament. Almost every speaker has sought to sniff out that rottenness, and some have sought to remove it.
My own analysis is that the Government have certainly given the impression that the only kind of accountability which really matters is their direct accountability to the electorate. Therefore, they have concentrated on direct public presentation of policy and decisions through the press and the media, too often at the expense of the traditional parliamentary procedures for dealing with such matters. But, of course, the trouble is that, as my noble friend Lord Fowler said in his eximious maiden speech, these traditional procedures have been steadily devalued and, I might say, almost banished like boom and bust.
The Government have been very successful in engineering that revolution in their own thinking about accountability. The overall result, in terms of their parliamentary majority, has been astonishingly good. But, of course, judged from a democratic, parliamentary standpoint, the consequences have been disastrous.
The leader column in The Times on Monday last referred to the Government's,
"apparently obsessive need to manipulate public opinion and control all dissent".
It described that as damaging faith in the new Labour Government. The Times, of course, was encouraging the successful Back-Bench rebellion over the removal of the two chairmen of Select Committees. The subsidiary headline on that leader was:
"MPs and PM both stand to gain from a stronger Parliament".
I guess that Mr Murdoch's conscience was working on The Times on Monday.
The change in the Government's approach to presentation is understandable, of course, in this day and age of facile, direct and instant communication. But that, of its very nature, tends to be one way, dictatorial in style, authoritarian and contemptuous of Parliament. It is not without other shortcomings.
The difference in quality between the accountability direct to the electorate system, so often practised by the Government, and the various forms of parliamentary accountability which have been relegated to an inferior role, is truly immense. In general, the electorate cannot question Ministers, except in a very limited way through focus groups, the
1538
Internet or the intermediary priesthood of the media which are always emasculated by time constraints and all sorts of other considerations.
Parliamentary scrutiny is, of course, a very different matter and properly done can be much more testing, critical and revealing. It can be helpful to the Government's thinking, as the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, said in his excellent maiden speech. The Government should welcome parliamentary scrutiny and use it. Parliamentary scrutiny is certainly essential to the public, to enable individual electors to form a proper considered judgment. Therefore, in my view, the Government have a duty to ensure, in their own best interests and those of the country, that the parliamentary system of scrutiny and accountability works efficiently and effectively.
Of course, that duty is shared by Parliament. If the system does not work, the electorate will become increasingly disillusioned with the political process. Parliament itself will fall further into disrepute and so, ultimately, will the Government.
Whether the low poll at the general election was entirely attributable to the Government's alleged abuse of Parliament is questionable to my mind. But it may have been a contributory factor to the general apathy that prevailed. With regard to the election itself, I tend to agree with the analysis given by the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
There is a particular point that I wish to raise which concerns devolved government and the promised White Paper on devolution for the English regions. My question is: what is the relationship between those proposals and the Government's proposals for further reform of the House of Lords? I ask because there is some concern, of course, that our existing devolved institutions, which have had a fair ration of praise in this debate, are drifting away from us here at Westminster and becoming remote. Frankly, we do not know, for the most part, what is going on in those institutions except what we read in the press and that does not always inspire confidence.
The Royal Commission, of course, favoured the representation of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom here in this House, and it expounded a detailed scheme of election with possible variations. The Constitution Committee, also recommended by the Royal Commission, was encouraged to set up a sub-committee to look further into the issues raised by devolution. However, although the main committee has been set up under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, I do not believe that much progress has been made, as yet, on the devolution front.
Nevertheless, some Welsh Members in the other place, addressing the Welsh Grand Committee on 3rd July, appeared to assume that the relevant recommendations in the report of my noble friend Lord Wakeham concerning national and regional representation in your Lordships' House were acceptable to the Government in principle and would be the subject of legislation. Down at the other end, do they know something that we do not know? I should

1539
be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House could throw some light on the situation and perhaps give us the drift of the Government's thinking.
Representation for the nations and regions here, independent of the devolved institutions themselves, whose members have a full-time job and cannot serve in two places, might help us to be better informed about what is happening in the regions which are somewhat neglected, and might thereby contribute to the process of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability for regional affairs, which is fairly thin at present.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, we have had an excellent debate and on these Benches we are delighted with the response by so many Members of your Lordships' House to the Motion initiated by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby.
We have had also two particularly outstanding maiden speeches from two former Cabinet Ministers speaking with the new-found freedom of the Back Benches who demonstrated what additions they will be bringing to the power of this House to scrutinise and control the executive. Both of them entered the other place on the same day as I did, so in one sense we are part of that cohort, although they stayed the course rather longer than I did.
Reference was made to a Cambridge mafia or cohort. However, I had particular pleasure in listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, because when I started teaching economics at the University of Manchester in the early 1960s, he was one of my first pupils. I am extremely glad that there are now in your Lordships' House two noble Lords who survived at my hands the teaching of economics at the University of Manchester and who seem to be doing quite well.
We have had a rich debate. It is difficult to add much at this stage. Reference has been made to the challenge felt as a result of the poor turn-out and the implications that that appears to have had for the standing of Parliament at the general election. Of course, it was an immediate warning to the House of Commons—this is a matter to which I shall return—and I suggest that it is also a warning to this House, especially as part of the membership of this House is likely to be elected at some stage in the future. The turn-out for that election is something to which we should give thought.
Part of the problem, to which implicit reference has been made during the debate, lies in the structural ambiguity of the parliamentary system, particularly in the other place. Primarily, government Back-Benchers in the other place are there to support the Government. How do they combine that with their responsibilities, as part of the legislature, to scrutinise and to control the executive? To some extent that is linked to the disputes and controversies that arose earlier this week on the formation and nature of Select Committees. My noble friend pointed out the dangers of the scrutinised appointing their own scrutineers.
1540
I have a certain caution about commenting on proceedings in another place, particularly as I have the rather unusual experience of having been part of the usual channels there and now I am part of the usual channels in this House. I hesitate to intrude on the private grief of whips in either place, but I believe that the results of the votes on Monday were very good for Parliament and I trust that lessons will be learned.
In looking at the role of your Lordships' House, we need to look at the complementarity of the two Houses and to pick up an idea developed by my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf, to try to play to the comparative advantages of this House. Although your Lordships, by yourselves, cannot bring down a government, and it is unlikely, in the foreseeable future, that there will ever be an automatic majority in this House to endorse the actions of a government, this House can probe more effectively and more efficiently than the other place.
The point made recently by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, was that this House has the advantage of being able to look over a longer time horizon than can the other place. The other place is constrained by the prospect of the next general election. In terms of giving a longer time horizon to public policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, suggested, we may have a useful part to play.
Turning to the operations of this House, reference has been made to our function in scrutinising legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, made a most important contribution by suggesting that we should look at our role in post-legislative scrutiny more carefully. However, I believe that we should consider ways in which our scrutiny can be improved. A number of years ago a group of Members, under Lord Rippon, looked at the subject. Some ideas in that report have been taken up, for example in relation to the Moses Room, but others deserve to be revisited and re-examined as to how matters can be conducted more effectively.
The scrutiny of the European Union has, of course, been referred to frequently and most recently by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree. While it can be said that we have had useful debates in this Chamber in relation to Europe which are read seriously in Brussels and in Whitehall, I am not convinced that we produce the results of those committee's work in a way that is as effective as it could be in improving the debates with our citizens, the dialogue with our citizens to which the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred in a different context.
In considering the role of this House, I believe that we need to consider how we project more effectively what we are doing. I believe that when we look at reports of our Select Committees we should consider them not only as reports to this House but as reports that can play a larger part in stimulating a wider debate in the country as a whole.
Turning to the scrutiny of other international bodies, as referred to by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby, recently in the debate on the

1541
World Trade Organisation there has been a sense that there is inadequate parliamentary scrutiny in our country. am unsure how that can be improved; to some extent it has been done already by one of the subcommittees of our European Union Committee. It is a subject that we should examined.
On the third area of scrutiny, the scrutiny of the operations of the executive, in the past we have been inhibited, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, by the convention that was agreed, that we should not duplicate the departmental committees that operate in another place. We should consider whether there could be other ways in which we could have more effective scrutiny of the operation of the executive. We have a great deal of talent and competence in this House that I believe could be better used and could provide useful complementary information.
My noble friend Lord Goodhart and the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, developed at some length a perfectly justified criticism of the decision that was announced last week by the Government not to create a joint committee on the future of the House of Lords. I believe that that announcement was extremely unfortunate. The lack of consultation undermines, in this case as elsewhere, the credibility of government and will not necessarily facilitate the passage of the legislation. I understand what the Leader of the House meant when he referred to not having undue delay, but appropriate consideration may ensure that the passage of the legislation, when it is considered, may be quicker rather than slower. One has to consider the process as a whole.
In his speech on the loyal Address, the Leader of the House made reference to an inquiry into the future working practices of this House. I know that he has taken that matter further. That is no alternative to the proposal for a joint committee, although it is something that could have some value, but—this is an important consideration—it is critical to ensure that we strengthen the mechanisms of scrutiny and the operation of this House rather than weaken them in the name of modernisation. With great interest, I noted the telling and powerful remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, who, I suspect, knows the inside of government better than almost anyone else in this House. He spoke of the importance of the role of parliamentary will to carry out scrutiny of the Government.
We also need to consider how we can strengthen the resources available to do that job. One or two important remarks were made on that. The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, referred to the particular way in which the Comptroller and Auditor-General was able to provide professional assistance on a permanent basis, on an ongoing basis, to the Public Accounts Committee, the jewel in the crown of the other place. How can we look at ways to strengthen our capacities?
My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill referred to the desirability of creating a supreme court. One important side-effect of such a creation, as referred to in the article of the noble and learned Lord, Lord
1542
Bingham, this week, may mean the departure of the Law Lords from this place and provide us with more space so that we could have more people working here to serve your Lordships' House in order to ensure that there was more effective work in our committees.
I turn, in conclusion, to the matter of trying to ensure that your Lordships' House is better understood and known by the people of this country, who, I remind noble Lords, may well be voting for part of the membership of this House within a few years. I note that this country spends about £200 million a year on government information services so that we know what they are doing. When I attempted to find out how much was spent on the information services of this House, the evidence suggested that it was about £300,000 in total. If one assumes that the House of Commons spends perhaps five or six times as much as this place, the executive spends perhaps 100 times more than the legislature in making sure that it is known.
It is important not only that we do good work in this House but that it is known in the country. As we move to a Chamber that is to a greater or lesser extent elected, we need to prove our role to the electorate in ways which have not been necessary in the past. Our procedure and performance must be improved if we are to persuade the electorate that it should participate in elections. But in addition to doing better we should ensure that we are seen to be doing better. It is no use doing good merely by stealth. Your Lordships' House has an obligation to persuade the people of Britain that this Chamber contributes effectively to holding the executive to account if it is to persuade people to take part in future elections of Members of your Lordships' House. Otherwise, it is difficult to know what will be the turnout in an election which will not determine the political complexion of the government of this country or, on the proposals apparently advocated by the Government, significantly affect the composition of this House.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I join all those who have congratulated, rightly, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, on initiating the debate today. She is a parliamentarian whose distinction is respected across all parties. The noble Baroness has been prepared to pay a price to stand for what she believes in. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Fowler and the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, on their outstanding maiden speeches. I hope that we shall hear much of them in future and that they will continue to participate fully in the workings of the House.
Parliament as a whole should take note of perhaps the most important theme of all to which the noble Baroness drew attention. It is a theme on which and many others in this House have reflected for some years. As the noble Baroness pointed out, we have probably the most powerful executive in the democratic world. Recently, we read the conclusions of a distinguished commission of the Hansard Society on parliamentary scrutiny chaired by my noble friend

1543
Lord Newton of Braintree, whose speech I was delighted to hear this afternoon. I agree substantially with the burden of what that group had to say, not least on the ineffective ritual of Questions in another place.
The findings of the Newton commission followed the notable report produced by the commission set up by the Conservative Party and chaired by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. Both reports accurately analysed the same problem. The conclusions of the commission of the Hansard Society were crisp:
"Serious gaps and weaknesses in the working of accountability were found. Scrutiny of government is neither systematic nor rigorous".
The commission is right. If Parliament is not working—I very much agree with the remarkable speech of my noble friend—no one can find a solution to the problem but Parliament itself.
Over the past 25 years, as the noble Baroness said, a dangerous imbalance between the power of No. 10, buttressed by the party Whips in another place and the power of another place to coerce this House, has grown up and an inexorable decline in power and influence of Parliament has emerged. The issues at stake here transcend party. I do not want to divide the House by assailing the party of noble Lords opposite. There are great parliamentarians in numbers on the Benches opposite. How much do we today miss the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, in his accustomed place for a debate in which he surely would have spoken!
Today, I should have been tempted even to spare those Liberal Democrat MPs who supported timetable Motions and guillotines if I had not then heard what the noble Baroness rightly said about the need for better scrutiny of treaties and only last week had not watched Mr Menzies Campbell on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in another place commending a timetable Motion that limited scrutiny of the Treaty of Nice in Committee. There is no one so pure that he should feel free to cast the first stone. We all dug this hole and together we must dig our way out. Naturally, I accept the blame which lies with my party.
But one wonders whether noble Lords opposite are happy with much that they have seen since 1997: announcements consistently made outside Parliament; Cabinet reduced to a 45-minute pep talk from the chief executive; spin doctors crowding even the cleaning cupboards of No. 10 Downing Street and Whitehall and expanding into No. 12; candidates for the European Parliament, the Mayor of London or the First Minister for Wales handed down by Millbank; procedures "modernised" in another place to timetable and curtail scrutiny at every stage of every Bill; and chairmen of Select Committees in another place who have shown independence and authority and done one of the jobs that Parliament is there to do, lined up for the chop.
Look around us even here. Who would have forecast five years ago that over one-third of this House would be appointed by a single man? That is
1544
scarcely the mark of the "modern and democratic" House of Lords of which the Government talked in 1997. We have seen patronage and spin erected into a system of government. I sometimes ask myself what the Government are afraid of. Is it perhaps that someone may ask what they have achieved? We have seen 16 constitutional Bills in four years. Is our constitution any more coherent? Is Parliament controlling the executive any better today?
While Mr Blair has dallied with the constitution, are our hospitals and transport system working better or our education being improved? Is anyone happy about the deluge of red tape that falls as snow on small businesses? How right is the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, to complain about that and the fungus of rules to which my noble friend Lord Peyton referred in his vintage speech!
Why should we believe unequivocally in a stronger Parliament—not to be a nuisance, or to keep some of the newer working Peers waiting when they have more important things to do, but to safeguard the citizen and business against badly drafted law, give voice to the public's concerns about the actions and proposals of the executive and improve the quality of government? Parliament may sometimes be an inconvenience but it does improve the quality of government. A stronger and more independent Parliament will, paradoxically, lead to a stronger government so long as government, after full scrutiny, carries the respect and support of Parliament. Perhaps this Government would gain greater respect if they listened to Parliament a little more and feared it a little less.
What can we do in this House to improve scrutiny? We should be confident about our powers and be ready to use them, and we should be wary of the executive when it talks of "modernising procedure". I give two examples. First, this House has, and must retain, the power to reject bad legislation. We were right to use it on the restriction of trial by jury, and we would be right to do so again. I detected one or two worrying signals in the gracious Speech about further reductions in our ancient freedoms, so we must he on our guard again in this Session.
Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree reminded the House, we need to keep the power to reject secondary legislation. Today, I read a major article in the Financial Times which clearly relied directly on government briefing:
"On disability benefits—another flashpoint—Ministers will try to avoid a revolt by making changes by administrative order rather than primary legislation".
That is a startlingly naked expression of what this debate is about.
I am tempted to coin a Strathclyde doctrine: wherever Ministers openly seek to use secondary legislation to avoid detailed scrutiny in another place, this House should seriously consider rejecting it so as to ensure that the other place has the right to full scrutiny. We would have a better governed country if more appeared on the face of primary legislation instead of being buried in the detail of unamendable

1545
orders. I entirely disagree with the conclusions of my noble friend Lord Wakeham, who sought to reduce the power of this House in relation to secondary legislation.
If we had the power and authority in this House, and used it, we would do a service to another place which would then be put on its mettle to test the Government further; and we would also do a service to Ministers. When I stood at the Government Dispatch Box nothing concentrated my mind more than the prospect of defeat, or the sense that, unless I persuaded my colleagues to amend legislation to respond to intelligent scepticism in this revising Chamber, defeat might be the result at a later stage.
Time and again I find that when Parliament, and especially this House, puts up hurdles, the result is better legislation and often better policy. Therefore perhaps I may echo what the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, said in his weighty speech, and I very much hope that we shall be hearing more from him in the months ahead. If what we do in Parliament is seen to carry weight with government and make them think more deeply, then people will take a far more active interest in Parliament and who is sent here.
I am certainly ready to look at changes in procedure in this House. But that does not include ones which weaken the capacity of this House to do its job. Therefore, I shall need much persuading before I agree with the recent suggestion of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House that this House is not allowed to amend legislation in Committee without agreement by the executive. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord when he replies will explain how this idea would improve parliamentary control of the executive.
Perhaps too I can now reach my conclusion. I regret that my terms may be a little disagreeable. Making Parliament work better and controlling the executive better will be achieved only if all parties believe in it and if we have cross-party consultation. Like the noble Baroness, I believe that there is the expectation in the House that that will happen. That is why, like the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, and many others who have spoken this afternoon, I was so bitterly disappointed by the Answer given last week by the noble and learned Lord to my noble friend Lord Rees when he asked about the consultations on the future of this House.
We all heard the gracious Speech with its phrase "following consultation". We all heard the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House refer again to consultation in debate on the gracious Speech. I was not alone in thinking that that meant genuine cross-party consultation. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, it would be "grotesque"—that was his word—if we acquiesced to the ambition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. What the noble and learned Lord said in his Answer last week was that the executive would now take over this process, presumably in a White Paper, and then, and only then, let people comment on it.
1546
We heard what the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, had to say about government consultation. Crudely, the noble and learned Lord said that the executive had no intention of adjusting its plans by listening to anyone; and bluntly he said that he would allow no joint committee to consider ideas, even though that was explicitly promised in Labour's 1997 manifesto and has since been promised so many times, as the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, exposed in his demolition of the Government's position. In the words used by my noble friend Viscount Cranborne in another not unrelated context, the noble and learned Lord's Written Answer "bushwhacked" the House.
The noble and learned Lord is the Leader of the House. As such, he should owe a particular duty to Parliament. I know that he believes he owes such a duty. Surely he must recognise that the Government cannot proceed to long-lasting and genuine reform which will affect both Houses perhaps for a century or more, except on the basis of full consultation with open minds; that is, consultation that we, the Liberal Democrats and others with no party affiliation thought that we had been promised.
The question of the future of Parliament opened up today by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is a question without parallel in importance because from an effective Parliament the solution to so much else will follow. The noble and learned Lord now has an opportunity to help craft a great House into something better. To do that he must sometimes lead and sometimes let himself be led. If the noble and learned Lord seeks to go forward alone by publishing the unilateral proposals he wrote of last week he will not be serving this House of Parliament, as many in this House, including me, believe that he should.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am about to utter heresy: the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was wrong. There was once a golden age. It was glad confident morning. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and I were both together at Cambridge. The noble Lord will remember that the sun was always shining. It is lost in the mists of pre-history now. The Conservative Party was still alive, sane and hoping to be re-elected. Things changed so very quickly. More lately—the noble Lord will allow me this personal observation— the friendship between his daughter Kate and my daughter Imogen has illuminated both our lives.
In 1997 I worked with the noble Lord, Lord Clark. The tributes paid to his work on freedom of information are rightly deserved. I was particularly pleased, because I was going to mention it myself, at the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney. I have written to the noble Lord on behalf of us all wishing him well, but in particular saying that we would miss his trenchant interventions on occasions such as this. I know that his name was originally on the draft speakers' list, which is why my heart began to tremble. We miss him and I hope that he returns as soon as possible.

1547
I shall come to consultation in a moment or two by being—to use a word used by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—disagreeable. I am afraid that I shall have to refer to what I actually said. It is always an inconvenience, but sometimes it is quite a helpful guide. I agree with the spirit of what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, implied, and with what the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Roper, said. We all want to make this House better, and soon.
My stance is quite plain. I cherish the absolute right of this House to question the Government, to probe their proposed legislation and their activities and to ask the other House to think again. Both Houses have to work together. We want to make Parliament as effective as possible in scrutinising the Government and in holding them to account. The fact that we are not elected makes it easier because there is no Whip, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh will agree, that has any effect in this House; and there are no sweeteners of which I have been made aware. That will come as disagreeable fodder to those who have the purist view. I recognise the honourable nature of their stance that this House should be wholly elected. However, there would be a serious danger—I make no offensive criticism of our colleagues at the other end of the corridor—that this House would contain clones of those elsewhere. We should do our country and our Parliament no favours in that.
I continue to believe that we should be as effective as possible in holding the Government to account. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that it does not matter who is the temporary incumbent of No. 10. I believe that this Chamber has a distinctive but different contribution to make. I want us, if this does not sound disagreeably inclusive, to create together a House fit for modern conditions and one which will deliver sound, informed, reasoned criticism, recognising that we must complement the Commons and not seek ultimately—I emphasise that qualification—to defy or override the other place. That gives us plenty of room for manoeuvre and allows us to deploy the functions and powers that we already possess.
I said that I would come to the question of consultation. There was a time, rather more recent than the time of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and mine at Cambridge, not too long ago when my noble friend Lord McIntosh and I sat on the other side of the House. My memory must be fading, but I think that we had 100 Members in this House. How many Conservatives were there in a permanent entrenched substantially hereditary majority? About 400—or was it 500? One's memory passes so quickly. I do not want to be unduly partisan, but at that time I do not think that I heard a single syllable of desire for improving scrutiny of the Government. Of course it may be that I was just asleep at the time and I missed it, to quote Bob Dylan, but I do not think so.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord's memory does not serve him as well as that. There was no Conservative majority in this House.
1548
There was a majority over the Labour Party. The records will speak for themselves. The Conservative Party had 40 per cent of the House. That is not a majority. If there was such an overwhelming majority, why was it that, year after year after year, as so many former Cabinet Ministers behind me will testify, the government were defeated by this House and legislation was changed, not least by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to look at the figures. There were about 400 Conservatives. Forty per cent of well over 1,000 is more than 400. In my characteristically modest way, I have understated the value of my position.
I turn straightaway to consultation because I know that a certain amount of unhappiness has been caused. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Roper, that I want to carry on the spirit of co-operation that I hope the three of us have begun to establish. In the debate on the gracious Speech on 21st June, I pointed out to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—it was the fact—that there was no commitment in the manifesto to having a Joint Committee. I pointed out, which again was the fact, that we could not reach agreement on terms of reference because,
"we were adamant to the point that composition had been dealt with by the Wakeham Commission; and it was the parliamentary aspects that the Joint Committee was to consider".
It is always agreeable to read one's own words and reflect on the deep wisdom underlying them. I also said—I repeat it; I hope to demonstrate it; and I hope that I have demonstrated it on many occasions when noble Lords have put forward points to me and I have accepted them either in the Chamber or outside the Chamber—
"Consultation' means that one has to listen fairly and open-mindedly to other people's points of view; but it does not mean that one has to put off decision day for ever and ever. Amen".—[Official Report, 21/6/01; cols. 114–15.]
The answer given by my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Alli was quoted perfectly accurately by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill. She said that there would be a Joint Committee on the parliamentary aspects, but we failed to reach agreement on that. We have not resiled from our commitment, but we were not able to agree. That being so, we must seek to get on. But I am not in command of any sufficient troops to dictate to your Lordships' House, even if my own troops were unanimous or were capable of being Whipped—and my own experience demonstrates the contrary.
This has been a remarkable debate because it has contained a large menu of proposals that could usefully be fed into the Leader's group which I am setting up. Many views have been put forward. They do not all derive from the same original premises. I thought that the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, was a very fine speech indeed. Whether one agreed with all the propositions put, or even with the tender reproach that she offered to me, having, as always, courteously told me beforehand, it was a remarkable tour de force and an examination of

1549
our current horizon. The noble Baroness is right in being deeply troubled at the low electoral turn-out. My thoughts were that it was particularly the young who were disenchanted. The statistics show—I hope that this is not regarded as disagreeable—that many young working women were disenchanted with the process. It was partly—I may hear a "hiss" when I say this—that the population was generally content with the direction the Government were going in. It was partly the lack of a coherent Opposition deploying their forces properly. It was partly because people thought, having read the opinion polls, that the outcome had already been decided. But it does not offer us any comfort, whether I am right or wrong, in whole or in part.
I do believe fundamentally and beyond almost any other consideration that is relevant—the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was good enough to refer to this point—that our work is to control the executive. We need to do it in a constructive way. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, is right. If a government are generous-hearted enough to recognise that they do not have a total monopoly on all wisdom, useful constructive criticism and an urge to review actually make government work better. If that makes government work better, it makes the people more likely to re-elect the government. So noble benefit and ignoble calculation all come together in one superb construction.
What has happened at the other end? One has to be cautious about their practices. I, unlike some whom I hesitate to identify, never was polluted by membership of the other place and therefore I am able to take a much more detached and objective view. What happened on Monday was an event of great significance. Curiously, I think we prefigured it in some of our debates because we all agreed just a few weeks ago that a sea change was occurring, the nature of which we could not properly describe or identify.
I hope that we can seize our opportunity. We have the opportunity to reform composition. There will never be agreement on the composition of the House. There cannot be in the nature of things. If one begins from the stance of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, one will not be able to reconcile that with a view that there should be no elected element or a totally elected element. We shall never agree on this. We must recognise that in a spirit of amity and concord, not of violent disputation.
The whole history of our constitution has been one of organic, pragmatic development. That is the glory of the British way. We do not tend to have revolutionary change. What is happening at the moment is that we have begun a reform of the House. It has changed in all kinds of subtle and indescribable ways already, since most of our hereditary friends left. We have the opportunity now to make our working practices fit for the modern age. It chimes in, for instance, with the fact that the expenses now payable will be more reasonable to the expenditure incurred. All of these considerations should go together.
1550
When we come to the Leader's group or to putting forward proposals, whatever they may be—I simply do not know what they might be; whether we can agree about them in whole or in part, I do not know— we should really be looking, as I ventured to say a few weeks ago, to the way we actually work. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, said that many important topics are simply excluded from the present calendar; and they are. Can we not think about making time available, perhaps before 2.30 p.m.? Those who are interested in particular debates of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord will perhaps number 25 or 30 of your Lordships. The) could be accommodated in debates of great value if we simply looked at that suggestion. We cannot complain about a straitjacket in which we have bound our own arms. That is why I respectfully suggest that this is such an opportunity to make ourselves better, more effective and more helpful to the executive.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point, he said that he will consult on changing the procedures of the House; he will not consult on changing the composition of the House. On the former, he believes that he will get agreement; on the latter, he believes that he will not. The noble and learned Lord has not even tried to get agreement on the latter. Should he not think again, change his mind and offer proper consultation in Parliament on the future of this House?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think that I have made myself plain, or perhaps the noble Lord did not catch my drift. What I have suggested—the noble Lord knows because I have written to him—is a small Leader's group to deal with recommendations only about our working practices. It will then be for the House to decide. I repeat what I said. I am perfectly happy to take other people's views. "Consultation" means that one has to listen fairly and open-mindedly to other people's points of view. I cannot be more generous than that. The Joint Committee failed because we could not agree on terms of reference. It is far from accurate to misrepresent me as saying that I will not consult on composition. It is not an option for me to consult or not. Of course I have to consult, because your Lordships have the final say and I do not; and quite right too. So it is utterly wrong to suggest—I hope to nail the myth once and for all—that I have refused to consult. I have not. As recently as 21st June 2001 (at col. 114 of the Official Report for those who are interested) I set out our position. As I have only another 10 minutes in which to speak, I shall try to continue my remarks
The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on pre-legislative scrutiny are extremely important. When that has taken place, on, for example, the legislation covering freedom of information—the noble Lord will recall that I gave evidence to his committee—it worked well. I do not suggest that it worked to the perfect satisfaction of all, but the outcome was an improvement. The question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, which others

1551
commended, regarding post-legislative scrutiny is something that we should consider. It might not apply to every Bill. For example, it may be easy to conduct that kind of scrutiny on social welfare legislation after, say, two years, but it would not be so easy with a major criminal justice Act, with which we are all familiar—if not depressingly so. But that would require a change in our working practices and a far greater time commitment from those who would be engaged on it. There is no way of squaring that circle. I am perfectly open-minded about these ideas. I hope that they will be fed into the group which should begin work before we depart for the Summer Recess.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, mentioned the devolved assemblies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. I agree entirely with his points. Indeed, arrangements are in hand for me to visit all the assemblies during the summer break in order to maintain close contact. I appreciate that they may not be sitting, but at least we shall be able to learn from them. Furthermore, I agree with the points made by other noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, that we can study their working practices, albeit that they have been agreed in a unicameral situation, and perhaps learn from them.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, unusually for him, is unable to be in his place for the final speeches of this debate. He has a domestic emergency. He wrote to me and I have replied on behalf of the whole House. All noble Lords know how conscientious he is, but he had to leave to attend to a private matter.
I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, was extremely interesting. It echoed other views and took a slightly unique course by pointing out that what we do in this place may not necessarily depend on how we are composed. He went on to echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, about the possibility of scrutinising treaties.
It is plain that none of these proposals is in my gift, but they are all ideas worthy of serious consideration and I genuinely believe that we have before us opportunities which, if we lose them over the coming year to 18 months, we shall not regain in our lifetimes as Members of this House. The opportunity to regain that initiative will not arise. The tide is moving and if we become bogged down in apparently partisan differences, we shall miss that tide and it will be entirely our own fault.
I have tried to do justice to the general themes that have been put forward in the debate. One further general theme touched on was the question of the English regions. I can confirm that work is continuing on the production of the White Paper. A good deal of thought is being put into its terms and it will be published in due time.
The Constitution Committee of this House is an innovation. We must see how it develops. Even the most apparently unpromising committees which may not initially resonate as being full of interest—I cite
1552
here the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee on which most noble Lords, given a free choice and faced with a name like that, would not have volunteered to serve—can become authoritative. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, pointed out that the committee has become virtually the most authoritative committee of this House. As far as I can remember, I do not think that any government of either complexion have gone against a firm recommendation from that committee. The committee provides a perfect example of what I seek to urge upon noble Lords as the way forward. It is not a question of the composition of a committee; it is how that committee works and delivers its considerations. A committee makes its own authority. It does not matter whether those serving on it have been directly elected, indirectly elected with a single transferable vote, are former hereditary Peers, continuing hereditary Peers or retired Bishops. That does not matter. What does matter is the way that the committee works and the outcomes it produces.
This has been a good debate. It is interesting to observe that there has been a marginally different complexion to every single contribution. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made a most important point: we ought not blinker ourselves into believing that our work is simply for the United Kingdom. It is not. Other noble Lords have pointed out that we form a part of a greater Europe. A number of noble Lords have also pointed out that we may have lessons of virtue to be learned from Europe. Furthermore, I do not doubt that we have considerable offerings for Europe.
I shall conclude five minutes ahead of time, for which I shall receive my reward in the hereafter—so the right reverend Prelate has assured me. I should like to reassure noble Lords and underline the fact that if there has been any misunderstanding about what I believe to be the way forward—namely, through consultation,—I shall be happy to put that to rest. Once again, I thank the noble Baroness and all noble Lords for their contributions.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I shall detain the House only for a few moments. I, too, should like to add my regrets to those which have been expressed for the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney. He is a very longstanding friend of mine. All noble Lords profoundly regret that he had to be swept away from this House, typically in mid-speech. We all hope that he will recover quickly and then resume his accustomed place in our debates.
I should like to add a word or two of congratulation on our two outstanding maiden speeches in what I think has been a scintillating debate - perhaps it almost represented a return to the golden age. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has always been distinguished for his directness, honesty and, indeed, his capacity to address members of the public and to be understood. It is wonderful to have him here as a Member of this House.

1553
Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, there is nothing that I admire more in political life than moral courage, and I believe that the noble Lord has shown moral courage. All of us are grateful to him for what he did with regard to freedom of information.
Finally, I should like to respond briefly to the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams. Along with other noble Lords on these Benches, I found his words to be encouraging. However, there may be something of a linguistic difficulty in the sense that working procedures and methods might be considered a rather limited definition. However, as the noble and learned Lord developed his argument, he began to describe new areas of possible reform which became distinct and exciting. I believe that we shall have to pursue this matter somewhat, since my right honourable friend the Leader of the Liberal Democrats takes the view that no tripartite discussion has taken place on some of the issues that have been raised. I shall not pursue that matter now beyond saying that we respond warmly to the tone and style of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House.
l shall conclude my remarks by echoing the noble and learned Lord in pointing out that this is indeed a window of opportunity, one that we on these Benches and, I believe, those on the Opposition Benches would wish to seize. Furthermore, that opportunity should extend beyond simply working procedures to some of the functions and, indeed, the potential of this House, given the new challenges facing Parliament.
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

China: Human Rights
7.58 p.m.
Lord Afton of Liverpool Lord Afton of Liverpool rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of human rights abuses in China, and whether they intend to re-assess the funding of agencies involved in population control measures in China.
The noble Lord said: I ask this Unstarred Question against the backdrop of massive violations and abuses of human rights in China. I am extremely grateful to those noble Lords from all sides of the House who have indicated their willingness to contribute to the debate.
Amnesty International has pointed out that the Chinese,
"in their latest 'strike hard campaign', have managed to execute more people in three months than the rest of the world put together for the last three years".
Over 1,700 people have been executed since April. Amnesty states that:
"few would have received a fair trial".
1554
Political rights, freedom of expression and association, the abuse of religious liberties and intolerable interference in people's personal and family lives all characterise life in China today. Yet we appear remarkably silent and complacent. From the decision to stage the Olympic Games in Beijing to our silence on Tibet, from our continued aid programme and deepening of business ties, we have demonstrated a calculated indifference to widespread suffering and misery in that country.
Today, I wish briefly to concentrate on two specific instances of human rights abuses. On Monday last, during the Committee stage of the International Development Bill, I supported an amendment from the Opposition Front Bench seeking to end British funding for agencies involved in the one-child policy in China. During my speech, reported at column 1327 of the Official Report, I documented examples of appalling abuses of the human rights of women and their families. On 16th October, the House will return to these issues at Report stage. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will use the intervening period to reflect on the evidence that I laid before your Lordships' House.
In particular, I hope that the Government will reassess their argument that because there is a non-coercive population policy being pursued in 32 counties, this mitigates the use of coercion in the other 2,500 counties in China, or in its 335 prefectures, 666 cities and 717 other urban districts.
This barbaric policy of forced abortion, the compulsory sterilisation of women and the compulsory fitting of inter-uterine devices, accompanied by infanticide and terror, has been pursued now for some 20 years. British taxpayers' money has been poured into the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and the United Nations Population Fund, which in turn pour money into two agencies of the Chinese communist state, the SFPC (State Family Planning Commission) and the CFPA (Chinese Family Planning Association).
The CFPA is a full member of IPPF and has been headed since its inception by Chinese government officials. It has a declared aim to "implement government population policies". Quin Zinzhong, one of the Ministers who has overseen that policy, said:
"The size of the family is far too important to be left to the couple. Births are a matter of state planning".
In one province the slogan,
"It is better to have more graves than one more child",
has been used.
Over the past 20 years, apologists for this policy have argued that it needs time to work; that the West will ultimately be able to influence a more enlightened approach; and that this funding is a legitimate use of our aid programme. But I invite your Lordships to measure those arguments against the following four reference points and to ask what horrors have to occur before we, like the American Administration, reassess this policy.
First, Catherine Baber of Amnesty International, says:
"We are especially worried about people being put into detention to put pressure on pregnant relatives to undergo forced abortions. As far as we are concerned, that amounts to torture".
Secondly, the US State Department confirmed in a recent report that women had been incarcerated in "reeducation centres" and "forced to submit to abortions". Thirdly, the BBC reported that refugees arriving in Australia had cited coercive family planning as one of their reasons for leaving China. And, fourthly, Tibetan dissidents, who were quoted in the Tibet Vigil on 24th August last year, said:
"What is the UK doing helping to fund birth control policies in Tibet, an occupied country? … China's inhumane policies of enforced sterilisation and abortion amount to genocide".
In an intervention in the debate on Monday, I cited the Government's own document, China: Population Issues, where the department admits that the involvement of the UNFPA and the IPPF has,
"not led the Chinese to moderate their policies or to stop abuses".
The former executive director of the UNFPA, Nafis Sadiq, said:
"China has every reason to feel proud and pleased with its remarkable achievements in family planning policy … Now China could offer its experiences and special experts to other countries".
A few weeks ago, Amnesty International highlighted the cases of a baby boy, born above the permitted quota level, who was kicked to death by family planning officials. That case was reported in the Sunday Times. Amnesty International also reported the case of a man who was tortured to death because he would not reveal the whereabouts of his pregnant wife. I find it extraordinary that no-one disputes that these outrages occur daily, and yet we persist in issuing weak words of disapproval and providing funding which finds its way to the perpetrators of these deeds.
China's repression of its citizens also manifests itself through religious persecution. The 1989 events culminating in the Tiananmen Square massacre precipitated an increased repression of all activity which the Chinese state perceived as a threat, including religious practice. The tone was set by "Document No. 6" issued by the Communist Party Central Committee in February 1991, which called for the elimination of all "illegal" religious groups. Within the last year, 130 evangelical Christians were detained in Henan province. They were all members of the Fangcheng Church, one of many Protestant house churches. They were sent to re-education centres.
Amnesty International say that 24 Roman Catholics, including a priest and 20 nuns, were detained in Fujian province, where police found them holding church services in a mushroom processing factory. Father Liu Shaozhang was so badly beaten by police that he vomited blood, and the whereabouts of many of the other detainees remains unknown.
Many of your Lordships will have seen the report which appeared recently in The Times. It concerned a 79 year-old Catholic bishop who had been re-arrested. He had already spent 30 years in Chinese prisons. The report from Oliver August said:
"Bishop Shi has long been a target of police harassment. A police spokesman said: 'We have been hunting for him since 1996' … ordained in 1982 after spending 30 years in prison. He was back in a labour camp between 1990 and 1993".
And he has subsequently been re-arrested.
When I wrote to the Ambassador of the People's Republic of China in London, I received a reply dated 19th June from Zhao Jun, the chargé d'affaires, who said:
"in China, religious believers have not been subjected to suppression or prosecution in whatever form. No religious believers have been punished for their religious belief or normal religious activities. They will be dealt with only when they violate the law. The policy of freedom of religious belief remains unchanged".
But whether it is in regard to the Falun Gong, Buddhist monks and priests, Christian evangelicals or Catholics, all the evidence that has been accumulated by both the human rights group, the Jubilee Campaign, and by Amnesty International proves otherwise.
I have four specific suggestions. First, that there should be sustained international pressure on the Chinese Government to permit religious freedom in China and to release all those detained for their peaceful religious beliefs and practices. Secondly, that the system of official religious organisations and the requirement that one must join them in order to worship should be abolished. These organisations are often used as instruments of control and repression by the state. Thirdly, that the restrictions placed on the publishing and distribution of the Bible in China should be lifted. Fourthly, the state's prohibition against Sunday schools and the giving of Christian teaching and baptism to young people under the age of 18 should also be lifted.
China systematically uses re-education centres and imprisonment for religious believers and political reformers. These include political dissidents, such as members of the banned China Democratic Party, and anti-corruption and environmental campaigners. Suppression of the Internet, arrests, detentions, unfair trials and executions, the imprisonment of hundreds of Buddhist monks, Christians and members of Falun Gong, and the barbaric treatment of women and children through the one-child policy, must surely cause each one of us to question how we can persist with a policy of business, sport and aid as usual.
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for giving us the opportunity to clarify some issues relating to population and human rights in China. I shall speak mainly about population. I have experience of working on reproductive health programmes and I shall draw on my personal experience. I am also a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health.

1557
I touch first on human rights. There was correspondence this week in the Guardian in relation to the Olympic Games. One letter argued that bad human rights records are not confined to China. Are we to hold such events only in democratic, developed countries which may be profiting as arms brokers and which may have a poor record on environmental issues? Another letter pointed out that China has lifted people out of poverty and has improved literacy rates and life expectancy. The writer of another letter says that half his kitchen equipment bears the labels of respected Western companies, but is stamped "Made in China''—presumably because cheap labour in China can be exploited. I do not quote these letters to defend China but to suggest that human rights is not a simplistic issue and that we in the West may be inclined to condemn selectively, and sometimes without a holistic view or comprehensive and accurate information.
Of course, I deplore torture, killings and suffering inflicted on people in any country. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, gave graphic examples. In relation to reproductive rights, I deplore forced sterilisation or abortion, including gender selective abortions, and female genital mutilation. But how can we risk removing the positive attributes of reproductive health programmes for ordinary men and women because of repressive government policies? Policy makers can and do change. I have seen it happen in my own work.
What concerns me here are the words "population control", with the implication that international organisations might be promoting this in their reproductive health programmes. We must be very careful not to dismiss such programmes and to challenge their funding by imputing to them negative and sinister motives.
We cannot neglect human reproductive rights just because a country has poor human rights. I have been involved in reproductive health programmes in various parts of the world—not in China. In one particular country there is widespread corruption at local and national level, leaving around 40 per cent of the population in poverty and distress. The programme in which I was involved contributed to halving the numbers of abortions and teenage pregnancy rates in the capital city over a four-year period. Had we refused to collaborate with doctors and teachers on the ground in that country because of unsavoury policies and practices, that would never have happened. Many lives would have been blighted by illness and poverty.
As I understand it—the Minister will be able to clarify this—DfID gives annual grants to organisatons that seek to improve reproductive health in general. Will she comment on he aims and objectives of such programmes and on how they are monitored and evaluated? If their aim were the coercive control of populations, then I assume that DfID would not be contributing to their funding. Programmes in which I have been involved have had very clear aims and strategies in order to obtain funding in the first place. They have been subject to internal and external monitoring and evaluation.
1558
I want to emphasise the fact that without such programmes the right to family planning—already denied to 350 million people worldwide—would be in jeopardy. This would contribute in turn to extreme poverty. Unsafe abortion levels, already high, would increase. Frequent pregnancies would continue to result in maternal death and diseases such as chronic anaemia. We should remember that pregnancy rates are five to 20 times higher in the less developed world due to the absence of contraceptives, sex education and appropriate services. Richer nations must combat this and the enormous threat to health and life posed by the HIV/AIDS pandemic. It is our ethical, moral and humanitarian duty.
The International Conference on Population and Development emphasised that services in reproductive health should be voluntary. In the countries in which I have worked, as in other countries, men and women desperately want such services.
We must support organisations that seek to better reproductive choices and thereby life chances. The implications of the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, put those programmes in doubt and I must take issue with it, although the noble Lord and I agree on many issues apart from this one. Will the Minister tell us more about the strategic planning, monitoring and evaluation of such programmes so that we can be sure that coercive action is excluded?
8.14 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, the news last week that China has been successful in its bid to host the 2008 Olympic Games has made this evening's debate on human rights abuses in China a most topical one. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing it. I want to concentrate my remarks on human rights abuses.
There can be little doubt that China's human rights record has deteriorated in the past two years. The worsening picture which emerges clearly and consistently across the spectrum of opinion —not only from respected human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch but also from the US State Department and from our own Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—cannot be ignored or dismissed as an unfortunate anomaly in an otherwise rosy situation.
From the evidence gathered, China remains one of a minority of all the world's nations which institutionalises abuse of human rights and represses the basic civil and political freedoms of its people, such as those of speech and assembly.
The growth in the scale of human rights abuse has taken place during the implementation of a new government policy on China. This fact alone must at least cause us to pause and wonder whether this is the right approach or whether another might have more effect. In 1997, the Government put human rights "at the heart of foreign policy" and they announced a new China policy. It was their intention to,
"open a new chapter of more constructive relations across the board, addressing both trade and more difficult issues such as human rights".

1559
This was to be done through a unique process of bilateral dialogue. Yet Amnesty International had this to say:
"The human rights situation in China has seriously deteriorated over the past two years, while the human rights dialogue held by the EU and other governments with China has failed to bring any concrete improvements on the ground or progress in the area of China's co-operation with the UN human rights mechanism".
It is valid to ask what real improvements in China's human rights record have been achieved by the Government's bilateral human rights dialogue. Has China been persuaded to live up to the standards of the UN covenants it has signed, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? Has China been persuaded to resume dialogue with the Dalai Lama? Has it given Tibet real control over its own affairs? Has China's persecution of Tibetans and the suppression of their traditional culture and religion ended? Has the boy designated as the Panchen Lama been produced? He has not been seen for six years and, at the age of 11, is one of the world's youngest political prisoners—if indeed he is alive. The answer on all counts is a resounding "No".
I do not for one moment suggest any kind of confrontation through megaphone diplomacy or aggressive grandstanding. Such an approach to a country for which foreign involvement is tantamount to the anathema of imperialism would only be counterproductive. Here I am in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. A quieter approach is just as likely, if not more likely, to bear fruit. Nor is a policy of isolation the answer. Britain should take advantage of the areas where our interests and Chinese interests coincide—and we should narrow our differences through regular contact and dialogue. The policy of principled and purposeful engagement with China, while firmly supporting human rights and democratic reform, is sensible. China is an emerging military and economic superpower and, as a consequence, we want the best possible relations with the government and the people of China.
Yet the Government seem to have fallen into the trap of believing their own rhetoric and, as a result, their attitude towards dialogue appears too inflexible. Dialogue with China is not the only show in town and alternative or complementary unilateral or multilateral action to improve human rights should not necessarily be eschewed.
Dialogue is not an end in itself. The value of dialogue can only be measured over time in terms of concrete improvements for victims of human rights violations. No such progress has been made in the dialogue with China. In the light of the worsening human rights situation, it may be time to consider a broadening and a strengthening of our expectations from dialogue.
I conclude with a few words about the BBC World Service. This service is an invaluable link to the outside world for millions of Chinese listeners. It provides accurate and unbiased information and is no less than a lifeline to many of its listeners. According to the World Service, there is "persistent jamming" of its
1560
short wave broadcasts in Mandarin. BBC engineers have found deliberate co-channel interference. What action are the Government taking to press the Chinese authorities to ensure that the jamming of the BBC World Service ceases immediately and also to make it plain that there should be no inhibition on the free availability in China of BBC World Television transmissions?
8.20 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to mention three aspects of human rights in China: the treatment of Christians and the treatment of practitioners of Falun Gong or Falun Dafa, together with the situation in Tibet. Ever since 1957 at least, the Chinese Government have insisted on controlling Christians by means of registration in state-approved organisations. Catholics, for example, have to belong to the Patriotic Association which, officially, does not recognise the Pope. There is also a large unofficial underground Church, which does recognise Rome and tries to keep in contact as best it may.
Bishops and priests of the unrecognised Church have been imprisoned for decades, and are sometimes only released if they are prepared to emigrate. As recently as April of this year, a priest in Hebei was arrested for preaching the gospel and for not recognising the Patriotic Association. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment in a labour camp. In what condition, I wonder, will he emerge from the end of that sentence? Protestants are also expected to belong to recognised associations. As I understand it, the Government's intention is that they should be controlled, regardless of the methods used to that end. In practice, again, there are many independent Churches and house Churches. However, their members are subject to fine, torture and internment in labour camps—part of the widespread Laogai that produce cheap goods for sale worldwide.
The Falun Gong came into existence from 1992 onwards as a result of the teaching of Li Hongzhi. He had studied earlier for 30 years under widely-respected Buddhists and Taoist masters. At first, his teaching was commended by the authorities. Outside observers consider that the teaching has given new hope and self-discipline to many people, especially to the rising generation, who found themselves growing up in a moral vacuum.
However, since 1998, the state has abruptly changed tack, without giving adherents of the Falun Gong the option of joining a registered association. The whole security apparatus has tried to suppress the movement with ruthless violence. No public or private practice of exercises and meditation is allowed. Tens of thousands of these people have been sent to labour camps, often without trial. They are also sent to prisons and mental hospitals, just as occurred in the Soviet Union in its latter years. Torture and beatings are widely used to extort renunciations. British, Canadian and Australian citizens have been violently abused when visiting China for religious purposes.

1561
There have been some 200 known deaths in custody. Yet the persecuted—it is important to emphasise this point—have never responded with violence.
This totally unacceptable state behaviour continues despite international protest, notably at the UN Human Rights Commission. Earlier this year, I took part in a delegation to the Chinese Ambassador in London with other Members of both Houses of Parliament. One cannot help wondering whether Falun Gong fell from favour the moment that its membership equalled, or exceeded, that of the Chinese Communist Party.
I shall not say much about the sufferings of the people of Tibet. They have been well documented, and the long, peaceful struggle of the Dalai Lama is known to many; and, indeed, was recognised by a Nobel Peace Award. I merely ask: if Hong Kong can have a separate constitution and administration, if Taiwan remains independent, why cannot Tibet be allowed internal autonomy?
The key issue seems to be religious toleration, whether for Christians, Muslims, the Falun Gong, or the Tibetan Buddhists. Will Her Majesty's Government work steadily for this, remembering that freedom of conscience and religious worship are central to United Nations declarations and covenants? Will they seek the release of those imprisoned for their beliefs and religious activities? Will they ask for the abolition of registration as a means of control, and for the use instead of the criminal law against anyone causing public disturbances or harm to the common good? Finally, will Her Majesty's Government ask for a new, nation-wide law in China for the protection of religious freedom based on international standards?
if reforms of the kind that I have mentioned could be achieved by the year 2008, China would then be seen to be in good standing as the chosen host for the forthcoming Olympic Games.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Powell of Bayswater: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for raising this important issue and for giving us a chance to debate it tonight. I should recall to the House that I am president of the China-Britain Business Council, the not-for-profit organisation funded by business and government to promote British trade and investment in China. I should also mention that two of the companies in which I have registered directorships have significant business in China.
Doing business in China does not mean that one is indifferent to human rights abuses in that country; indeed, far from it. Because businessmen are more directly engaged in China, more likely to visit regularly—-or even to live there—and more accustomed to having to confront human rights abuses in China in their daily lives, they are probably a good deal better informed about such abuses than organisations that hurl their darts from a distance.
1562
So, from the business perspective, let me make it crystal clear: there are severe human rights shortcomings in China, some of which have been catalogued tonight. They are indefensible and they should cease. There is no argument about that, but the question is: how best to hasten change and the end of such abuses?
Public campaigns to draw attention to specific human rights abuses, whether it be the case of Tibet or some other issue, are legitimate and useful—provided always that they remain within the law. Above all, they ensure that abuses cannot be buried or hidden from public sight, or simply forgotten. However, I should be hard pressed to convince myself that they actually, in themselves, lead to change. Nor am I persuaded that declaratory resolutions at the United Nations, or elsewhere, achieve much beyond giving their authors a nice, warm feeling. The UN has too many discreditable resolutions to its name, such as that on Zionism, to be very credible. It is very easy to pass a resolution, go home, and feel that you have done good day's work.
A more profitable course is dialogue on human rights issues with the Chinese authorities. British governments of all persuasions have a good record in this respect. But while dialogue may occasionally yield results in individual cases—and every individual helped is a plus—or may lead to institutional steps such as persuading China to sign various international conventions, it is not the main route to systemic change.
It is systemic change which matters. Human rights abuses do not, in general, occur in China as a matter of simple whim. They flow from a political system based on one-party dictatorship. They flow from a concept of public good taking precedence over individual rights. They flow from a corrosive fear that political instability will accompany economic change. The example of what happened in the former Soviet Union is, I am sure, never far from the minds of Chinese leaders.
If we want to see an end to human rights abuses in China, we have to encourage changes in the system in a more democratic direction. I use the word "encourage" advisedly, because we shall not make China change its ways. The whole history of foreign intervention in China surely teaches us that overt interference is more likely to produce overwhelming resentment, nationalism, rejection and backlash than it is to lead to liberalisation of the Chinese system.
That is the justification for the policy of engagement with China which, on the whole—with some setbacks—characterises European and American policy. Perhaps I may make this clear: "engagement" does not mean overlooking human rights abuses; in fact, it multiplies the number of opportunities for raising and discussing them. Engagement does not excuse human rights abuses or allow them to be submerged by selfish pursuit of commercial interests. What it does do is bring China constantly face to face with the realities of the world outside China, with the fact that the market and the private sector are the most efficient means to ensure the prosperity which China

1563
craves for its people, with the fact that a fair and independent legal system is most likely to encourage the foreign investment which is also essential to that prosperity. Constant exposure to and engagement with alternative systems is surely what will eventually bring systemic change in China.
That change is happening. It is visible in limited, village-level democracy. It is apparent in the role of the private sector in China—now the real engine of economic growth and given formal recognition recently in the Chinese constitution. It is evident in the emergence of a business class, whom President Jiang Zemin recently praised publicly and to whom he even offered Communist Party membership. It is apparent in the spread of the Internet which will surely be an immensely powerful engine for change, despite the bureaucracy's attempts to censor it. It is clear in the appetite for education overseas, shared by the families of China's highest party functionaries.
In other words it is not by telling China what to do, nor by regularly berating China publicly, that change will come. It will come through Chinese membership of the World Trade Organisation, with the host of obligations which that brings. It will come through holding the Olympic Games in China, which will keep China in the international spotlight like nothing else, with an incentive not to give countries the excuse to boycott the games in seven years' time. It will come through the role of business in pressing for proper, transparent legal and regulatory systems; in introducing British best practice to the way we run our companies in China; in financing training and scholarships and in all sorts of other practical ways.
The greatest pressure for change will come from two factors: first, from growing realisation in China that abuses of human rights are a barrier to economic modernisation and to full participation in the world economy and, secondly, from the ever greater demands for a more open political system as economic modernisation and spreading prosperity lead people in China to seek greater control over their own lives.
I am not recommending appeasement or excessive pragmatism, of which the business community is all too often accused. We in the China-Britain Business Council recognise that China's human rights record is poor. We acknowledge that it deserves criticism and it is the duty of our Government to reflect the values of our society in their contacts with China. While we welcome the positive improvements which have taken place in China, we accept that they cannot be an alibi for the negative practices which continue.
We ask the Government to recognise that what business is doing in China is not only good for British jobs and British prosperity, but in practical terms is more likely in the long run to produce desirable changes in China than any amount of stone throwing, preaching and hand-wringing. I therefore strongly urge the Government to maintain a balanced policy which combines legitimate protest with peaceful dialogue, avoids egregious posturing and supports the efforts of British business in China as an agent for change.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, made a disturbing speech on Monday. I am sorry that I did not respond to it then as I had to be somewhere else. He made another disturbing but thoughtful speech today.
As many noble Lords have said, there are, and have been for a long time, inexcusable violations of human rights in China. I take that as given, and noble Lords have given many examples of it. China is a communist dictatorship. As the noble Lord, Lord Powell, said, it has a philosophy and a belief from which it will not easily budge. What can we do? There are two views, one of which was eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Powell; that is, that eventually change will be brought about through economic prosperity. We are in the end dialectical materialists; we believe in the crude Marxist doctrine that economics influence politics and that businessmen are even more Marxist than anyone else. However, I am sceptical of that doctrine. I wish that it were true. I know that business practices speed up all kinds of social and economic change. However, that does not necessarily prevent human rights violations. I put down that marker.
Nor do I believe that our protests, working through what I call the "interstate system"—that is, the United Nations, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and so on—will exercise much of an influence on a sovereign country such as China. China too is a member of the Security Council and it can more or less tell those who criticise it to get lost. Therefore, we are in a dilemma. Here is a large, powerful country, the behaviour of which we do not know how to change.
I make two points about China. First, I believe that, powerful as China is, it is a fragile country. A country which uses tanks to control a student demonstration is full of fearful people at the top. Those people have no confidence in the legitimacy of their own rule. The Chinese used tanks to control a demonstration that could have been controlled using at most water cannon. As we know from the Tiananmen tapes, there was real fear among the Chinese ruling classes that the demonstration constituted a big problem. Throughout China's history there have always been sudden uprisings such as the Boxer rebellion in which suddenly the whole system has been destabilised by an eruption of the masses.
It is not wishful thinking to say that China's inability to deal with the Falun Gong points to one of its system's biggest weaknesses. If it cannot deal with 10 million or so religious, reasonably non-violent, people and if it has to take extreme measures to control the Falun Gong—as occurred in Hong Kong recently—the system cannot be all that strong. I believe that human rights abuses will be brought to an end in China through an internal upheaval. I do not know when that will occur but I know that it will occur. I am not trying to let Her Majesty's Government off the hook, but whatever we do and whatever fiddling little amount of money we give to China will not affect the situation.

1565
I give an example from India. People in India protested about the building of the Narmada dam, which would have displaced 100,000 or 200,000 people. That incident was clearly a violation of the human rights of people who lived in that area. Local groups successfully appealed to the World Bank. The World Bank was asked not to provide loans to India to build that dam. The Indian community in Britain placed an advertisement in a London newspaper for funds. That community sent much money to the Indian government to build the dam. There is the problem of different perceptions.
If one thinks back to 1949 when the human rights situation in China was utterly desperate, nowadays many people's lives have improved. There is a difficult balance to strike here. Either one takes the view that a single violation of human rights is bad or one takes a broad based view. I shall sit down in a moment. The amount of money we give to China is small and therefore whether we give it or not will not make much difference. I welcome whatever decision the Government make in that regard.
8.40 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I add further support to the case for constructive engagement with China, particularly in the population field. Perhaps I may first declare an interest having just been re-elected as Vice Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population Development and Reproductive Health. That group benefits from financial support from the United Nations Population Fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. It recently held a joint reception to mark World Population. Day with the sponsorship of Marie Stopes International, when we had the pleasure of being addressed by the new departmental Under-Secretary, Mr Hilary Benn.
My basic stance on this Question is that the extensive recent experience of outsiders becoming involved in Chinese population matters has produced considerable net benefits. Of course, there are problems. There are by any standards, especially western standards, examples of quite unacceptable practices and individual cases. There are bound to continue to be some individual examples in the years to come simply because of the scale of what is being attempted and the magnitude of the China phenomenon.
In the field of population and reproductive health, the attempt to influence what is happening is necessarily on a small scale and there is a long way to go. There are two fallacies in some arguments put forward. The first is that any money spent by outside population agencies in China must be going to promote and support unacceptable practices. The second is that if you identify something you dislike the only answer is to disengage and walk away.
On the first, outside agencies have declared that they do not support coercion or a one-child family policy. They have encouraged the introduction of wider
1566
contraceptive choice and tried to improve the position of women. I believe that the beginnings of changes in practice have come about on a localised scale.
Reference was made in the debate on Monday to the input of the UNFPA in the 32-county project, where Chinese authorities have been persuaded to abolish all quotas and targets and to make changes in many of the surrounding reproductive health services. There are no instant or magic solutions but examples of best practice can be introduced generally, with the prospect of being taken up or copied in other districts. There is also a system of regular review by an outside committee which I understand recently has been very positive.
In financial terms, the input by the United Nations Population Fund is under one half of 1 per cent of China's own national population budget. Even this small input gives the UNFPA the opportunity positively to influence China's population policies.
Finally, perhaps I may say a word about the China Family Planning Association, which is separate from the state Family Planning Commission. The CFPA is a member of the International Planned Parenthood Federation umbrella organisation of the family planning associations. The IPPF is able on a small scale to bring to bear its organisation's standards and concept of best practice through providing information, education and communication. This is a long-term task and regular reviews indicate that important progress has been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Powell, helpfully enlarged on the concept of engagement. It is essential that such constructive engagement continues and that we maintain such continuing contacts.
8.44 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Alton for giving us this opportunity to debate the question of human rights in China.
We are all—or at least very many of us—delighted and share the joy of the Chinese nation in that the Olympic Games are to be held in Beijing in 2008. It will, I am sure, be a marvellous and artistic event, showing the world some of the many skills and artistic sides of the Chinese people which we have so long admired. It will also, we hope, generate much good will among nations towards the Chinese people. We very much hope that the Olympic Games in Beijing will prove to be as great a success and as happy an occasion as were the last Olympic Games held in Sydney.
However, this will not be the case if there remain massive unresolved problems of human rights, both in China and in Tibet. I refer to the Chinese position on religious freedom, both for Christians in China, and for other religions, and for Tibetan Buddhists in Tibet. I also refer to the Chinese continued annexation of the free independent country of Tibet.
We can never undo, nor indeed forget, what is passed. We will remember the 1.2 billion Tibetans who died as a direct result of the Chinese occupation of Tibet. We will remember the 40 million Chinese who

1567
died in the 1950s. We will remember the Chinese who died in the massacre after Tiananmen Square in 1989. We cannot rebuild the 300 Tibetan temples which have been demolished. We cannot restore all the sacred and religious objects smashed, destroyed and gone for ever.
We have spoken many times to my knowledge of these things in this Chamber over the past 15 years. Our words have been caught up and blown away by the winds blowing over the roof of the world. Our words are still there, fluttering like distant Tibetan prayer flags. They still exist.
That is the past. We are now in the present and looking to the future. For the next seven years, the strong spotlight of the world will be on Beijing as China prepares to celebrate the 2008 Olympic Games.
Now is the time for China to show the world her serene and human face; to stop imprisoning and torturing Christian, Tibetan Buddhist and other religious groups. Now is the time to allow freedom of religion without registration. Now is the time to recognise the complete independent autonomy of Tibet as a free nation. And now is the time to release all religious prisoners including the little Panchen Lama. Like the winds, we are all holding our breath and waiting for these things to happen, as they surely will if the Olympic Games in Beijing are to prove to be the success that we are all wishing for them.
8.48 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I put my name down to speak in today's debate not just because of my strong feelings about the atrocities of the family planning officials in China, the labour camps, the repression in Tibet and press censorship as well as judicial abuses and many other human rights violations, but because in 1982 I studied for my Masters in Chinese Law at London University and in 1983 spent a year in China and Hong Kong. I have fond memories of my first day as a student at SOAS. Professor Paul Cheng went around the class. Only two of us were not from Asia. He asked each of us why we were studying Chinese law. I said that I was from Cape Town in South Africa and as one in every five people in the world was Chinese I wanted to learn about the mindset of the Chinese. The professor swiftly rebutted that he had thought I must be a foreign spy.
Much has happened since I first visited Hong Kong and China in 1983 and my subsequent visits. In 1983 everyone was wearing Mao suits. Few of the cities were open to foreigners. One was viewed with suspicion by many and even restricted from visiting the early morning markets. But much has been achieved. I refer to the dramatic economic transformation, in particular in Shanghai, Guangzhou and Beijing, the opening up of international tourism and trade and, as almost every noble Lord has mentioned, the recent announcement that China will be hosting the Olympic Games in 2008.
There are obviously many vehement critics of that decision. Human rights violations and repression continue. However, I do not believe that the policy of
1568
engagement and constructive dialogue has not worked and will not work, or that the award of the Olympic Games will lead to more repression. Nothing will be gained by breaking off diplomatic relations or ejecting China from the United Nations Security Council.
Unfortunately, parallels cannot be drawn between China and South Africa, where I have spent most of my life, living in the bad old days of apartheid. Sporting sanctions and limited economic sanctions thankfully succeeded in bringing democracy to the country at a time when the South African Government were desperate for international recognition and acceptance. The Chinese do not appear to have such desires, except as part of their long-term strategy of economic growth. The tenth report of the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place—to which I notice that my noble friend Lord Powell of Bayswater gave evidence—summarised the Chinese political system accurately as,
"a one-party Communist dictatorship, which rather than deriving its legitimacy from popular support, is fearful of the people, and therefore attempts to suppress dissent and prevent the development of power centres independent of the party".
That epitomises the thinking of the Chinese Government today.
I entirely concur with the concerns of my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool and am full of respect and admiration for his efforts to keep abuses of human rights, particularly in China, at the forefront of the political agenda. I have deliberately not spoken on the thorny issue of population control measures in China. My noble friend Lord Craigavon and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, have spoken eloquently about that. My personal experience and belief is that the only viable way forward in dealing with the Chinese Government is to promote a process of proactive dialogue. I agree with my noble friend Lord Powell of Bayswater that economic change in China will eventually result in political reform.
Time prevents me from commenting on several of the excellent recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place. It is a leap of faith to expect that human rights abuses in China and Tibet will improve in the seven years leading up to the Olympic Games. China has long endured cycles of political liberalisation and repression. We live in hope—I stress hope—that we are at the dawn of an era of sustained liberalisation and, with that, democratisation and more respect for basic human rights.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, many of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord St John, echoed the hope expressed by the Director-General of the International Olympic Committee when he said that he was taking a bet that in the next seven years there would be many positive changes. That was an act of faith. The pessimists say that, like Nazi Germany in 1936 and Soviet Russia in 1980, the Communist Chinese will exploit the Olympics for their own glorification to strengthen their grip on the people without making the concessions to world opinion that

1569
we have heard about. The optimists, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, believe that, having won the decision, the Chinese authorities will be keen to polish up their image at the same time as they modernise the capital city The theory is that they will try to present themselves as a society that aims at everything that is best, as much in human rights and the rule of law as in sporting, cultural and scientific attainments.
An irrevocable decision has been made, so we must hope that the optimists are right and we must encourage China to accelerate the reforms that need to be undertaken if foreign visitors are to be given that good impression in seven years. For some potential visitors, the decision to attend the games may depend on the pace and extent of the changes. The hosts will have to calculate the effect of their policies on the attendance figures, even if they see no reason for changing on moral grounds.
The noble Lords, Lord Powell and Lord St John, talked about dialogue and engagement. We have had UK-China dialogue since 1997. Whether or not it is as a result of that process, China has agreed to sign the UN covenant and is moving towards ratification. China is discussing a possible visit by the UN Rapporteur on Torture, Sir Nigel Rodley, and has issued an open invitation to other special rapporteurs. Talks have been held with the International Committee of the Red Cross on a prison visiting programme. It would be useful to know from the Minister what progress has been achieved on those issues since the last round of talks in February.
The Government have promised to carry out regular reviews of the dialogue process, to include an assessment of the progress that has been achieved on their objectives. Will the Minister arrange for the outcome of those reviews to be published on the FCO's website and in its annual report? The existence of specific objectives gives Parliament and the public yardsticks by which they can judge the effectiveness of the process, having regard to the timescale over which changes may reasonably be expected to occur.
Two of our objectives that are not in the EU list were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan: an end to the unacceptable jamming of the BBC World Service broadcasts, which is contrary to international law; and our simple and reasonable request for access to the Panchen Lama. If those matters are still outstanding in the review that I hope the Government will publish, we shall want to know the reasons for the refusal by the Chinese to concede those simple requests.
Why is the dialogue with the Dalai Lama not included among the objectives? Surely the way forward in Tibet is to promote dialogue with the Dalai Lama, as the representative of the Tibetan people. There is no excuse for not holding such dialogue now that the Dalai Lama has firmly said that he is not in favour of separating Tibet from China.
We should look for ways of strengthening and enhancing the human rights dialogue with China, as several noble Lords have said, and formally coordinating the work of the various dialogues in
1570
existence. We are not the only ones engaged in such a process; the Canadians, the Japanese, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the European Union are all engaged in their own dialogues. How does the Minister think that those various dialogues can best be co-ordinated?
Should we not establish target dates for particular objectives in collaboration with the Chinese and all the other partners in the process, so that we can draw up a road map for achieving all the objectives that the Government and the European Union have set out in time for the opening of the Olympic Games in seven years? If all the parties can agree on substantial and detailed progress in advance of 2008, we may be able to say that the games have enhanced the cause of human rights. However, if no agreement can be reached for such a road map of improvements over the next seven years, it could turn out that the International Olympic Committee has made an unfortunate error of judgment.
8.59 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, once again, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has given your Lordships' House the opportunity to address an issue of enormous sensitivity and vast importance in what has proved to be a candid and balanced way. It is impossible—indeed, unnecessary—for me, in a few minutes, to go over many of the expert views that have been uttered as your Lordships have traversed some of the problems and dilemmas involved.
The issue resolves itself into three major dilemmas. First, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord. Desai, that China is a frightened and fragile nation. I do not agree with him about the Marxian analysis because I believe that Marxism is fatally flawed. However, the nation is inward-looking and nervous. How do we combine that with the fact that China must be woven into the global integration of security that has now emerged and into the entirely new patterns of mutual deterrence and deterrence by denial which are emerging as a result of American missile technology?
Secondly, how do we balance our real concern for China's very nasty record on human rights with our wish to further our interests, global interests and the interests of China in a massive expansion of commerce and trade?
Thirdly, how do we acknowledge that progress is being made in some areas—although there is much back-sliding in others, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan reminded us—while keeping up at all times through every conceivable channel the pressure for change?
I shall try to answer briefly those three dilemmas. The first, concerning security, is a matter that falls primarily to the United States and to the US approach to China. I believe that that approach must be one of engagement and involvement and not one of hostility and pandering to the easily developed view that somehow China and the United States are rivals for the central power in Asia. That is a hopeless battle. The

1571
sooner it is replaced by the realisation that they, with Japan, must be partners in Asia, the better. I shall not go into that subject further now.
The second dilemma is the question of China's human rights record. There are very great grounds for concern. We are all repelled by the appalling reports that we receive from, for example, the television programme "The Dying Rooms", by the coercive birth control policies and by the stories and accounts which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have rightly set before us. I can hardly swallow but I believe that I must repeat what the noble Lord said. Reports from Amnesty state that in the past three months more people have been executed in the People's Republic of China—namely, 1,700—than in the entire globe over the past three years. That is a sobering statistic which makes one pause. Let us be in no doubt that horrible events are occurring. There is no excuse for them and there is every reason to work in every way possible to bring about a better record.
In relation to that dilemma, I want to refer to an extremely good document which the Government provided in response to the Foreign Affairs Committee. I sound a little like a government Minister when I am meant to be on the other side. However, whoever wrote that response did so extremely well. They said that they rejected the idea that there was a trade-off between the pursuit of our commercial interests and a forceful approach to human rights. The Government said—I apologise if I pre-empt what the Minister will say—that they believe that we should seek to use what influence we have. They consider the integration of China into the world community in general, including joining the WTO, to be the most powerful external factor likely to strengthen the rule of law and to lead to improvement in the human rights situation.
I believe that that must be the overall common-sense view and the answer to the apparent dilemma between the nasty human rights record and the overall importance of expanding our commerce and trade in the interests of everyone in the world.
I turn to the third dilemma. How do we acknowledge that there have been improvements, as there have been, while not relenting for one moment in our pressure for constant change? The one-child policy appears to be undergoing some reform, and there appears to be a greater willingness to begin thinking about moving from the coercive birth control position.
The Marie Stopes papers, with which the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, was kind enough to provide me, set out facts of which I was not aware. The one-child family planning policy now stands at: one child in urban areas; two in rural areas if the first is a girl; four children for ethnic minorities; and no restriction on births for those of Tibetan ethnic origin. The policy is still rather horrible but it is not quite as bad as it was previously, whereby anyone throughout the whole of China who had more than one child would be visited by the family planners and their brutal attendants. Therefore, there appears to be something to work for.
1572
I end by saying that big events are coming up in the relations of China with the rest of the world. First, I have mentioned the question of revising the attitude towards security, which is a very dangerous area. I believe that, if there is another major world crisis, it will be in the north-eastern Pacific—perhaps in the sea of Japan.
Secondly, there is the question of the Olympic Games, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and others. They will, in any event, take place. Therefore, we should build on the opportunities and leverage that they will provide rather than take a negative attitude towards them.
Thirdly, the joining of the World Trade Organisation will happen. I believe that it will come as much more of a shock to China than many Chinese economic planners realise. However, again, we should certainly use that as an entrée and a lever to maximise the pressures for the improvement of China's human rights record. As the noble Lord, Lord Powell of Bayswater, rightly said in a well informed speech, such matters as the Internet are integrating China, despite its frightened dictatorship, into the world system. Those are the forces with which we should work in a positive manner in order to bring about a better result.
Finally, I end with two questions. First, I repeat the question asked by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. When are we going to demand that the BBC jamming be stopped? It really cannot continue. Secondly, we now have a UK-China forum, which was started with quite a fanfare a couple of years ago. I believe that one of our newer noble Members in this House is the chairman of it. Can the Minister tell us how the forum is progressing and whether it is picking up and developing any of these issues?
9.6 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for introducing the debate. Human rights is an emotive issue, and at no time more so than when discussing China. I believe that this debate has demonstrated that amply.
At the outset, I say that I particularly welcome the approach taken by many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Powell of Bayswater, in recognising that we are discussing complicated issues and that progress has been made in some areas.
Improving respect for human rights in China is a central element in our bilateral relationship with that country. It is also an area where we work closely with our EU partners. China is an important player on the international scene. We wish to encourage closer integration into the international system in all fields.
The noble Lord, Lord Powell of Bayswater, drew our attention to the importance of business in bringing about economic change and of corporate social responsibility. China has an important role to play in tackling many of the global and international issues that we face. A strong and vibrant bilateral

1573
relationship increases our ability to work positively, to influence change and to improve respect for human rights norms.
We consider that the human rights situation in China, although improving in many aspects, remains bleak. There has been considerable progress, often in areas that we now take for granted. The ability of individual citizens to manage their own lives, engage in business, travel freely and own a home have improved markedly in recent years. However, severe restrictions on the enjoyment of civil and political rights in China, especially the freedoms of religion, association and expression, remain. China carries out more executions than the rest of the world combined.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, mentioned the recent Amnesty International report into the "strike hard" anti-crime campaign. China also detains more than 250,000 people without trial through procedures known as administrative detention and re-education through labour. Leaders and followers of groups who are perceived to be a threat to the regime, including the China Democratic Party and the Falun Gong movement, are harshly treated; some are given very long prison sentences.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, suggested that Her Majesty's Government had been—I use his word—"silent" in relation to Tibet. The situation in Tibet is a particular concern. The treatment of Buddhist monks and nuns, the erosion of Tibetan traditional practices and culture and the lack of any real dialogue between the Chinese authorities and the Dalai Lama, are worrying.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, highlighted the one-child policy and the Chinese Government's family planning policy as another area of major concern. I made it clear on Monday during the Committee stage of the International Development Bill that the Government disagree with China's one-child policy. We do not support it. UK assistance for sexual and reproductive health anywhere in the world is provided in support of the principles of free and informed choice. Those principles were firmly established at the 1994 Cairo conference on population and development.
My noble friend Lady Massey asked me about our aims and objectives in relation to reproductive health. The Department for International Development makes annual contributions towards the work of the United Nations Population Fund and that of the International Planned Parenthood Federation in more than 150 countries. Those organisations have programmes in China that are aimed at promoting better understanding of international standards in reproductive health.
The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, mentioned the programme of assistance of the United Nations Population Fund, which is making available a full range of client-oriented reproductive health services in 32 Chinese counties on a voluntary basis. Birth quotas have been abolished in the areas in which UNFPA works. I agree with the noble Viscount that there is already strong evidence of a shift from
1574
administratively oriented family planning services to client-oriented services. We have also seen a decrease in the induced abortion rates in those counties.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, quoted from the ODA publication, China.: Population Issues. both this evening and during Monday's debate. I remind him that that document was published in 1995. It acknowledges that the process of change will be gradual. We believe that there are now real signs of change, reform and improvement. That is helped not least by the engagement of organisations such as UNFPA and through activities that enable Chinese officials to appreciate the importance of choice and quality in reproductive healthcare.
My noble friend Lady Massey asked about monitoring. We set clear objectives for the programmes that we fund. We set milestones, which we monitor, in terms of the achievement of those objectives. I confirm that reproductive health programmes are evaluated to satisfy the requirements of funding. There are also a number of complementary mechanisms, including having regular meetings with UNFPA and IPPF, in which we examine the achievement of objectives.
Addressing human rights concerns with the Chinese authorities is a major priority for the Government. In 1997, the UK and our EU partners embarked on a policy of engagement and dialogue with the Chinese authorities on human rights concerns. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that we do not pretend that that dialogue will produce instant results.
The noble Lord, Lord Powell of Bayswater, spoke powerfully on the need to engage with China and encourage changes in the system. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, concurred with that view.
Political and institutional changes in China happen slowly. Dialogue improves our ability to influence the direction of the Chinese and is a long-term commitment to work with the Chinese authorities. We have made it clear to them that to be worthwhile and to continue, dialogue must achieve progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked specifically what improvements there have been. Since 1997, there have been six rounds of the UK/China Human Rights Dialogue. China has taken important steps forward, including those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in terms of the ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in March this year. Other important steps taken by China include signature of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in October 1998, a commitment to work towards ratification and a stated commitment to work towards the abolition of the death penalty.
In September 2000, members of the Foreign Secretary's Death Penalty Panel became the first abolitionist group to visit China and to engage in discussions with the Government, parliamentarians, lawyers and academics. We have seen greater engagement with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, including the signature of the Memorandum of Understanding in November 2000

1575
for the provision of human rights technical assistance in China. There is an acceptance that administrative detention needs reform and a willingness to discuss the role of free trade unions and workers' rights in a market economy. A senior TUC delegation visited China in March this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked specifically what the Government are doing to assist the outcome of each round of the human rights dialogue. We believe that the bilateral human rights dialogue process is the best means for promoting change in China. It is right, however, that we should assess its outcome, develop positive aspects and seek better ways of addressing those issues that the dialogue has yet to effect. We have sought to be more open about the dialogue process and my honourable friend, the then Minister of State, John Battle, set out for the first time a set of working objectives for the dialogue process in a Written Answer in the other place in April. I welcome any views that noble Lords have on that process.
The Government are not complacent about the dialogue process. We recognise that it has achieved little in terms of promoting positive change in Tibet and on the freedom of religion and the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners. The noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Hylton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, all raised the question of freedom of religion. We are deeply concerned about restrictions on the freedom to worship freely in China. We condemn the harsh treatment of those individuals and groups who seek to worship outside the remit of the five official religions. We have pressed the Chinese through the UK and EU Human Rights Dialogues to allow for freedom of religious practice and to release prisoners detained because of their religious beliefs.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also asked about Falun Gong. We are deeply concerned about the treatment of individual adherents of the Falun Gong movement. We press the Chinese authorities at every appropriate opportunity to cease the maltreatment of adherents, in line with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and we shall continue to press the Chinese to release adherents and leaders detained for political reasons.
1576
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, then asked five specific questions. I can tell him that the answer to the first four is yes—we are already doing it. The fifth question relates back to the third question which the noble Lord asked. I shall write to him if that would be helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the possibility of putting information on a website. I shall give that suggestion some consideration. We publish details of our Human Rights Dialogue in the FCO annual Human Rights report. The noble Lord also asked about dialogue with the Dalai Lama. We have made it clear to the Chinese in dialogue and on other occasions that the best way to resolve the problems in Tibet is through dialogue with the Dalai Lama.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, suggested that Her Majesty's Government use weak words of disapproval. That is not the case. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it clear to President Jiang Zemin in October 1999 that we wanted to see real progress achieved on the ground through the dialogue process. We are also critical in public. In speaking to the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in March, the then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office criticised China's human rights record.
The noble Lords, Lord Moynihan, Lord Avebury and Lord Howell of Guildford, asked me about the BBC World Service. I agree entirely on the importance of access in China to impartial sources of news and information. That is why we have raised with the Chinese authorities on many occasions reports of jamming in relation to BBC World Service broadcasts, including in our human rights dialogues, and we shall continue to raise this as necessary. BBC World Service television has now been granted a licence to provide its services in hotels in China. That was a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
Our commitment to promote respect for human rights standards and to influence change through direct action in China is without question. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Powell, and my noble friend Lord Desai that the prime force for change in China lies with China itself. We have a role to play in encouraging and supporting that change. But we must be realistic about what individual governments and the European Union can achieve in China. We believe that the best means for pursuing change remains the human rights dialogue process.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past nine o'clock.

  Radon
  Radon
  Pesticides Safety Directorate: Annual Report
  Pesticides Safety Directorate: Annual Report
  Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000: Implementation
  Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000: Implementation
  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
  Joint Nature Conservation Committee: Consultation
  Joint Nature Conservation Committee: Consultation
  War Disablement Pension Claims
  War Disablement Pension Claims
  War Pensions Scheme and Disabled Living Allowances: Award Criteria
  War Pensions Scheme and Disabled Living Allowances: Award Criteria
  French and German Teaching in Public Sector Schools
  French and German Teaching in Public Sector Schools
  BBC World Service: Grant-in-Aid
  BBC World Service: Grant-in-Aid
  BBC Short-wave Services
  BBC Short-wave Services
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Local Authority Costs
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Local Authority Costs
  London Underground: Air Conditioning
  London Underground: Air Conditioning
  London Underground: Rolling Stock Replacement
  London Underground: Rolling Stock Replacement
  Trans-European High Speed Rail System: Interoperability Directive
  Trans-European High Speed Rail System: Interoperability Directive
  Drivers and Cannabis
  Drivers and Cannabis
  Department of Health Regional Structure
  Department of Health Regional Structure
  Nursing Homes: Free Nursing Care
  Nursing Homes: Free Nursing Care
  Meat Hygiene Service: Annual Report
  Meat Hygiene Service: Annual Report